Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-cfpbc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-24T17:57:06.619Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

On the evolution of consonant harmony: the case of secondary articulation agreement*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 July 2007

Gunnar Ólafur Hansson
Gunnar Ólafur Hansson
Affiliation:
University of BritishColumbia
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Consonant harmony involves long-distance featural assimilation, or agreement, of consonants across intervening segments. Current correspondence-based analyses of such sound patterns assume that they originate in the cognitive exigencies of articulatory planning, either synchronically, through the functional grounding of the constraints responsible, or diachronically, whereby processing factors incrementally shape the lexicon over time. This paper challenges the validity of this assumption as an all-purpose functional explanation for the full range of long-distance consonant agreement patterns by demonstrating that a variety of diachronic trajectories underlies their emergence and evolution. Focusing on the comparatively rare phenomenon of secondary articulation agreement, the evolutionary histories of three cases are examined: (labio)velarisation agreement in Pohnpeian (Oceanic), palatalisation agreement in Karaim (Turkic) and pharyngealisation agreement in Tsilhqot'in (Athabaskan). These histories provide explanations for a range of synchronic properties of the systems in question, some of which are problematic for restrictive typologies of consonant harmony.

Type
Research Article
Information
Phonology , Volume 24 , Issue 1 , May 2007 , pp. 77 - 120
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2007

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Andrews, Christina (1988). Lexical phonology of Chilcotin. MA thesis, University of British Columbia.Google Scholar
Ao, Benjamin (1991). Kikongo nasal harmony and context-sensitive underspecification. LI 22. 193–196.Google Scholar
Archangeli, Diana & Pulleyblank, Douglas (1994). Grounded phonology. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Baković, Eric (2000). Harmony, dominance and control. PhD dissertation, Rutgers University.Google Scholar
Bender, Byron W. (1973). Parallelisms in the morphophonemics of several Micronesian languages. Oceanic Linguistics 12. 455–477.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bender, Byron W., Goodenough, Ward H., Jackson, Frederick H., Marck, Jeffrey C., Rehg, Kenneth L., Sohn, Ho-min, Trussel, Stephen & Wang, Judith W. (2003a). Proto-Micronesian reconstructions I. Oceanic Linguistics 42. 1–110.Google Scholar
Bender, Byron W., Goodenough, Ward H., Jackson, Frederick H., Marck, Jeffrey C., Rehg, Kenneth L., Sohn, Ho-min, Trussel, Stephen & Wang, Judith W. (2003b). Proto-Micronesian reconstructions II. Oceanic Linguistics 42. 271–358.Google Scholar
Benus, Stefan, Gafos, Adamantios & Goldstein, Louis (2004). Phonetics and phonology of transparent vowels in Hungarian. BLS 29. 485–497.Google Scholar
Blevins, Juliette (2004). Evolutionary Phonology: the emergence of sound patterns. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blevins, Juliette (2005). Understanding antigemination. In Frajzyngier, Zygmunt, Hodges, Adam & Rood, David S. (eds.) Linguistic diversity and language theories. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins. 203–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blevins, Juliette (to appear). Consonant epenthesis: natural and unnatural histories. In Good, Jeff (ed.) Language universals and language change. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Blevins, Juliette & Garrett, Andrew (1998). The origins of consonant–vowel metathesis. Lg 74. 508–556.Google Scholar
Blevins, Juliette & Garrett, Andrew (2004). The evolution of metathesis. In Hayes, Bruce, Kirchner, Robert & Steriade, Donca (eds.) Phonetically based phonology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 117–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bratkowsky, Joan G. (1980). The predictability of palatalization in Russian. Russian Linguistics 4. 329–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cook, Eung-Do (1976). A phonological study of Chilcotin and Carrier. Report E10-75-8, National Museum of Man, Ottawa.Google Scholar
Cook, Eung-Do (1978). Flattening in Chilcotin and Interior Salish: a case of an areal rule. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Canadian Linguistic Association, London, Ontario.Google Scholar
Cook, Eung-Do (1979). Flattening and rounding in Chilcotin velars. In Efrat, Barbara S.(ed.) The Victoria conference on Northwestern languages. Victoria: British Columbia Provincial Museum. 15–32.Google Scholar
Cook, Eung-Do (1983). Chilcotin flattening. Canadian Journal of Linguistics 28. 123–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cook, Eung-Do (1993). Chilcotin flattening and autosegmental phonology. Lingua 91. 149–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Csató, Éva Á. (1999). Syllabic harmony in Turkic: the evidence of code-copying. In Brendemoen, Bernt (ed.) Language encounters across time and space: studies in language contact. Oslo: Novus. 341–352.Google Scholar
Csató, Éva Á. & Lars, Johanson (1996). Zur Silbenharmonie des Nordwest-Karaimischen. Acta Orientalia Hungarica 48. 329–337.Google Scholar
Csató, Éva Á. & Nathan, David (2002). Spoken Karaim. CD-ROM. Tokyo: Tokyo University of Foreign Studies.Google Scholar
Davis, Stuart (1995). Emphasis spread in Arabic and Grounded Phonology. LI 26. 465–498.Google Scholar
Dell, Gary S. (1986). A spreading-activation theory of retrieval in sentence production. Psychological Review 93. 283–321.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dell, Gary S., Burger, Lisa K. & Svec, William R. (1997). Language production and serial order: a functional analysis and a model. Psychological Review 104. 123–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Denwood, Ann (2005). Consonant–vowel interactions in Karaim phonology: a government phonology perspective. Turkic Languages 9. 65–84.Google Scholar
Derkach, Miron (1975). Acoustic cues of softness in Russian syllables and their application in automatic speech recognition. In Fant, Gunnar & Tatham, M. A. A. (eds.) Auditory analysis and perception of speech. New York: Academic Press. 349–358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dolbey, Andrew E. & Hansson, Gunnar Ólafur (1999). The source of naturalness in synchronic phonology. CLS 35:1. 59–69.Google Scholar
Dubiński, Aleksander (1969). Über die slawischen Einflüsse in der karaimischen Sprache. Studia Slavica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 15. 139–144.Google Scholar
Dubiński, Aleksander (1978). Phonetische Merkmale des Luck-Halicz Dialektes der karaimischen Sprache. Rocznyk Orientalistyczny 39:2. 33–44.Google Scholar
Eijk, Jan van (1997). The Lillooet language: phonology, morphology, syntax. Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press.Google Scholar
Evans-Romaine, David K. (1998). Palatalization and coarticulation in Russian. PhD dissertation, University of Michigan.Google Scholar
Frisch, Stefan A. (1996). Similarity and frequency in phonology. PhD dissertation, Northwestern University.Google Scholar
Frisch, Stefan A., Pierrehumbert, Janet B. & Broe, Michael B. (2004). Similarity avoidance and the OCP. NLLT 22. 179–228.Google Scholar
Fromkin, Victoria A. (1971). The non-anomalous nature of anomalous utterances. Lg 47. 27–52.Google Scholar
Gafos, Adamantios I. (1999). The articulatory basis of locality in phonology. New York: Garland.Google Scholar
Garrett, Andrew & Blevins, Juliette (to appear). Morphophonological analogy. In Inkelas, Sharon & Hanson, Kristin (eds.) The nature of the word: essays in honor of Paul Kiparsky. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Gick, Bryan, Pulleyblank, Douglas, Campbell, Fiona & Mutaka, Ngessimo (2006). Low vowels and transparency in Kinande vowel harmony. Phonology 23. 1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Golla, Victor (1976). Tututni (Oregon Athapaskan). IJAL 42. 217–227.Google Scholar
Gordon, Matthew K. (1999). The ‘neutral’ vowels of Finnish: how neutral are they? Linguistica Uralica 35. 17–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hamp, Eric P. (1976). Palatalization and harmony in Gagauz and Karaite. In Heissig, Walther, Krueger, John R., Oinas, Felix J. & Schütz, Edmond (eds.) Tractata altaica: Denis Sinor, sexagenario optime de rebus altaicis merito dedicata. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. 211–213.Google Scholar
Hansson, Gunnar Ólafur (2001a). The phonologization of production constraints: evidence from consonant harmony. CLS 37:1. 187–200.Google Scholar
Hansson, Gunnar Ólafur (2001b). Theoretical and typological issues in consonant harmony. PhD dissertation, University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
Hansson, Gunnar Ólafur (2004a). Long-distance voicing agreement: an evolutionary perspective. BLS 30. 130–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hansson, Gunnar Ólafur (2004b). Tone and voicing agreement in Yabem. WCCFL 23. 318–331.Google Scholar
Hansson, Gunnar Ólafur (2006). Locality and similarity in phonological agreement. Paper presented at the Current Perspectives on Phonology Workshop, Indiana University.Google Scholar
Hansson, Gunnar Ólafur (2007). Blocking effects in agreement by correspondence. LI 38. 395–409.Google Scholar
Hardwick, Margaret (1984). Tahltan phonology and morphology. MA thesis, University of Toronto.Google Scholar
Hargus, Sharon (1988). The lexical phonology of Sekani. New York: Garland.Google Scholar
Hayes, Bruce (1999). Phonetically driven phonology: the role of Optimality Theory and inductive grounding. In Darnell, Michael, Moravcsik, Edith, Newmeyer, Frederick, Noonan, Michael & Wheatley, Kathleen (eds.) Functionalism and formalism in linguistics. Vol. 1: General papers. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins. 243–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Howe, Darin & Fulop, Sean (2005). Acoustic features in Northern Athabaskan. Paper presented at the 79th Annual Meeting of the Linguistic Society of America, Oakland.Google Scholar
Humbert, Helga (1995). Phonological segments: their structure and behaviour. The Hague: Holland Academic Graphics.Google Scholar
Jespersen, Otto (1904). Lehrbuch der Phonetik. Leipzig & Berlin: Teubner.Google Scholar
Kaun, Abigail R. (1995). The typology of rounding harmony: an optimality theoretic approach. PhD dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Khumalo, JamesSteven, Mzilikazi (1987). An autosegmental account of Zulu phonology. PhD dissertation, University of the Witwatersrand.Google Scholar
Kim, Yuni (2005). Finnish neutral vowels: subcontrastive harmony or V-to-V coarticulation? Paper presented at the 79th Annual Meeting of the Linguistic Society of America, Oakland.Google Scholar
King, Quindel (1979). Chilcotin phonology and vocabulary. In Contributions to Canadian linguistics. Ottawa: National Museums of Canada. 41–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kowalski, Tadeusz (1929). Karaimische Texte im Dialekt von Troki. Krakow: Polska Akademia Umiejętności.Google Scholar
Krauss, Michael E. (1964). Proto-Athapaskan-Eyak and the problem of Na-Dene: the phonology. IJAL 30. 118–131.Google Scholar
Krauss, Michael E. (1975). Chilcotin phonology, a descriptive and historical report, with recommendations for a Chilcotin orthography. Ms, Alaska Native Language Center.Google Scholar
Krauss, Michael E. (2005). Athabaskan tone (1979). In Hargus, Sharon & Rice, Keren (eds.) Athabaskan prosody. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins. 55–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Latimer, Richard M. (1978). A study of Chilcotin phonology. MA thesis, University of Calgary.Google Scholar
Leer, Jeff (1996). The historical evolution of the stem syllable in Gwich'in (Kutchin/Loucheux) Athabaskan. In Jelinek, Eloise, Midgette, Sally, Rice, Keren & Saxon, Leslie (eds.) Athabaskan language studies: essays in honor of Robert W. Young. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press. 193–234.Google Scholar
McCarthy, John J. (2006). Consonant harmony via correspondence: evidence from Chumash. In Bateman, Leah, Reilly, Ehren, O'Keefe, Michael & Werle, Adam (eds.) Papers in Optimality Theory III. Amherst: GLSA. 223–237.Google Scholar
McDonough, Joyce M. (1990). Topics in the phonology and morphology of Navajo verbs. PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
McDonough, Joyce M. (1991). On the representation of consonant harmony in Navajo. WCCFL 10. 319–335.Google Scholar
Mester, R. Armin (1988a). Studies in tier structure. New York: Garland.Google Scholar
Mester, R. Armin (1988b). Dependent tier ordering and the OCP. In van der Hulst, Harry & Smith, Norval (eds.) Features, segmental structure and harmony processes. Vol. 2. Dordrecht: Foris. 127–144.Google Scholar
Morice, A. G. (1932). The Carrier language (Déné family). Vienna: Verlag der Internationalen Zeitschrift ‘Anthropos’.Google Scholar
Musaev, K. M. (1964). Grammatika karaimskogo jazyka: fonetika i morfologija. Moscow: Nauka.Google Scholar
Nevins, Andrew & Vaux, Bert (2003). Consonant harmony in Karaim. In Csirmaz, Aniko, Lee, Youngjoo & Walter, MaryAnn (eds.) Proceedings of the Workshop on Altaic in Formal Linguistics. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT. 175–194.Google Scholar
Ní Chiosáin, Máire & Padgett, Jaye (1997). Markedness, segment realization, and locality in spreading. Report LRC-97-01, Linguistics Research Center, University of California, Santa Cruz. Available as ROA-188 from the Rutgers Optimality Archive.Google Scholar
Ní Chiosáin, Máire & Padgett, Jaye (2001). Markedness, segment realization, and locality in spreading. In Lombardi, Linda (ed.) Segmental phonology in Optimality Theory: constraints and representations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 118–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Odden, David (1994). Adjacency parameters in phonology. Lg 70. 289–330.Google Scholar
Ohala, John J. (1981). The listener as a source of sound change. In Masek, C. S., Hendrick, R. A. & Miller, M. F. (eds.) Papers from the parasession on language and behavior. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society. 178–203.Google Scholar
Ohala, John J. (1993). The phonetics of sound change. In Jones, Charles (ed.) Historical linguistics: problems and perspectives. London: Longman. 237–278.Google Scholar
Padgett, Jaye (2003). Contrast and post-velar fronting in Russian. NLLT 21. 39–87.Google Scholar
Poser, William J. (1982). Phonological representation and action-at-a-distance. In van der Hulst, Harry & Smith, Norval (eds.) The structure of phonological representations. Part 2. Dordrecht: Foris. 121–158.Google Scholar
Prince, Alan & Smolensky, Paul (2004). Optimality Theory: constraint interaction in generative grammar. Malden, Mass. & Oxford: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pulleyblank, Douglas (2002). Harmony drivers: no disagreement allowed. BLS 28. 249–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Randoja, Tiina (1989). The phonology and morphology of Halfway River Beaver. PhD dissertation, University of Ottawa.Google Scholar
Rehg, Kenneth L. (1981). Ponapean reference grammar. With the assistance of Damian G. Sohl. Honolulu: University Press of Hawaii.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rehg, Kenneth L. (1984). On the history of Ponapean phonology. In Bender, Byron (ed.) Studies in Micronesian linguistics. Canberra: Australian National University. 281–316.Google Scholar
Rehg, Kenneth L. & Sohl, Damien G. (1979). Ponapean–English dictionary. Honolulu: University Hawaii Press.Google Scholar
Rialland, Annie & Djamouri, Redouane (1984). Harmonie vocalique, consonantique et structures de dépendance dans le mot en mongol khalkha. Bulletin de la Société de Linguistique de Paris 79. 333–383.Google Scholar
Rice, Keren (1989). A grammar of Slave. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rice, Keren (2000). Morpheme order and semantic scope: word formation in the Athapaskan verb. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rose, Sharon & Walker, Rachel (2004). A typology of consonant agreement as correspondence. Lg 80. 475–531.Google Scholar
Sapir, Edward & Hoijer, Harry (1967). The phonology and morphology of the Navaho language. Berkeley & Los Angeles: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Shahin, Kimary N. (2002). Postvelar harmony. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Shattuck-Hufnagel, Stefanie & Klatt, Dennis H. (1979). The limited use of distinctive features and markedness in speech production: evidence from speech error data. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 18. 41–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shaw, Patricia A. (1991). Consonant harmony systems: the special status of coronal harmony. In Paradis, Carole & Prunet, Jean-François (eds.) The special status of coronals: internal and external evidence. San Diego: Academic Press. 125–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stemberger, Joseph Paul (1985). An interactive activation model of language production. In Ellis, Andrew W. (ed.) Progress in the psychology of language. Vol. 1. London: Erlbaum. 143–186.Google Scholar
Stemberger, Joseph Paul (1991). Apparent anti-frequency effects in language production: the Addition Bias and phonological underspecification. Journal of Memory and Language 30. 161–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steriade, Donca (1987). Redundant values. CLS 23:2. 339–362.Google Scholar
Story, Gillian L. (1984). Babine and Carrier phonology: a historically oriented study. Arlington: Summer Institute of Linguistics & University of Texas at Arlington.Google Scholar
Story, Gillian L. (1989). Problems of phonemic representation in Beaver. In Cook, Eung-Do & Rice, Keren (eds.) Athapaskan linguistics: current perspectives on a language family. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 63–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vaux, Bert (1999). Does consonant harmony exist? Paper presented at the 73rd Annual Meeting of the Linguistic Society of America, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Walker, Rachel (2000a). Long-distance consonantal identity effects. WCCFL 19. 532–545.Google Scholar
Walker, Rachel (2000b). Yaka nasal harmony: spreading or segmental correspondence? BLS 26. 321–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walker, Rachel (2001). Consonantal correspondence. In Kirchner, Robert, Pater, Joe & Wikeley, Wolf (eds.) Papers in theoretical linguistics 6: workshop on the lexicon in phonetics and phonology. Edmonton: University of Alberta. 73–84.Google Scholar
Waterson, N. (1956). Some aspects of the phonology of the nominal forms of the Turkish word. Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 18. 578–591.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Watson, Janet C. E. (1999). The directionality of emphasis spread in Arabic. LI 30. 289–300.Google Scholar
Watters, James K. (1988). Topics in Tepehua grammar. PhD dissertation, University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar