On Nasalization in Sundanese

On Nasalization in SundaneseAuthor(s): Stephen R. AndersonSource: Linguistic Inquiry, Vol. 3, No. 3 (Summer, 1972), pp. 253-268Published by: The MIT PressStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4177714 .

Accessed: 14/06/2014 14:52

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 185.44.78.31 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 14:52:37 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

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

http://www.jstor.org/stable/4177714?origin=JSTOR-pdf

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


Stephen R. Anderson On Nasalization in Sundanese

A series of classic papers by Robins (I953a, I953b, I957 1959) have discussed the phonology and morphology of Sundanese,l an Indonesian language spoken in Java, within the descriptive tradition of British "neo-Firthian" linguistics. One aspect of Robins' analysis which has occasioned a certain amount of discussion in the linguistic literature is the process of (nondistinctive) nasalization of vowels, treated primarily in Robins (I957). The purpose of this note is to inquire further into the correct reformulation of Robins' prosodic treatment of this phenomenon in terms of generative phonology.

The original statement (Robins I957, 90) of the principle by which nasality appears in vowels is as follows:

In the phonetic realization of words involving n [the prosody of nasalization: SRA], once nasality has been initiated by the articulation of a nasal consonant, whether as syllable initial or as syllable final, it continues irrespective of syllable boundaries until checked; in other words, the soft palate remains lowered until a check point is reached in the utterance. This is part of the justification for treating the feature of nasality in prosodic terms.

Nasality is checked by: i. A word boundary. 2. A supraglottally articulated consonant, i.e. any consonant other than h or

Consonant clusters are not common in Sundanese, though vowel clusters are relatively frequent. There are, therefore, numerous instances in which this vowel nasality extends over two or three syllables. Examples are given below (from Robins 1957, 9I):

(i) a. maro [maro] 'to halve' b. maneh [maneh] 'you' c. mandi [mandi] 'to bathe'

1 My transcription of Sundanese forms follows Robins' papers, including the use of IPA phonetic symbols and an orthography based on them. The symbol y is used in this paper to represent a mid back unrounded vowel. It should be noted that, while many of my narrow phonetic transcriptions are taken directly from Robins' works, others, including several with important consequences for the argument, are inferred from his quasi-phonemic representation, taken together with the analysis he gives to support this representation. There is not, I believe, any detail of a phonetic transcription which is not supported by an explicit statement in Robins' work. If it should turn out that the facts of Sundanese are other than as given here, my analysis is of course beside the point. I would like to thank Irwin Howard for drawing my attention to the facts discussed in this paper, and Morris Halle and Calvert Watkins for comments on an earlier version of it.



254 STEPHEN R. ANDERSON

d. ijiar [pjAr] 'to seek' e. naian [naidn] 'to wet' f. niis [nVis] 'to take a holiday' g. miasih [mP asih] 'to love' h. kumaha [kumaha] 'how?' i. pahokyn [pjhokyn] 'to inform' j. byrhar [byrfihr] 'to be rich'

In most forms involving nasal consonants, the above principle correctly predicts the occurrence of nasalized vowels, as the forms in (i) illustrate. Langendoen (I968, I oo) observes that if these were all of the facts, the process might be formulated as Rule 2 2

below:

(2) [+ VOC] - [+nasal] / [+nasal] [-cons]0

This rule represents a potentially infinite schema, and thus according to the letter (but not the intent: M. Halle, personal communication) of the convention for ex- panding the schema (X)O given in Chomsky and Halle (I968, 343-344), its various subrules are to be applied simultaneously, resulting in the nasalization of as many vowels as are separated from preceding nasals only by nonconsonantal segments. Granting the simultaneous application of the subrules of (2) (which could be obtained by use of the (X)* notation in any case), there still remains one problem with Rule (2): while it correctly allows nasality to propagate across h and ?, as these are nonconsonantal, it would allow nasality to propagate across the glides w andy, which are also found in the language. This is incorrect, as shown by forms like those in (3):

(3) a. rjawidarj [ga-widarj] 'to dry skins' b. i)ayaktikyn [gayaktikyn] 'to make certain'

The question of how to allow h and P in the environment of the nasalization rule, while excluding w andy, will be taken up again below.

In addition to the fairly straightforward facts above, there are other data which indicate that a rule like (2) cannot be the entire statement of nasalization in Sundanese. The question arises when one considers the interaction of nasalization with the pluralizing infix -ar/l-. This element, which marks verbs and certain nominalizations as having plural subjects, appears after the initial consonant of the stem (if one is present) and before the first vowel:

(4) a. lympan 'to run'; pl. lalympan b. sare 'to sleep'; pl. sarare c. bawa 'to carry'; dibawa 'to be carried'; pl. dibarawa

When the root begins with a nasal, this infix behaves as follows: the a of the infix is

2 A summary of the rules finally accepted will be found at the conclusion of this article.



ON NASALIZATION IN SUNDANESE

nasalized, and the vowel following the infix is not nasalized. This is exactly as things should be: the r/l of the infix is a supraglottally articulated consonant, and thus should stop the propagation of nasality to the right. The peculiar fact about this infix, however, is the following: if the vowel immediately following it is itself followed by another vowel, without an intervening supraglottally articulated consonant, this following vowel is nasalized. Thus, we find forms like the following:

(5) a. moekyn [moekyn] 'to dry'; pl. maroekyn [maroekyn] b. paur [jpAUr] 'to say'; pl. palaur [yilaiQr] c. niis [nl?s] 'to cool oneself'; pl. nariis [nari?ls] d. paho [jiaho] 'to know'; pl. paraho [pjaraho] e. dahar [dahar] 'to eat'; pl. (di)dalahar [(di)dalahar]

From a form like (5e), we can see that this nasalization following the infix -ar/l- is not general, but is confined to stems which begin with a nasal consonant. Forms essentially similar to those of (5a-d) in segmental structure can be found, in which the ar or al sequence is part of the stem, rather than the infix of plurality, and in these cases, nasality does not appear later in the word:

(6) a. molohok [molohok] 'to stare' b. marios [marios] 'to examine'

A form like (6b) forms a perfect minimal pair with the plural form of a hypothetical verb *mios *[mls]; pl. *marios *[marios]. This fact would lead a strictly taxonomic phonemic analyst to consider vowel nasality phonemic, as Robins observes.

Obviously, the apparently contrastive status of nasalization does not really indicate that vowel nasality should be treated as an independent variable in underlying representations, but rather that the plural morpheme has a special status with respect to the (subphonemic) rule of nasalization. This fact is expressed by Robins as a special fact about the prosody of nasalization: this prosodic operator is defined ad hoc so as to include the first vowel of an infix, but to disregard the following consonant together with the next vowel of the word. In other words, the facts just stated and exemplified in (5) are built into the statement of the prosody of nasalization.

Langendoen (I968, I oo) suggests that Robins' statement could be expressed in the form of a phonological rule as follows:

(7) [ + voc] > [ + nasal] / [ + nasal] ( + plural + []) [-cons].

This rule is supposed to represent two rules, as follows:

(8) a. [+voc] > [+nasal] / [+nasal] + plural + [] [-cons]0 b. [ + voc] > [ + nasal] / [ + nasal] [-cons]. -

Part (8b) of this rule is just Rule (2) above: it accounts correctly for forms not involving the plural infix. Part (8a), however, says that nasalization skips over the




entire morpheme "plural", together with the immediately following segment, and recommences immediately thereafter if a nonconsonantal segment is found. A form like [nari?ls], then, is derived as follows: the underlying form is /n + ar + i?ls/; (8a) skips over the infix and the following i to nasalize the next i, giving /nari?is/, and then (8b) applies, nasalizing the a to give [nari?ls].

A serious problem with this analysis, pointed out by Howard (I97I), is the following: according to the hypothesis of disjunctive ordering as suggested by Chomsky and Halle (I968), the rules (8a) and (8b), collapsed as (7), should be disjunctive. That is, the applicability of (8a) should preclude the application of (8b) by general convention. But in order to achieve the derivation suggested above, Langendoen must assume that the rules are ordered conjunctively; that is, both (8a) and (8b) must apply in the same derivation. If Langendoen's analysis is correct, then, the principle of disjunctive ordering cannot be maintained.

Howard suggests an alternative analysis that avoids these difficulties. He observes first of all that Langendoen's rule skips over not only the infix, but also the following vowel; it would be perfectly plausible, he argues, to associate the nonnasalized character of this vowel with the fact that it is preceded by an oral consonant. We might, then, simply skip over the plural infix itself, nasalize the following vowel, and then apply another rule of denasalization to a vowel following an oral consonant:

(9) [ + voc]- >-nasal] + coasal]

The nasalization rule would then look like this:

(I O) [ + voc] -> [ + nasal] / [ + nasal] ( + plural) [-cons].

One difficulty remains: while the pair of rules (g) and (io) will correctly account for forms not involving the infix and for the nasality of vowels after the infix, the problem of disjunctive order still remains. The parts of Rule (io) apply disjunctively (ex hypothesi), and so the application of the longer expansion in forms containing the plural infix will preclude the application of the shorter. This will result in the infix vowel itself being skipped, and remaining [- nasal]. On Howard's analysis, however, this difficulty is easy to repair: we can simply generalize Rule (g) to an alpha rule, assimilating nasality to either [ + nasal] or [- nasal]:

(II) [+ VOC] - > [a nasal] +conl]

The pair of rules (io) and (i i), then, applying in that order, will correctly account for all forms.

We can now ask whether Howard's analysis correctly states the generalizations involved in the description of Sundanese vowel nasality. It correctly states the facts, and it states them in a way which is consistent with the hypothesis of disjunctive




ordering, but we can demand further that it come as close as possible to providing an expjanation of the facts. In looking for an explanation of these facts, both Rule (i o) ahd Rule (i i) appear to be related to the same articulatory fact: both state that nasality of a vowel is a function of the nasality of the preceding segment, and this has a plausible articulatory interpretation in terms of coarticulation and lag in an articulator's movement from one position to another. The principal fact about Rules (i o) and (i I) which remains arbitrary and unexplained is the presence of the term "( +plural)" in the environment of Rule (io). Both (Io) and (II) are otherwise instantiations of the general process of nasalization, but there is no obvious reason why such a process should skip over a plural morpheme. We should then go on to ask whether the plural morpheme in Sundanese has any other peculiarities in terms of which we could explain its presence in the environment of Rule (i o). If there is some other idiosyncracy of this morpheme, from which it could be made to follow that nasalization can skip over it, we might then eliminate the statement of this fact from Rule (io) itself, yielding a more natural formulation.

The most unusual feature of the plural infix is simply that it is an infix at all. In his survey of Sundanese morphology, Robins (I 959) describes five types of processes that are found in the language: reduplication, prefixation, suffixation, infixation, and initial consonant change. Of these, reduplication (either partial, with or without an augment, or total) serves a variety of purposes, and is reasonably straightforward to describe. It is, furthermore, encountered in a great many related languages in essentially the same forms as in Sundanese. Prefixation and suffixation are also common, and perfectly straightforward. It is possible, however, to question the independent status of both infixation and initial consonant change, which occur in much more restricted situations.

The facts of initial change are discussed in Robins (I 953a). Briefly, they are as follows: in certain verb forms (and forms derived from them), the initial consonant may be either replaced or prefixed. Roots with initial p, t, v, k, or s (the only voiceless obstruents in Sundanese) appear with the corresponding nasal in place of the obstruent. In Sundanese, as in other related languages such as Malay, s counts as a palatal for these purposes, and initial s is replaced by j, just as initial c is, rather than by n, which only replaces t. Roots beginning with other consonants take the prefix ya-; roots beginning with a vowel take simply y. Disregarding the roots with initial voiceless obstruents, the prefix ya-/y- found with the other roots should surely be reduced to a single form. We might plausibly take this to be either /rja/ or /j/, given only the information considered so far. If we chose /ia-/, we would need to assume a rule of a-Deletion, applying before root-initial vowels; if we chose /rj-/, we would need a rule of a-Epenthesis, applying before root-initial consonants. We can readily see that the second alternative is to be preferred here; there are other prefixes in the language with shape /Ca-/, such as /sa-/ 'totalizer', which can appear with stems of various shapes. When /sa-/ is prefixed to a vowel-initial stem, such as umur 'life',




we obtain saumur [sa?umiU-r], and not *[sumu-r]. We can see then that a rule of a-Dele- tion would have to be restricted so as to apply only to the prefix /qa-/, and not to other prefixes of shape /Ca-/. As there are no other prefixes consisting of a single consonant, however, no such restriction would need to be placed on a rule of a- Epenthesis; it could be formulated generally as (I2):

(12) b ). a l + [-Syll] #[-syll]

This rule inserts a vowel a between a morpheme consisting of a single consonant and a following (root-initial) consonant. We could, then, establish the underlying form of the nasalizing affix as /q-/.

This account suffices for the stems with initials other than p, t, 6, k, and s, but how are we to account for these? Do we, in fact, need to assume that in this case we are dealing, not with a prefix, but with a totally distinct process of consonantal ablaut? We should notice first of all that the form of the consonant alternation is not totally unrelated to the form of the prefix in the other forms; both involve a nasal consonant in the derived form. It is clearly implausible to reduce the prefixation to consonantal ablaut (followed by a rule to somehow reinsert the lost nonnasal consonant), but an account which treats the ablaut as a variant of prefixation seems perfectly reasonable. Assuming that the prefix has the underlying form /II-/, we could assume a rule that assimilates a nasal to the point of articulation of a following (voiceless) obstruent,3 and then deletes the obstruent:

(13) + obst 1 -voice

+ [+nas] a

corn y high 8 back

21 [a cor

I 2 3 4 3 Ifant y high

L8 back] Since Rule (I3) is restricted to morphemes consisting of a single consonant in Sun- danese, we cannot confirm it by looking for other instances of its application. In other languages of the family, however, such as Malay and Bahasa Indonesian, the rule is not so restricted, and a variety of prefixes of shape /CVN-/ undergo it. Rules (I2) and (13) are mutually exclusive, applying to complementary classes of forms. This result can be achieved in various ways; we will assume that the rules can be formulated as they are here, and ordered so that Rule (I3) takes precedence over Rule (I2).

3 This analysis assumes, as noted above, that in Sundanese as in many closely related languages [s] is underlyingly alveopalatal. This suggestion appears at least as early as Dempwolff.




We have thus argued that the nasalized verb forms in Sundanese are best explained in terms of a single underlying prefix (/D-/), together with the phonological rules (12) and (I3). We have thereby eliminated initial consonant change as a morphological process distinct from prefixation in the language; the peculiarities of this prefix can be attributed to the fact that it is the only item in the inventory of prefixes that is nonsyllabic.

We can now proceed to examine the process of infixation. Robins (1959) cites only three infixes in the language: the plural element -ar/l- with which we have been concerned above; and the two derivational elements -in- and -um-. We can immediately note a peculiarity of these three items: while there are prefixes with the shapes /CV-/, /CVC-/, /C-/, and /CVCVC-/, there are no prefixes with the shape /VC-/; while the three infixes all have this shape. This complementarity suggests that we might regard the infixes as a special class of prefixes, and posit the existence of a rule of infixation :4

(I4) + V C # (C) V I 2 3 4 (5) 6 = 4 (5) 2 3 6

Such a process, which metathesizes a VC- prefix with the first consonant of the root if there is one, has a clear motivation in the syllable structure of the language. As mentioned above, consonant clusters occur very rarely; most syllables have the simple shape CV. If a prefix with shape VC- precedes a consonant-initial stem, this will result in a medial cluster. The metathesis operation, however, converts the anomalous shape VCCV into the more natural CVCV. Observe that such an operation could be so motivated only for prefixes with exactly the shape VO-: for other prefixes that give rise to clusters, such as CVC- prefixes, metathesis would simply turn CVCCV into the even more anomalous CCVCV. The facts about canonical syllable structure in Sundanese, therefore, provide us with an explanation not only of the existence of the metathesis rule (14), but also of its restriction to VC- prefixes.

We have now suggested that Sundanese morphology employs only reduplication, suffixation, and prefixation as morphological processes, and that the infixes start out as prefixes in the underlying forms. They are then infixed by the operation of metathesis. We can now ask whether this provides us with any help concerning our original problem: what is it about the plural infix -ar/l- that allows nasalization to propagate through it (without affecting the immediate following vowel) ? Howard suggests that the nasalization rule recognizes the "morphological integrity" of this element, and simply allows it to be disregarded in the rule. This does not really get us closer, however, toward answering the question of why the term (+plural) should appear in the environment of the nasalization rule. Supraglottally articulated consonants are not normally "transparent" to nasalization; why should the r/l of the plural

4 The parallel between the process of infixation in Sundanese and the Indo-European nasal infix should be noted. In the latter case, it could be argued that a nasal suffix was metathesized with a final consonant in order to ameliorate a set of otherwise noncanonical clusters.




infix be an exception to this? Indeed, it seems a conclusive argument against saying this segment is transparent to nasalization that it in fact causes denasalization of the immediately following segment, by a process like Howard's Rule (i i) (which we accept here). Some other explanation would certainly be desirable for the phenomenon.

Now notice that in the discussion of the process of infixation above we have in fact provided the basis for an analysis that does not need to allow nasalization to proceed "through" the plural infix. Observe what nasalization is supposed to do in forms in which the infix occurs: the rest of the vowels of the word are nasalized just as if the infix were not there. Rule (i i), of course, wipes out the nasalization of the segment immediately following the r/i of the infix, and given Rule (i I) we can abstract away from that fact. We have already claimed above that the infix -ar/l- (along with other infixes) is present in underlying forms not in infixed position, but rather as a prefix. Therefore, if we allowed the nasalization to take place before the operation of Rule (I4) (metathesis), we would not need to make any exception of the plural morpheme: the nasalization rule skips over this infix because it is not in infixed position in the stage of the derivation to which nasalization applies.

This account would allow us to remove the term (+ plural) from the nasalization rule, resulting in a more natural rule, such as (2). It would, however, have undesirable consequences: since it requires nasalization to precede infixation (by Rule (14)),

it would seem to rule out nasalization applying after infixation, following the standard view that phonological rules are linearly ordered. But it is clearly necessary to allow nasalization to follow infixation; aside from the nasalized quality of the vowel of the infix itself (which might be provided by the extension of Rule (g) to the alpha rule form (i i), since this rule applies after both nasalization and infixation), there are cases in which an infix produces nasalization itself. Observe that we have two rules that specify nasality in vowels: Rule (2), which nasalizes a sequence of vowels preceded by a nasal and separated only by h or ?; and Rule (i i), which assimilates the nasality of a (single) vowel to that of the immediately preceding consonant. We clearly cannot allow Rule (i i) to be altered (e.g. by removing the requirement that the denasalizing segment be [ + cons]) so as to affect a whole sequence of vowels, or we will denasalize not only the vowel immediately following the affix in [ndri?ls], but also the next vowel, giving the incorrect form * [nari?is]. Therefore, in positions where only one vowel is nasalized, we cannot tell whether that nasalization was produced by Rule (2) or by Rule (i i); but if more than one vowel is affected, it can only be Rule (2) that is responsible. Accordingly, the nasalization of the a of [ndri?ls] does not tell against an analysis which, by allowing Rule (2) to apply only before infixation (Rule 14), prevents it from applying to this a. The ordering (2)-

(I4)-(I I) will correctly derive this form as follows: underlying /ar#ni?is/ becomes /ar#nlPis/ by Rule (2), which becomes /narlPls] by Rule (I 4), which in turn becomes [nari' is] by Rule i i.




Forms with the infixes -um- and -in-, however, provide crucial evidence here. The infix -um- can be added to a stem such as dyhys [dyhys] 'to approach (a superior)', yielding dumryhys [dumyhys]. The fact that both vowels following the infix are nasalized here can only be explained by the operation of Rule (2), as we have argued above. But it is also clearly the case that Rule (2) cannot apply in this form until after the um- prefix has been infixed. Therefore, in order to derive it correctly, Rule (2) must apply after Rule (14). If we have formulated the rules correctly, we are confronted here with an ordering paradox, assuming our explanation of the "transparency" of the plural infix is correct.

We might propose to resolve this paradox by a reformulation of the rules. In particular, it might be suggested that the nasalization produced by the infix in forms like dumyhys does not arise from an application of nasalization after the infix has been metathesized with the root-initial consonant; but rather that root-initial consonants are "transparent" to nasalization, and the nasalization applies before metathesis. In this case, of course, since all instances of nasalization by Rule (2) (or its reformulation) could precede metathesis, these rules could be ordered linearly. The reformulation might be as follows:

(I5) [ + vOc] > [ + nasal] / [ + nasal] (#C) [-cons].

One objection that might be raised to this proposal is that it would appear to allow the prefix y- to produce nasalization, since here the nasal consonant immediately precedes the root. In case Rule (I 3) applies, coalescing the prefix with root-initial voiceless obstruents, the root should be affected, as in make [make] 'to use' (underlying /I#pake/). But if Rule (I 3) does not apply, nasalization should not either; thus we get yawiday [lawidax] 'to dry skins' (underlying /e#wida~/). A ready explanation for the failure of nasalization to affect more than the first vowel in yawiday is available, however; if we simply allow Rule (I2) (epenthesis) to precede Rule (I5), the environment for applying Rule (I 5) in this form will be destroyed. The formulation of (I 5) makes a specific prediction about the conditions under which root-initial consonants fail to impede nasalization by a prefix; this can happen only if the nasalizing segment (which is always a consonant, of course) appears immediately before the root. This will allow nasalization produced by an infix like /-um-/ in dumyhys (underlying /um#dyhys/) to affect the root, while (correctly) preventing the nasalization which appears within a prefix of NV-shape, such as the ya- of yawiday, from affecting the segments of the roots, providing /j-/ has already become /)a-/ at the point (I5)

applies. A more serious objection to Rule (I5) appears, however, when we consider

prefixes of the form CVN, such as pay- 'nominalizing prefix'. Here also nasalization does not penetrate past the following root-initial consonant: cf. paydatay [pajdatarj] 'reason for arrival' (underlying /parj#datarj/; cf. datay 'to arrive'). Since this prefix is syllabic, Rule (I2) (epenthesis) cannot affect it, and indeed there is no vowel




between the final segment of the prefix and the root-initial stop. There is thus no obvious way in which the form paydatay fails to satisfy the environment of Rule (I 5) at any point in its derivation. We cannot claim that the prefix pay- is simply an exception to the rule of nasalization, either; when the root-initial is a segment that allows nasalization to pass through in word internal position (i.e. a vowel or laryngeal glide), the nasalization of the prefix appears on the normal portion of the root, as in payindit [pan?indit] 'reason for leaving', or payharypna [pajha-rypnd] 'the foremost'. The only way these facts could be accommodated would be as follows: we could further require that, if nasality is to skip over a root-initial consonant (other than h or ?), the nasal must itself be preceded by a vowel which is preceded by a boundary:

(i 6) [ + voc] > [ + nasal] / a< + V> [+ nasal] b<#C> [-cons]. Condition: if b, then a

The formulation (i6) will deal with all of the facts presented thus far, but obviously is missing a generalization: the condition on this rule states that the nasalization of a prefix can carry over into the following root under certain circumstances, and these circumstances are exactly that the prefix is going to be moved into root-internal position by the infixation rule anyway. In other words, the complete environment for the infixation rule (Rule (I 4)) has to be built into Rule (i6), an obvious duplica- tion and loss of generality, in order to save the proposal under discussion. Clearly, this proposal must be rejected on these grounds, and we are once again faced with the apparent ordering paradox.

If we consider the ordering relations among these rules in other terms, however, we see that it is possible to resolve the paradox. Arguments have been provided elsewhere (cf. Anderson, forthcoming, and the literature cited there) for a theory of ordering relations which, instead of allowing only linearly organized ordering statements of the form "Rule A precedes Rule B", also incorporates statements of the form "Rules A and B apply in the natural order, whichever that may be for the form in question". Various proposals have been discussed for defining the notion of natural order that this theory (the theory of local ordering) presupposes. The best- supported notions are based on observations of Kiparsky (I968): when one (and only one) ordering of the rules allows one rule to feed another (i.e. allows the first rule to create new instances of the application of the second), this feeding order is the more natural; while if one (and only one) ordering of the rules allows the first rule to bleed the other (i.e. to destroy cases which would otherwise undergo the second rule), then the nonbleeding order is the more natural. Let us see how these principles apply in this case.

In a form in which infixation (Rule (I4)) does not apply, no ordering paradox exists, since only Rule (2) can apply to forms like those of (i). Forms undergoing Rule (14) are of two types: forms in which the infix contains a nasal (such as -um-), and forms in which the infix contains a nonnasal (i.e. -ar/l-). In forms with a nasal




infix, the application of the infixation process clearly provides new instances of the applicability of Rule (2): it is only after Rule (I4) has applied that nasalization can affect the vowels of dumyhys. Therefore, in this case, the order infixation-nasalization is a feeding order, and hence natural. In forms with -ar/l-, however, the situation is different. The insertion of the infix in a form like nariis has the effect of bleeding the nasalization rule, by removing the two i's from its environment. In this case, then, the natural order is nasalization-infixation. These natural orders are exactly the ones we want to obtain in each case; accordingly, we could simply state (in a locally ordered grammar) that nasalization and infixation apply in the unmarked order. It is no longer necessary to claim that Rule (i I) must be an alpha rule, either;5 since nasalization can apply in any unmarked order with respect to infixation (i.e. wherever infixation feeds it), the nasalization of the vowel of the infix itself can be accounted for by Rule (2) as well, by allowing it to both precede and follow Rule (I4) in the same derivation. This is a natural consequence of the theory, for while Rule (I4) bleeds Rule (2) with respect to the two i's of nariis, and hence Rule (2) applies to these vowels before Rule (I4), Rule (I4) feeds Rule (2) with respect to the vowel a of the infix, and hence (2) applies to this vowel after (I4) has applied. We can thus return to the original formulation (Rule (9)) of the denasalization process, and we do not have to claim that the language possesses two distinct rules that each nasalize a vowel after a nasal. The derivations envisaged, then, are the following:

(I7) Underlying: /piaian/ /ar#ni?is/ /um#dyhys/ Rule (2): /pjiain/ /ar#nPls/ does not apply Rule (I4): does not apply /narPi-s/ /dumyhys/ Rule (2): does not apply /nArIVIs/ /dumyhys/ Rule (9): does not apply /nAri?!s/ does not apply Output: [jidian] [nari?ls] [dum3h3s]

Since all vowels are (we assume) nonnasal in underlying forms, and the only process that can nasalize them is Rule (2), it is clear that Rule (g) cannot apply unless it is fed by Rule (2). It is also clear that, in order for Rule (g) to be applicable, Rule (14) must have applied to interpose a nonnasal consonant before the vowel to which Rule (g) is to apply. It is also clear that allowing Rule (2) to reapply after Rule (g) cannot possibly cause trouble by renasalizing the vowel that Rule (g) has affected, since this vowel is now preceded by a nonnasal consonant, and is thus not subject to Rule (2). There is no reason, then, not to allow Rule (g) to apply in the natural order (whatever that is) with respect to both Rule (2) and Rule (I4). It is thus unnecessary to state any ordering relations among these rules as part of the grammar

5 Though it is frequently asserted that an alpha rule schema should be treated as formally simpler than a single subrule, the consequences of this claim require further examination in particular cases. Here it should be noted that the subrule added to the grammar of Sundanese in generalizing Rule (g) to the alpha form (i I) can have no function other than to duplicate the effect of (the independently needed) Rule (2). This is not, it seems to me, a desirable result.




of Sundanese, since they are all predictable from the general principles of the theory of local ordering. Since this result follows as a necessary consequence of that formulation of the rules which most naturally captures the generalizations about the nasalization, denasalization, and infixation processes, it provides interesting confirmation for the theory.

We can now return to some of the issues of detail that arose in formulating Rule (2) above. We can note first of all that, since it is intended to apply to a (potentially infinite) sequence of vowels, and not to just one, the various subrules into which it expands must not be disjunctive. Either simultaneous or conjunctive application would give the correct results, but disjunctive application would have the consequence of nasalizing only the vowel farthest away from the conditioning nasal consonant. Although Chomsky and Halle (i 968) suggest that the notation X. should be expanded simultaneously (and indeed devise another notation, X*, with the same effect), arguments have been presented elsewhere (cf. Anderson, to appear, and Howard I971) that the X* notation should not be allowed by an adequate phonological theory, and that the XO notation should be interpreted disjunctively, as being satisfied only in its longest expansion. This leaves no notation which represents a (potentially infinite) schema of the general form X, XX, XXX, . . ., which can be interpreted simultaneously or conjunctively. A claim is thereby made that natural languages do not contain processes that could only be formulated by means of such a device. Unless these arguments can be shown to be incorrect on other grounds, we must look for an alternative formulation of Rule (2).

The device which has been invoked in order to account for examples previously treated by the X* notation is that of allowing some rules to reapply to their own output. This allows a certain class of phonological processes to apply across an extended domain, while excluding certain other processes of this sort in principle. We could formulate the nasalization rule in question for Sundanese in these terms as Rule (I8):

(i 8) [ + syll] > [ + nasal] / [ + nasal]

This rule will nasalize a sequence of vowels following a nasal consonant, but it will not allow intervening segments such as h or P. In the case of ?, this is probably not serious, since P is always inserted by rule (cf. Robins I953a for details). The segment h, however, occurs in numerous underlying forms, and accordingly must be provided for in the rule. In Langendoen's formulation of Robins' rule, it is necessary to do this by defining a class consisting of vowels and laryngeal glides. This is because the device of simultaneous expansion of a rule schema requires the various instances of X in X, XX, XXX, ... , to be homogeneously characterizable. If all of the positions in which nasalization is possible are to be represented by a schema X* (or simultaneously expanded X.), then X must be a schema representing "vowel, h, or P", the class of segments that can intervene between two vowels nasalized by the same nasal.




The feature system employed in Chomsky and Halle (I968) does not allow for a natural, nondisjunctive definition of this class. The expression [-cons] abbreviates the class of vowels and glides, but as we have seen, this is too broad, for it would allow w and y to intervene, which is incorrect. w and y differ from h and ? in being

+ high], but we clearly cannot say -chigh]; that would (incorrectly) exclude high

vowels, as well as high glides. The closest we can come appears to be the disjunctive r -cons 1

expression If+syll ;i, which is not a very natural class. Faced with this problem, t-highs

we have three alternatives: first, we could simply accept the disjunctively defined class just given, and deny that the class in question constitutes a unified generalization; second, we might suggest a modification of the feature system which would allow us to define the class in question more naturally; or third, we might look for evidence that our formulation of the rule is incorrect. The first alternative seems unattractive: Robins' statement that the segments that impede nasalization are those with a supra- glottal consonantal articulation seems a valid and uniform characterization, and one which should not be discarded lightly. If we accept Langendoen's formulation of the rule, we would therefore be led to seek a modification of the feature system.

We have presented an argument above, however, that the offending formulation of the rule (as essentially Rule (2)) is incorrect on other grounds, and should be replaced with an iterative formulation such as Rule (I8). In this event, we see that the problem disappears; since nasalization proceeds one vowel at a time, there is no longer any need to preserve homogeneity of the class of segments that can intervene between a nasalized vowel and the nasalizing consonant. We can simply allow for the (optional) presence of a nonhigh glide:

([- cons\ (I9) [+ syll] [ + nasal] / [+nasal] -syll ]-

-high

The unnatural disjunctive class has here disappeared from the rule. We must now inquire about whether the offending disjunctive class has really

been permanently exorcised. In Robins' statement of the facts concerning his prosody of nasalization, the phonetic nasalization was described as not simply passing through a medial h or ?, but as actually including these segments. This would seem to imply that the rule of nasalization must nasalize h and ?, as well as the vowels; in that case, our unfortunate class would simply have reappeared on the left hand side of the arrow:

-cons (20) h +syll > [+nasal] / [+ nasal]

-highfJ

The iterative rule (20) appears to express Robins' prosody of nasalization (except,




of course, for the special features of the plural infix, with which we have already dealt above) as he states it. It is important to ask, therefore, whether the nasalization should actually apply to h and ?, as well as vowels; for if it must, a formulation such as (20) seems inevitable, and we must either accept the disjunctive class in it, or readjust the feature system.

In fact, Robins (I957, 98-I03) provides kymographic recordings that enable us to settle this issue definitively. The recordings in question indicate airflow through the oral cavity and, separately, through the nasal cavity, for a series of Sundanese utterances. From these we can immediately see that the conditions governing nasality in nonhigh glides are distinct from those governing nasality in vowels. The facts are as follows: nonhigh glides are not nasalized even when between two vowels that are both nasalized by the same nasal consonant (as in [jiaho?kyn]). Nasal airflow shows a distinct and unmistakable drop during the segment [h] in this form, indicating that the velum is raised, producing a denasalized segment. In the case of an [h] immediately preceded by a nasal consonant, however, the [h] is nasalized, as in [by1har] where no drop in nasal airflow occurs during the [h]. We must suppose, therefore, a Rule (2I):

E -cons]+cn (21) -syll] >K +nasal]/[ + asal]

Rule (2I) is the only way in which an [h] (or, presumably, [?], though kymographic evidence does not allow us to determine this) can become [ + nasal]. This observation eliminates Rule (20) from consideration, and justifies Rule (I9) as the statement of the nasalization process. It can easily be verified that there is no reason for imposing any ordering relation on Rule (21) with respect to any of the other rules discussed so far; it can be allowed to apply in the natural order with respect to all of the other processes involved in Sundanese nasalization.

We have seen above an example of the complexity of the interaction of theoretical considerations with the descriptive treatment of a set of facts internal to a single language. In this case, a correct view of certain theoretical considerations (here, the status of infinite simultaneous schemata) led us to seek an alternative description of the facts; our views on the system of distinctive features, in turn, constrained our approach to these facts, and led us to look for other data to make our description more precise. The discovery of these other data enabled us to separate the facts described by Rule (2I) from those described by Rule (i9). The entire analysis, preserving all of the relevant generalizations about the distribution of nasality in the language, is made possible by other theoretical considerations (in this case, the theory of local ordering), which it thereby supports. Such complex interrelations are the business of an adequately grounded phonological theory, as argued by Halle (I97I); the case of nasalization in Sundanese provides an excellent example of his point.




Summary of Rules I. Prefix Assimilation (Rule (I 3))

+ obst - voice

+ [+nasal] p caont

y high 2 8 back [a cor

I 2 3 4 3 ,B ant y high 8 back

2. Epenthesis (Rule (12))

- > aI + [-syll] #[-syll]

3. Metathesis (Rule (I4))

+ V C# (C) V I 2 3 4 (5) 6 - 4 (5) 2 3 6

4. Nasalization (Rule (i9)) (iterative)

r-cons [+ syll] > [+nasal] / [+nasal] (l-sYll ] -

\L- high

5. Denasalization (Rule (9))

[+ syll] -

[-nasal] +

consa1 I.- nasalj

6. Nasalization of h (Rule (2 I))

[ -cons] -syll -

> [+nasal] [ + cons1 - high L +nasal]

The only ordering relation which must be stated explicitly in the grammar is: "Prefix assimilation precedes epenthesis." All other ordering relations that have an effect on the output are predictable from the principles of local ordering. Even this single restriction can be eliminated if the view of disjunctive ordering suggested in Anderson (forthcoming) is adopted. On this view, the fact that Rule (I 3) applies to a proper subset of the forms to which Rule (I 2) applies entails the disjunctive application of the two rules, with (I 3) preceding.

References

Anderson, S. R. (forthcoming) The Organization of Phonology, Seminar Press, New York. Chomsky, N. and M. Halle (I968) The Sound Pattern of English, Harper & Row, New York.




Halle, M. (1971) "Theoretical Issues in Phonology in the 1970's," paper delivered at the VIIth International Congress of Phonetic Sciences, Montreal.

Howard, I. (1971) "On Some Problems of Formalization in Generative Phonology," unpublished paper, MIT.

Kiparsky, P. (I968) "Linguistic Universals and Linguistic Change," in E. Bach and R. T. Harms, eds., Universals in Linguistic Theory, Holt, Rinehart & Winston, New York.

Langendoen, D. T. (I968) The London School of Linguistics, MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachu- setts.

Robins, R. H. (1953a) "The Phonology of the Nasalized Verbal Forms in Sundanese," BSOAS 15, 138-145-

Robins, R. H. (s953b) "Formal Divisions in Sundanese," TPS, I25-I32.

Robins, R. H. (I957) "Vowel Nasality in Sundanese: A Phonological and Grammatical Study," in Studies in Linguistic Analysis, Basil Blackwell, Oxford.

Robins, R. H. (I959) "Nominal and Verbal Derivation in Sundanese," Lingua 8, 337-369.

Department of Linguistics Harvard University Cambridge, Massachusetts 02I38



Documents

On Nasalization in Sundanese