A Constraint-Based Theory of Phonological Markedness and Simplification Procedures

A Constraint-Based Theory of Phonological Markedness and Simplification ProceduresAuthor(s): Andrea CalabreseSource: Linguistic Inquiry, Vol. 26, No. 3 (Summer, 1995), pp. 373-463Published by: The MIT PressStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4178906 .

Accessed: 14/06/2014 01:58

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

The MIT Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Linguistic Inquiry.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 194.29.185.230 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 01:58:53 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=mitpress

http://www.jstor.org/stable/4178906?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


A Constraint-Based Theory of Phonological Markedness and Simplification Procedures Andrea Calabrese

Universal Grammar contains hierarchically organized lists of constraints on feature cooccurrence, including marking statements, which characterize certain feature configurations as being phonologically complex. If a marking statement is active in a language, the segment identified by this marking statement is disallowed. When speakers encounter a disallowed segment, they have access to simplification procedures that repair the disallowed configuration characterizing this segment. The marking statements provide the basis for the definition of contrastive and marked features. Phonological rules differ with regard to the features that are visible to them: only marked features, only contrastive features, or all types of features.

Keywords: constraints, contrastive features, markedness, repair strategies, underspecification

1 Introduction

The purpose of a theory of substantive phonological universals is to account for the occurrence and variation of phonological properties within and across languages and thus to provide a substantive definition of the phonological systems possible for a given human language (see Basb0ll 1981, Kean 1981). This theory, usually referred to as markedness theory, will be the focus of this article.

Markedness theory comprises two subtheories: a theory of inventories and a theory of rules. The theory of rules is concerned with the syntagmatic component of language,

I am especially indebted to Morris Halle for his careful reading of several versions of this article as well as for his constant encouragement. His invaluable advice resulted in numerous and major theoretical improvements. I also wish to thank Sylvain Bromberger, Frangois Dell, Michael Kenstowicz, and Rolf Noyer for their very helpful comments and suggestions. Mark Connelly, Steve Peter, Elisabeth Pyatt, Charles Reiss, Bert Vaux, and three anonymous LI reviewers also provided helpful suggestions and comments. Any mistakes are obviously my own. I am grateful to Nancy Bromberger for her editorial assistance.

Parts of this work are a totally revised and improved version of parts of Calabrese 1988. The article was previously circulated in manuscript form under the title "Marking Statements, Complexity, and Simplification Procedures."

Linguistic Inquiry, Volume 26, Number 3, Summer 1995 373-463 X) 1995 by The Massachusetts Institute of Technology 373



374 ANDREA CALABRESE

that is, with sequential restrictions on phonological elements. The theory of phonological rules will not be discussed here.'

The theory of phonological inventories is concerned with the paradigmatic component of language, that is, with the part of the grammar that establishes the inventories of phonological elements (in particular, the inventory of segments).2 In this article I propose that the structure of inventories is determined by restrictions on phonological segments in the form of constraints on pairs of features.

Traditionally in generative phonology, rule-like devices of the shape in (1), such as redundancy rules, the marking conventions of chapter 9 of Chomsky and Halle 1968, or the natural processes of Stampe's Natural Phonology, are used to account for the structure of phonological inventories. (I will use the cover term inventory rules (I-rules) to refer to these rule-like devices.)

(1) [oF] -*> [tG] (I [,yZ])

We can compare the I-rule-based theory and the constraint-based theory outlined here by observing how some of the changes involved in phonological alternations can be derived from the formal statements needed to account for distributional regularities in the inventories. We will do this by considering how both theories would treat the same classical example, vowel fronting in Chamorro (see Kenstowicz and Kisseberth 1977, Kenstowicz 1994). Chamorro has the six-vowel system shown in (2).

(2) i u e 0 e a

Chamorro also has a vowel-fronting process that converts [u, o, a] to [i, e, al in the first syllable of the root if a front vowel precedes, as in (3).

(3) gwihan 'fish' i gwihan 'the fish' gum3 'house' i glm; 'the house' peu 'chest' i peu 'the chest' tomu 'knee' i temu 'the knee' lahi 'male' i l2hi 'the male'

' In recent years, nonlinear phonology has brought about a radical simplification of the theory of phonological rules and has taken important steps toward the substantive definition of "possible rule system." On the one hand, feature geometry has led to a restrictive theory of phonological representations in which any subset of features that appears frequently in phonological rules is dominated by a single class node of the geometry. On the other hand, in nonlinear phonology, only a limited number of basic phonological operations are allowed: in particular, spreading (which accounts for assimilation processes) and delinking (which accounts for reduction and dissimilation processes). These two phonological operations are governed by two basic sequential constraints: the Line-Crossing Constraint and the Obligatory Contour Principle (OCP). As McCarthy (1988:90) observes, by freely combining the predicates of our theory of representations with those of our theory of operations and constraints, we should be able "to come up with some real rule that languages have." We are thus close to defining what a possible system of rules is.

2 See Calabrese and Romani 1991 for an extension of this theory to syllable structure. See also Noyer 1992 for an interesting study of morphological inventories using a conceptual apparatus similar to the one proposed here.

3 These vowels are reduced to [i, u, a] in unstressed syllables by a process that will not concern us here.



PHONOLOGICAL MARKEDNESS AND SIMPLIFICATION PROCEDURES 375

The most appropriate way to express the rule operative in (3) is shown in (4) (ignoring the restriction to the first root syllable).

(4) N N

x x

- cons] [- cons]

Place Place

Dorsal Dorsal

$~~~~~~ [- back] [cxback]

This rule, however, simply fronts the vowel: it does not account for the fact that when [u] and [o] are fronted, they appear as nonround [i] and [e] rather than [iu] and [o].

In an I-rule-based approach, one can propose that the I-rule in (5), which is independently needed to account for the structure of the vowel system in (2), applies to instances of [W] and [o] that are the outputs of the application of rule (4) to [u] and [o] and changes them to [i] and [e].

(5) [- back] -> [L-round]

In the theory that will be proposed here, one needs to say instead that the crucial feature of the vowel inventory in (2) is a constraint against the feature configuration [- back, + round]. When rule (4) applies to [u] and [o], it creates configurations disallowed by this constraint. This disallowed feature configuration is then repaired by delinking the feature [ + round] and replacing it with the feature [ - round], thus giving [i] and [e] as the final outcome of the fronting process. The constraint-based theory is therefore characterized by two different stages: in the first, a certain configuration is marked as ill formed by a static constraint; in the second, this ill-formed configuration is repaired. This dissociation between the marking of ill-formedness and its repair is impossible in a theory that uses I-rules, since they operate in one fell swoop. I will argue that a constraint-based theory is more adequate than an I-rule-based one by showing that there are phonological phenomena that can be adequately treated only in the former theory and not in the latter (see section 4).4

' Crucially, in an I-rule-based theory, these rules perform both the marking and the repair of ill-formed configurations, so that no distinction is recognized between conditions that mark ill-formedness and repair operations. The criticism of the I-rule model offered here extends to the substantively based implicational conditions proposed by Archangeli and Pulleyblank (1994)-their "grounding conditions" -which are crucially used both to mark ill-formedness and to implement its repair.




The proposals put forth here belong to the growing body of research based on the hypothesis that constraints and operations that repair violations of these constraints play a crucial role in phonology. (See especially Paradis 1988a,b, Singh 1987, Goldsmith 1990.) What is novel about these proposals is that the constraints are limited to the paradigmatic component of language (the theory of inventories-segmental, syllabic, prosodic), whereas phonological rules are still used to account for language-specific phonological alternations (see section 10 for discussion). The theory proposed here also differs from those mentioned above in detailing a systematic theory of universal constraints intended as a crucial component of markedness theory and in including a formal analysis of repair strategies, which are seen as simplification procedures.5

A central part of this article involves the development of a theory of universal constraints based on the notion of phonological complexity. I will end this section by provid- ing an outline of this theory, which will be fully developed in the later sections. Segments are bundles of distinctive features. Not all combinations of features have the same status. Some combinations are impossible because of constraints on human articulatory and perceptual abilities. For example, [+ high, + low] is not possible because it involves actions that are physiologically incompatible. Other combinations are complex from the point of view of ease of articulation and perceptual saliency. For example, the [ + continuant, - strident] coronal fricatives [0, ] are complex because of the articulatory adjustments needed to maintain absence of stridency in fricatives. Still other combinations are phonologically simple, that is, optimal from the point of view of ease of articulation and perceptual saliency. For example, the combination [ + continuant, + strident] is simple, since stridency is a natural consequence of the type of constriction found in fricatives. In this article I argue that the acoustic/articulatory impossibility or complexity of certain feature combinations plays a crucial role in the interface between the acoustic/ articulatory basis of language and Universal Grammar (UG). In particular, I argue that the impossibility or complexity of feature combinations is formally expressed in UG by constraints on feature cooccurrence. The acoustic/articulatory impossibility of a given feature combination is formally expressed as a prohibition that excludes cooccurrence of the relevant features. Segments characterized by a feature combination mentioned in a prohibition are impossible and never occur in a phonological system. The acoustic/ articulatory complexity of a given feature combination is formally expressed as a marking statement that marks the occurrence of one of the features in the context of the other feature as complex. Thus, the complexity of the feature specification [- strident] in fricatives is represented as shown in (6) (where the underlined feature specification is the marked one).

(6) [ + continuant, - strident] I [ , - sonorant]

5 I would like to point out that the ideas proposed here took shape under the inspiration of Kiparsky's (1981, 1985) work on filters and structure preservation. These ideas were first developed in my MIT phonology generals paper, presented in the fall of 1985 (subsequently published as Calabrese 1985) and were systematically discussed in my Doctoral dissertation (Calabrese 1988), where an organic theory of universal feature cooccurrence constraints was first proposed.




Simple and optimal feature combinations are those that have the value opposite to that of the marked feature.

Not all complex combinations of features have the same degree of complexity. Some are more complex than others and thus more rarely found across languages. For example, velar fricatives are more complex and rarer than palatoalveolar fricatives. This difference in complexity is represented in UG by organizing the relevant marking statements hierarchically.

We will say that segments characterized by a feature combination mentioned in a marking statement may occur in a phonological system if and only if the relevant marking statement is deactivated. The deactivation of a marking statement is costly, however, since it introduces a complex feature combination into the phonological system. Lan- guages differ in deactivating certain marking statements but not others. Thus, Italian differs from English in deactivating the marking statements [+lateral, - anterior] and [+ nasal, - anterior] so that the consonants [X] and [ji] are present in its phonological inventory but not in that of English. Italian is more costly than English from this point of view. On the other hand, English differs from Italian in deactivating the marking statement [ + continuant, - strident] so that the consonants [0] and [6] are present in its phonological inventory but not in that of Italian. English is more costly than Italian from this point of view. Establishing the structure of a phonological system, then, involves determining the active or inactive marking statements. The more marking statements that are deactivated in a system, the more complex it is.

The hierarchy of marking statements allows us to account for basic properties of phonological systems such as implicational relationships between segments and differences in frequency of occurrence among segments. If we accept Jakobson's (1941) proposal that markedness relationships are reflected in language acquisition and language loss, these hierarchical lists should help predict which segments are acquired first in language acquisition and lost first in language loss.

When a marking statement is active in a language, the segment characterized by the feature complex of this marking statement is disallowed and thus absent from this language. When speakers encounter such a disallowed segment, as the outcome of a phonological rule or a foreign sound, they have two options. They may accept the cost of deactivating the relevant marking statement; the violating segment will then be allowed in the system as a borrowing (if it appears in a foreign word) or as an allophone (if it is the output of a phonological rule). Or they may activate a simplification procedure to repair the disallowed configuration. Speakers have access to only a limited number of such simplification procedures (to be exact, three). These procedures, which are closely related to the marking statements, account for the interaction between the structure of a phonological system and the differing effects of phonological rules.

The marking statements also provide the basis for the definition of contrastive features. Contrastive feature values distinguish minimally distinct pairs of segments and play an important role in the phonology of the language. In particular, phonological rules behave differently with regard to which features are visible to them. For some rules,




only marked features are visible; for others, the larger class of contrastive features is visible; for still others, all types of features are visible. By making these distinctions among rules, we account for facts that are usually explained by relying on underspecification theory, a theory that Mohanan (1991) has shown to be incorrect.

The characterization of what is possible and natural in sound systems is the goal shared by the theory presented here and the theory of implicational laws proposed by Jakobson (1941), the theory of markedness proposed by Chomsky and Halle (1968:chap. 9), and the theory of Natural Phonology proposed by Stampe (1972).

The theory presented here differs from Chomsky and Halle's markedness theory and Stampe's Natural Phonology in assuming a fundamental separation between the marking of ill-formedness and its repair. In markedness theory and Natural Phonology, natural processes and marking conventions simultaneously mark what is ill formed and repair it. Thus, in these theories, if speakers of a language without nasal vowels have to deal with nasal vowels, the marking convention/natural process active in their language will at the same time mark them as ill formed, since they are not specified with the unmarked value [- nasal], and impose this value on them. In the theory proposed here, the marking of nasal vowels as ill formed results from the marking statement [- consonantal, + nasal], which is active in languages without nasal vowels, and the repair is implemented by a simplification procedure.

In addition to its emphasis on the formalization of phonological theory, the theory proposed here shares with Chomsky and Halle's theory the idea that UG provides a structured list of marking statements. The marking statements themselves differ, however: those proposed here define which is the marked feature value of a given feature complex, whereas those proposed in chapter 9 of Chomsky and Halle 1968 define which are the unmarked feature values (see Cairns 1969 for a similar proposal). Crucially, however, as in Natural Phonology, these marking statements are active constraints of the language faculty, not just notational conventions that evaluate possible phonological systems. As in Natural Phonology, speakers of a given language must suppress (i.e., deactivate) some of these active constraints in the course of language acquisition, in order to acquire the relevant segments. Thus, the marking statement [L-consonantal, + nasal] belonging to UG must be deactivated in order for a system to have nasal vowels. In this way, Jakobson's implicational laws are immediately captured. Given the preceding marking statement, for example, the presence of nasal vowels always implies the presence of nonnasal vowels, since the configuration [-consonantal, - nasal] will always be provided free by the grammar.

This article is organized as follows. Section 2 introduces the theory of phonological inventories. Section 3 presents the notion of simplification procedures and argues against using rules to account for the structure of phonological systems. Section 4 shows how the reduction of phonological inventories can be accounted for: unconditioned sound changes that alter phoneme inventories result from lowering the phonological complexity accepted in the language.




Section 5 explores how disallowed feature configurations created by rules surface without being repaired, that is, how phonological inventories are expanded.

Section 6 addresses the asymmetric behavior of feature specifications in phonological processes, a fundamental issue of the theory of markedness since Trubetzkoy 1939. In this section underspecification theory is considered, and following Mohanan (1991), the assumption that underspecification is a property of underlying representations is rejected. The facts currently explained by underspecification are accounted for by hypothesizing that rules can be idiosyncratically specified as sensitive to either marked or contrastive feature specifications. Underspecification thus becomes an idiosyncratic property of individual phonological rules.

Section 7 attempts to establish when a feature specification is contrastive. A formal definition of contrastive specification is proposed, and the consequences of this definition are explored.

Section 8 discusses the blocking of phonological rules by constraints, a property usually referred to as "structure preservation." Here it is argued that blocking a rule creating a disallowed configuration is the consequence of an economy principle governing derivations.

Section 9 considers accidental gaps, that is, the absence of segments that are predicted to occur in a given inventory according to the marking statements that are deactivated in this inventory.

Section 10 attempts to extend the constraint-and-repair approach to the theory of phonological rules, along the lines of the constraint-and-repair approach independently developed by Singh (1987), Paradis (1988a,b), and Goldsmith (1990). In particular, the possibility is considered that phonological processes can be interpreted as simplification procedures triggered by context-sensitive constraints.

2 A Theory of Phonological Inventories

Phoneme inventories differ across languages: sounds present in one language may be absent from another language. However, phoneme inventories are not constructed ran- domly from a list of possible sounds, but seem to be built according to certain basic criteria. It must be assumed that UG principles govern the selection of phonemes. It is with the theory of these principles that we will be concerned here.

The theory of phonological complexity proposed here assumes that UG includes lists of statements each of which asserts that the cooccurrence of certain feature specifications creates a configuration that is either impossible or phonologically complex.6 Each of these statements involves a pair of feature specifications.7

6 A fundamental issue is that of specifying the conditions under which two features count as cooccurring. Here it is simply assumed that the cooccurrence of features (i.e., their simultaneous implementation) results from their being in the same feature bundle (i.e., a set of features dominated by the same Root node). Marking statements constrain the cooccurrence of features dominated by the same Root node. The notion of feature cooccurrence will not be investigated further here.

7 Although only two feature specifications must appear in the focus of the statement, other feature specifi-




These statements are of two kinds: prohibitions and marking statements. Prohibi- tions stipulate that certain feature configurations are absolutely excluded. For example, the configuration in (7) is impossible because it involves a pair of actions that are physiologically incompatible.

(7) *[+high, +low]

Marking statements stipulate that the use of one given feature specification in a bundle containing another given feature specification creates a configuration that is phonologically complex. Marking statements have the form shown in (8),

(8) [aF, ,BG]

where [,G] is the feature specification whose use in the context of [cxF] creates a complex configuration. We will call [,BLG] the marked feature specification. I propose that these marking statements are ordered according to the degree of complexity of the feature configurations they identify. As observed in Calabrese 1993, these marking statements reflect extraphonological (i.e., articulatory and acoustic) considerations and thus are an expression of the interface between the linguistic component and extralinguistic factors.8 If the degree of complexity of a feature configuration identified by a marking statement T is allowed in a given language, the segment characterized by this feature configuration is contained in the segmental inventory of that language. In this case we say that the marking statement T is deactivated by that language. It is hypothesized here that segments are acquired by establishing the degree of complexity allowed in a given language-that is, by deactivating marking statements and not by learning the segments one by one. Thus, acquiring the segmental inventory of a language is equivalent to determining the maximal degree of complexity for the segment types allowed in that language.9

cations needed for the proper definition of the statement may appear in its environment. Thus, the marking statement constraining the occurrence of nonlow back unrounded vowels will have the feature specifications [+ back] and [- round] in its focus and the feature specification [-low] in its environment, as in (i).

(i) [ + back, - round] / [ , - low]

There are two reasons for assuming this format. First, by restricting the focus of the statement to only two features, we capture the intuition that the basic relationship between features involves pairing of features, as observed by Stevens, Keyser, and Kawasaki (1986). For example, in the case of (i) there is a special acoustic relationship between [ + back] and [ - round], which is not shared by the feature in the environment, [ - low]. Second, this format is needed in order to properly formulate the simplification procedures. Fission and Negation appear to apply only to pairs of features. The correct results with these two procedures can thus be obtained only if simplification procedures apply to just the focus of the statement and only if this focus can contain just two feature specifications.

8 In Calabrese 1993 (see also Calabrese, to appear), I attempt to derive the marking statements from the enhancement relations of Stevens and Keyser (1989) and Stevens, Keyser, and Kawasaki (1986). One of the tasks of markedness theory is to document the validity of each marking statement and explain its universal status. Such a task will not be undertaken here.

9 In some languages the distribution of segments is restricted in certain contexts. These contexts can be prosodic, such as the coda position or a stressless syllable, or morphological, such as affixes. Often in these contexts one finds only a subset of the segments possible in other positions in the same language. Steriade (1995) observes that only unmarked segments usually appear in these more restricted positions. Along the lines proposed by Steriade, we can treat such situations by invoking positional activation/deactivation of




I cannot here list all of the marking statements and prohibitions needed to account for sound inventories.10 In order to illustrate my proposals, however, I will consider the hierarchically organized list needed for vowel systems. It is displayed in (9) and has a treelike structure. In (9) the marking statements B 1, El, A4 stipulate that front, rounded, and [+ ATR] low vowels, respectively, are complex. Thus, the optimal low vowel is [ + back], [- round], [- ATR]-that is, [a]. Al states that mid vowels are complex. A2, A3 define [+ ATR] mid vowels and [ - ATR] high vowels as complex. The optimal high vowels are thus [+ ATR], whereas the optimal mid vowels are [- ATR]. Cl and Dl characterize front rounded and nonlow back unrounded vowels, respectively, as phonologically complex. (In (9), DC = degree of complexity.)

(9) DC: 0 0

[-low, - high] Al

BI [+low, -back] [-high, + ATR] A2

Cl [-back, + round] / [, -low]

[+ high, -ATR] A3 D l [ + back, - round] / [_ -low]

E [I + low, + round] DC: n [+ low, + ATR] A4

The root of the tree represents the zero complexity of the three-vowel system [i, u, a] (see Calabrese 1988 for the case of two-vowel languages like Kabardian). Branch A of the tree contains four marking statements, whereas each of the other branches contains only one. The ordering of the four marking statements on branch A indicates that if the degree of complexity identified by a marking statement at a certain node is allowed, then the configurations identified by marking statements closer to the root on the same branch must also be allowed. In other words, the deactivation of a given marking statement on branch A implies the deactivation of the other statements closer to the root on this branch. In the case of the other branches, only the degree 0 must be allowed; that is, no other marking statement needs to be deactivated in order to deactivate the marking statement on that branch. In this way, I try to represent the fact that the vowel system

marking statements. Thus, for example, a certain set of marking statements may be deactivated in roots, but not in affixes. More segmental distinctions will therefore appear in roots than in affixes. Moreover, only the unmarked counterparts of the segments appearing in the roots will appear in the affixes (see footnote 35 and Steriade 1995 for more discussion). In this way, we can also account for Trubetzkoy's (1939) observation that it is always the unmarked term of an opposition that appears in the case of context-free positional neutralization. In the theory proposed here, in fact, a context-free positional neutralization is an instance of positional activation of a marking statement.

10 See Calabrese 1988, to appear, for a discussion of the marking statements and prohibitions (both called filters in Calabrese 1988) relevant for phonemic systems. See also Halle 1995.




[i, u, a] can be expanded with the introduction of vowels such as [X], [u], [i], [oD whose presence in a system indicates deactivation of the marking statements B1, Cl, Dl, El, respectively, whereas, for example, it cannot be expanded with the introduction of the [ - ATR] high vowels [t, v]. In fact, whereas in the former case no other marking statement needs to be deactivated, in the latter case both Al and A2 need to be deactivated. Therefore, the presence of [L, v] should always imply the presence of the [- ATR] mid vowels [e, o] and the [+ ATR] mid vowels [e, o].11

The degree of complexity of a feature configuration identified by a marking statement in (9) is indicated by its distance from the root of the tree; the greater the distance, the more complex the configuration. Thus, for example, (9) states that although the presence of the feature configuration identified by the marking statement [?+low, +round] does not imply the presence of the feature configuration identified by the marking statement [ + low, - back], the former is more complex than the latter. The fact that the low front vowel [ae] is relatively more frequent than the low round vowel [o] in vowel systems (see Maddieson 1984) is expressed in this way. The underlying assumption is that the more complex a segment is, the less frequent it will be across languages.

There is no marking statement referring to [+ ATR] in the context [+ high, ]; nor are there marking statements for the feature specifications in the left-hand column in (10) in the contexts mentioned in the right-hand column.

(10) [ - ATRi [ -high, ] [-ATR] [+low, ] [+back] [+low, ] [- round] [+low, ] [- round] [-back, [+ round] [+back, ] [+ high] [-low, [+ low] [-high,

The use of these feature specifications in the respective contexts is totally unmarked. Thus, configurations like [ + high, + ATR], [ - high, - ATR], [ + low, - ATR], [ + low, + back], [ + low, - round], [ - back, - round], [ + back, + round], [ - low, + high], and [- high, + low] are optimal. Therefore, their degree of complexity should always be allowed, and they should occur in all phonological systems.

Two types of implicational relationships between segments can be derived from (9). The first type is that expressed by the relation between marked and unmarked feature specifications as stated by each marking statement. The presence of a marked segment

"' Systems with [ + high, - ATR] vowels but not [ - high, + ATR] vowels are attested (e.g., Igbo, Moore). I assume that the absence of the mid [+ ATR] vowels in these systems must be treated as accidental, the result of idiosyncratic historical developments.

Thus, languages may contain accidental violations of the implications stated in (9). Each such violation, however, must be stated in the grammar, thus adding to its complexity. Therefore, violations of this type may exist, but they should be infrequent.




in a system always implies the presence of its unmarked counterpart for the simple reason that the presence of an unmarked segment does not involve any cost. Therefore, unmarked segments will always occur in the core of every phonological inventory. Thus, for example, the presence of the vowel [iu], which is governed by the marking statement [ - back, + round] / [ , - low], will always imply the presence of the vowel [i], whose configuration [- back, -round] / [ , -low] is optimally simple according to the preceding marking statement. The second type of implicational relationship is that between marked segments, which is expressed by the ordering between the different marking statements occurring on the same branch of a tree, as in the case of branch A of (9), for example. By using these two types of implicational relationships, we should be able to capture the implications between classes of segments observed by Jakobson (1941), Greenberg (1966), and others.

The structure of a phonological inventory is simply a by-product of the process of establishing the degree of complexity allowed in that language (i.e., the process of deactivating marking statements). Thus, given (9), a language in which no marking statement is deactivated will have the vowel system in ( lIa)."2 Arabic is a language of this type. If a language deactivates marking statement B1, it will have the vowel system in (1 Ib). Latvian is a language of this type. If instead of B 1, a language deactivates marking statement Al, it will have the vowel system in (1 lc), which is found in Modern Greek, Spanish, Hawaiian, and many other languages. If, in addition to marking statement Al, a language deactivates marking statement A2, it will have the vowel system in ( lId), which is found in standard Italian, for example. If, instead, it deactivates marking statements Cl and B1, it will have the vowel system in (1le), which is found in Finnish, for example.

12 The well-formed feature bundles of a given system are obtained in the following way. We first establish which marking statements are active or inactive in the system. Suppose then that all feature specifications may be combined freely. The active marking statements of the system will "filter out" some of these feature combinations. The combinations that are not "filtered out" make up the feature bundles allowed in that system. Thus, for example, consider a vowel system in which all of the marking statements in (9) are active, so that the following configurations are disallowed:

(i) *[ - high, - low] (Al is active) - high, + ATR] (A2 is active)

*[ + high, - ATR] (A3 is active) *[ + low, + ATR] (A4 is active) *[+low, -back] (B I is active) *[-back, +round] I [, -low] (Cl is active) *[+ back, - round] / [, -low] (Dl is active) *[+ low, + round] (El is active) *[+low, +high] The prohibition in (7) is always active by definition.

The only combinations of features allowed in this vowel system are those in (ii); that is, the feature bundles of [a], [i], and [u].

(ii) + low - low - low - high + high + high - ATR + ATR + ATR + back - back + back -round -round + round




(11) a. b. c. u 1 u l u

a a: a a

d. e. 1 u i u u

e o c ce ? 3 z a

a

Observe that the feature configurations identified by the marking statements that are active in the above-mentioned languages will be ruled out in these languages. Thus, the feature configuration [+ low, - back] will be ruled out in the languages with the vowel systems in (1la), (1ic), and (lid), but obviously not in the languages with the vowel systems in (1 Ib) and (lIe), whereas the feature configuration [- back, + round] will be ruled out in the languages with the vowel systems in (1la-d) but not in those with the system in (lie).

Two important properties of features can be derived from the marking statements: that of being marked and that of being contrastive. These two properties assign very different status to feature specifications, and they play a fundamental role in phonological rules (see section 6). In particular, I will propose that three types of rules are possible: (a) those sensitive to feature specifications of any kind; (b) those sensitive only to marked specifications; and (c) those sensitive only to contrastive specifications.

Marking statements define certain feature specifications as marked. Let us consider the feature [voice]. The following two marking statements account for the distribution of the feature [voice] in consonantal systems:

(12) a. [-sonorant, +voice] b. [ + sonorant, -voice]

The marking statement in (12a) is deactivated in many consonantal systems, creating oppositions between voiced and voiceless obstruents; few systems deactivate the marking statement in (12b), so that in most consonantal systems sonorants are voiced. Now, in a system with voiced obstruents (i.e., in a system that deactivates (12a)), the [ + voice] of voiced obstruents will be marked. The feature [-voice] of voiceless obstruents and the feature [ +voice] of sonorants will be unmarked. (For examples of marked feature assignment in the vowel systems in (11), see (123).)

As shown above, marking statements and prohibitions define phonological systems. It is then natural to assume that they also define which feature specifications are contrastive in these systems. A formal definition of this property will be given in (120). Here I will outline the basic intuitions that are behind the definition. The structure of the phonological system of a language is determined by which marking statements are deacti-




vated and by which prohibitions and marking statements are active in that language. The idea then is that the contrastiveness of a feature specification is solely determined by checking which marking statements are active or deactivated in a language. (Prohibitions always function as active marking statements.) In particular, when a given marking statement [oF, iG] is deactivated, both [3G] and [ - ,BG] are contrastive in the context of [aF]. Thus, for example, when the marking statement [ - sonorant, + voice] is deactivated, the features [+ voice] and [ - voice] are contrastive in obstruents. The unmarked feature [oaF] of a marking statement [oxF, ,BG] is normally contrastive, regardless of whether or not this marking statement is deactivated. (An exception to this claim will be considered in the discussion of (120).) Thus, the feature [-sonorant] is normally contrastive in obstruents.

In addition to marked and contrastive feature specifications, phonemes have noncontrastive specifications. A feature [-yG] is noncontrastive when it has the value opposite to that of the marked feature of an active marking statement. Thus, given the active marking statement [aF, ,G], the feature [- 3G] is noncontrastive. For example, if the marking statement [ - sonorant, + voice] is not deactivated in a given system, the feature [- voice] of the voiceless obstruents of this system is noncontrastive. Prime examples of noncontrastive features are the laryngeal features in sonorants in languages (almost all, world-wide) that do not deactivate the marking statements [+ sonorant, -voice], [+ sonorant, + spread glottis], [+ sonorant, + constricted glottis]: given what was just said, in fact, the features [ + voice], [ - spread glottis], [ - constricted glottis] will not be contrastive in the sonorants of these languages. Another example is the feature [ATR] in high vowels in languages that do not deactivate the marking statement [ + high, - ATR].

Thus, as shown in (13), the contrastive feature specifications of a language constitute a subset of the total feature specifications, and the marked feature specifications constitute a subset of the contrastive feature specifications. As section 6 will show, these three sets of feature specifications play a crucial role in phonological processes.

(13) All feature specifications

Contrastive feature specifications

Marked feature specifications

It follows from what has been proposed in this section that a phonological inventory is learned only through positive evidence: if a child encounters a certain segment in a lexical item, then the child learns that the degree of complexity of that segment is allowed in the language, and the relevant marking statement is deactivated. The truly ill formed




configurations of a language are therefore those that are blocked by the marking statements that are not deactivated in the acquisition of this language. Absence of a configuration from those found in the lexical items of a language should in principle not imply ill- formedness (but see section 9 on accidental gaps and the role of negative evidence in the acquisition of a phonological inventory).

I will now spell out the criteria used in the theory proposed here to establish marking statements and to define their position in trees such as that in (9). The criteria are as follows:

1. Structure of inventories. Marking statements must be able to account for the structure of inventories across languages. Each segment or class of segments that is consistently absent from some inventories, although present in others, should be identified by a marking statement.

2. Implicational universals. The presence of a marked segment always implies the presence of its unmarked counterpart. This fact is expressed in (9) by listing only marking statements that identify marked segments, that is, segments whose presence implies a cost. Their unmarked counterparts are thus cost free and therefore should be present in all phonological systems. There are also cases in which the presence of a certain class of marked segments implies the presence of another class of marked segments. This is expressed by the position of marking statements on the same branch of the tree. The presence in a system of a segment identified by the marking statement farthest from the root always implies the presence of the segments identified by the other marking statements on the same branch.

3. Frequency of occurrence across languages. Unmarked segments should always be present across inventories. Marking statements should identify segments not belonging to this shared core of segments. More highly marked segments should be less frequent than less highly marked segments. This is expressed in (9) by the positioning of the marking statements. Segments identified by marking statements that are more distant from the root of the tree should be less frequent than segments identified by marking statements that are less distant.

4. Order of acquisition of segments. During language acquisition, unmarked segments should be acquired before their unmarked counterparts. In the same way, less highly marked segments should be acquired before more highly marked ones. Again, marking statements and their positions in the tree should account for these facts.

5. Segment loss. According to Jakobson (1941), marked segments should be lost earlier than their unmarked counterparts in language disturbances. In the same way, more highly marked segments should be lost earlier than less highly marked ones under the same circumstances. Both generalizations are controversial, and it is not clear whether they are empirically correct. However, if they are correct (see Romani and Calabrese 1993 for some evidence to that effect), marking statements and their positions in the tree should also be able to express them.

6. Phonological rules 1. There are phonological rules that are sensitive to marked feature specifications and phonological rules that are sensitive to contrastive feature




specifications (see section 6). The study of the former rules is directly relevant to the formulation of marking statements, since they immediately identify which feature specifications are marked in the context of other features. The study of the latter rules also leads to the formulation of marking statements since marking statements play a crucial role in defining what is contrastive.

7. Phonological rules 2. When a phonological rule creates a feature complex disallowed by a marking statement, there are two options: one is to deactivate the marking statement, the other is to trigger a procedure that repairs the disallowed configuration (see sections 3-5). The study of such rules also leads to the formulation of marking statements since it indirectly tells us what feature complexes are governed by marking statements.

All these criteria should converge: a marking statement built according to one criterion should be consistent with the other criteria. The same holds with respect to the marking statement's position in the tree. Thus, this theory makes very strong claims about phonological systems, claims that are clearly open to confirming or disconfirming evidence.

3 Simplification Procedures

Speakers often encounter phonemes that are outside their inventories, that is, phonemes containing a feature complex disallowed by a marking statement active in their language. These phonemes can either belong to foreign languages or be the outcomes of sound changes. Either speakers can accept these segments and therefore deactivate the relevant marking statement (as discussed in section 5, this often occurs), or they can react to the disallowed sounds and try to adjust them. Interestingly, speakers react to these sounds in a nonrandom fashion. To account for this reaction, additional machinery must be introduced. In the theory proposed here, it is natural to postulate the existence of strategies that repair configurations subject to active marking statements. Here, I will call these strategies simplification procedures since repairing or eliminating a disallowed configuration essentially means repairing or eliminating a configuration that is "too complex" in that particular language.

Three simplification procedures can be identified: Fission, Delinking, and Negation. Fission is an operation that splits a feature bundle containing a disallowed configuration into two successive bundles, each containing only one of the features of the disallowed configuration. This is, for example, the operation that replaces the vowel [iu] with the diphthong [iu] in the pronunciation of speakers of languages lacking front rounded vowels. (For more discussion, see below and footnote 17.) Delinking is an operation by which one of the incompatible features of a disallowed configuration is delinked and replaced with a compatible feature. This is, for example, the operation that replaces the vowel [u] with either [i] or [u] in the pronunciation of speakers of languages lacking front rounded vowels. (See below for more discussion of the operation of Delinking and a formal analysis of this case.) Negation is an operation that changes the values of the




incompatible features of the disallowed configuration into their opposites. (For some examples and more discussion of Negation, see footnote 14.) I formalize these rules in (14)-(16) (the features that are targets of the rules are circled).

(14) Fission 3 x x

acons acons acons -bson j Lbson J [bson I

[ot I LoaFi [f3F2I 4F2]

[-yF3] [YF3I [-yF31 [8F4] [8F41 [8F4]

where the feature bundle on the left of the arrow contains the configuration of features [oF,, 1F2] disallowed by the active marking statement/prohibition *[oF,, ,BF.] (ox, ,, y, 8 = +/-).

(15) Delinking

x

Eacons1 Lbson J

L1F2] where [otF,] conflicts with [,BF2] because of the active marking statement/prohibition *[oF,, ,BF.I (oL, = + /-).

13 assume that after the application of (17), the output of Fission is automatically simplified by a rule that merges adjacent identical nodes when dominated by the same timing unit.

(i) X

acons acons bson ][bson J

[yF3]

[8F4]




(16) Negation"

[axF,, PiF21 >_ -([otF,, ,BF21) --->[-otF, -P1F21

where [aF,] and [f3F21 are conflicting feature values because of the active marking statement/prohibition *[oF,, PF2] (OL, 1 = +/-).

The procedures in (14) and (15) create incomplete representations. In the case of Fission the first subcomponent lacks a specification for [F2] and the second lacks a specification for [F,]. In the case of Delinking a new specification for [F2] must be inserted. I propose that the absent feature specifications are inserted by the Last Resort Convention in (17), which always creates optimal configurations by inserting unmarked specifications.

(17) Given the marking statement [oxF, ,G], fill in [- ,BG] in a feature bundle that contains [oLF] but no specifications for [G], and fill in [o- F] in a bundle that contains [13G] but no specifications for [F].

The function of the simplification procedures is not to preserve the underlying inventory of segments by eliminating all disallowed feature configurations, but to prevent

14 I consider Negation to be the most problematic simplification procedure that I propose. Whereas Delink- ing and Fission may have a "natural" phonetic interpretation in a framework that does not use binary feature values, Negation relies heavily on binary feature values. Certainly, there is nothing incorrect in relying on these values; however, as a result Negation is grounded only on theory-internal considerations.

The cases of simplification that lead me to hypothesize Negation are the following: (i) a. L, v -- e, o In the metaphonic alternation [e, o1e, ol in several southern Italian dia-

lects; in the surface merging of [L, v] with [e, o] in Okpe; in the diachronic changes from Proto-Kwa to the modern Kwa languages; and in many other cases.

b. [I+ ATR] A-- c/o In the diachronic changes from Proto-Kwa to the modern Kwa languages; in several [+ / - ATR] harmony systems in which the [+ ATR] counterpart of [a] is either [e] or [o].

c. a + y, a + w, c, o In Kabardian and in many other languages (e.g., Sanskrit). d. ui, o i, a Unconditional sound change that occurred in the history of Mongolian

(see Dressler 1974). (Compare the pronunciation of [o] as [,] by English speakers (Godel pronounced like girdle); see Kiparsky 1973.)

e. - o In the pronunciation of English [a] by nonnative speakers (see Jones 1961).

Given the UG active marking statements *[+ high, - ATR], *[+low, +ATR], *[+ low, + high], *[back, + round], and *[ + back, - round], these cases of repair can be accounted for by Negation in the following way:

(ii) a. [ + high, - ATR] > (+ high, - ATR]) >-high, + ATR] (=ia)) b. [ + low, + ATR] -([+low, +ATR]) [-low, -ATR](= (ib)) c. [ + high, + low] - ([+ high, + low]) [-* high, - low] (= (ic)) d. [ - back, + round] - ([-back, + round]) -*+ back, - round] (= (id)) e. [ + back, - round] - ([+ back, - round]) - back, + round] (= (ie))

In my research, I have encountered no other cases of repair that can be analyzed in terms of Negation. (For more discussion of Negation, see Calabrese 1988, 1993.)

Note that Negation could be considered a case of overapplication of Delinking to the features of a configuration disallowed by an active marking statement. The convention in (17) that creates optimal feature configuration after the application of the simplification procedures would give the same result as negation, if it can have access to the delinked features.




an increase in the complexity of a phonological system by repairing complex feature configurations. 15

Having introduced the main features of the theory, I now turn to the advantages such a theory holds over one that uses I-rules to account for the structure of phonological inventories.

It has long been recognized that certain cases of phonological breaking occur in the pronunciation of nonnative segments (see Trubetzkoy 1939 and Andersen 1972, among others). Some sample cases are listed in (18).16

(18) a. ii iu In the Italian pronunciation of French and German [u]; in the Romanian pronunciation of French and Turkish words.

b. i ui In the Lithuanian pronunciation of Russian [i]; in the Fin- nish pronunciation of Russian [i].

c. - an/al In the nonnative pronunciation of nasal vowels in many languages.

d. p > ny In the nonnative pronunciation of Italian. e. A ly In the nonnative pronunciation of Italian. f. f hw In the Korean pronunciation of foreign [f] (see Pyun 1987);

in the Ukrainian pronunciation of Russian [f] (Trubetzkoy 1939).

For example, consider the nonnative pronunciation of the front rounded vowel [u]. As illustrated by (18a), this vowel can be pronounced as the diphthong [iu] by speakers of languages not having this vowel in their inventory. The pronunciations [i] and [u] are also possible, as in (19) (the Romanian example is from Nandris 1963:220).

(19) German Fuhrer Italian [fyurer, furer, firer] French cuvette > Romanian [kyuveta, kuveta, kiveta]

In the theory proposed here, the absence of [u] from the inventories of Italian and Romanian indicates that the marking statement [-back, + round] on branch Cl of the vowel tree in (9) is active in these languages. Consequently, they disallow the configuration in (20).

(20) *[ - back, + round]

Disallowed configurations are corrected by simplification procedures. The configuration in (20) can be repaired by two different strategies. The diphthong outcome in (19) is the result of Fission. Fission (14) produces the configuration in (21b). Then, after the

15 Paraphrasing Stampe's (1973) analysis of natural processes, one could consider simplification procedures as "mental" operations that apply in speech to replace a class of sounds presenting a specific common difficulty to the speech capacity of individuals with an alternative class that lacks the difficult property but is identical in all other respects. Following this idea, then, we can say that simplification procedures are "the natural and automatic responses of speakers to the articulatory and perceptual difficulties which speech sounds or sound sequences present to their users" (Stampe 1973:1).

16 Some of these cases will be discussed later in this article. For more discussion, see Calabrese 1988, 1993.




application of (17), which fills in the missing features, and the merging of the identical features in the two subcomponents of (2 ib) discussed in footnote 13, we obtain (22)-that is, the diphthong [iu].17'18

(21) a. X b. X (by Fission)

- cons] [ cons] [- cons]

Place Place Place

Labial Dorsal Labial Dorsal Dorsal Labial

[+round] [?~~~~~~~~~~+round])

[+ high] \+ high] ?+ high]

[-low] [-low] [-low]

(22) X (= [iu])

I-cons] -cons]

Place Place

Labial Dorsal ongue Root Tongue Root Dorsal Labial

[-round] [ATI L+ round]

[-back] \ / /[+ back]

r, g

17 Thus, by Fission, the two articulatory maneuvers of lip rounding and tongue backing, which are simultaneous in the production of the vowel [u], become sequential in the production of the diphthong [iu].

The reason for formulating Fission as in (14) is the assumption stated in footnote 6 that the cooccurrence




Delinking of a particular feature ([ + round] in the case of [i] and [- back] in the case of [u]) accounts for the other outcomes in (19). These are illustrated in (23a-b).

(23) a. Delinking of[ + round]

X (by(17)) X (= [i')

[- cons] - cons]

Place Place

Labial Dorsal Tongue Root Labial Dorsal Tongue Root

[+round] [-round

[-back] [-back]

[+ high] [+ high]

[-low] [-low]

[ + ATR] [ + ATR]

(i.e., the simultaneous implementation) of two features is to be represented by placing these in the same feature bundle where, by definition, a feature bundle is a set of features dominated by a single Root node. Active marking statements constrain the cooccurrence of features. Fission is, then, an operation by which one feature bundle with a configuration of features disallowed by an active marking statement is split into two feature bundles with configurations that are allowed by this active marking statement.

Notice that Fission does not affect the timing unit associated with the Root node of the feature bundle that undergoes it; it does not add or create new timing units. As discussed in Calabrese 1988, for example, there is evidence that certain diphthongs produced by Fission are actually short, that is, associated with one timing unit. Furthermore, if the analysis of affrication proposed later in this section is correct, the two feature bundles composing the affricate produced by Fission are crucially associated with the same timing unit. How- ever, this does not imply that in a given language one of the two feature bundles produced by Fission cannot acquire its own timing unit by an independent language-specific process.

18 An interesting question is that of the linear order of the two subcomponents of the fissioned configuration. In Calabrese 1988, 1993, I observe that the feature that is ordered first in the fission process appears to be the unmarked one in the disallowed configuration (see Andersen 1972 for a similar proposal). Thus, the feature [back], which is the unmarked feature in the configuration [- back, + round], is the one that appears to be ordered first in fission processes, as we see in the pronunciation of [u] as [iu] and [i] as [ui] by speakers of many different languages that do not have these vowels.

I assume that this is the unmarked case. Marked exceptions to this generalization do exist, however-as, for example, in the pronunciation of the foreign vowel [u] as the diphthong [ui] by Korean speakers (see Pyun 1987).

Also, syllable structure may play a role in the sequencing of the two subcomponents. Later, we will discuss a case where Fission applies to nasal vowels, resulting in the sequence vowel + nasal. Notice that the opposite rendition of the nasal vowel, as a sequence nasal + vowel, would require a drastic reshuffling of syllable structure. One could propose that the application of simplification procedures cannot lead to a major syllabic restructuring.




b. Delinking of[ - back] X (by (17)) X (= [u])

[-cons] [-cons]

Place Place

Labial Dorsal ongue Root Labial Dorsal ongue Root

[+ round] [+round]

[-back] [+ back]

[+high] \ [high]

[-low] [-low]

[+ ATR] I+ ATRI

The distinctive aspect of this analysis is a basic separation between the marking of ill-formed configurations and their repair: active marking statements mark ill-formed configurations, and simplification procedures repair them. In a model that instead uses I-rules, no such separation is recognized. In the I-rule model, the marking of ill-formed configurations and their repair should be implemented solely by these rules. Thus, the facts just discussed would have to be accounted for in the following way.

The absence of front rounded vowels would be accounted for by postulating the rule in (24), which unrounds front vowels.

(24) [- back] -> [- round]

(24) implies that [ui] should always be replaced by [i]. This is incorrect: [u] and [iu] are equally possible as replacements for [iu] in the pronunciation of speakers of languages not having this vowel. This approach is therefore unable to account for two outcomes of the nonnative pronunciation of [u] in (19), in particular the outcome [iu]. In the approach that uses only I-rules, one cannot account for the fact that there are different and equally possible ways of eliminating the same disallowed configuration. In contrast, with static constraints, such as the marking statements, one can account for this fact. Indeed, a static constraint may not have an active role in changing a disallowed configuration, but it can trigger different rules that alter this configuration and therefore provide a variety of means for eliminating it.

Further evidence that the I-rule approach does not work comes from considering




the pronunciation [iul of [ui]. To account for this pronunciation, an advocate of I-rules might propose that in addition to (24), the I-rule in (25) should be postulated.

(25) [ + round] -> [ + back]

The simultaneous application of these two I-rules would force a sequencing of the features [ - back] and [+ round], which would then be automatically matched with their compatible features.

This is not a viable alternative, however, since it cannot be extended to other cases of breaking. As an example, consider the pronunciation of nonnative nasal vowels reported by Bloomfield (1933) for Swedish. In Swedish, nasal vowels in loanwords are often pronounced as composite segments consisting of an oral vowel followed by a velar nasal.

(26) French rendez-vous [rade-vu], enveloppe [av(a)lop] Swedish [ragde-vu], [aijvelop]

We cannot account for the appearance of the velar nasal in the Swedish forms by postulating the I-rule in (27).

(27) [ + nasal] -> DORSAL

This I-rule implies that in Swedish all nasals are dorsal. However, this is false; Swedish also has labial and coronal nasals. In addition, velar nasals in Swedish are not underlying segments (see Eliasson 1970). Obviously, an I-rule cannot create a segment that is not underlying. Therefore, the I-rule-based model is unable to account for breaking of this type.

In the approach proposed here, the absence of nasal vowels in Swedish would be expressed by saying that the marking statement [ - consonantal, + nasal]-independently needed to account for the status of nasal vowels in vowel inventories-is active, so that the configuration in (28) is disallowed.

(28) *[ - consonantal, + nasal]

Swedish speakers are exposed to this disallowed configuration when they encounter French nasal vowels. They use Fission to adjust it. When it applies to a nasal vowel, represented as in (29), Fission produces the sequence in (30) in which the nasal subcomponent is not specified for place of articulation.19 By the application of (17), the feature value [+consonantal] is assigned to the nasal subcomponent in (30), producing (31). Trigo (1988) argues that anusvaras (i.e., nasal glides) have precisely the representation of the second subcomponent of (31)-in other words, that they are placeless nasal consonants. It could be that in Swedish we are actually dealing with nasal glides. If this is correct, we would not need to fill in the missing place of articulation for that subcompo-

19 Observe that in (29) the feature [ + nasal] is implemented simultaneously with the vowel features under the Dorsal node since they are dominated by the same Root node, whereas in (30) it is sequenced with respect to them since it belongs to a different Root node, as expected after the application of Fission.




(29) X

L- cons + son

[+ nasal] Place

Dorsal

[+ low]

(30) X

- cons] [ + son] +son

+ nasal] Place

Dorsal

I+ low]

(31) X

r- cons +cons + son + son

-nasal] I [ + nasal] Place

Dorsal

[ + low]




nent. If that subcomponent actually has a dorsal articulation, we could propose that it is provided by rule (32), independently proposed by Rice (1991) to provide a last resort articulation for placeless nasals. More phonetic research on this segment is needed.

(32) [ + cons]

[+ nasal Place

] Dorsal / _

The theory proposed here, with its crucial distinction between the marking of ill- formed structures and their repair, adequately accounts not only for the breaking phenomena found in the pronunciation of foreign segments, but also for other breaking phenomena observed in sound changes. I will discuss two such cases. The first concerns a sound change traditionally called "metaphony," found in most Italian dialects. Meta- phony changes the quality of stressed mid vowels when followed by high vowels. In most dialects, metaphony affects these vowels in the following way: when the mid vowel target of the rule is [ + ATR], it is raised to its high counterpart; when it is [ - ATR], it is diphthongized. For example, northern Salentino, a southern Italian dialect, displays alternations like those in (33). (The forms given in (33) are intermediate representations. Further rules are needed to obtain surface representations. See Calabrese 1985 for detailed discussion.)

(33) In the case of [ +ATR] vowels Singular Plural parete pariti 'wall' krotfe kritfi 'cross'

In the case of [-ATR] vowels Singular Plural dante di?nti 'tooth' kore kutri 'heart'

In Calabrese 1985, I argue that these alternations are the consequence of a metaphony rule that raises mid vowels to high when followed by a high vowel. In the case of [ - ATR] vowels, the metaphony rule thus creates a high [- ATR] vowel. The question then arises: why is there diphthongization in this case?

The marking statement + high, - ATR] appears in the tree in (9). This marking statement is not deactivated in northern Salentino, as shown by the absence of high [- ATR] vowels in its inventory [i, e, c, a, o, o, u]. Thus, the feature configuration in (34) is disallowed.

(34) *[ + high, -ATR]




The application of the metaphony rule to [ - ATR] vowels creates the feature bundles in (35), containing the disallowed configuration in (34).

(35) X X

[- cons] [-cons]

Place Place

Labial Dorsal Tongue Root Labial Dorsal ongue Root

[-round] + round]

[-back] + back]

L-low] V-low]

+ high] + high]

L-ATR] I - ATRI This disallowed configuration is then repaired by Fission, as in (36) on page 398.20 A further independent rule of backness dissimilation accounts for the northern Salentino outcome of the diphthong [uo] as [uc].

Any theory that accounts for the diphthongization found in metaphony without an intermediate stage [+ high, - ATR] would not give a natural and plausible account of this process. In particular, it would not be able to explain why a mid [- ATR] vowel should be diphthongized before a high vowel, given that there are no obvious phonetic or phonological reasons for such a change. On the other hand, the raising of mid vowels

20 Notice that in the autosegmental representation obtained after the application of the metaphony rule, the feature [ + high] should be associated with the Root node of the trigger and the Root node of the target of the metaphony rule. However, Fission repairs only the disallowed configuration [+ high, - ATR] dominated by the Root node of the target. This is expected if we assume a principle like (i).

(i) A simplification procedure operates only inside the feature bundle that contains a configuration of features disallowed by an active marking statement.

Therefore, when the simplification procedure applies, the feature value [ + high] of the trigger of the rule must be distinct from that of the target. I thus hypothesize that (i) triggers a rule that splits a feature value that simultaneously belongs to two different feature bundles, when this feature value will be affected by a simplification procedure in only one of them. I propose the following convention:

(ii) Given a node N1 that is linked to two Root nodes: if N1, together with other nodes N2 . N, that are linked to only one of these Root nodes, is included in the structural description of a simplification procedure, then N1 is split into two identical copies, each one linked to only one of the Root nodes.




(36) a. X (= [ic])

[- cons] _ cons]

Place Place

Tongue Root Dorsal Labial Labial Dorsal Tongue Root

[+ ATR] I - ATRI

+ high] /L-high]

[-low]

-round]

b. X (= [uc])

r- cons] I - cons]

Place Place

Tongue Root Dorsal Labial Labial Dorsal Tongue Root

F+ ATRI [-ATRI

[ + high] //,,,,/// [ - high]

[+ back] ,//

-low] V

[ + round]




before high vowels is a normal case of assimilation. By hypothesizing an interaction between a phonological rule, a disallowed configuration, and a simplification procedure, we can explain the diverging metaphonic alternations as the result of such an assimilation process. The diphthongization seen in the case of mid [- ATR] vowels results simply from an application of the independently needed repair rule of Fission to the complex configuration [+ high, - ATR] produced by the application of the metaphony rule.21'22

If diphthongization in northern Salentino is simply an instance of Fission applied to repair the configuration [+high, - ATR] created by the application of the metaphony rule to [ - ATR] mid vowels, then we should also expect other simplification procedures to repair the same configuration. And in fact, if we consider the different southern Italian dialects that have metaphonic alternations in the case of mid vowels, we observe that although the outputs are always the same when the targets are mid [+ ATR] vowels, there is significant dialectal variation when the targets are mid [- ATR] vowels. These vowels can be diphthongized, as in northern Salentino, or tensed or raised to high [+ ATR] vowels, depending on the dialect. I propose that the tensing and raising of mid vowels in a metaphonic environment can be accounted for by applying the other simplification procedures, as in (37).

21 Kaze (1989, 1991) takes issue with the treatment of metaphony in southern Italian dialects discussed in Calabrese 1985 and proposes to replace the active marking statement [+ high, - ATR] that I use to trigger the simplification procedures with the prohibition *[+high, +low]. He does this by assuming the following feature specification for the seven-vowel system [i, e, c, a, :, o, u]:

(i) i e c a o o u high + + low + + + - _ back - + + + +

Crucially, the vowels [e, :] are specified as being [+ low]. Kaze then assumes a metaphony rule similar to the one I have proposed that spreads onto a mid vowel the feature [+ high] of the following high vowel. If the target is a close mid vowel, the result is a high vowel. If instead the target is an open mid vowel, the result is the universally disallowed configuration [+ high, + low]. This disallowed configuration is then repaired by applying Fission (in northern Salentino), Negation (in southern Umbro), and so on.

Kaze argues that relying on the prohibition *[+high, +low] instead of a marking statement prohibiting *[ + high, - ATR] is preferable because the configuration [+ high, + low] is universally impossible for obvious articulatory reasons.

This is definitely an interesting proposal and would actually strengthen my analysis of metaphony. How- ever, this proposal has a fundamental weakness: the open mid vowels of the southern Italian dialects cannot be specified as being [+low]. First, phonetically they are not low vowels; they do not have the same degree of aperture as the low vowel [a], as would incorrectly be implied by using the feature value [ + low] to specify them. Second, the open mid vowels of these dialects do not pattern with the low vowel from the phonological point of view. In most dialects, the metaphony rule does not affect low vowels. But this is what we would expect if open mid vowels and the low vowel [a] share the feature [ + low], since it would be quite difficult to distinguish these two sets of vowels in the structural description of the rule. There are thus good reasons to reject the idea that the open mid vowels of these dialects are specified as [+ low] and to keep their specification as [- low, - high, + ATR] vowels. The consequence is that we cannot use the prohibition *[ + high, + low] to account for the application of Fission but must stick to the marking statement [+ high, - ATR].

22 See also Maiden 1991 for a detailed study of the diachronic development of metaphony and its synchronic phonological and morphophonological aspects. (For a criticism of Maiden's analysis of metaphony, see Cala- brese 1993:38.)




(37) a. Tensing: c, o -- e, o / i, u (e.g., in southern Umbro; see Calabrese 1985, Rohlfs 1966). This case is accounted for by applying Negation to the disallowed configuration [+ high, - ATR] that occurs in the output of the metaphony rule: [ - ATR, + high] - - - ATR, + high]) > [ + ATR, - high]

b. Raising: c, : -> i, u I i, u (e.g., in the northern Pugliese dialect of Foggia; see Calabrese 1993, Valente 1975). This case is accounted for by applying Delinking of [-ATR] to the disallowed configuration [+high, - ATR] that occurs in the output of the metaphony rule.23

(by(l7))

[- cons] L cons]

Place Place

Dorsal Tongue Root Dorsal Tongue Root

[-low] L -low] + high] L + high]

L - ATRI L + ATR]

An interesting consequence follows from this analysis of metaphony. We have seen that the results of metaphony vary from dialect to dialect. Instead of formulating a different rule of metaphony for each dialect, I propose that the metaphony rule is always the same: the dialectal variation reflects different simplification procedures used to repair the disallowed configuration produced by metaphony. In other words, we can account for the dialectal variation by assuming that groups of speakers deal with the complexity posed by [ + high, - ATR] vowels differently by resorting to Fission, Delinking, or Nega- tion. I hypothesize that in the historical development of each particular dialect, one of the possible simplification procedures has been grammaticalized as the solution to the disallowed configuration produced by the metaphony rule. Therefore, the range of variation should be limited to the range of results produced by the simplification procedures, which is what we find. Thus, by separating the marking of ill-formedness from its repair, we simplify the analysis of dialectal variation found in this case. A theory that does not

23 In addition to Fission, Negation, and Delinking of 1- ATR], the framework proposed here allows yet another possibility: the Delinking of [+ high]. In a dialect choosing the latter option it looks as though metaphony affects only [+ ATR] mid vowels; that is, in such a dialect 'walls' would be pariti, but 'teeth' would be denti. This case will be discussed in section 8.




distinguish between the marking of ill-formedness and the simplification procedures would assume instead that each dialect has a different metaphony rule and therefore would not account for the shared properties of these rules.

Notice that we are dealing with dialectal variation in a non-Markovian way. In fact, it follows that dialectal variation in these cases is brought about, not by the addition of a rule to the grammar of a certain group of speakers, but directly through the selection of different options offered by UG. More research is needed to understand all of the implications of this hypothesis and to find evidence that supports it.

Myers (1991) criticizes the analysis of metaphony presented above on the grounds that it is redundant: he claims there is no need to separate the marking of ill-formedness from the repair operations. Under his view, only "repair" operations (called "persistent rules") are needed. These are phonological operations that apply "persistently" through- out phonological derivations to certain configurations and change them into other configurations. In this way, the marking of ill-formed configurations and their repair is implemented solely by these operations. Thus, according to Myers, the different simplification procedures that apply in different southern Italian dialects are simply different instances of persistent rules that apply to the configuration [ + high, - ATR], changing it in different ways. In northern Salentino, for example, there would be a persistent rule that changes a [ + high, - ATR] vowel into a diphthong; in southern Umbro there would be a persistent rule that changes a [ + high, - ATR] vowel into a [- high, + ATR] vowel; and so on.

This analysis is unsatisfactory, however. First, as observed before, in a model in which there is no separation between the marking of ill-formed configurations and their repair, it is not clear why there should be a persistent rule that causes diphthongization of [ + high, - ATR] vowels. Such a rule is just a stipulation in that model and therefore cannot account for the phenomenon in question. In the model proposed here, an independently needed procedure (Fission) straightforwardly accounts for the diphthongization of the disallowed [ +high, - ATR] vowels.

Second, the different persistent rules that Myers would hypothesize to account for the dialectal variation found in the case of metaphony apply to the same configuration, [+high, - ATR]. Thus, even in Myers's framework, a crucial status must be given to this configuration. It is acting as a trigger for the application of certain "rules" that function to remove it. This is very close to the analysis I propose, although Myers does not give any reason why the configuration [ + high, - ATR] should play such a triggering role. The only difference between Myers's approach and mine therefore is this: on Myers's view, these rules must be established on a language-particular basis, so that they may vary from language to language; my position, instead, is that these "rules" are provided by UG, and that there are only three of them, namely, Fission, Negation, and Delinking. My proposal is much more constrained and therefore more explanatory.

Finally, in not recognizing the function that the configuration [ + high, - ATR] plays in triggering the different "persistent rules," Myers's account fails to explain the nature of the variation found in southern Italian dialects. Why do these dialects have different




persistent rules that have the same configuration [ + high, - ATR] as a target? Why don't they have the same persistent rule? Why should persistent rules that have the same target vary in their output? I believe that in order to answer these questions under the persistent rules account, it would be necessary to assume that these rules are essentially the simplification procedures that I propose, which have the function of eliminating complex configurations from the grammar.

The second example I wish to discuss in which a sound change can be satisfactorily accounted for by the approach proposed here is the affrication phenomena that commonly accompany palatalization processes. In the current literature, the usual account of this affrication involves relying on a universal I-rule that changes the output of the palatalization rules into an affricate, as in (38).

(38) [CORONAL + distributed, -anterior]-- "affricate" continuant

Rule (38) should be motivated on universal grounds; there should be a phonetic or phonological reason for it, such as the enhancement relations studied by Stevens, Keyser, and Kawasaki (1986) or Stevens and Keyser (1989). However, a universal I-rule like (38) is just a stipulation; there are no phonetic or phonological reasons why UG provides such a rule. (38) is just an ad hoc statement meant to account for the affrication found in palatalization processes.

A more natural and plausible analysis of this phenomenon is made possible by the constraint-based theory proposed here, by relying on the independently needed procedure of Fission (see Calabrese 1992a,b for a more detailed analysis of this and other aspects of palatalization processes).

When palatalization processes affect stops, they create laminal palatoalveolar stops, which are characterized by the feature [ + distributed], that is, by a long constriction in the palatoalveolar region (for further discussion, see Calabrese 1992b, 1993). This is supported by Bhat (1978), who observes that laminal (palatoalveolar or dental/alveolar) consonants are the typical outcome of palatalization of dental and alveolar consonants, and by Lunt (1991:app.), who shows that the laminal palatoalveolar stops [c, j] (his [k', g']) were the outcomes of palatalization of velar and dental/alveolar stops before they underwent affrication. The idea is that what front (nonretroflex) vowels and glides transmit to the consonant undergoing palatalization is their flat tongue shape. The consonant thus obtained is [+ distributed] because of the greater length of its constriction.

Here, I will not address the formal representation of the assimilation process by which front vowels affect consonants so that they become [ + distributed] and, for ease of exposition, I will simply stipulate that front vowels can transmit the feature specifications [ + distributed, - anterior] to consonants for reasons not yet understood. (See Calabrese 1992b for discussion of this aspect of palatalization and Clements 1976, 1989b, 1993a, Hume 1992, Lahiri and Evers 1991, and Broselow and Niyondagara 1991 for an alternative view.)




Laminal stops can be considered complex segments, since the sudden release needed in the case of stops is difficult to execute with the long constriction characterizing laminal segments. Therefore, we can assume the marking statement in (39), which characterizes the use of the feature specification [+ distributed] in stops as phonologically complex.

(39) [- continuant, + distributed] / [ , - sonorant]

Speakers of a language undergoing palatalization need to face this highly complex configuration. One possibility is that they may accept the degree of complexity of the configuration [ - continuant, + distributed, - sonorant] and thus deactivate the marking statement in (39). Assimilation processes often create segments that are not present in underlying inventories (see section 5). Given the theory developed here, we can say that in all of these cases the assimilation processes created feature configurations that were not allowed in the language, but that these configurations were nonetheless accepted. If the marking statement in (39) is deactivated in a language that is undergoing palatalization, laminal palatoalveolar stops are added to the inventory of that language, as shown in (40).

(40) X (= [cI)

+ cons

l -cont] Laryngeal

[- voice]

Place

Coronal

[-ant [ + dist]

This happened in south Slavic, where a process of dental palatalization created a laminal palatoalveolar consonant (see Meillet 1924, Vaillant 1950, Chomsky and Halle 1968), as shown in (41).

(41) ty c (east Slavic: tf; west Slavic: ts) dy j (east Slavic: d3; west Slavic: 3)




If the degree of complexity of the configuration [ - continuant, + distributed] /[l - sonorant] is not allowed in a language undergoing palatalization, so that the marking statement in (39) remains active, then that configuration is ill formed, as shown in (42).

(42) *[ - continuant, + distributed] / [ , - sonorant]

Simplification procedures must then apply to feature bundles containing this disallowed configuration. In particular, Fission can apply as a simplification procedure, breaking the feature bundle in (40) into two feature bundles, as in (43). Fission simplifies the complex articulation involving a total closure with a long constriction by sequencing it into two different simpler gestures: one in which total closure is associated with a shorter constriction and the other in which the long constriction is associated with a fricative release.

(43) x (= [tJ])

+ con + cons

l - cont] [ + cont] p ~~Laryngeal

[-voice] Place Place

Coronal Coronal

/ [ ~~~~~- ant]\ [-dist] [+ dist]

Observe that the representation in (43) is similar to that used by Clements and Keyser (1983), Clements (1989a), and Rosenthall (1988) to represent affricates. I propose that the segment obtained in (43) is the palatoalveolar affricate [tf]. (See Calabrese 1992a for more discussion of this.)24

24 The historical outcome of dental palatalization in Old Church Slavonic is the sequence [ft] (see Lunt 1974). In Calabrese 1992a,b, I analyze this outcome as a normal affrication case in which the expected order of the subcomponents of the fissioned structure is reversed, as in the case mentioned in footnote 18 where the sequence [ui] is found for [u] instead of the normal pronunciation [iu]. Thus, instead of appearing in the first subcomponent, the unmarked feature [- continuant] appears in the second. See Calabrese 1992a,b for more discussion.




All of the phenomena discussed so far can be satisfactorily accounted for only by a constraint-based approach in which marking of ill-formedness is separated from its repair. Now we will consider some phenomena that can be satisfactorily treated in an I-rule approach, and we will see that they can be adequately treated in a constraint- based approach as well. We can then conclude that the constraint-based approach can replace the I-rule-based one without any loss in explanatory power.

In the I-rule-based approach to phonological inventories, one function of the I-rules is that of allowing distributional restrictions observed in these inventories to interact with the effects of phonological rules. In this way, some of the changes involved in phonological alternations can be derived from the formal statements needed to account for distributional regularities in the inventories. A well-known case involving such interaction is vowel fronting in Chamorro, discussed in section 1. Chamorro does not have front rounded vowels. A rule of fronting applies to the vowels [u, o, a], which become [i, e, ae]. As discussed in section 1, in an I-rule-based approach, one assumes the I-rule (5), repeated here in (44), which is independently needed to account for the structure of the Chamorro vowel system. This rule applies to [u] and [o], which are the outputs of the application of rule (4) to [u] and [o], and changes them to [i] and [e].

(44) [ - back] -*[ - round]

In the constraint-based theory, one needs to say instead that the crucial feature of the Chamorro vowel inventory is that the marking statement [ - back, + round] is active, so that the configuration [-back, + round] is disallowed. When rule (4) applies to [u] and [o], it creates these disallowed configurations. Delinking L + round] applies as a simplification procedure to these disallowed configurations, giving [i] and [e]. The simplification procedures that have precisely the function of relating structural properties of the phoneme inventories to the differing effects of phonological rules apply to correct these disallowed configurations. In this sense, the model proposed here yields the same results in this case as the I-rule-based model.

To see how the constraint-based approach works, let us look at another case similar to Chamorro. Consider standard German, which has the vowel system shown in (45).

(45) i e a o u u o

high + - - - + + - low - - + - - - -

back - - + + + round - - - + + + +

To generate this vowel system, the marking statements Al and Cl must be deactivated, but, crucially, not B 1. The latter fact is important in explaining the effects of the grammat- ical umlaut rule that fronts stem vowels in a large variety of morphological contexts, as illustrated in (46).




(46) Plural formation Bruder - Bruder 'brother' Frucht - Fruchte 'fruit' Buch - Bucher 'book'

Vogel - Vogel 'bird' Sohn - Sohne 'son' Horn - Horner 'horn'

Vater - Vater 'father' Hand - Hande 'hand' Mann - Manner 'man'

The vowels [u, o] are [ + round, - back]. Observe that [a] represents a front vowel, which, contrary to expectations, is not [ + low, - back]. Rather, this vowel is [ - low] in most German dialects. Discussing this vowel, Sievers (1901:104) states that it is identical to that found in English men, pen, not to that found in English man.

As Sievers notes, standard German does not have the [+ low, - back] vowel. In terms of the constraint-based theoretical framework, this means that standard German does not pay the cost associated with deactivating the marking statement in B 1. This marking statement instead remains active and triggers Delinking as a simplification procedure. Delinking targets the feature specification [ + low] of the disallowed pair [ + low, -back] and replaces it with [ -low] as in (47).

(47) X (by (17)) X

[- cons] I- cons]

Place Place

Dorsal Dorsal

[+ low] [-low]

[ - back] [ - back]

This account holds up when extended to dialects that do not have the rounded front vowels [ui, o]. Such dialects (e.g., that of Berlin) systematically replace the front rounded vowels by [i, e]. In the formalism developed here, the marking statement that these dialects fail to deactivate is C1 ([- back, + round] / [ , - low]), and consequently Delinking of [ + round] is triggered so as to correct the forbidden feature complex. This provides a straightforward analysis of the umlaut facts. The umlaut rule of German is




basically similar to the fronting rule of Chamorro; also, the same marking statements ([ + low, - back], [ - back, + round] / [ , - low]) play a role in both languages. The only difference lies in which marking statement is deactivated: [+ low, - back] is deactivated in Chamorro, but not in German; [ - back, + round] / [ , - low] is deactivated in German, but not in Chamorro. This is strong evidence for the existence of these marking statements.

In the theory proposed here, feature configurations identified by active marking statements (i.e., those that have not been deactivated) are marked as ill formed. Thus, the active marking statements function like constraints marking ill-formed configurations. Now, in various current phonological theories (see Kiparsky 1985, Archangeli and Pul- leyblank 1994), constraints (filters) and I-rules (redundancy rules) are used in the same framework: I-rules account for segment structure regularities, and constraints block phonological rules that would violate these segment structure regularities. Thus, for example, consider a language R in which sonorants are always voiced and are not affected by a rule of devoicing present in R. In these theories, the I-rule in (48) must be introduced in order to account for the fact that all sonorants are voiced.

(48) [ + sonorant] -* [ + voice]

At the same time, the constraint in (49) must also be introduced to block application of the devoicing rule to the sonorants. This is necessary because the I-rule in (48) cannot by itself account for the failure of the devoicing rule to apply to sonorants.

(49) *[ + sonorant, - voice]

As observed by Mohanan (1991), and as I have observed in Calabrese 1988, 1993, this combination of I-rules and constraints is redundant. I-rules can always be derived from constraints, if the following principle is assumed:

(50) In a phonological system S, given the constraint *[oF, G], [- 3G] is predicted to occur in a feature bundle in S that contains [aF].

For example, given the constraint in (49), if the feature [ + sonorant] occurs in a feature bundle, then the feature [+ voice] is predicted to occur in that feature bundle. We thus derive the I-rule [ + sonorant] -- [ +voice]. In order to avoid this internal redundancy, we must choose between these two formalisms. We have seen that constraints marking certain configurations as ill formed are independently needed to account for several phonological phenomena. At the same time, these constraints can account for segment structure regularities. Therefore, I-rules should be eliminated from the theory.

In section 2 we saw that these constraints marking ill-formedness are not primitives of the theory, but are derived in a principled way: they are marking statements that are active in a given language. In this way, the theory of segment structure regularities is simply reduced to markedness theory.




4 Simplification of Phonological Inventories

In this section I explore some implications of the proposed theory. Recall that the configuration of features described by each marking statement is associated with a certain degree of complexity: configurations of features described by marking statements at higher positions in the hierarchy have a higher degree of complexity than configurations of features described by marking statements at lower positions in the hierarchy. For example, consider the three hierarchically ordered marking statements in (51) that represent part of branch A in (9) (see section 2 for discussion of the ordering between these marking statements).

(51) a. [-high, +ATR] Less complex b. [ + high, - ATR] c. [+low, +ATR] More complex

Given this hierarchy, the configuration [ + low, + ATR] has a higher degree of complexity than [ + high, - ATR], which in turn has a higher degree of complexity than [ - high, + ATR]. As a result, [ + high, - ATR] cannot be allowed unless [ - high, + ATR] is, and + low, + ATR] cannot be allowed unless the two other configurations are.25 This implies

that the four vowel systems in (52) are decreasingly less complex (where A =[+low, + ATRI).

(52) a. i u I

e o

A a

b. i u

e o

a

25 Obviously, the hierarchy in (51) must be grounded in phonetics. The idea behind (51) is that establishing a contrast in low vowels by using contrasting values for the feature [ATR] is acoustically/articulatorily less optimal than establishing such a contrast in high and mid vowels, and establishing a contrast in high vowels by using contrasting values for the feature [ATRI is acoustically/articulatorily less optimal than establishing such a contrast in mid vowels. This result is obtained by proposing that the use of the feature [ + ATR] in low vowels is perceptually less optimal than the use of the feature [ - ATR] in high vowels, and that the use of the feature [ - ATR] in high vowels is less optimal than the use of the feature [ + ATR] in mid vowels. Observe that there is no marking statement referring to the configuration [ - high, - ATR]. This indicates that [ - ATR] mid vowels are the least complex of the mid vowels and that one would expect to find them in a simple five- vowel system.




C. 1 U

e 0

C 3

a d. i u

C 3

a

Thus, (51) states that in the unmarked case, in order to have a contrast in [ATR] values in low vowels, there must be a contrast in [ATR] values in high vowels, and in order to have a contrast in [ATR] values in high vowels, there must be a contrast in [ATR] values in mid vowels. Systems that violate these implicational relationships can occur, but they will be marked as highly complex (see footnote 11).

A well-established hypothesis from the historical point of view is that there is a tendency toward simplifying phonological inventories. Given the hierarchy in (51), we should expect a tendency to eliminate configurations that are higher in the hierarchy and to preserve configurations that are lower. Support for this hypothesis comes from historical changes in several languages. For example, consider the Niger-Congo Kwa languages of Africa analyzed by Stewart (1972). Like those of most of the languages of central Africa, the vowel systems of these languages have a [+ / - ATR] opposition. Given a [+ / - ATR] opposition for each vowel, we derive the ten-vowel system in (53), where [A] is a [ + ATR] low vowel.

(53) [-ATRI [+ ATR] L v i u

C 3 e o a A

In a vowel system like this, all of the degrees of complexity in the configurations in (51) are allowed. From comparative analysis of the Niger-Congo Kwa languages, Stewart argues that the protolanguage from which these languages are derived had precisely the vowel system in (53).

As Stewart points out, however, only a few of the modem Kwa languages have such a system, where all of the marking statements in (5 1) are deactivated. Stewart shows that the [ + ATR] low vowel (a vowel with the configuration included in the marking statement in (51c)) and the [ - ATR] high vowels (vowels with the configuration included in the marking statement in (5 lb)) are commonly eliminated. Therefore, from a common ancestor that had the ten-vowel system in (53) descended languages whose vowel systems differ according to whether configurations of features included in the marking statements in (5 lb) or (Sic) or both are simplified. Crucially, if the configuration in (5 lb) is eliminated, the configuration in (51c) is also eliminated, but not vice versa. Thus, there is no Kwa language that has a [ + ATR] low vowel but no [ + ATR] high vowels.




It is interesting to see how these configurations of features were repaired. In some languages, Stewart observes, the [ + ATR] low vowel is replaced with its [ - ATR] counterpart, and in others the [ - ATR] high vowels are replaced with their [ + ATR] counterparts. There are also languages in which the [ + ATR] low vowel is replaced by a [ + ATR] mid vowel and/or in which the [ - ATR] high vowels are replaced by their [ - ATR] mid counterparts. The most interesting fact that Stewart observes is that quite commonly, the [ + ATR] low vowel is replaced with a [- ATR] mid vowel, and the [-ATR] high vowels are replaced with their [ + ATR] mid counterparts.

The constraint-based theory can account for these phonological changes quite simply. I assume that these changes were brought about by decreasing the complexity allowed by the grammars of these languages in branch A of (9). In particular, the marking statements in (51b) and (51c), which are higher in the UG filter hierarchy and which were deactivated in the protolanguage, are now reactivated. Crucially, (5ib) cannot be reactivated without also reactivating (51c), given their ordering on the same branch. When the marking statements in (Sib) and (51c) were reactivated, the configurations of features [ + low, + ATR], [ + high, - ATR] became disallowed and had to be repaired. Groups of speakers repaired these disallowed configurations differently by resorting to Delinking of [ATRI, Delinking of [high] or [low], and Negation, as in (54). This created a situation of dialectal variation that is reflected in the different Kwa languages.

(54) a. A a (Delinking of [+ ATR]) , v i, u (Delinking of [ - ATR])

b. A e (Delinking of [+low]) L, v , 0 (Delinking of [+ high])

c. A e (Negation) L, v -* e, o (Negation)

Thus, the changes found in the Kwa languages can be accounted for very simply and elegantly by the theory of simplification procedures and the idea that decreasing the complexity allowed by a grammar is a possible linguistic change.

The same pattern of reductions occurred in another African language family, Edoid (see Elugbe 1982, 1989, Archangeli and Pulleyblank 1994) and in the Tungusic languages (see Vaux 1992). In both language families, the development of the different daughter languages from the protolanguage can be characterized as in (55), where the arrows represent the possible evolutions of the individual vowels.

(55) j u

e 1 o

a




Notice that the vowels that were eliminated from the protolanguage were the [+ high, - ATR] [, v] and the [ + low, + ATR] [A] and that the different reflexes of these vowels are similar to those found in the modern Kwa languages. In this case as well, the reflexes of the [+ high, - ATR] [L, v] and the [ + low, + ATR] [A] are predicted by the theory of simplification procedures proposed here.

I maintain that unconditioned sound changes that lead to changes in a phonological inventory are always the result of decreasing the complexity in that inventory. The prediction is then that these sound changes should result in the elimination of classes of segments that are complex according to the UG filter hierarchy. This prediction can be empirically verified.

5 Surfacing of Complex Configurations

There are many cases in which complex configurations of features are allowed to surface without being repaired, that is, many cases in which a marking statement that is active in underlying representations is deactivated at a later stage. This possibility must obviously be considered, given that allophones are allowed and that phonological inventories may change by phonemicizing these allophones. Allophones are introduced into a language by rules that create feature configurations disallowed by some active marking statements of that language. These marking statements are obviously deactivated in this case. Phonological inventories can also acquire new segments through borrowing. In this case as well, we are dealing with configurations of features mentioned in marking statements previously active in those inventories. If marking statements could never be deactivated, the possibility of allophones and of innovation in phonological inventories could not be accounted for.

The problem is to understand the conditions under which marking statements are deactivated. Let us consider a concrete case. As shown in (56), in several southern Italian dialects a phonological process of laxing in closed syllables, which historically applied after the metaphony rule (see section 3), created the surface configuration [+high, - ATR] without its output being repaired by simplification procedures (data from Lu- cano; see Lausberg 1939, Rohlfs 1966).

(56) [ +ATR] [-ATR] kudo 'tail' kvnta 'account' spiso 'purchase' tfLttt 'silent'

Thus, in these dialects the degree of complexity of the configuration [ +high, - ATRI created by the laxing rule was accepted; in other words, the marking statement [+ high, - ATR] was deactivated.

How can we account for this fact? The first possibility that comes to mind is this. Suppose that certain phonotactic factors may favor a configuration with a relatively high degree of complexity. The idea is that the phonotactic configuration may contextually




decrease the complexity of certain segmental configurations. Thus, for example, let us hypothesize that there is a UG condition that makes [ - ATR] vowels highly valued in closed syllables-a well-founded hypothesis, given the number of languages that implement such a condition and the fact that there are phonetic grounds for assuming it. Therefore, if a rule is introduced in the grammar of a language that implements this condition by laxing vowels in closed syllables, we may expect that [?+high, - ATR] vowels will be allowed to surface despite their inherent complexity. Simply put, the premium value of the phonotactic constraint on lax vowels in closed syllables leads to a contextual decrease in the inherent complexity of that configuration. This could account for the appearance of [+ high, - ATR] vowels in southern Italian dialects. Also, there are no conditions that plausibly favor the appearance of [ - ATR] vowels in a metaphonic context, and therefore vowels with the degree of complexity of the configuration [+ high, - ATR] are not allowed to surface in that context.

However, I propose a different account. Nothing in the framework proposed here prohibits the appearance of the configuration [+ high, - ATR] as the output of a phonological process at a certain point in the historical development of the languages in question. The theory predicts only that there should be a tendency to avoid the appearance of this configuration; in other words, a grammar that prohibits the appearance of this configuration should be valued more highly than a grammar that allows it. Thus, the theory predicts that we could also find an Italian dialect in which the application of the metaphony rule could have produced a high [- ATR] vowel. However, this situation should be considered complex, and there should be a tendency in this dialect to eliminate the [ + high, - ATR] vowels that are thus produced. We saw cases in which such vowels were eliminated in diachronic processes in section 3. It is essential to assume as a fact about language and human nature that the degree of complexity accepted in individual speech may oscillate, across time in a given language as well as across languages. Only if we accept the possibility of such oscillations can we account both for the existence of allophonic alternations and for how the number of phonological oppositions increases in phonological systems. Otherwise, languages would always remain the same. From a synchronic point of view, this means that when a conflict arises in a phonological derivation between a syntagmatic configuration brought about by a phonological rule or condition and an active marking statement, one of the options that speakers have is simply to deactivate the marking statement. Therefore, I assume that in the case of the dialects mentioned above, when the configuration + high, - ATR] is created by the rule of laxing in closed syllables, the relevant marking statement is deactivated. As a result, the configuration [+ high, - ATR] is allowed to surface.26

26 In Optimality Theory (see Prince and Smolensky 1993, McCarthy and Prince 1993), the same result would be obtained by constraint ranking-the allophone surfaces because there is a higher-ranking constraint that forces it to. In other words, the result obtained here by deactivating one constraint that conflicts with another constraint is obtained in Optimality Theory by reranking the former constraint with respect to the latter. The theoretical and empirical consequences of these conceptual differences will not be explored here.




Thus, we can say that when a phonological rule generates a configuration of features that is normally not admitted in a language, the language has two options: first, to simplify the segment containing the disallowed configuration by applying a simplification procedure; second, to deactivate the relevant marking statement, thereby admitting the previously excluded configuration of features. Under this option, the language accepts paying the cost of deactivating the relevant marking statement and enlarging its segmental inventory.27

Finally, as shown in Calabrese 1988, 1993, simplification procedures may create configurations that do not belong to the underlying inventory, although they are less complex than the input configurations. The function of the simplification procedures is not to preserve the underlying inventory of segments by eliminating all configurations of features that violate active marking statements, but to prevent an increase in the complexity of a phonological system by repairing complex configurations of features.

6 Asymmetric Behavior of Features in Phonological Processes

It is well known that in many phonological processes, certain features behave differently from others. Thus, for example, many phonological processes are sensitive to the feature [+ voice] of voiced obstruents as a trigger or as a blocker but not to the [- voice] of voiceless obstruents or the [+voice] of sonorants. Since Trubetzkoy 1939, it has been agreed that this asymmetric behavior should be connected to the fact that the first feature is marked in comparison to the other two. The markedness of [ +voice] with respect to [- voice] in obstruents is shown by the fact that the presence of voiced obstruents requires the presence of voiceless obstruents in a consonantal system. At the same time, the markedness of the feature [ + voice] of voiced obstruents in comparison to the feature [ + voice] of sonorants is shown by the fact that whereas voicing tends to be unpredictable in the case of obstruents, it is typically predictable in the case of sonorants. Any adequate theory of markedness should account for the asymmetric behavior of marked features in phonological processes. In this section I will try to account for this asymmetric behavior in the context of the theory of markedness outlined previously.

A well-known example of the asymmetric behavior of [ + voice] in feature bundles is found in Japanese (Ito and Mester 1986). As illustrated in (57), Japanese is subject to a rule, known as Rendaku, that voices a word-initial obstruent when the word is the second element of a compound.

27 It is interesting to consider the conception of sound change that derives from these proposals. Suppose that an individual innovates by introducing a new form that violates an active marking statement. It is proposed here that the presence of this violation is not by itself sufficient for other speakers, or children (if they do play a role in sound change), to deactivate the relevant marking statement. In fact, some individuals might still repair this violation, because the deactivation of that marking statement would lead to a situation that would be too complex for them, for whatever reason. A sound change must therefore be decomposed into two phases: an innovation produced by a speaker and the reception of this innovation by other speakers. If an innovation produces a violation of a marking statement, the form may still be repaired in the reception phase.




(57) ori kami ori gami 'paper folding' ori kami tana ori gami dana 'origami shelf' ori kami tana t(s)ukuri ori gami dana d(z)ukuri 'origami shelf making'

Rendaku does not take place when the second word contains a voiced obstruent as in (58). This overriding condition is known as Lyman's Law.

(58) a. kami kaze *kami gaze 'divine wind'

b. siro tabi *siro dabi 'white tabi'

Observe, now, that the presence of a sonorant inside the second word does not interfere with Rendaku, although a sonorant is [ + voice], as we can see in (57), where the presence of [m] in kami and [n] in tana does not interfere with Rendaku.

Regardless of whether Lyman's Law is a rule of Japanese phonology or an output condition on the application of Rendaku, to produce the correct effects we must say that Lyman's Law is not sensitive to the value [+ voice] of sonorants but only to the value [?+voice] of voiced obstruents. This is supported by the fact that Lyman's Law applies when two voiced obstruents are separated by a sonorant, as shown in (59).

(59) taikutsu sinogi > taikutsu sinogi 'time killing' *taikutsu jinogi

Lyman's Law is also not sensitive to the feature [-voice] of voiceless obstruents, as shown in (60).

(60) onna kotoba onna kotoba 'feminine speech' *onna gotoba

The presence of the voiceless [t] between the voiced [g] and [b] does not prevent the application of Lyman's Law. As in the case of the feature [1+voice] of sonorants, we must account for this fact by assuming that Lyman's Law is not sensitive to the feature [- voice] of obstruents. Thus, Lyman's Law is sensitive only to the marked feature [+ voice] of voiced obstruents, not to the unmarked features [- voice] of voiceless obstruents and [ + voice] of sonorants.

In addition to the asymmetry between marked and unmarked features, a more basic asymmetry between contrastive and redundant values has also been observed. Steriade (1987) has shown that the features that are contrastive in a segment can be either triggers or blockers of many phonological processes, whereas features that are redundant often cannot. This distinction is usually accounted for by assuming the principle in (61) (see Steriade 1987, Clements 1987).




(61) Underlying representations may not contain predictable feature specifications.

From (61) it follows that contrastive features are underlyingly specified, whereas redundant features are underlyingly unspecified. The asymmetric behavior of contrastive and redundant features in phonological processes is then accounted for by assuming that these phonological processes apply to underlying representations. Thus, they will be sensitive only to the contrastive features, which are underlyingly specified, but not to the redundant features, which are underlyingly unspecified.

Along the same lines, the case of the asymmetry between marked and unmarked [voice] specifications in Japanese could be accounted for by extending (61) as in (62).

(62) Underlying representations may contain neither predictable feature specifications nor unmarked ones.

To account for the Japanese facts, we then have to assume that Lyman's Law applies to underlying representations. If we assume that [ + voice] is a marked feature, only the feature [ + voice] of voiced obstruents would be underlyingly specified, whereas [ - voice] of voiceless obstruents and [ + voice] of sonorants would instead be unspecified and later filled in by the rules in (63)-(64).

(63) [ + sonorant] > [+ voice] (for redundant features)

(64) [ ] > [- voice] (for contrastive, but unmarked features)

Lyman's Law would then apply to representations like the following, where the feature [ + voice] of [n] in (65) and the feature [- voice] of [t] in (66) are unspecified (only the [voice] tier is represented):

(65) s i n o g i I

[+ voice]

(66) k o t o b a I

+ voice]

If Lyman's Law is a rule of Japanese phonology, it can be stated as a rule that delinks the first of two adjacent [+voice] specifications. Thus, it would apply to the forms in (67)-(68) produced by the application of Rendaku.

(67) j i n o g i I I

[+ voice] [ + voice]

(68) g o t o b a I I

[+ voice] [ + voice]




If Lyman's Law is actually a condition that blocks the presence of two adjacent [ + voice] features, it will block the assignment of the feature [? voice] to the first consonant of the forms in (65)-(66) by Rendaku. In both cases, we would obtain the forms in (69)-(70).

(69) s i n o g i I

[+ voice]

(70) kotoba I

[+ voice]

The application of (63) and (64) would then produce the forms in (7l)-(72).

(71) s i n o g i I I I

[- voice] [+ voice] [+ voice] (72) k o t o b a

I I I - voice] [ - voice] [ + voice]

This gives us a straightforward account of the facts. There is, however, a problem with this account pointed out by Ito, Mester, and

Padgett (to appear). In Japanese, obstruents are always voiced after a nasal in both underived and derived environments, as in (73).

(73) a. tombo 'dragonfly' cf. *tompo sindoi 'tired' cf. *sintoi unzari 'disgusted' cf. *unsari kaUgae 'thought' cf. *kaijkae

b. kam + te kande 'chewing' sin + te - sinde 'dying'

We must then postulate a rule of postnasal voicing for Japanese that spreads the feature [ + voice] of nasals onto a following obstruent. Observe now that Lyman's Law is sensitive to the [+ voice] specification of the obstruent voiced by the rule of postnasal voicing, as in (74).

(74) sirooto + kaigae s-irootokaigae 'layman's idea' *sirootogaigae

Two problems for underspecification theory arise from the fact that Lyman's Law is sensitive to the feature [ + voice] of the postnasal obstruent in (74). First, since the feature [+ voice] of this obstruent is predictable by rule, it should be unspecified (by principle




(62)) and thus invisible to Lyman's Law. Second, there is an ordering paradox: given that Lyman's Law is sensitive to the feature [+ voice] of the voiced obstruent produced by postnasal voicing, this rule must apply before Rendaku. Therefore, the feature [ + voice] of the nasals that triggers the rule of postnasal voicing must be present before Rendaku applies. However, given underspecification theory, the redundant feature [ + voice] of the nasals cannot be present when Rendaku applies since Lyman's Law is not sensitive to it (recall (59)). No clear solution to these two problems is possible in an approach based on principles like those in (61) and (62).28

Moreover, Mohanan (1991) (also see Steriade 1995) shows that assuming principle (61), and therefore also (62), leads to insurmountable theoretical difficulties; he therefore argues for rejecting it and for assuming fully specified underlying representations. In particular, he points out that the assumption that predictable information is underlyingly unspecified leads to a major problem in situations where two types of information are mutually dependent. A typical case is the dependency between syllable structure and segment structure: given syllable structure information, we can predict segment structure information, and given segment structure information, we can predict syllable structure information. Now, if we assume that predictable information is underlyingly unspecified, the following contradiction arises. Syllable structure should be underlyingly unspecified because it is predictable from segment structure. It should then be built up by a syllabification procedure. This syllabification procedure crucially requires that the segmental features that define the sonority scale like [consonantal], [sonorant], [nasal], [continuant], and [high], or [voice] and [coronal], should be underlyingly specified. At the same time, some of these very features should be underlyingly unspecified because they are predictable from syllable structure. Given (61), then, certain features that must be specified to build up syllable structure must at the same time be unspecified because they are predictable from syllable structure. For example, in an English trisegmental onset cluster like [str] the feature [ + sonorant] of [r] should be unspecified because it is predictable in that syllabic position; but at the same time it should be specified because it is needed to build up syllable structure. Since principle (61) clearly leads to a contradiction, we can conclude that it is incorrect. This problem can be solved if segment structure is always fully specified underlyingly, independently of whether or not certain features are predictable from syllable structure. (See Mohanan 1991 for a detailed discussion of other evidence against underspecification.)29

28 lt6, Mester, and Padgett (to appear) attempt to solve these two problems in the framework of Optimality Theory. Their solution, which still relies on underspecification, will not be discussed here.

29 Following Steriade (1987), it is important to make a distinction between "trivial" and "nontrivial" underspecification. We say that a segment is trivially underspecified for a given node in the feature tree if it is underlyingly underspecified for it, and if it will not acquire a specification for it at any stage of the derivation. This type of underspecification is due to the inherent properties of feature geometry. In contrast, a segment is nontrivially underspecified for a given node if it is underlyingly underspecified for the node, and if it must acquire a specification for it in the course of the derivation. The nodes of a segmental tree that are trivially underspecified are those that are not activated at any stage of the derivation of this segment, that is, given Halle's (1995) revised theory of feature geometry, nondesignated articulators together with all their dependents




Clements (1993b) and Odden (1992) provide further evidence that assuming underspecification of underlying representations leads to arbitrary and contradictory choices. I propose, following Mohanan (1991), that the simplest solution to all these problems is assuming that underlying representations are fully specified.

If we make this assumption, then the problem arises of accounting for the asymmetry between contrastive and noncontrastive features, and for that between marked and unmarked features mentioned above.

Let us assume that underspecification is a property, not of representations, but of rules-that is, that representations are always fully specified ((61) does not exist in the grammar), but rules can be characterized as being sensitive only to certain feature specifications. In particular, rules can be sensitive only to the three classes of feature specifications in (13), repeated here as (77).

(77) All feature specifications

Contrastive feature specifications

Marked feature specifications

Thus, certain phonological rules and conditions have access to only marked feature specifications, others to only contrastive feature specifications, and still others to all types of feature specifications. Here I deal only with the first two types.

It has long been known that there is a necessary distinction between rules sensitive to contrastive features and rules sensitive to marked features. In fact, this distinction lies at the heart of various theories of underspecification: theories of nonradical underspecification advocate that rules and representations deal exclusively with contrastive features (Steriade 1987, Clements 1987), whereas theories of radical underspecification advocate that lexical representations of morphemes contain only marked features (Kipar- sky 1981, 1982, Archangeli 1984, 1988, Pulleyblank 1986). My proposal is that markedness and contrastiveness of features are to be captured by marking statements rather than by underspecification.

and articulators not dominating terminal features. Thus, a labial is trivially underspecified for the Coronal node, or for the feature [anterior] dominated by the Coronal node, since this node is not activated in labials at any stage of the derivation. In contrast, coronals are nontrivially underspecified for the terminal node [anterior] since they must receive a specification for [anterior] in the course of the derivation, if they are underlyingly underspecified for it.

Rejecting underspecification means rejecting only nontrivial underspecification. Trivial underspecification is obviously preserved in a model based on fully specified underlying representations, since it is inherent to the theory of feature geometry.




Consider rules that have access only to contrastive feature specifications. These rules ignore noncontrastive feature specifications, since these specifications are not visible to them. As discussed in section 2 (but see (120) for a formal definition), in the theory of inventories outlined here, the status of a feature specification as contrastive in a given inventory is determined by which marking statements are active or inactive in the inventory. (Prohibitions function as active marking statements.) Thus, basically, a feature specification is contrastive under two conditions: if it is the unmarked feature [otF1 of a marking statement [cxF, PiG], or if it is either the marked feature specification [G] of a deactivated marking statement [axF, ?G] or its opposite value [- ,BG]. (An exception to this statement will be discussed in detail in section 7.) Otherwise, a feature specification is noncontrastive.

The dissimilation of laterals in the suffix -alis in Latin (Steriade 1987) illustrates a rule of this type. Following a stem with no lateral, the suffix appears as -alis, which I will suppose to be its underlying form.

(78) a. nav-alis 'naval' b. semin-alis 'seminal'

However, following a stem containing a lateral, the suffix appears as -aris.

(79) a. sol-aris 'solar' b. Lati-aris 'of Latium' c. milit-aris 'military' d. line-aris 'linear'

The interesting and important fact here is that the presence of an [r] between the two laterals blocks the application of the rule.

(80) a. litor-alis 'of the shore' b. flor-alis 'floral' c. sepulchr-alis 'funereal'

Only [r]-no other sonorant or coronal-can block the application of the dissimilation rule, as can be observed by comparing (79) with (80).

How can we explain this fact? The use of the feature [+lateral] in consonants is governed by the marking statements in (81) and by the prohibitions in (82).30

(81) a. [+ sonorant, + lateral] b. - sonorant, + lateral]

(82) a. *[+ nasal, + lateral] b. *[ - consonantal, + lateral]

30 The two prohibitions in (82) are motivated by the fact that there are no languages with contrastive lateral nasals or lateral vowels. In contrast, a marking statement is needed to account for the use of the feature [lateral] in obstruents, as in (81b), since there are languages that have contrastive lateral obstruents.




In Latin, as in many other languages, only (81a) is deactivated. Thus, a contrast in laterality does not arise in Latin in the case of nonliquid consonants, and the distinction [ + / - lateral] can be relevant only in the case of liquids (i.e., nonnasal sonorants). Then, only the feature specification [ - lateral] characterizing the nonnasal sonorant [r] is contrastive. The feature specification [ - lateral] characterizing vowels, nasal sonorants, and obstruents is instead noncontrastive.

If the above-mentioned proposal for dealing with the insensitivity of certain rules to redundant feature specifications is correct, the phenomenon of lateral dissimilation in Latin may be analyzed by proposing the following rule of dissimilation that is sensitive only to contrastive feature specifications:

(83) a. Access contrastive feature specifications. b. [ + lateral] -*[ - lateral] / [ + lateral] in the suffix -alis

The rule applies on the tier where the feature [lateral] is placed, and it is sensitive to adjacent specifications for [lateral]. We can therefore analyze (79a) in the following way (only the [lateral] tier is considered). The underlying representation of (79a) is given in (84). The rule in (83) sees the two adjacent contrastive specifications [+ lateral], as in (85), and consequently changes the second into [- lateral].

(84) s o 1 - a 1 i s

I I I I I I [-lat] t at] I + lat] lat] [+ lat] [ -lat] [-lat]

(85) s o l- a l i s (by (83b))> s o a r s

+ lat][ + lat] [+ lat][ - lat]

We can now explain the difference between floralis and militaris. They have the following fully specified representations:

(86) f 1 o r - a 1 i s

[-lat] [+ lat] [-lat] [ - lat] [-lat] [ + lat] [ - lat] [ - lat]

(87) m i I i t - a 1 i s

I I I I I I I I I [-lat] I - lat] [ + lat] [ - lat] [-lat] [ - lat] [ + lat] [ - lat] [-lat]

Given that rule (83) has access only to contrastive feature values for [lateral], it is sensitive to the [- lateral] specification of [r], but not [t], as represented in (88).

(88) a. f 1 o r - a l i s I I I

[+lat] [-lat] [+lat]




b. m i I i t - a l i s I I

[+ lat] [+ lat]

In (88a) the conditions required for the application of the dissimilation rule in (83) are not met: because of the feature [ - lateral] associated with [r], the two features [ + lateral] are not adjacent. In (88b) they are adjacent since the rule does not see the feature [- lateral] of [t]; therefore, (83) applies. (See section 7 for other cases of rules sensitive to contrastive feature specifications.)

Earlier it was proposed that UG must formally distinguish rules and conditions for which only marked feature specifications are visible from rules and conditions for which contrastive feature specifications are visible. We have just discussed the latter case; now let us look at the former.

Lyman's Law is a prime example of a rule/condition sensitive to marked feature specifications. If it is a rule, it can be formulated as in (89).

(89) a. Access marked feature specification. b. X X

+ I + voice] [ + voice]

If it is a condition, it can be stated as in (90).

(90) a. Access marked feature specification. b. X X

I I [+ voice] [+ voice]

Given the marking statements [ - sonorant, + voice] and [+ sonorant, - voice], the feature [ + voice] of voiced obstruents is marked, but the features [ + voice] of sonorants and [-voice] of voiceless obstruents are not. Since Lyman's Law is sensitive only to marked [ + voice] specifications, it will be sensitive to the former feature, but not to the latter two, which it will therefore disregard. This produces the correct results.

Now, we saw earlier that Lyman's Law is sensitive not only to the [ + voice] specification of underlying voiced obstruents, but also to the voice specification of voiced obstruents derived by the rule of postnasal voicing. I mentioned this as a major problem for underspecification theory, which cannot provide any direct solution.

For the theory proposed here, however, no such problem arises. The only thing we have to say is that the rule of postnasal voicing applies before Rendaku. Given that we are dealing with fully specified representations, the feature [ +voice] of nasals is there and can be spread onto the following obstruent by this rule. Postnasal voicing will create the configuration in (91) for a word such as kande 'chewing'. (I consider only the relevant features, but remember that we are dealing with a fully specified representation.)




(91) ... n d ... x x

l + cons X| + cons

-+son J [-son J

[+ voice] [+ nasal] L-nasal]

The feature [ + voice] is linked both to the nasal and to the stop and thus belongs to the feature bundles of both consonants. Now, although [ + voice] in (90) is unmarked in the feature bundle of the nasal, it is marked in the feature bundle of the stop. Since it is marked in the latter feature bundle, it will be visible to Lyman's Law and will trigger it. Thus, the feature specification [ + voice] of obstruents will always trigger Lyman's Law regardless of whether it is underlying or derived by rule.

Interestingly, given this analysis of Lyman's Law, we can account for the peculiar pattern of assimilation among sonorants that is found in Toba Batak.

Toba Batak (see Hayes 1986, Rice and Avery 1991) displays the following assimilation in clusters of adjacent sonorants:31

" A similar pattern of assimilation is also found in Latin, where a process of assimilation affected clusters of sonorants. As shown by the examples in (i) (Niedermann 1953:138), a nasal assimilates to a following liquid and a rhotic to a following lateral, but a liquid does not assimilate to a following nasal. (Clusters of a lateral followed by a rhotic are not attested.)

(i) nr - rr corripio (from *conripi6) 'I seize' irrigo (from *inrig6) 'I irrigate'

nl 11 colloquium (from *conloquium) 'conversation' homullus (from *homunlos < homonelos) 'little man'

rl 11 pellicio (from *perlicio) 'I allure, entice' ampulla (from *ampurla < *amporela) 'flask, bottle'

rn rn cerno (from *cerno) 'I separate' sperno (from *sperno) 'I remove'

The behavior of the cluster [ml shows that the assimilation goes from right to left, as in Toba Batak. A special assimilation process, however, needs to be postulated for clusters of a lateral followed by a nasal where the nasal assimilates to the following lateral.

(ii) ln 11 toll o (from *tolno5) 'I lift up' pello (from *pelno) 'I push'




(92) nn nn rn rn In In nr rr rr rr Ir Ir Ir nl 11 rl ll ll ll

Underspecification induced by principle (62) cannot help us account for the Toba Batak pattern observed in (92). Consider the feature specification of the sonorants [n, 1, r].

(93) n r 1 consonantal + + + sonorant + + + nasal + - - lateral - - +

Both the feature specifications [+ nasal] of nasals and [ - lateral] of rhotics are unpredictable, contrastive features. Therefore, a rule sensitive only to unpredictable, contrastive values should be sensitive to those feature specifications. This is not the case, however, as we see in (92). Both features are undergoers but not triggers of the assimilation process. Clearly, they must not be visible to the assimilation rule.

Here I will propose that (a) the assimilation rule applying to sonorants in Toba Batak is sensitive only to marked features and (b) the feature specifications [+ nasal] of nasals and [- lateral] of rhotics, although contrastive, are unmarked. As we will see, this produces a straightforward account of the Toba Batak data.

First we need to establish the hierarchy of feature configurations for sonorant systems. Consider nasals first. It is plausible that nasals are the unmarked sonorants. All sonorant systems have at least one nasal (see Ferguson 1966, Maddieson 1984).32 Nasals appear before liquids in language acquisition (see Jakobson 1941, Smith 1973); this indicates that the presence of liquids implies the presence of nasals, and it argues for the unmarked status of the latter. However, no quantitative evidence is available showing that liquids can occur only if nasals are already present in sonorant systems. Maddieson (1984) observes that liquid systems are always expanded by the introduction of a lateral and not a rhotic, and that if a language has only one liquid, it will most probably be a rhotic. We can then say that rhotics are the unmarked liquids. If these observations are correct, we can assume that the following three hierarchically ordered marking statements govern the structure of sonorant systems:33

(94) a. [ + consonantal, + sonorant] b. [ + sonorant, - nasal] / [ , + consonantal] c. [+ sonorant, +lateral] / [ , + consonantal]

32 Complete absence of nasals is reported in a few languages, mostly in the northwest coast area of North America. This absence can be considered an accidental gap resulting from idiosyncratic historical changes (see section 9 on accidental gaps).

3 As mentioned in footnote 30, the degree of complexity of the configuration [ + nasal, + lateral] is never allowed. This configuration is blocked by the prohibition *[ +nasal, +lateral].




If a language deactivates just (94a), only nasals are allowed. Thus, only the feature [ + sonorant] is marked in the feature bundle of nasals; [ + nasal], [- lateral] are unmarked as well as noncontrastive in their feature bundle, since the two configurations in (94b) and (94c) are not deactivated, as in (95) (marked features are underlined).

(95) [+ consonantal] [ + sonorant] [+ nasal] [ - lateral]

Given (94), the system is expanded by deactivating the marking statement in (94b). Rhot- ics are thus introduced into the system. When this occurs, the feature [- nasal] of rhotics is marked, as shown in (96).

(96) [+ consonantal] [+ sonorant] [- nasal] [- lateral]

Now consider what happens to the feature [+nasal] of nasals when rhotics are introduced. Given that the marking statement in (94b) is now deactivated, this feature becomes contrastive, as discussed above. However, it is not marked because no marking statement refers to it.

When the marking statement in (94c) is deactivated and laterals are introduced into the system, the feature [+ lateral] is marked in the feature bundle of these segments, as in (97).

(97) [+ consonantal] [ + sonorant] [- nasal] [+lateral]

Next consider the feature [-lateral] of rhotics. This feature is now contrastive, given that the marking statement in (94c) is deactivated. It is, however, unmarked because no marking statement refers to it.

We thus have the following marked features in sonorant systems:

(98) [- nasal] in the context of [ + sonorant] [+ lateral] in the context of [ + sonorant]

The Toba Batak data can now be accounted for very simply. Toba Batak deactivates all the marking statements in (94). It also contains the very

simple rule in (99) that spreads the marked feature of sonorants onto a preceding sonorant.




(99) a. Spread only marked feature specifications. b. XI X2

+ cons + cons ?+son J [+son J

[aF]

The rule operates on fully specified representations and spreads only marked feature specifications. Observe, however, that only the features mentioned in the focus of the rule must be marked; other features found in the structural description of the rule are not. This is the case of the feature [ + consonantal] in (99). Another case of this type will be discussed below. This means that the notion "Access only marked features" can be localized to a particular part of the rule. The possibility of referring to marked and unmarked features in the same rule is an important characteristic of the model outlined here and allows a flexibility not possible in underspecification theory.

As part of the account, we must assume the convention in (100), a corollary of the Shared Feature Convention of Steriade (1982), that automatically merges two adjacent Root nodes if they dominate the same feature and do not have different feature specifications-a very plausible operation.

(100) Faconsi Faconsi Facons [bson J bson J bsonJ

[oF] oLF] [oaF]

[3G] [3G]

Now, (101) shows how rule (99) works, and how convention (100) applies to the different sequences of sonorants, by having access only to the marked features in their representations.

(101) a. nr-* rr XI x2 XI x2

(by (100))

[ + cons 1 + cons 1 + cons1 +son J [+son J -+son J

[- nasal] [ - nasal]




b. nl- 11

XI X2 XI X2

(by (100))

L + cons 1 + cons 1 + cons1 -+son - +son - +son

t lat] + lat]

- nasal] 1- nasal]

c. rl- 11

XI X2 XI X2 (by (100))

+ cons 1 + consi + consi E+son - [+son J +son l

+ lat] [+ lat]

[- nasal] L - nasal] [- nasal]

d. Ir > Ir

XI X, 2 (no application of (99))

E+ cons +con -+son - F+son J

[+lat]

- nasal] [- nasal]




e. In -In

XI X2 (no application of (99))

+ consl + cons [+son J + son

[+ lat]

[ - nasal]

The absence of a given feature in (101) is to be interpreted as indicating that the rule requires that any "visible" (i.e., marked in this case) specification of this feature cannot be present in its target. Thus, the rule fails to spread the feature [-nasal] in (IO1c) and (lOld) because the target contains a marked [-nasal].

The peculiar pattern of assimilation of Toba Batak sonorants can therefore be explained in a very simple way.

It is important to stress that, in the case of rules specified as accessing only marked feature specifications, the unmarked feature specifications are indeed present in the representation undergoing these rules; there is no underspecification in the theory proposed here. However, given that these phonological rules focus their "attention" only on the marked feature specifications, the unmarked counterparts of these feature specifications cannot participate actively and will always be overwritten by them. This implies that unmarked feature specifications cannot trigger these rules and can only undergo them. Thus, the marked feature specifications spread by these rules will always replace the unmarked specification of the target. In this sense, observe that the feature-filling rules of underspecification theories are typically rules that are sensitive to marked feature specifications. These rules can only be triggered by marked feature specifications and will always overwrite unmarked feature specifications. On the other hand, rules that are sensitive to contrastive feature specifications are typically feature-changing iterative rules. For reasons discussed in section 9, these rules are not able to replace/overwrite the noncontrastive values of their target since their application in that case will always be blocked.

A nice example of the same rule being sensitive to either contrastive or marked feature specifications is provided by labial attraction, a phenomenon shared by several Altaic languages of central Asia. Labial Attraction is a rule that rounds suffixal low vowels when immediately preceded by a round vowel. Vaux (1993) observes that five basic types of labial attraction are found in these languages. In type 1 all rounded vowels trigger it. In type 2 only the fronted rounded vowels [iu] and [o] and the low rounded




vowel [o] trigger it. In type 3 only the front rounded vowels [u] and [o] trigger it. In both types 2 and 3 the vowel [u] is not a trigger. In type 4 only nonhigh rounded vowels are triggers and targets of the rule. In type 5 only the low rounded vowel [o] triggers it. These five basic types are schematized in (102) (from Vaux 1993).

(102) Types of labial attraction

Triggers Languages 1 {3 5 u iu} Kirghiz 2 {t 5 u} Altay, Shor, Kazan Tatar 3 {s u} Kazakh, Karakalpak, Chulym Tatar, Nogay,

Kyzyl Khakass 4 {o s} Yakut, Buryat, Khalkha 5 {3} Udi, Evenki, western Even, Oroch

If we set aside type 4, which has peculiar features of its own extensively studied by Steriade (1979, 1987), the typology in (102) can be derived in the following way. Let us suppose that Labial Attraction is formulated as in (103).

(103) N N

x x

[ - cons] [ - cons]

Labial Labial Dorsal

[ + round] [ + low]

The difference between types 1 and 2 involves the status of the feature specifications that are the target of the rule. All of the languages having these two types of labial attraction have the vowel system in (104).

(104) i u i u e 5 a o

This vowel system has the contrastive and marked specification assignments in (105), given that the marking statements B1, Cl, Dl, and El of (9) are deactivated (marked feature specifications are enclosed in a circle, contrastive ones in a square). (See section 7 for more discussion on the assignment of contrastive/marked status to the feature specifications in (105).)




(105) i u e 5 a i i u high T1 Fl --E low - R+ R R P - _ back R El El round El R- R F 1 ATR + + - - - - + +

We can then characterize the difference between types 1 and 2 by saying that whereas in type 1 the rule in (103) has access only to contrastive [+ round] specifications, in type 2 this rule has access only to marked [+ round] specifications. Type 3 is accounted for by assuming that [?], [5], and [o] in these languages are not low vowels but actually mid vowels. Thus, the marking statements El and B 1 are not deactivated in these languages. Instead, the marking statement Al is deactivated, in addition to Cl and Dl, resulting in the contrastive and marked specification assignments in (106). (See section 7 for more discussion on the assignments of contrastive/marked status to the feature specifications in (106).)

(106) i u e 5 a 0 i u

high low back El - El El + R+ F1 F round El - 1 El F+1 ATR + + - - - - + +

Type 5 is easily explained if we consider that it is present only in languages like the Tungusic ones that do not have front rounded vowels (e.g., Evenki, which has the six vowels [i, c, a, 3, o, u]). If we assume that [o] is the rounded counterpart of [a], with the marking statement E l thus deactivated, then we can say that again the labial attraction rule in this language is the one given in (103), which is sensitive only to marked [+ round]. The only marked [ +round] specification in these systems is that of low [:)].

Observe that the target of the rule in (103) is specified as being [+ low]. [+ low] is an unmarked feature specification. At first sight, this can seem problematic when the rule targets marked [ +round]. But as proposed earlier, this is actually a characteristic property of the theory developed here. The rule can be specified as targeting given marked feature values, even though unmarked feature values appear in the environment of the rule. This possibility is expected given that no underspecification is allowed and that all types of feature specifications are underlyingly present in phonological representations.

The theory proposed here is undoubtedly less constrained than underspecification theories where underspecification is a property of levels of representation. In a frame-




work following principle (61) (or (62)), a rule requiring underspecification can never be ordered after a rule requiring full specification. In the approach proposed here, a rule sensitive to all specifications could in principle precede a rule sensitive to contrastive or marked features, since feature visibility is a property of rules and not of levels of representation, although there may be a tendency for the latter rules to occur in early stages of the derivation and the former in later ones. The point is that there are facts that require the greater flexibility allowed by the present theory. The interaction between Lyman's Law and postnasal voicing in Japanese discussed earlier, for example, is a case in which the application of a process that is sensitive only to marked features is ordered after the application of a process requiring full specification.

Another case requiring this type of ordering involves the special behavior of dental/ alveolar consonants in assimilation processes. It is well known that dental/alveolar consonants are the consonants that most often undergo assimilation processes, though they do not trigger these processes themselves. This behavior is usually accounted for by assuming that the Coronal place of articulation is the unmarked, less complex place of articulation and therefore is underlyingly unspecified because of principle (62). The assimilation process is then assumed to be a feature-filling process that fills in this unspecified place of articulation. In many cases, however, coronals are the only target of place assimilation at a level of derivation at which they must clearly already be specified for place of articulation. Their special behavior therefore cannot be explained by assuming principle (62) and underlying underspecification. This assimilation process thus provides an example of a process requiring sensitivity only to marked features whose application is ordered at a level of representation requiring full specification.

Mohanan (1991) discusses a convincing case of this type involving homorganic assimilation of nasal and oral stops across words in English. The coronal nasal [n] assimilates to a following labial or velar stop in colloquial speech, but noncoronals do not assimilate to following stops ((107a-d) = Mohanan's (19a-b)).

(107) a. ten [ten]; ten pounds [tempawndz]; ten kings [teijkiiz] b. some [som]; sometime *[s3ntaym]; some kings *[seUkiiUz] c. king [kiu]; King Tom *[kintam]; King Babar *[kimbabar] d. hotcakes [hakkeyks]; cupcakes *[kAkkeyks]

Examples of this kind show a markedness effect in the application of an assimilation rule in postlexical phonology. In a theory that represents unmarked values as unspecified and derives their property of being undergoers, but not triggers, of assimilation by formulating this process as feature-filling spreading, we must account for the facts in (107) by assuming that coronals are unspecified for place in English even postlexically, unlike labials and velars. However, as pointed out by Mohanan (1991:314-315) (see also McCarthy and Taub 1992), this assumption is at variance with the observation that a number of regularities of lexical phonology in English require that coronals be specified for place. These include (a) the syllable structure restriction that prevents a sequence of noncontinuant coronals in the onset (*[dlet], *[tlet]), (b) spirantization, which applies




to coronal stops, but not labial and velar stops (divide [divayd] vs. divisive [diviziv], resident [rezident] vs. residency [rezidensi]), and (c) s-voicing (resume [rizuwm] vs. consume [k3nsuwm], refer [r3f3r] / *[r3v3r]). If coronals are unspecified for place, none of these regularities can apply to them. If coronals must be specified in lexical phonology, then they must also be specified in postlexical phonology.

Here I will propose an account of coronal assimilation that differs crucially from the one proposed earlier in that it does not require that coronals be underspecified for place in lexical phonology. In the approach that I propose, underspecification is not a property of levels of derivation, but a local property of individual rules.

In this approach, the property that coronals are undergoers, but not triggers, of assimilation can be captured in the following way. Let us assume that the hierarchically ordered marking statements in (108) govern the use of place-of-articulation nodes in obstruent systems.

(108) a. [CORONAL, -anterior] / [ , -sonorant] b. [ - sonorant, DORSAL] c. [- sonorant, LABIAL]

Given the discussion of sonorant systems following (92), in a system like that in (109), where all of these configurations are allowed, the [ + anterior] coronal articulation of the consonant [t] is unmarked, as in (110).

(109) p, t, c, k

(110) [-son] (= [t])

Place I

Coronal (unmarked because not mentioned as marked in any marking I statement)

[+ ant] (unmarked because not mentioned in any marking statement)

The [- anterior] coronal articulation of [c] and the dorsal and labial articulation of [k] and [p] are marked as in (111).

(111) a. [-son] (=[c])

I Place

I Coronal34 (marked through percolation from [ - anterior])

I [- ant] (marked because (108a) is deactivated)

34 We can assume that an articulator node is marked if it dominates a marked feature specification. We can formalize this idea in terms of percolation: the marked status of a terminal feature specification percolates to the dominating articulator node. Thus, in (11 la) the Coronal node is marked because it dominates the marked [- anterior] specification.




b. [-son] (= [pI)

Place I

Labial (marked because (108b) is deactivated)

c. [-son] (= [k])

Place I

Dorsal (marked because (108c) is deactivated)

An assimilation rule that targets coronals can therefore be stated as a process that spreads only marked places of articulation, as in (112).

(I 12) a. Spread only marked feature specifications. b. X X

Place Place

[a]

This rule will ignore all unmarked features; in particular, it will ignore the [?+anterior] specification and the Coronal node that are unmarked in (110). Therefore, the rule will be sensitive only to the Labial and Dorsal and the Coronal [ - anterior] places of articulation, and it will apply to coronal [ + anterior] segments, always overwriting that articulation. Notice that if the rule is formulated in this way, it can apply in the postlexical component without requiring that these representations also be underspecified in the preceding stages of the derivation. Thus, we can account for the unmarked status of dental/alveolar consonants in assimilation processes.

In this section I assumed that phonological representations are fully specified. In section 3, however, I proposed that phonological processes such as Fission can create configurations that lack certain features. Last resort rules were then introduced, which provide the features missing in the incomplete representations. In particular, following Trigo (1988) and Rice (1991), I proposed a special last resort rule that inserts dorsal articulation in the case of placeless nasals. Now assume that in addition to special rules like this, all other last resort rules can only create optimally simple feature configurations by inserting unmarked feature specifications. In section 3 this was achieved by hypothesizing that these unmarked feature specifications are inserted by the Last Resort Conven- tion in (17), repeated here as (113), which always creates optimally simple feature configurations.




(113) Given the marking statement [otF, ,G], fill in [- 3G] in a feature bundle that contains [aF] but no specifications for [G], and fill in [-aF] in a feature bundle that contains [,G] but no specifications for [F].

We can thus explain why neutralization processes always produce unmarked features. Specifically, we can treat neutralization processes as cases of delinking that create incomplete configurations. The Last Resort Convention (113) then fills in unmarked features. Thus, for example, in many languages laryngeal features of stops are neutralized in syllable-final position, resulting in voiceless unaspirated stops (i.e., the unmarked stops). Korean, a language of this type, has three stop series: voiceless unaspirated, voiceless aspirated, and voiceless glottalized, that is, /p, ph, p'/ (see Jung 1994, Sohn 1987). In syllable-final position, this three-way distinction is neutralized in favor of the voiceless unaspirated series, as shown in (114).

(114) a. pak'ath > pak'at 'outside' (cf. pak'ath-e 'outside-LoC')

b. kak'-ta -> kakt'a 'cut' (cf. k'ak'a)

We can account for this in the following way. First, we need the marking statements in (115) to account for the distribution of laryngeal features in obstruent systems.

(115) a. [--sonorant, +voice] b. [- sonorant, + spread glottis] c. [ - sonorant, + constricted glottis]

We can then assume that the neutralization observed in syllable-final position in Korean is effected by the rule of delinking in (116).

(116) X I ]a

I [- son]

Laryngeal

Korean allows the degree of complexity of the feature configurations in (1 15b) and (1 15c). However, as shown in (1 17b), application of the Last Resort Convention (113) will fill in the features [ - voice], [ - spread glottis], and [ - constricted glottis] in an obstruent with incompletely specified laryngeal features, like the one in (1 17a) on page 434, which is the output of the delinking rule in (116). The feature specifications inserted by (117) may participate in later processes such as the glottal dissimilation found in clusters of adjacent nonglottalized obstruents. The rule accounting for this process is stated in (118) and exemplified in (1 14b) and (119) (see Jung 1994 for more discussion).




(117)a. X (by(-*3))> b. X

Laryngeal

[-voice]

[-spread gi]

[- const gl]

Place Place

(118) X X X

I ~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~I I [-son] [-son] [-son]

I ~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~I I [-const gl] [ + const gl] I [-const gl]

(119) cip + cip -cipc'ip 'every house' kuk + cang -> kukc'ang 'director'

We thus have a straightforward account for why neutralization processes, characterized here as delinking processes, lead to unmarked values.35

7 On Defining Contrastive Feature Specifications

In this section I provide and argue for a particular definition of contrastive feature specification.

3 An aspect of underspecification not treated in this section involves what we can call positional underspecification, following Steriade (1995): the fact that segments occurring in certain prosodic/morphological positions seem to display no underlying specifications for certain features, which they later receive from segments in other positions. This is, for example, the case of affixes in many languages with vowel harmony. Following the suggestion made in footnote 9, we can propose that in languages with such positional "underspecification," the relevant marking statements are underlyingly deactivated in certain positions, but not in those that are "underspecified." Consider a language with a nine-vowel system ([i, L, e, c, a, 3, 0, u, u]) and with [ATR] harmony, where the affixes always obtain their [ATR] values from the root. We can say that in this language the marking statements [ +high, - ATR] and [- high, + ATR] are deactivated in roots, but not in affixes. Thus, vowels in affixes will not have contrastive values for [ATR]. We can then account for the harmonic behavior of the affixes by saying that the harmony rule spreads the contrastive values of the vowels in the root onto the vowels in the affixes. The relevant marking statements may be deactivated with respect to the affixes after application of the harmony rule, but this is not always the case. Thus, in Uwie (see Calabrese 1993), although [ + ATR] and [ - ATR] high vowels are present in roots, the [ + high, - ATR] vowels obtained in affixes by application of the harmony rule are simplified into [- high, + ATR] vowels.




As discussed earlier, the structure of the phonological system of a language is determined by which marking statements are deactivated and by which prohibitions and marking statements are active in that language. I propose that the contrastiveness of a feature specification is solely determined by checking which marking statements are active or deactivated in a language. The formal definition of contrastiveness is given in (120).36

(120) Given a language L and the marking statement M [oxF, ,G] ([G] = the marked feature specification, [of] = the feature specification with respect to which [,G] is marked): a. [,BG] and its opposite [- ,G] are contrastive in a bundle [aF, ] of L

if and only if M is deactivated in L. b. i. [aoF] is not contrastive in a bundle T [ , -G, yD...] of L if

[- ,BG] is contrastive in T and there is an active marking statement or prohibition [- aF, - ,BG] in L.

Otherwise: ii. [otF] is always contrastive in a bundle [ , yG].

[- G] in (120bi) can be contrastive either because of (120bii), if [- fG] is the unmarked feature specification of another marking statement, or because of (120a), if M is deactivated in L.

Given (120), [cxF], the unmarked feature specification with respect to which the use of a certain feature specification is marked, is always contrastive unless the special situation mentioned in clause (120bi) holds. Even if this situation holds, [ctF] can still be contrastive in a feature bundle containing a feature [- f3G], despite (l20bi), if it is independently contrastive with respect to another feature [-yD] because of either (120a) or (120bii). Marked feature specifications, on the other hand, are contrastive only when the relevant marking statement is deactivated (see below for a discussion of some sample cases).

The clause in (120bi) that overrides (120bii) is needed to account for the vowel harmony systems of languages like Finnish and Hungarian that have front rounded vowels, but not back unrounded vowels. In these systems the feature specification [ - back] of the front unrounded vowels, which should be contrastive by (120bii), instead behaves like a noncontrastive feature specification with respect to the harmony rule (see below for some discussion of Hungarian vowel harmony). The existence of cases like these leads me to introduce the overriding clause in (120bi).

In Finnish and Hungarian the deactivation of the marking statement [-back, + round] / [ , -low], together with the presence of the active marking statement [+back, -round] / [ , -low], creates a situation in which the feature specification [- back] is predictable from the feature specification [-round], but not vice versa, as we can see in (121).

36 This is only one of the possible definitions and should be verified empirically, as discussed below.




(121) [i] [u] [u]

[-back 1 [-back 1 [+back 1 - roundJ + roundJ L + roundJ

Given the behavior of the feature specification [-back] in languages like Finnish and Hungarian, one may wonder whether it is its predictability that allows the reversal of the assignment that would be derived by (120bii) and that otherwise always appears to be correct (see the discussion of (123a) for a case in which [ - ,3G] is contrastive because it is the unmarked feature specification of another marking statement). One may also ask the reason for the role that predictability may be playing in (120bi) and whether it may be playing a larger role in (120). The answer to the last question seems to be negative since (120bii) cannot be derived solely from the notion of predictability, as the reader can verify. The issue is not clear to me at this point. Further research is needed to see if the definitions in (120) can be derived from deeper principles.

Given the definition in (120), the vowel systems in (11), repeated here as (122), would have the marked and contrastive feature specifications in (123) (again, marked feature specifications are enclosed in a circle, and contrastive ones in a square).

(122) a. b. c. 1 u i u i u

a a a ? 0 a

d. e. 1 u i u u e o c ce 3 c O ae a

a

(123) a. i a u high -

low - FI -

back W + FI round - - + ATR + - +

b. i x a u high - -

low - W W -

back Wl WTE round - - - + ATR + - - +




c. i C a 0 u high 1- R W

low - P -

back ? E- + W W round - - - + +

ATR + - - - +

d. i e a o u

high Wl W E low - g 2 El back D 2 E- + W W W round - - - - + + +

ATR + F-0 - _ El +

e. i u ce a 3 u high i] I El El - - El low - - IL IL L L I -

back - I - I G El E EL round -I IgI Il IE - - + + ATR + + - - - - - +

No marked feature specifications are present in (123a) since no marking statements are deactivated there. The specification [ + low] of the low vowel [a] and the specifications [- back] and [+ back] of the high vowels are contrastive in (123a) because of (120bii), since they are the unmarked feature specifications contained in the active marking statements A4, B1, E1, C1, and D1. In the case of the high vowels, both of the feature specifications [?+high] and [-low] should be contrastive according to (l20bii), because they are unmarked feature specifications in the marking statements Al and A3. Given the prohibition *[+high, +low], however, this case meets the conditions of (120bi), which therefore overrides (120bii). From (120bi), it follows that [- low] is not contrastive in the case of the high vowels in (123a).

Given (120), [+low] will always be contrastive in any vowel inventory. [?+low] is an unmarked feature specification, and there is no marking statement or prohibition [-low, JGQ] that could trigger the application of the clause in (120bi).

Now consider (123b). The feature specification [-back] of the low vowel [f] is marked because the marking statement B 1 is deactivated. This feature specification and its opposite [ + back] are contrastive in low vowels because of (120a). The feature specifications [-back] and [+back] of high vowels are contrastive because of (120bii): they are the unmarked feature specifications contained in the active marking statements A3, C1, and Dl. The feature [ +low] of low vowels and the feature [ +high] of high vowels are contrastive as discussed in the case of (123a).




Now consider (123c). The feature specification [- high] of mid vowels is marked because the marking statement Al is deactivated. This feature specification and its opposite [+ high] are contrastive because of (120a). The features [+ low] and [+ high] are contrastive, as discussed earlier. As in the preceding vowel systems, the feature specifications [-back] and [+back] of high and mid vowels are contrastive because of (l20bii): they are unmarked feature specifications contained in the active marking statements Cl and Dl.

Next consider (123d). The feature specification [ -high] of mid vowels is marked because the marking statement Al is deactivated. The feature specification [ + ATR] of [ + ATR] mid vowels is marked because the marking statement A2 is deactivated. The feature specifications [ - high], [- low] of mid vowels, [ + high] of high vowels and [ + low] of the low vowel, [ - back] and [ + back] of high and mid vowels are contrastive (see the discussion of (1 23c)). The feature specifications [- ATR] and [+ ATR] of mid vowels are contrastive because the marking statement A2 is deactivated. Now notice that according to (l20bi), [ - high] should not be contrastive in the feature bundle of the [- ATR] mid vowels [c, o] because the feature specification [- ATR] is contrastive in this case and the marking statement [+ high, - ATR] is active. This feature specification is independently contrastive, however, because the marking statement [ - low, - high] is deactivated.

Finally, consider (123e). The feature specification [- high] of mid vowels is marked because the marking statement Al is deactivated. The feature specification [+ round] of [I] and [ce] is marked because the marking statement Cl is deactivated. The feature specification [ - back] of [a] is marked because the marking statement B 1 is deactivated. The feature specification [+ round] and its opposite [- round] are contrastive in the nonlow front vowels [ui, ce, i, c] because of (120a). The same is true of [-back] and its opposite [ + back] in low vowels. The feature specifications [ - high], [ - low] of mid vowels are contrastive as discussed earlier. The same holds for the features [ + high] and [+low]. The feature [+back] of [u] and [o] is contrastive because of (l20bii): it is the unmarked feature specification in the active marking statement Dl. The feature [ - back] is contrastive in [u] and [Le] because of (120bii). However, from (120bi) it follows that [ - back] is not contrastive in the case of [i] and [c], since [ - round] is contrastive in this case and the marking statement Dl (i.e., [ + back, - round] / [ , - low]) is still active in this language. If the system in (123e), however, were expanded by deactivating the marking statement Dl (i.e., by introducing the back unrounded vowels [i, a]), then the feature specification [- back] of unrounded front vowels would become contrastive because (120bii) would no longer hold. This is illustrated in (124).

(124) i ii i u

back El El Wl Wl round Dl El El W

Now let us consider some evidence for the formal definition in (120). In most phono-




logical theories, the contrastiveness of a given feature specification is a function of its predictability in the structural arrangement of the segments in that language-in particular, of the position of the segment characterized by this feature specification in this structural arrangement. Thus, for example, the feature [?+back] of the low vowel is predictable in the triangular vowel system [i, u, a] because of the position of [a] in the structural arrangement of the vowels composing that system. In the theory proposed here, however, the contrastiveness of feature specifications is established in another way. In this theory, the structure of a phonological inventory is simply a by-product of the process of deactivating the marking statements for the given language. The number of phonological distinctions present in a language is thus defined by the marking statements deactivated in that language. It is natural then to hypothesize that the contrastiveness of a feature specification derives from the pattern of marking statements that are deactivated or active in that language as assumed in the definition in (120).

It is possible to show that the definition in (120) gives the correct results. Let us consider Russian voicing assimilation (see Jakobson 1956, 1978, Halle 1959, and Halle and Vergnaud 1981, Hayes 1984, Kiparsky 1985). Russian has the underlying consonantal inventory shown in (125), where each phoneme may also have a palatalized variant. (Given that the distinction between palatalized and nonpalatalized consonants in Russian has no bearing on the following discussion, I have omitted it in (125).)

(125) p t k b d g

ts tf f s f x

z 3 m n

I r

W 37 y

Let us consider the distribution of the feature [voice] in this system. As mentioned earlier, the following two marking statements govern the distribution of this feature:

(126) a. [-sonorant, +voice] b. [ + sonorant, - voice]

Given the presence of [b, d, g, z, 3] in (125), we know that the marking statement (126a) is deactivated in Russian. We also know that the marking statement (126b) is not deactivated, since there are no underlyingly voiceless sonorants in Russian.

Given the definition in (120), we arrive at the following contrastive feature specifica-

3 Following Jakobson (1948), Halle (1973), and Lightner (1972), I hypothesize that surface [v] is always derived from underlying [w] in Russian.




tions for the feature [voice] in Russian consonants (contrastive feature specifications are enclosed in a rectangle):

(127) p t k b d g ts tf f s f x z 3 m n r w y

sonorant ? + + + + +

voice --- + + + + + + + + + +

The feature specification [+ voice] and its opposite [- voice] of the obstruent consonants are contrastive because of (120a) since the marking statement (126a) is deactivated. The feature specification [+ voice] of sonorants, however, is not contrastive because the marking statement in (126b) is not deactivated.

The issue is the status of the feature specification [- voice] in the obstruents [f, x, ts, tf]. If only the structural arrangement of the system were considered, this feature should be noncontrastive in the feature bundle of these obstruents, as shown in (128).

(128) p t k b d g ts tf f s f x z 3 m n l r w y

sonorant + + + + + +

voice + + + - + + + + +

The [- voice] specification of [f, x, ts, tf] is in fact predictable since these segments do not have any voiced counterpart.

However, there is clear evidence from Russian voicing assimilation that only the assignments in (127) are correct. In Russian all members of an obstruent cluster assimilate in voicing to the last obstruent word-internally as well as across words. Word-internal voicing assimilation is illustrated in (129a); word-sequence voicing assimilation is illustrated in (129b) with the prepositions ot 'from' and bez 'without', which contrast in voicing before vowels but lose this contrast before obstruents.

(129) a. goro[d + k] + a -- goro[tk]a 'little town' b. o[t] ozera 'from a lake' be[z] ozera 'without a lake'

o[t pt]its 'from birds' be[s pt]its 'without birds' o[d b]anka 'from a bank' be[z b]anka 'without a bank' o[d bd]enija 'from a vigil' be[z bd]enija 'without a vigil' o[d gr]exa 'from a sin' be[z gr]exa 'without a sin' o[t str]asti 'from passion' be[s str]asti 'without passion' o[t Pr]agi 'from Prague' be[s Pr]agi 'without Prague'

Sonorant consonants do not trigger voicing assimilation, as illustrated by the forms in the last three lines in (129b) and by the forms in (130a). Furthermore, sonorant consonants allow voicing assimilation to apply across them. In other words, they are transparent to voicing assimilation, as shown in (130b).




(130) a. pe[sn'J 'song' [tr]i 'three' [tr]ava 'grass' zi[zn'] 'life' [dr]ova 'wood'

b. o[t nr]avov 'from morals' be[z nr]avov 'without morals' o[t mts']enska 'from Mtsensk' be[s mts']enska 'without Mtsensk o[t mstlitel'nosti 'from be[s mstlitel'nosti 'without

vindictiveness' vindictiveness' o[d mgl]i 'from fog' be[z mgl]i 'without fog' o[d lg]uni 'from the liar' be[z lg]uni 'without the liar'

The behavior of sonorants indicates that voicing assimilation is sensitive only to contrastive feature specifications. I assume that the rule of voicing assimilation is as follows:

(131) a. Access only contrastive feature specifications. b. X . .. w . x where W must not contain a syllabic head

[+ cons] [+ cons]

Laryngeal Laryngeal

[oxvoice] [lvoice] (131) applies right to left.

With rule (131), it is possible to account for cases like [bes ptits] and [od bdeniya]. These two-word sequences are underlyingly represented as in (132). (I consider only the [voice] tier.)

(132) a. b e z p t i ts I I I I I I I

[+vc] [+vc] [+vc] [-vc] [-vc] [+vc] [-vc] b. o t b d e n i y a

I I I I I I I I I [+vc] [-vc] [+vc] [+vc] [+vc] [+vc] [+vc] [+vc] [+vc]

Rule (131) accesses only the contrastive feature specifications in (132).

(133) a. b e z p t i ts I I I I I

[+ vc] [+vc] [-vc] [-vc] [-vc]

b. o t b d e n i y a I I I

[-vc] [+vc] [+vc]




Rule (131) can apply in the sequences [z pt], [t bd], since the consonants are not separated by any syllabic peak. Therefore, (133a) and (133b) are changed into (134a) and (134b), respectively, which gives the correct results.

(134) a. b e s p t i ts

[ + vc] [ - vc] [-vc]

b. o d b d e n i y a

[+vc]

Now consider the sonorants. Since (131) is sensitive only to contrastive features, the feature specification of sonorants is not visible to it. Thus, in the case of the phrases [bez nravov] 'without morals' and [bes mstitel'nosti] 'without vindictiveness', the rule is sensitive only to the feature specification [ovoice] of the obstruent, as represented in (135).38

(135) a. b e z n r a v o v I I

[+vc] [+vc]

b. b e z m s t i t e 1'... I I I I I

[+vc] [+vc] [-vc] [-vc] [-vc]

Thus, we can explain why the sonorants are nontriggers in (135a) and transparent in (135b).

Now, if the assignments in (128) were correct, we should expect that [f, ts, tf, x] would behave like sonorants with respect to voicing assimilation. They should not trigger Voicing Assimilation (131), since their feature specification [ - voice] is characterized as noncontrastive in (128). However, this is not correct. [f, ts, tf, x] behave like all other obstruents and trigger Voicing Assimilation, specifically spreading [i-voice], as in (136).

(136) be[s florsa 'without a swagger' be[s xl]eba 'without bread' be[s ts]eni 'without price' be[s tjiesti 'without honor'

This is what is predicted by the assignments in (127).

38 For further discussion of the formal properties of this spreading process, see footnote 44.




Other evidence that the structural arrangement of segments in a system plays no role in determining what is contrastive is given by the Hungarian harmony system. Hun- garian has the vowel system in (137).

(137) Short vowels Long vowels front back front back

[-round] [ + round] [- round] [+ round] high i u u i: u: u: mid o o e: o: 0:

low D 0 a:

([ae] is traditionally spelled as e, [D] as a, and the long vowels with acute accents: e =

[e:], i = [i:], a = [a:], and so on.) Hungarian is characterized by a harmony rule that constrains the distribution of the

feature value for [back] inside the word (see Steriade 1987, Kontra and Ringen 1986). Within native roots, vowels in the back set {o(:), u(:), a(:)} may cooccur, and vowels in the front set {o(:), ui(:)} may cooccur, but vowels from one set may not cooccur with vowels from the other set. The vowels of a third set, {e(:), i(:)}, are neutral with respect to the harmony rule and may cooccur within native roots with any vowel: pelda 'example', jcatek 'game', tomeg 'crowd', bika 'bull', rovid 'short'. Nonnative roots have no restrictions on vowel cooccurrence: buro 'bureau', parfiim 'perfume'.

Suffixal vowels agree with the backness of the last stem vowel, when this vowel is not neutral: buro-nak 'bureau-DAT', parfum-nek 'perfume-DAT'. The situation is more complex when the last stem vowel is neutral. Kontra and Ringen (1986) demonstrate that stems ending in [e:] or [i(:)] preceded by a back vowel take suffixal back vowels: papir-nak 'paper-DAT', produktiv-nak 'productive-DAT', anket-nak 'meeting-DAT .3 In contrast, stems like magnes (i.e., [ma:gnaes]) 'magnet', which contain back vowels followed by [ae], take primarily front suffixes. In line with Ringen's (1978, 1980) earlier findings, Kontra and Ringen conclude that [a] is not transparent with respect to the harmony rule in contemporary Hungarian, whereas [i(:)] and [e:] are.

The first thing that must be explained is why short [ae] is not neutral although long [e:] is. If we consider the structural arrangement of the vowels in (137), the reason becomes obvious: [ae] is paired for backness with [a], and thus its feature value [ - back] is contrastive in its feature bundle. On the other hand, [e:] has no back counterpart and therefore its feature value [-back] is noncontrastive in its feature bundle. Similarly, both long and short [i] are neutral because they both lack a minimally different [ + back] vowel. Thus, we can say that the vowel harmony rule is sensitive only to contrastive features, as stated in (138).

3 This rule holds for the majority of lexical items and for most speakers, although there are some exceptions to it.




(138) a. Access contrastive feature specifications. b. N N

x x

Place Place

Dorsal Dorsal

[aback] [oxback]

This analysis closely follows that proposed by Steriade (1987) in adopting Farkas and Beddor's (1987) conclusion that [+ back] and [- back] must be spread by harmony: Farkas and Beddor show that harmony must take place both in forms like buro-tol and in forms like parfum-tol. In each of these cases, the last stem vowel has a distinctive value for [back]. This distinctive feature value determines the backness of the suffixal vowels. If both distinctive [+ back] and [- back] are present when harmony operates, then the harmony must be feature changing as proposed in (138) (see Vago 1976 for the same conclusion).40

In order to account for the fact that stems consisting exclusively of neutral vowels take generally front suffixes (see Kontra and Ringen 1986), I again follow Steriade (1987), this time in assuming that Hungarian suffixes are underlyingly specified as [ -back] in the unmarked case.

The problem is long [a:]. In fact, if we consider only the structural arrangement of segments in the system, the feature value [+back] in the feature bundle of long [a:] should be noncontrastive, since there is no long low front vowel [j:]. [a:] should be a neutral vowel, but it is not: [a:] is a harmonic vowel. According to the theory proposed here, the contrastiveness of a feature value in a certain feature bundle in a given phonological system depends on the marking statements that are deactivated in that system. The distinction in length does not play any role in the hierarchically ordered marking statements needed to account for the various segments that can occur in vowel systems, as shown in the marking statements in (9). Distinctions in length are controlled by conditions on syllabic structure and not by constraints on feature cooccurrence. Therefore, the distinction between long and short vowels of the Hungarian vowel system is not relevant in determining which marking statements are deactivated in that system. We establish

40 Steriade (1987) follows Ringen (1980) and Kiparsky (1981) in assuming that neutralizing applications of harmony are prohibited morpheme internally by the Alternation/Strict Cycle Condition: this is why [buro:- toll becomes [buro:-tol] rather than *[buro:-toll].




what marking statements are deactivated simply by considering what the feature bundles of the segments in the inventory are, independently of their length.41

The Hungarian vowel system is generated as follows. The presence of [e] indicates that the marking statement [ + low, - back] is deactivated. (In this theory, the absence of [t:] must be considered simply an accidental gap not ruled out by any marking statement; therefore, it does not interfere with determining what is contrastive in the system.) In addition, the marking statements Al ([-low, -high]) and C1 ([-back, + round] / [I , -low]) must be deactivated. All other marking statements are active, among them in particular the marking statement [+ back, - round] / [ , - low], which excludes the back counterparts of [i] and [e]. Given the definition in (120), we obtain the contrastive and marked specification assignments in (139).42

(139) i u e o a o u high Wl E - - El E] low - - -

back - El - 1 EL EL 2 round El El E I - - + +

Again, if we were to consider the structural arrangement of segments in the system, the feature value [+back] would incorrectly be noncontrastive in [a:], whereas the theory proposed here correctly requires that [a:] be contrastively specified as [+ back].43

8 The Blocking of Phonological Rules

Both in the case of metaphony and in the case of affrication in palatalization processes, we have seen that separating the marking of ill-formedness from its repair leads to a satisfactory analysis. Crucially in both cases, we assume that a given phonological rule

41 An important characteristic of the Hungarian vowel system involves asymmetries between the short and long series: the inventory includes a long mid front vowel but no short one, and a short low front vowel but no long one. I assume that the absence of both the long low front vowel [E:] and the short mid front vowel [e] is to be considered an accidental gap in the sense of section 9. Historically, these two gaps came into being through the context-free lowering of the short counterpart [e] of long [e:] to [e].

As discussed in section 9, accidental gaps are represented by auxiliary filters that may trigger repair operations. This is what we find in Hungarian. The harmonic counterpart of [a:] should be a long low front vowel. Instead, we find a long mid [e:]. I propose that this long front [e:] is derived by a rule of raising that adjusts the otherwise expected long low front [x:] that is disallowed by an auxiliary filter.

42 The [ATR] status of the mid vowels in Hungarian is unclear to me at this point. Therefore, since the feature [ATR] does not play any role in the analysis of Hungarian proposed here, I do not give specifications for it in the vowels in (139).

4 Both in Russian and in Hungarian, we have observed that segments that are unpaired because of an accidental gap nonetheless trigger rules that are sensitive to contrastive values. We have accounted for this by assuming that the definition in (120) is not sensitive to accidental gaps, but only to gaps predicted by marking statements. However, segments that are unpaired because of an accidental gap may fail to undergo rules. For example, in Chaha (McCarthy 1986) [b] lacks a voiceless counterpart; a rule devoicing [d] and [g] fails to target [b]. The point is that accidental gaps need to be accounted for by assuming special language-particular constraints, the auxiliary filters, which may block the application of rules (see section 9). This would be the case in Chaha.




is allowed to create a disallowed configuration, which is then repaired by a simplification procedure.

Many recent works, however, have advocated that the application of a rule is blocked when it would create a disallowed configuration (see Kiparsky 1985). Such a case also arises in the present theory, but only under special conditions.

In order to discuss this case, we will first consider another Italian dialect where the metaphony rule discussed in section 3 applies. In the northern dialect of Veneto spoken in Vicenza, Padova, and Rovigo, only [ + ATR] mid vowels are raised in a metaphonic context; lax vowels are not affected by the rule. Veneto has metaphonic alternations like those in (140a) in the case of [ + ATR] vowels (from Renzi 1985, Rohlfs 1966); however, as (140b) shows, there is no metaphonic alternation in the case of [-ATR] vowels.

(140) a. vedo te vidi 'I see/you see' coro te cutri 'I run/you run' t6so tusi 'boy/boys'

b. prete preti 'priest sg./pl.' m5do modi 'way sg. /pl.'

One might be tempted to account for this different behavior of mid vowels by assuming that the metaphony rule of Veneto, like that of northern Salentino, southern Umbro, and northern Pugliese, applies to all mid vowels, and that the configuration [ + high, - ATR] created when the rule applies to [ - ATR] mid vowels is repaired by the delinking of [ - ATR]. On the surface, then, the metaphony rule would apply vacuously to [ - ATR] mid vowels. We would then have a case of what we can call a structure-preserving application of the simplification procedures, since the segmental structure of the target of the phonological rule would apparently not be modified-in other words, a case where a disallowed configuration created by the application of a phonological rule is repaired by delinking the very feature assigned by that rule. However, the same output form can be obtained by simply not applying the rule. Thus, we have two possible derivations of the same output form. One involves two steps: the generation of a disallowed form by the rule, and the repair of the disallowed form by a simplification procedure. The other derivation is simply null: the rule does not apply. If we assume the principle of derivational economy in (141), we will be forced to adopt the second derivation.

(141) Economy of Derivation Principle (EDP) Among alternative maximally simple grammars, select the one that has the shortest derivations.

The EDP is similar in essence to the economy principles discussed by Chomsky (1991, 1993) and proposed under the name of Derivational Simplicity Criterion by Kiparsky (1982) (see also Dell 1973, Stampe 1973, Hudson 1974, Myers 1991, for similar proposals).




We can interpret the EDP as a principle that governs the acquisition of grammars. According to this interpretation, the simplification procedures apply freely; when their application produces forms in which the previous application of a phonological rule is made vacuous, the EDP forces a reanalysis of the derivation of these forms in which the phonological rule does not apply. Thus, given the EDP, although delinking the feature assigned by a rule can produce an innovation in a grammar, this innovation will never be transmitted in the acquisition of the grammar; rather, it will always be reanalyzed as a case of blocking.

Thus, if the same form can be derived through application of a phonological rule and a subsequent simplification procedure, or through the nonapplication of a phonological rule, the EDP forces selection of the latter alternative since it produces the shortest derivation. This excludes the possibility that the application of a simplification procedure makes the application of a phonological rule vacuous (i.e., a structure-preserving application of the simplification procedures).

Before we discuss the analysis of metaphony in Veneto under the EDP, consider the interesting problem of neutral vowels. Under the EDP, neutral vowels, or more generally neutral segments, should originate in harmony systems from the delinking of the feature assigned by the harmony rule (i.e., in a structure-preserving application of the simplification procedures). For example, consider the neutral transparent vowel found in Kinande, a Bantu language spoken in Zaire (see Schlindwein 1987). Kinande has the vowel system in (142) and a harmony rule that spreads [+ ATR] leftward onto high and mid vowels. However, the harmony rule does not affect low vowels, nor is it blocked by them, as shown in (143) (representations are simplified).

(142) i u

e o c 3

a

(143) a. solom - ire 'harvest-PAST'

[ + ATR] b. solom - an - ire 'harvest-RECIPR-PAsT

[+ ATRI

Following Steriade (1987), let us assume that harmony phenomena are treated by a sequential iterative application of the harmony rule. This is illustrated in (144), where a vowel harmony rule applies sequentially by successive spreading and delinking steps in a feature-changing fashion.




(144) [F] 1- ][-FII-FI IF] [-F][-F] [F] [-F]

VC VC V CV VC VCVCV I VC VC VC V

[F]

In order to account for the transparent [a] of Kinande, suppose that when the harmony rule was introduced into the language, [a] was a possible target. Thus, the application of the harmony rule to [a] created the configuration [ + low, + ATR]. At a certain point in the history of this language, as in many other languages (see section 4), the marking statement [ + low, + ATR] was reactivated so that this configuration became disallowed. Assume that the configuration [+ low, + ATR] was repaired by delinking the feature [ + ATR], the feature assigned by the harmony rule (i.e., by a structure-preserving application of the simplification procedures). The EDP then led to an automatic reanalysis of the harmonic alternations by which the harmony rule was reinterpreted as not applying to low vowels.

This, however, still does not account for the neutral and transparent behavior of [a]. Let us see how it can be derived in the constraint-based system. When the marking statement [ + low, + ATR] was reactivated, the feature value [ - ATR] became noncontrastive in the feature bundle of low vowels. Now, since the option exists of interpreting the rule as sensitive only to contrastive features, the EDP requires that this option be selected, to obtain the shortest possible derivation that accounts for the harmonic alternations. In fact, delinking [ + ATR] of the configuration [ + low, + ATR] results in surface forms in which the low vowels not only are not affected by the harmony rule but also do not interfere with it. The option {rule sensitive only to contrastive features + blocking of this rule} gives the shortest derivation that accounts for this behavior of the low vowels.44 Thus, we account for the behavior of [a] as a neutral transparent vowel in the [ATR] harmony of a language like Kinande (see footnote 40 for a proposal regarding the origin of neutral opaque vowels). This analysis of neutral transparent vowels is essentially similar to the analysis proposed by Kiparsky (1981), the difference being that Kiparsky's account relies on underspecification, an option not allowed in the theory proposed here.45

44 Notice that the invisibility of noncontrastive feature specifications implies a local violation of the Line- Crossing Constraint; it is as if the line associating the noncontrastive feature value to a higher node is not seen, so that the representations produced by the rule allow a local violation of the constraint. Eventually this violation is repaired by some sort of mitosis in phonetic representations. In phonetic representations, some form of mitosis must apply to all cases of nonlocal linking in any case and in any theory. Thus, for example, a process of mitosis must apply to the Kinande form in (143b), to account for the fact that [a] is phonetically [- ATR] in the surface representation.

4 Crucially in this case, the configuration [ + low, + ATR] became disallowed after the harmony rule was introduced into the language. Suppose now that this configuration was already disallowed when the harmony




Now let us return to metaphony in Veneto. In this case, we do not want to derive the forms with lax mid vowels by supposing that the application of the metaphony rule is blocked; rather, we want to restrict application of the rule to the mid tense vowels. Let us see why. Metaphony is a noniterative rule. Blocking in this case would be vacuous; there would be no evidence that the rule ever tried to apply to targets where its application is blocked. Thus, the EDP would require the rule to be analyzed as being restricted only to the targets to which it actually applies. Therefore, we can propose that what happened historically in Veneto is the following. Metaphony applied to all mid vowels. The disallowed configuration produced by metaphony in the case of lax mid vowels was repaired by delinking the feature [ + high] (i.e., a structure-preserving application of the simplification procedure). Then, given what was said above, the EDP forced an automatic reanalysis in which the metaphony rule applied only to stressed mid + ATR] vowels, as in (145).46

rule was introduced and that this configuration, as in the preceding case, was repaired by delinking of [ + ATR] as in the derivation in (i) (representations are simplified).

(i) X X X harmony X X X delinking of / t\\ rule / \ / [ +ATRI & ( 13)

[+I low] [+lowi

[+ATR] [-ATR] [+ATR] [+ATR] [+ATR]

X X X harmony X X X rule

(+low] [-low]

[+ATR] [-ATR] [+ATR] [+ATR] [-ATR] [+ATR]

In this case, the only possible analysis is that in which the harmony rule is prevented from applying to [a] and at the same time is sensitive to both noncontrastive and contrastive feature specifications. Therefore, it is triggered by the noncontrastive [- ATR] specification of [a], as in the derivation in [ii]. In other words, we obtain a neutral opaque [a].

(ii) X X X - X X X

[+low] ?low]

[+ ATR] [-ATR] [+ ATR] [+ ATR] [-ATR] + ATR] (harmony rule blocked) (further application of harmony rule)

46 The reanalysis leading to (145) goes against the natural principle posited by Halle (1962), which states




(145) N N

XI X2

L- c ns] L - cons]

Place Place

I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Tongue Root Dor al Dorsal

I / L +ATR] [-low] [-high] [+ high]

Conditions on rule (145): a. (145) applies in the last foot. b. The target of (145) is the head of the foot. c. The target and trigger of (145) must be adjacent.

The situation is different if the rule is iterative. In this case, in fact, the blocking of the application of the rule to a certain target is not vacuous since the rule applies in the next sequential pass to the next target. Consequently, the rule does not need to be restricted and can remain general. Therefore, the option of blocking the rule is preferred, since it results in the shortest derivation, as discussed earlier.

At this time, it is difficult for me to evaluate the EDP and the analyses of the neutral segments proposed here. Future research should clarify this issue.

Independently of this, I envisage the following interaction between marking state-

that a rule is more highly valued if it applies as generally as possible. On this basis, the rule in (i) is to be preferred to the rule in (145).

(i) N N

XI X2

[-cons] [-cons]

Place Place

Dorsal Dorsal

[-low] [ - high] [+ high] Conditions on rule (i): a. (i) applies in the last foot. b. The target of (i) is the head of the foot. c. The target and trigger of (i) must be adjacent.

When it applies to mid [-ATR] vowels, the more general rule in (i) generates a disallowed configuration, which is later repaired by a simplification procedure (other than Delinking of the feature spread by the rule). This derivation is preferred since it uses the preferable rule in (i). And in fact, most Italian dialects use the rule in (i). The rule used by Veneto is almost unique among metaphony rules (see Maiden 1991).




ments and phonological rules. Given (a) a language L in which a given marking statement S is active and (b) a rule R being introduced in L, if the application of R creates a configuration disallowed by S, the following possibilities exist:

(146) a. The configuration disallowed by S is accepted by the language. Therefore, S is deactivated in L. (This option was discussed in detail in section 5.)

b. If the configuration disallowed by S is not accepted in L, two further options are available: i. The application of the rule is blocked. (This case is essentially re-

stricted to iterative rules.) ii. The application of the rule is not blocked. The rule creates a dis-

allowed configuration that is then repaired by the simplification procedures.

Now let us briefly consider the consequences of the proposals made here for the Structure Preservation Principle proposed by Kiparsky (1985). Structure Preservation states that if the potential output of a rule violates a constraint on any representation in the lexicon, then the rule cannot apply in the lexicon. According to this principle, then, all of the rules that are prevented from applying to certain targets because of the presence of constraints should belong to the lexical stratum of the grammar. If the analysis proposed in this section is correct, however, structure preservation cannot be a property of a given level of the grammar; instead, it is just an idiosyncratic property of given rules, in particular, iterative rules. Nothing in the theory proposed here forces us to assume that these rules must necessarily belong to the lexical level, rather than to other levels of the derivation. This could actually be the case. However, there seems to be evidence that Structure Preservation cannot be maintained as an explanatory principle of phonological theory. Consider, in particular, the nominal system of Rotuman (Churchward 1941, Saito 1981, McCarthy 1986). Rotuman, a language that has been shown to have segregation of vowels and consonants (see Saito 1981, McCarthy 1986), underlyingly has the six-vowel system [i, e, a, o, o, u]. On the surface, however, it displays the ten-vowel vowel system [i, e, w, a, o, o, u, iu, 6, ce]. The vowels [W, ui, o, ce] are not underlying but are always derived through different morphophonological processes (e.g. ,futilfiit 'complete/incomplete forms of pull'). Crucially, the phonological rules that produce those vowels must apply before tier conflation (McCarthy 1986, Saito 1981), as shown by the fact that sequences of identical vowels in a monomorphemic word are affected by the rule (see poporelpopor 'compl./incompl. forms of suddenly', in contrast with the bimorphemic motolorilmotolor 'compl./incompl. forms of moto- lorry'). Clearly, then, the rules that produce the vowels [ae, u, o, ee] are lexical rules of Rotuman, and Rotuman therefore has lexical rules that produce segments that are not present in the underlying inventory.

The approach to the blocking of rule application discussed here typically holds for phonological rules creating violations of intrasegmental constraints. It is not clear to me whether this approach can be extended to cases of blocking induced by constraints on




sequences of segments. Obviously, it must hold for structure-building rules, for example, rules building syllable structure: in this case it is obviously uneconomical to build a structure violating a constraint, and then destroy it to build a different one. The most economical derivation in this case prevents the first rule from building the disallowed structure and then has another structure-building rule build an allowed structure. Other cases that involve proper phonological rules creating disallowed configurations are more problematic, although still explainable under the present hypothesis. For example, with respect to the antigemination phenomena studied by McCarthy (1986) (i.e., blocking of syncope rules induced by the OCP), one could assume that in some cases blocking is the only economical way to obtain a well-formed result. The same could be proposed for the cases studied by Kisseberth (1970a,b) in which a syncope process is blocked because its output would not be otherwise syllabiflable. However, this analysis of blocking requires further investigation.47

9 Accidental Gaps

As Halle (1962) observes, the absence of a given configuration in a language may indicate at least two different possibilities: we could be dealing with an inadmissible sequence in that language (e.g., the absence of bnick from the list of lexical items of English), or we could be dealing with an accidental gap (e.g., the absence of blick from the list of lexical items of English). Consider this distinction in the case of segmental inventories. In the theory proposed here, the former type of gap is predicted by the active marking statements of a language (e.g., the absence of the vowels [u, o] in languages in which the marking statement [- back, + round] / [ , - low] is not deactivated). The second type of gap, the so-called accidental gap, occurs when a segment is absent from a language although its presence is expected, given the marking statements deactivated in that language. It is a fact that there are accidental gaps in phonological systems and that languages do not exploit all of the available segments allowed by deactivated marking statements. For example, Huave (like other Indian languages of the southwestern United States and Mexico) lacks the unmarked vowel [u], and Russian lacks [y, dz, d3] in its voiced obstruent series, although it has their voiceless counterparts.

How should accidental gaps in phonological systems be represented? One could assume that "accidental" gaps in phonological systems require no special treatment, other than noting that they are the outcome of idiosyncratic historical changes and that there should be a tendency to fill them. There are good reasons to assume that there are no language-specific constraints characterizing accidental gaps. Ideally, the active constraints blocking the cooccurrence of features should be only those derived from the universal marking statements that are not deactivated in the language in question.

4 For example, there are also cases in which, contrary to what McCarthy maintains, syncope rules create violations of the OCP, but then these violations are repaired. This is the approach to OCP violations proposed by Yip (1988).




Constraints should not be postulated on a language-specific basis by observing the absence of a certain segment since there should be no learning based on negative evidence. Language-specific constraints, however, can be established only by resorting to negative evidence. A language-specific constraint is established in a given language L by observing the absence of a given configuration in L.48

An alternative to this line of thinking is to hypothesize that in addition to universal marking statements, special devices-dubbed auxiliary filters in Calabrese 1988-must be postulated on a language-specific basis in order to account for accidental gaps. These auxiliary filters would be assigned an extra cost, so that it would be advantageous for languages to eliminate them by deactivation or not to have them in the first place.

Given the desideratum that there be no learning based on negative evidence, auxiliary filters would represent an unwanted complication of the theory; therefore, it would be preferable to avoid postulating them. However, there is overwhelming evidence that they are necessary. First, a formal way is needed of stating that certain expected segments are accidentally missing from an inventory. Auxiliary filters perform that role. In addition, there are several cases from different languages that require the postulation of auxiliary filters. Here I will mention two.

First, consider an example from the San Mateo dialect of Huave, a Mexican language (Noyer 1994). Like several other languages of Mexico, this dialect has [o], but not the [+high, +round] vowel [u]. Since [u] is clearly an unmarked vowel, there cannot be any marking statement disallowing its appearance in this language; only an auxiliary filter can account for its absence. Now, Huave has a harmony rule that rounds the low vowel of certain suffixes, as in (147).

(147) t-a-mor-as -> t-a-moO-os 'I met'

It also has a rule spreading [+high] after palatalized consonants, as in (148).

(148) t-a-e:p'-as -> t-a-e:p'-is 'I smoked'

The problem comes from postpalatalized [oC'] roots, where one would expect both rounding and raising (which should give *[u]).

(149) a-ko:n'-a:c -> a-ko:n'-i:c 'we (excl.) double' *a-ko:n'-u:c, *a-ko:n'-o:c

Only raising applies; round harmony is blocked. Without an auxiliary filter barring [u], this fact cannot be accounted for.

Further evidence for auxiliary filters is provided by the Australian language Bandja-

48 Negative evidence does not need to be direct-it can also be indirect. That is, given the different features present in the phonological inventories of a language L, we might hypothesize that the grammar of L could freely generate configurations of these features. These expected configurations would be checked against the actual configurations found in the words of L. Those configurations that were absent from the words of L would be marked as ill formed and the conditions accounting for their ill-formedness would represent the active constraints of L.




lang, described by Crowley (1978). Bandjalang has the vowel system in (150) characterized by the accidental absence of the mid vowel [3].

(150) i() u(:)

a(:)

Bandjalang also has a rule, illustrated in (151), that lowers long high vowels.

(151) /wac4i/ 'say' Imperative wa4c: Present wac&:la Past definite wa4ini Future wa&:g Purposive wa4iya:

In (151) the long high front vowel [i:] is lowered to a long front mid vowel. It is interesting to see what happens when the target of the rule is the high back vowel [u]. Surprisingly in this case, [u:] is not only lowered, but also fronted. Thus, when the lowering rule applies to the lengthened [u:], it produces [c:] rather than the [3:] that we would otherwise expect.

(152) /buliclu/ 'bump' Imperative buli4c: Present buli@c:la Past definite bulikuni Future buli4c: j Purposive buliKuya

An explanatory account of the facts is possible only if the structure of the vowel inventory of Bandjalang is taken into consideration.

If we hypothesize that the accidental absence of segments is represented by auxiliary filters, we must assume the following one in this case:

(153) *[ - high, + back] / [ - low, ]

The lowering rule produces the mid front vowel [e:] when it applies to a long front high vowel and the mid back vowel [o:] when it applies to a long back high vowel. The latter vowel is disallowed by (153). If we assume that auxiliary filters may trigger the application of simplification procedures to repair configurations of features that violate them, we have an explanation of the change [u:] -- [c:]: it is a case of delinking of the feature specification [ + back] in the configuration [ - high, + back, - low] that is produced by the lowering rule and disallowed by (153).

A last point on auxiliary filters: as shown by the Russian and Hungarian examples discussed in section 7, accidental gaps, and therefore auxiliary filters, do not play a role in establishing what is contrastive in a language. This indicates that contrastiveness is




defined only through UG marking statements as proposed in the definition in (120). But why this is so is not clear. Further research will address this very important issue.

10 Phonological Rules as Simplification Operations

The theory proposed here argues that a satisfactory account of the paradigmatic component of language, that is, of that part of the grammar concerned with establishing inventories of phonological elements, must contain marking statements and some sort of repair strategies. The underlying assumption has been that only restrictions on the structure of phonological elements can take the form of marking statements. Such restrictions must be distinguished from sequential restrictions on the distribution of phonological elements. Following Myers (1991), we can say that universal restrictions on sequences of phonological elements like the OCP (see McCarthy 1986, Yip 1988) take the form of constraints that passively block the creation of ill-formed sequences. Also following Myers, we can assume, however, that language-particular restrictions on sequences of phonological elements should take the form of conventionally ordered phonological rules. These are active operations ordered with respect to each other. Taken together, marking statements, prohibitions, and the ordered phonological rules of a particular language define the distribution of the phonological elements of that language.

Another theory, however, has been emerging independently in the work of several linguists (see Sommerstein 1974, 1977, Singh 1987, Paradis 1988a,b, Goldsmith 1990) that is characterized by the same emphasis on well-formedness conditions and rules employed to repair violations of these well-formedness conditions, with the difference that it accounts for both the paradigmatic and the distributional aspects of languages by resorting to these two mechanisms.

According to these linguists, phonology should be organized in the following way. For each language, there is a set of well-formedness conditions that apply to phonological representations in that language. Along with a set of phonotactic conditions, each language contains a set of rules that operate as repair strategies, applying only if their output eliminates the violation of one of these conditions in their input (see Goldsmith 1990 for extensive discussion).

Thus, according to these linguists, phonological rules should be analyzed into two types: a set of changes that operate upon representations (the repair rules) and a set of surface phonotactic conditions on representations linked to one or more of these rules in such a way that a repair rule applies if and only if its input violates one of its phonotactic conditions and its output satisfies that condition. For example, according to Singh (1987), a rule like [r] -> 0/ # in British English should be decomposed into two parts: a phonotactic condition that disallows [r] in rimes and a repair strategy of deletion that is triggered by violations of this phonotactic condition.

It is interesting to consider how such proposals could be formulated in the framework proposed here. In the preceding sections I proposed that simplification procedures target feature configurations that are "too complex" in a given language (i.e., feature configura-




tions that exceed the degree of complexity allowed in that language) and simplify them by rendering them more optimal. Let us extend this idea to phonological processes, and assume that all phonological rules are essentially simplification procedures. If this is correct, we must assume that phonological processes are to be interpreted as being composed of two stages: the marking of a sequential configuration as complex and the simplification of this complex sequential configuration.

One could then propose that UG includes a list of context-sensitive marking statements that stipulate that certain sequences are marked/complex. Each language would deactivate some of these context-sensitive marking statements. The rest of them would remain active. These active context-sensitive marking statements would mark the relevant syntagmatic configurations as ill formed. There would then be a certain number of strategies to repair/simplify these ill-formed configurations. One could assume that these strategies are implemented mostly by spreading or delinking.

For example, suppose that sequential configurations consisting of two adjacent consonants with different points of articulation are articulatorily complex. The UG context- sensitive marking statement in (154) could then be proposed.

(154) a. The configuration in (154b) is complex.

b. X X where ox and ,B are nonidentical I I articulators

[+ cons] [ + cons] I I

Place Place I I

Suppose that this marking statement is active in some language. We can assume that in such a case UG provides delinking of one of the violating articulators with subsequent automatic spreading of the other articulator as a strategy to repair this disallowed complex sequential configuration. We thus obtain the result that assimilated configurations are more optimal from the point of view of articulatory complexity.

For each context-sensitive marking statement, the grammar of each language should then state which procedure is used to repair its violations and should set various other parameters governing the application of this procedure, for example, the position of the delinked feature or the direction of the spreading (see Paradis 1988a,b for similar proposals).

Crucially, some marking statements that are deactivated in underlying representations can be reactivated at later stages of the derivation.49 We can then assume that the

4 The possibility of the reactivation of marking statements at later stages of the derivation is independently needed for cases like Okpe, discussed in Calabrese 1988, 1993. Okpe has an underlying nine-vowel inventory with [+ / - ATR] distinctions in high and mid vowels, which becomes a surface seven-vowel system with a [ + / - ATRI distinction only in mid vowels by reactivation of the marking statement [ + high, - ATR].




reactivation of context-sensitive marking statements can be ordered. In this way, we can capture the notion of extrinsic rule ordering, which, as argued by Bromberger and Halle (1989) and Kenstowicz (1994), is necessary in phonology.

The problem with this approach is that when we try to formulate the context-sensitive marking statements that are needed to account for phonological processes recurrent in natural languages, we discover that many of them appear to be rather cumbersome and counterintuitive, whereas the processes they intend to account for are extremely simple to formulate with traditional rules. (Try, for example, to formulate the relatively simple rules of metaphony and umlaut by using a context-sensitive marking statement and an appropriate repair strategy.) It could be that our knowledge of the phonology of natural languages is still not developed enough to allow us to formulate such context-sensitive marking statements in an appropriate and elegant way. Until we have such improved knowledge,50 I feel that approaches like the preceding one cannot be pursued. Therefore, for the time being we must assume that marking statements or prohibitions or other phonotactic conditions cannot be used to account for language-particular distributional facts, but only to account for restrictions on the structure of phonological elements-that is, in the paradigmatic component of language.

11 Conclusion

I have attempted here to outline a novel approach to the theory of phonological markedness, in particular, the theory of phonological inventories. The main conclusions are as follows.

Rule-like devices such as redundancy rules, persistent rules, natural processes, and marking conventions are inadequate as ways of expressing generalizations about phonological inventories. Only marking statements and prohibitions must be used for this purpose. By hypothesizing the existence of simplification procedures whose function is to prevent the surfacing of complex disallowed segments, it is possible to achieve an adequate and simple account of processes-like diphthongization in metaphony or affrication in palatalization processes-that can otherwise be formulated only in terms of rather complex and ad hoc rules.

The same ill-formed feature combination may be repaired by the application of different simplification procedures. This may create a situation of dialectal variation in which all of the dialects share the same phonological process but choose different simplification procedures to repair a complex output of the process. In this way, it is possible to account for the variation found with metaphony in southern Italian dialects. This is a type of sound change that has not been previously recognized by the theory of historical phonology.

The degree of complexity of the feature configurations allowed in a grammar may

50 This goal will perhaps be achieved through the interaction of hierarchically ordered context-sensitive constraints, as in the recently developed Optimality Theory (see Prince and Smolensky 1993, McCarthy and Prince 1993). But this is not obvious. Optimality Theory will not be discussed here (see Lacharite and Paradis 1993 for a comparison between Optimality Theory and approaches adopting constraints and repairs).




vary. In particular, it may be decreased, thereby triggering the application of simplification procedures. In this way, it is possible to account for simplifications in vowel inventories in several language families in which the most complex vowels are eliminated. In these cases, as above, we are dealing with a type of sound change that has not been previously recognized by the theory of historical phonology.

Phonological rules can be characterized as being sensitive only to certain feature specifications. In particular, certain phonological rules are sensitive only to contrastive feature specifications, and others are sensitive only to marked feature specifications. In this way, underspecification becomes an idiosyncratic property of individual rules. Thus, the formal advantages of underspecification are maintained without resorting to the assumption that underspecification is a property of underlying representations, an assumption that Mohanan (1991) has shown to be extremely problematic.

The blocking of rule application is the result of an economy principle that requires the shortest possible derivation, which in some cases consists of simply not applying the rule. In this way, it is possible to account for the historical emergence of neutral transparent and opaque segments.

References

Andersen, Henning. 1972. Diphthongization. Language 48:11-50. Archangeli, Diana. 1984. Underspecification in Yawelmani phonology and morphology. Doctoral

dissertation, MIT. Published 1988, Garland, New York. Archangeli, Diana. 1988. Aspects of underspecification theory. Phonology 5:183-207. Archangeli, Diana, and Douglas Pulleyblank. 1994. Grounded Phonology. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT

Press. Basb0ll, Hans. 1981. Remarks on distinctive features and markedness in generative phonology.

In Theory of markedness in generative grammar, ed. Adriana Belletti, Luciana Brandi, and Luigi Rizzi, 25-64. Scuola Normale Superiore, Pisa.

Bhat, D. N. S. 1978. A general study of palatalization. In Universals of human language. Vol. 2: Phonology, ed. Joseph Greenberg, 48-92. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press.

Bloomfield, Leonard. 1933. Language. New York: Holt. Bromberger, Sylvain, and Morris Halle. 1989. Why phonology is different. Linguistic Inquiry 20:

51-70. Broselow, Ellen, and Alice Niyondagara. 1991. Morphological structure in Kirundi palatalization:

Implications for feature geometry. In Afrikanistische Arbeitspapiere 25: Lacustrine Bantu phonology, ed. Francis Katamba, 131-155. Institut fur Afrikanistik, Universitat zu Koln.

Cairns, Charles E. 1969. Markedness, neutralization, and universal redundancy rules. Language 45:863-886.

Calabrese, Andrea. 1985. Metaphony in Salentino. Rivista di grammatica generativa 9-10:1-141. Calabrese, Andrea. 1988. Towards a theory of phonological alphabets. Doctoral dissertation, MIT,

Cambridge, Mass. Calabrese, Andrea. 1992a. Affrication in palatalization processes. Ms., Harvard University, Cam-

bridge, Mass. Calabrese, Andrea. 1992b. On palatalization processes: An inquiry about the nature of a sound

change. Ms., Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass.




Calabrese, Andrea. 1993. The notion of complexity in phonological theory. In Harvard working papers in linguistics 2: Papers on phonology and historical linguistics, 3-75. Department of Linguistics, Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass.

Calabrese, Andrea. To appear. A constraint-based theory of phonological inventories. In Phono- logica 1992, ed. John Rennison. Turin: Rosenberg and Sellier.

Calabrese, Andrea, and Cristina Romani. 1991. Syllable structure in aphasia: A case study. In Certamen phonologicum II, ed. Pier Marco Bertinetto and Michele Loporcaro, 147-171. Turin: Rosenberg and Sellier.

Chomsky, Noam. 1991. Some notes on economy of derivation and representation. In Principles and parameters in comparative grammar, ed. Robert Freidin, 417-454. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.

Chomsky, Noam. 1993. A minimalist program for linguistic theory. In The view from Building 20: Essays in linguistics in honor of Sylvain Bromberger, ed. Kenneth Hale and Samuel Jay Keyser, 1-52. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.

Chomsky, Noam, and Morris Halle. 1968. The sound pattern of English. New York: Harper and Row.

Churchward, C. Maxwell. 1941. Rotuman grammar and dictionary. Sydney: Australian Medical Publishing Co.

Clements, G. N. 1976. Palatalization: Linking or assimilation? In Papers from the Twelfth Regional Meeting, Chicago Linguistic Society, 96-109. Chicago Linguistic Society, University of Chicago, Chicago, Ill.

Clements, G. N. 1987. Toward a substantive theory of feature specification. In Proceedings of NELS 18, 79-93. GLSA, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.

Clements, G. N. 1989a. On the representation of vowel height. Ms., Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y.

Clements, G. N. 1989b. A unified set of features for consonants and vowels. Ms., Cornell Univer- sity, Ithaca, N.Y.

Clements, G. N. 1993a. Place of articulation in consonants and vowels: A unified theory. In L'architecture et la geometrie des representations phonologiques, ed. Bernard Laks and Annie Rialland. Paris: Editions du CNRS. Also appeared in Working papers of the Cornell Phonetics Lab 5 (1991).

Clements, G. N. 1993b. Underspecification or nonspecification. Ms., CNRS, Paris. Clements, G. N., and Samuel Jay Keyser. 1983. CV phonology: A generative theory of the syllable.

Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Crowley, Terry. 1978. The Middle Clarence dialects of Bandjalang. Canberra: Australian Institute

of Aboriginal Studies. Dell, Frangois. 1973. Les regles et les sons. Paris: Gallimard. Dressler, Wolfgang. 1974. Diachronic puzzles for natural phonology. In Papers from the Parases-

sion on Natural Phonology, 95-103. Chicago Linguistic Society, University of Chicago, Chicago, Ill.

Eliasson, Stig. 1970. Studies in Swedish phonology. Doctoral dissertation, Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass.

Elugbe, Ben Ohiomamhe. 1982. The vowels of Proto-Edoid. Journal of the Linguistic Association of Nigeria 1: 107-115.

Elugbe, Ben Ohiomamhe. 1989. Comparative Edoid: Phonology and lexicon. Port Harcourt, Ni- geria: University of Port Harcourt Press.

Farkas, Donka F., and Patrice S. Beddor. 1987. Privative and equipollent backness in Hungarian. In CLS 23. Part 2: Parasession on Autosegmental and Metrical Phonology, 338-362. Chicago Linguistic Society, University of Chicago, Chicago, I11.




Ferguson, Charles A. 1966. Assumptions about nasals: A sample study in phonological universals. In Universals of language, ed. Joseph H. Greenberg, 53-60. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.

Goldsmith, John. 1990. Autosegmental and metrical phonology. Oxford: Blackwell. Greenberg, Joseph H. 1966. Language universals. In Current trends in linguistics. Vol. 3: Theoreti-

cal foundations, ed. Thomas Sebeok, 61-112. The Hague: Mouton. Halle, Morris. 1959. The sound pattern of Russian. The Hague: Mouton. Halle, Morris. 1962. Phonology in a generative grammar. Word 18:54-72. Halle, Morris. 1973. The accentuation of Russian words. Language 49:312-348. Halle, Morris. 1995. Feature geometry and feature spreading. Linguistic Inquiry 26:1-46. Halle, Morris, and Jean-Roger Vergnaud. 1981. Harmony processes. In Crossing the boundaries

in linguistics: Studies presented to Manfred Bierwisch, ed. Wolfgang Klein and W. J. M. Levelt, 1-22. Dordrecht: Reidel.

Hayes, Bruce. 1984. The phonetics and phonology of Russian voicing assimilation. In Language sound structure, ed. Mark Aronoff and Richard T. Oehrle, 318-329. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.

Hayes, Bruce. 1986. Assimilation as spreading in Toba Batak. Linguistic Inquiry 17:467-499. Hudson, Grover. 1974. The role of SPC's in natural generative phonology. In Papers from the

Parasession on Natural Phonology, 171-183. Chicago Linguistic Society, University of Chicago, Chicago, Ill.

Hume, Elizabeth. 1992. Front vowels, coronal consonants and their interaction in nonlinear phonology. Doctoral dissertation, Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y.

1t6, Junko, and Ralf-Armin Mester. 1986. The phonology of voicing in Japanese. Linguistic Inquiry 17:49-73.

ItB, Junko, Armin Mester, and Jaye Padgett. To appear. NC: Licensing and underspecification in Optimality Theory. Linguistic Inquiry.

Jakobson, Roman. 1941. Kindersprache, Aphasie, und allgemeine Lautgesetze. Uppsala: Universi- tets Aarskrift.

Jakobson, Roman. 1948. Russian conjugation. Word 4:154-167. Also published in Selected writings, vol. 2, 119-129. The Hague: Mouton.

Jakobson, Roman. 1956. Die Verteilung der stimmhaften und stimmlosen Gerauschlaute im Rus- sischen. In Festschriftenffur Max Vasmer, ed. M. Woltner and H. Brauer, 199. Berlin: Freie Universitat. Also published in Selected writings, vol. 2, 505-509. The Hague: Mouton.

Jakobson, Roman. 1978. Mutual assimilation of Russian voiced and voiceless consonants. Studia Linguistica 32:107-110.

Jones, Daniel. 1961. An outline of English phonetics. Cambridge: Heffer. Jung, Yunsun. 1994. Obstruents in Korean and underspecification theory. Ms., Harvard Univer-

sity, Cambridge, Mass. Kaze, Jeffery W. 1989. Metaphony in Italian and Spanish dialects revisited. Doctoral dissertation,

University of Illinois. Kaze, Jeffery W. 1991. Metaphony and two models for the description of vowels. Phonology 8:

163-170. Kean, Mary-Louise. 1981. On a theory of markedness: Some general considerations and a case

in point. In Theory of markedness in generative grammar, ed. Adriana Belletti, Luciana Brandi, and Luigi Rizzi, 559-605. Scuola Normale Superiore, Pisa.

Kenstowicz, Michael. 1994. Phonology in generative grammar. Oxford: Blackwell. Kenstowicz, Michael, and Charles Kisseberth. 1977. Topics in phonological theory. New York:

Academic Press. Kiparsky, Paul. 1973. Phonological representations. In Three dimensions of linguistic theory, ed.

Osamu Fujimura, 171-202. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Kiparsky, Paul. 1981. Vowel harmony. Ms., MIT, Cambridge, Mass.




Kiparsky, Paul. 1982. Lexical morphology and phonology. In Linguistics in the morning calm, ed. Linguistic Society of Korea, 3-91. Seoul: Hanshin.

Kiparsky, Paul. 1985. Some consequences of Lexical Phonology. Phonology Yearbook 2:85-138. Kisseberth, Charles. 1970a. On the functional unity of phonological rules. Linguistic Inquiry 1:

291-306. Kisseberth, Charles. 1970b. Vowel elision in Tonkawa and derivational constraints. In Studies

presented to Robert B. Lees by his students, ed. Jerrold N. Sadock and Anthony L. Vanek, 109-138. Edmonton: Linguistic Research.

Kontra, Miklos, and Catherine Ringen. 1986. Hungarian vowel harmony: The evidence from loanwords. Ural-Altaische Jahrbucher 58:1-13.

Lacharite, Darlene, and Carole Paradis. 1993. The emergence of constraints in generative phonology and a comparison of three current constraint-based models. Canadian Journal of Lin- guistics 38:127-153.

Lahiri, Aditi, and Vincent Evers. 1991. Palatalization and coronality. In The special status of coronals: Internal and external evidence, ed. Carole Paradis and Jean-Frangois Prunet, 79-100. San Diego, Calif.: Academic Press.

Lausberg, Heinrich. 1939. Die Mundarten Sudlukaniens. Zeitschrift fur romanische Philologie. Beiheft 90.

Lightner, Theodore. 1972. Problems in the theory of phonology I: Russian phonology and Turkish phonology. Edmonton: Linguistic Research.

Lunt, Horace. 1974. Old Church Slavonic grammar. The Hague: Mouton. Lunt, Horace. 1991. Common Slavic, Proto-Slavic, Pan-Slavic: What are we talking about? About

phonology. Ms., Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass. Maddieson, Ian. 1984. Patterns of sounds. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Maiden, Martin. 1991. Interactive morphonology: Metaphony in Italy. London: Routledge. McCarthy, John J. 1986. OCP effects: Gemination and antigemination. Linguistic Inquiry 17:

207-263. McCarthy, John J. 1988. Feature geometry and dependency. Phonetica 43:84-108. McCarthy, John J., and Alan Prince. 1993. Prosodic morphology I: Constraint interaction and

satisfaction. Technical Report of the Rutgers Center for Cognitive Science, Rutgers Univer- sity, Piscataway, N.J.

McCarthy, John J., and Alison Taub. 1992. Review of Carole Paradis and Jean-Fran,ois Prunet, The special status of coronals: Internal and external evidence. Phonology 9:363-370.

Meillet, Antoine. 1924. Le slave commun. Paris: Librairie Honore Champion. Mohanan, K. P. 1991. On the bases of radical underspecification. Natural Language & Linguistic

Theory 9:285-326. Myers, Scott. 1991. Persistent rules. Linguistic Inquiry 22:315-344. Nandris, Octave. 1963. Phonetique historique du roumain. Paris: Klincksieck. Niedermann, Max. 1953. Precis de phonetique historique du latin. Paris: Klincksieck. Noyer, Rolf. 1992. Features, positions, and affixes in autonomous morphological structure. Doc-

toral dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, Mass. Noyer, Rolf. 1994. Palatalization and vowel place in San Mateo Huave. Ms., Princeton University,

Princeton, N.J. Odden, David. 1992. Simplicity of underlying representations as motivation for underspecification.

In OSU working papers in linguistics 41: Papers in phonology 1, 85-100. Department of Linguistics, Ohio State University, Columbus.

Paradis, Carole. 1988a. On constraints and repair strategies. The Linguistic Review 6:71-97. Paradis, Carole. 1988b. Towards a theory of constraint violations. In McGill working papers in

linguistics 5, 1-43. Department of Linguistics, McGill University, Montreal, Que. Prince, Alan, and Paul Smolensky. 1993. Optimality Theory: Constraint interaction in generative




grammar. Technical Report of the Rutgers Center for Cognitive Science, Rutgers University, Piscataway, N.J.

Pulleyblank, Douglas. 1986. Underspecification and low vowel harmony in Okpe. Studies in Afri- can Linguistics 17:119-153.

Pyun, Kwang-Soo. 1987. Korean-Swedish interlanguage phonology. Stockholm: University of Stockholm.

Renzi, Lorenzo. 1985. Nuova introduzione alla filologia romanza. Bologna: Il Mulino. Rice, Keren. 1991. Default variability. Ms., University of Toronto, Toronto, Ont. Rice, Keren, and Peter Avery. 1991. On the relationship between laterality and coronality. In The

special status of coronals: Internal and external evidence, ed. Carole Paradis and Jean- Fransois Prunet, 101-124. San Diego, Calif.: Academic Press.

Ringen, Catherine. 1978. Another view of the theoretical implications of Hungarian vowel harmony. Linguistic Inquiry 9: 105-115.

Ringen, Catherine. 1980. A concrete analysis of Hungarian vowel harmony. In Issues in vowel harmony, ed. Robert Vago, 135-154. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Rohlfs, Gerhard. 1966. Grammatica storica della lingua italiana e dei suoi dialetti: Fonetica. Turin: Einaudi.

Romani, Cristina, and Andrea Calabrese. 1993. Linguistic constraints in the phonological errors of an aphasic patient. Ms., University of Birmingham and Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass.

Rosenthall, Sam. 1988. The representation of prenasalized consonants. In Proceedings of the Seventh West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, 277-291. Stanford, Calif.: CSLI Publications. Distributed by University of Chicago Press.

Saito, Mamoru. 1981. A preliminary account of the Rotuman vowel system. Ms., MIT, Cambridge, Mass.

Schlindwein, Deborah. 1987. P-bearing units: A study of Kinande vowel harmony. In Proceedings of NELS 17, 551-556. GLSA, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.

Sievers, Eduard. 1901. Grundzuge der Phonetik. Leipzig: Breitkopf. Singh, Rajendra. 1987. Well-formedness conditions and phonological theory. In Phonologica 1984,

ed. Wolfgang Dressler, 273-286. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Smith, N. V. 1973. The acquisition of phonology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Sohn, Hyang-Sook. 1987. Underspecification in Korean phonology. Doctoral dissertation, Univer-

sity of Illinois. Sommerstein, Alan. 1974. On phonotactically motivated rules. Journal of Linguistics 10:71-94. Sommerstein, Alan. 1977. Modern phonology. London: Edward Arnold. Stampe, David. 1972. A dissertation on Natural Phonology. Doctoral dissertation, University of

Chicago, Chicago, Ill. Published 1980, Garland, New York. Stampe, David. 1973. On chapter nine. In Issues in phonological theory, ed. Michael Kenstowicz

and Charles Kisseberth, 44-52. Paris: Mouton. Steriade, Donca. 1979. Parameters of metrical vowel harmony rules. Ms., MIT, Cambridge, Mass. Steriade, Donca. 1982. Greek prosodies and the nature of syllabification. Doctoral dissertation,

MIT, Cambridge, Mass. Steriade, Donca. 1987. Redundant values. In CLS 23. Part 2: Parasession on Autosegmental and

Metrical Phonology, 339-362. Chicago Linguistic Society, University of Chicago, Chicago, Ill.

Steriade, Donca. 1995. Underspecification and markedness. In Handbook of phonological theory, ed. John Goldsmith, 141-174. Oxford: Blackwell.

Stevens, Kenneth N., and Samuel Jay Keyser. 1989. Primary features and their enhancement in consonants. Language 65:81-106.




Stevens, Kenneth, Samuel Jay Keyser, and Haruko Kawasaki. 1986. Toward a phonetic and phonological theory of redundant features. In Invariance and variability in speech processes, ed. Joseph S. Perkell and Dennis H. Klatt, 426-449. Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Stewart, John M. 1972. Niger-Congo, Kwa. In Linguistics in Sub-Saharan Africa, ed. Thomas Sebeok, 179-213. The Hague: Mouton.

Trigo, Loren. 1988. On the phonological derivation and behavior of nasal glides. Doctoral dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, Mass.

Trubetzkoy, N. S. 1939. Grundzuge der Phonologie. Travaux du Cercle Linguistique de Prague 7. English translation Principles of phonology. Berkeley, Calif.: University of California Press, 1969.

Vago, Robert. 1976. Theoretical implications of Hungarian vowel harmony. Linguistic Inquiry 7: 243-263.

Vaillant, Andr6. 1950. Grammaire compar&e des langues slaves. Lyon: IAC. Valente, Vincenzo. 1975. Puglia. Pisa: Pacini. Vaux, Bert. 1992. ATR harmony in the Altaic languages. Ms., Harvard University, Cambridge,

Mass. Vaux, Bert. 1993. The origins of Altaic labial attraction. In Harvard working papers in linguistics

2: Papers on phonology and historical linguistics, 228-237. Department of Linguistics, Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass.

Yip, Moira. 1988. The Obligatory Contour Principle and phonological rules: A loss of identity. Linguistic Inquiry 19:65-100.

Department of Linguistics Harvard University Cambridge, Massachusetts 02138

[email protected]



Documents

A Constraint-Based Theory of Phonological Markedness and Simplification Procedures