UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Korean vowel harmony: an optimality account Choi, Sohee 1994

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-ubc_1994-0254.pdf [ 2.71MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0087341.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0087341-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0087341-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0087341-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0087341-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0087341-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0087341-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0087341-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0087341.ris

Full Text

KOREAN VOWEL HARMONY  -  AN OPTIMALITY ACCOUNT  by SOHEE CHOI B.A.,  Yonsei University,  1991  A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES Department of Linguistics We accepts this thesis as conforming to the required standard  THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA April 1994 © Sohee Choi,  1994  in partial fulfilment of the requirements for an advanced degree at the University of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make it freely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the head of my department or by his or her representatives. It is understood that copying or in presenting this thesis  publication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission.  Department of  E&A  ISftCS  The University of British Columbia Vancouver, Canada Date  DE-6 (2/88)  &pr.  11  ABS TR1.CT  This harmony:  thesis the  examines  two  identification  aspects  of  the  of  Korean  correct  vowel  harmonizing  feature and neutrality in the harmony system. In this study, vowel  I investigate the hypothesis that Korean  harmony can be  described as  tongue  root  harmony and  that the neutrality in the harmony system can be accounted for  through  the  interaction  of  various  the framework of Optimality Theory; Interaction  constraints  within  the Theory of Constraint  (Prince and Smolensky 1993,  McCarthy and Prince  1993) In Chapter One, Korean the  vowel  harmony  are  Two  discusses  theoretical background of Optimality Theory.  The basic  claims first  presented.  and motivation for the section.  In  studies  applying  (Prince  and  and  the basic phenomena and the problems of  the  Smolensky  Prince  1993,  theory, 1993);  Prince  harmony  (Pulleyblank 1993)  account  of  presented.  Present—Day I  further  theory are dealt with in the  following  this  section,  I  including:  consider major syllable  prosodic morphology  and .  Chapter  Smolensky  1993);  In Chapter Three,  Korean  discuss  and  Later  (McCarthy and  vowel  the Optimality  Middle  Optimality Theory’s  of diachronic change in harmony systems.  theory  Korean  is  treatment  Concluding remarks  and areas for further research are given in Chapter Four.  111  TABLE OF CONTENTS  Abstract  ii  Table of contents  iii  Acknowledgement  v  CHAPTER ONE.  INTRODUCTION  1  1.1. A Summary Introduction of Korean Vowel Harmony Phenomenon 1.2.  1.3.  2  Optimality Theory and Application thereof in Vowel Harmony  4  Organization of Content  7  CHAPTER TWO.  THEORETICAL BACKGROUND  9  2.1. Optimality Theory  10  2.2. Major Application  18  2.2.1. Syllable Theory  18  2.2.2. Prosodic Morphology  24  2.2.3. Vowel Harmony  31  CHAPTER THREE. KOREAN VOWEL HARMONY 3.1.  44  Present-Day Korean  45  3.1.1.  49  Sound Symbolic Words  3.1.1.1.  Previous Accounts  52  3.1.1.2.  Optimality Account  58  iv  3.2.  3.1.2. A—initial Suffixes  77  Later Middle Korean  83  3.2.1.  87  CHAPTER FOUR.  Optimality Account  CONCLUSION  95  BIBLIOGRAPHY  97  APPENDIX:  102  List of Constraints  V  ACKNOWLEDGEMENT  I would like to thank the members of my committee, Douglas  Pulleyblank,  Ingram.  I  Douglas  Dr.  Patricia  especially  indebted  Pulleyblank whose  guidance,  am  A.  Shaw,  to and  my  and  Dr.  Dr.  David  supervisor  Dr.  encouragement  have  that  this  made this process especially rewarding. I thesis  would was  also  like  supported  by  to  acknowledge grant  no.  work  410-91—0204  on from  the  Social and Humanities Research Council of Canada. Special  thanks  are  extended  to  my  parents  supported and encouraged me throughout this work.  who  have  1  CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION  harmony  Vowel  numerous  in  found  is  known  well  a  Until  languages.  now,  typically in Uralic and Altaic languages, harmony occurs mainly in 1980)  language  But recent studies  .  it  been  has  harmony is found  (front-back)  generally assumed that palatal  phenomenon  phonological  while tongue root in Africa  families  (Svantesson 1985,  (Vago  Song 1990)  show  that tongue root harmony is also found in some of the Altaic languages such as Korean and Mongolian. The topic  vowel  not  harmony  only due  harmonizing  The  harmony.  the  feature but  identification  the  to  Korean  of  due  of  high  in  a  controversial  finding  to problems  properties  neutrality  been  difficulty  also  and  has  unrounded  correct  in explaining  neutral  of  a  vowels  vowels  in  in  the  Korean harmony system has hitherto been treated merely as an exception to the harmony in most studies. In this study, be  can  described in  neutrality resulting be  the  from the  the hypothesis that Korean vowel harmony as  harmony  1993,  Theory  of  root  system  interaction  investigated within  the  tongue  the  Constraint  of  harmony can  be  Interaction  McCarthy & Prince 1993a,b)  that  accounted  various  framework of  and  for  constraints  Optirnaiity  (Prince  &  the as  will  Theory;  Smolensky  2  1.1.  A Summary Introduction of Korean Vowel Harmony Phenomena  In  Present-Day  Korean  (henceforth;  PDK)  the  vowel  harmony phenomenon can be found in sound symbolic words and so  called  1986,  ‘A—initial  etc.).  In PDK,  historically  from  monophthongization after  Later  systems  LMK  1978,  (C.W.Kim  Kim-Renaud  there are 10 monophthongs which result the of  Middle  of  suffixes’  diphthongs  Korean  and  loss  PDK  of  [A]  (y->e,  ay->c,  the  oy->ö,  uy->U)  The  vowel  LMK)  (henceforth; are  and  shown  in  and  (1)  (2)  respectively.  (l)Later Middle Korean  i  (2)Present-Day Korean  i  U  i  u  i  U  0  0  C  O  0  0  a  A  e  a  In the sound symbolic words of PDK, into  two  sets.  traditionally form  the  The  called  other  symbolic word,  set  vowels ‘dark’ called  [i,e,U,i,o,u] vowels, ‘light’  vowels are divided  form  a  and the vowels.  neutral  vowels Within  group [e,O,a,o]  a  sound  vowels must be either all dark or all light.  [ii and [i] which  The only exceptions for this are the vowels are  harmonic  in  non-initial  cooccur with either dark or  syllables  and  light vowels.  sound symbolic words are given in  (3)  therefore  Some examples  may of  3  (3)  last  The the  Dark  Light  cik’l  cek’al  ‘chattering’  spk  sapak  ‘crunching’  tils’ok  tals’ak  ‘lifting’  p’yulutuij  p’yolotoij  ‘pouting’  pisil  pesil  ‘staggering’  sinkil  senkil  ‘smiling’  two  examples  neutrality of Vowel  syllables. difficult class  not  do  in  the  vowels  constitute  Altaic  in  Mongolian.  as  of  a  languages  second  has  been  each harmonic  natural  However,  including  since  each  includes both back and nonback vowels, treated  the  sound symbolic words  because  clearly  in  show  class.  it has been treated as palatal harmony of the  common  Classical  ‘smiling’  high unrounded vowels  harmony  describe  to  Traditionally, type  the  and  ‘staggering’  strictly  palatal  Turkish  harmonic  and group  it cannot simply be  harmony.  McCarthy  (1983)  described vowel harmony in sound symbolic words as a height harmony arguing that  [low]  is the feature that distinguishes  each harmonic set. This analysis is not very plausible since he had  to  for  [-low]) (1986)  the  an  to  features have  ad hoc  nonlow  described vowel  semantic seem  include  like  strong  context-free  rounded  harmony [dark]  vowels  in and  phonological  rule  ([+round]->  (o,ö).  Kim-Renaud  sound symbolic words [light],  which  motivation.  does In  by not  other  4  studies,  the harmony was considered as exceptional like Nez  Perce,  since  the  characterized  by  (Tohsaku, 1983) (1990)  Song  harmony any  was  not  single  considered  to  distinctive  be  feature  I will adhere to the arguments presented in  .  in  stating  that  {ATR]  is  the  feature  which  distinguishes the dark vowels from the light ones in PDK.  1.2.  Optimality Theory and Application thereof in Vowel Harmony  Optimality interaction,  Theory,  which  is  a  theory  constraint  offers a principled account for the problem of  neutral vowels in Korean vowel harmony, of  of  ranking  a  of  set  conflicting  using the mechanism  constraints  that  play  a  crucial role in the language. Since  Chomsky  procedure  and  derive  to  applying  a  set  suggests  a  rather  associated  output  outputs  and  formedness  the  forms  it  from  However,  input)  (an  the  in  a  constraints.  constraints  and  them The  has  been  input  the  Optimality  transforming  of by  the  it  manner,  large  a  standard  structure  Instead of  step-by-step  generation  evaluates  Universal Grammar, of  rules.  (1968),  different method.  form  allows  output  of  underlying  Theory  Halle  set  concept  taking  the  into  its  Optimality of  mechanism  constraints  by  are  candidate of  well  part  of  and each language has a different ranking constituting the  individual  giving an appropriate ranking for Korean,  grammar.  therefore,  By  we can  5  solve the problem of neutral vowels within the framework of Optimality Theory. of  Korean  result  grounded press)  The neutral vowels in the harmony system simply  condition  from  the  interaction between  (Archangeli  RTR/LO  Pulleyblank,  &  the in  and right and left edge constraints on alignment:  (4) Constraints ALIGN-ct-L/R:  The left/right edge defined by  feature a. aligns with the left/right edge of Domain D. RTR/LO:  If  [-ATR]  then  [+10w];  if  [—ATR]  then not  [—low]  The ALIGN constraint links the feature to the left/right edge of each domain. the  first  Likewise,  mora  of  For example, the  word  if  fails to link to  [-ATR]  then  it  a violation of ALIGN-R will  violates  occur  if the  is not aligned to the right edge of a morpheme. condition RTR/LO prevents the  [—ATR]  ALIGN-L. feature  The grounded  feature from linking to  nonlow vowels. To between examples feature have  an  illustrate  this,  let  us  ‘crunching’ (sapak)  and  ‘staggering’ (pesil)  in  (3)  .  I  assume  in harmony and that underlying  [-ATR]  symbolic words do not. are  explained  by  the  that the  discuss  [-ATR] light  is  the  the  difference from  the  harmonizing  sound symbolic words  specification  while  dark  sound  The properties of the neutral vowels relative  order  of  the  constraints  6  RTR/LQ and ALIGN-R  (RTR/LO>> ALIGN-R);  the basic hypothesis  is that harmony is interrupted by the effect of the grounded condition  whereas  RTR/LO  the  constraints  on  encourage it. ALTGN—L ensures that the feature to  left-edge  the  of  the  words.  alignment  [—ATR]  aligns  this  [-ATRI  ALIGN—R causes  feature to spread to the following vowels. Thus, ALIGN-L and ALIGN-R  together  derive  RTR/LO  condition  which  nonlow  vowels  vowels each  are  word  words,  blocks  not  low.  surface  harmony  prevents this  As  a  result, (i,i)  in  because  it  linking  to  non-initial  such  cases.  In  of  other  If  [-ATR]  is not aligned to  then the form violates ALIGN-R;  as it is, harmony  unrounded  high  the  the  non—initial moras  proceeds to the right in normal cases. of  from  when  the  However,  aligns to the right vowel of sapak  [-ATRI  without incurring any violation. the right,  effect.  [-ATR]  harmony  [+ATR]  as  the feature  the  will  vowels,  incur  form pesil will be  the  ALIGN-R  because  it  ranked  constraint  an  harmony RTR/LO  optimal  is  more  RTR/LO.  [i]  However,  cannot  important and  proceed  violation.  form even  [ii  The  though to  are  in the case  obey  as  such  candidate  it  violates  the  neutral  higher only  in  non-initial syllables because ALIGN-L is ranked higher than RTR/LO.  To  sum up,  the ranking with respect to these three  constraints is: ALIGN-L>> RTR/LO>> ALIGN-R.  type of case  The basic analysis of the most crucial our  investigation  discussed  in  has  detail  in  been  outlined  Chapter  Three.  here A  and more  will  in be  profound  7  analysis,  will  however,  require  a  complete  ranking  of  all  the constraints. We  will  Middle  also  Korean  examine  to  the  diachronic  Present—Day  Korean;  change  this  from  Later  will  change  be  accounted for by reranking some of the constraints for each stage.  1.3.  Organization of Content  Chapter  Two will  Optimality Theory. basic  claims  Theory.  The  the  first  or  syllable  subsection will  and the motivation/development  applications theory  (McCarthy  1993)  vowel  and the  main  Prince  &  harmony body  of  from  system of  Later  accounts  of  Middle  the  Present-Day  presented briefly, harmony  Korean  Korean  system.  In  1993a,  thesis, The  Optimality  including  1993),  prosodic  its  will  vowel  Smolensky  & In  .  Chapter  look  at  section will diachronic  Present-Day  Korean  theory  1993)  we  first  through  to  of  Prince  (Pulleyblank  Korean vowel harmony system. vowel  this  Smolensky  &  deal with the  we will look at the major  concerning  (Prince  morphology  the  theoretical background of  In the following section,  studies  Three,  discuss  Korean.  the  follow changes  Previous will  harmony  be  followed by the Optimality account of the the  subsequent  section,  the  Optimality  account of Later Middle Korean will be discussed. Optimality Theory’s  treatment  of diachronic change  in harmony  systems  8  will also be discussed.  The concluding remarks and areas for  further research will be given in Chapter Four.  9  CHAPTER 2 THEORET I CAL BACKGROUND  In  this  chapter,  characterization presented Prince  in  of  Prince  (1993a)  we  will  Optimality and  discuss  Theory  Smolensky  (1993)  the  basic  (henceforth;  OT)  and McCarthy  and  In order to derive the hypothesis regarding  .  the harmony system of Korean discussed in the introduction, it  is  important  to  lay  out  some  of  the  properties  of  Optimality Theory. Some of the major applications of this theory will also be presented in this  chapter.  to understand how OT  treats  Furthermore, morphology  The discussion will  some major areas  help one  of phonology.  the discussion of syllable theory and prosodic will  independently  show  that  motivated  crucial  --not  properties  introduced  of  OT  are  specifically  to  account for the harmony phenomenon of Korean, but to explain similar  problems  constraints  other  in  other  than  areas  those  of  phonology;  directly  involved  the in  use  of  harmony  provides independent motivation for the types of theoretical properties crucial to the account of Korean vowel harmony.  10  2.1.  Optimality Theory  The  goal  whereby  of  OT  is  develop  to  representational  and  well-formedness  assignment of grammatical structure. of generative phonology  explore  a  theory  determines  the  In the standard theory  (since Chomsky and Halle,  1968),  the  phonological rule aims to encode grammatical generalizations as follows:  (5)  D  A->B/C  Such a rule examines changes  element  A  into  its  input  B,  producing  for the pattern CAD and an  output  that  is  typically subject to further rules of the same type  (Chomsky  & Halle  to  1968,  McCarthy &  Prince  l993a)  .  Challenges  this  derivational approach have recently been observed,  as it has  been  areas  found  actually  that  linguistic  governed  by  patterning  structural  in  constraints  many on  the  is  output  level -—constraints which furthermore hold generally across would  be  number  of  forms  that  rules.  A  Paradis  1988a,  Bird  1990,  processed  1991  constraint-based models and  Repair  which  shift  Strategies” the  Coleman 1991, and  many  such as and  explanatory  rewrite rules to output constraints.  1991,1992,  have  proposed  Theory of Constraints  Persistent  burden  rewrite  1990,1993,  Scobbie  others)  “The  “The  distinct  (Goldsmith  phonologists  Singh 1987,  Myers  many  by  from  the  Rule  Theory”  input-driven  11  Optimality Theory is the outgrowth of a research program first  proposed  investigate  in  the  computation.  insights  networks  OT  takes  which  (1988)  connectionist  demonstrates  can  “Harmony”,  formedness.  of  Smolensky  connectionist maximizing  Smolensky  be  this  and  as  certain  algorithms  measure  connectionist  to  symbolic  that  analyzed  numerical  a  seeks  of  insight  for  well  of harmony  maximization as a basic cognitive principle and imports into  grammatical  theory  connectionist approaches seek  to  replace  analyses 1993b,  with  as to  symbolic  low-level  optimization.  language,  however,  representations numerical  Unlike  it  other  OT does not  and  linguistic  computation  (Kirchner  Prince & Smolensky 1993)  The basic idea of OT is that Universal Grammar consists of a set of constraints on representational well—formedness, out of which individual grammars are constructed. Individual grammars universal  are  constructed  constraint  by  set.  imposing  a  According  language—particular variation is due  to  ranking this  on  a  theory,  to differences  in the  ranking of the constraints. OT shifts the explanatory burden of linguistic theory from input-based rules to output-based constraints. OT allows for the specification of a large set of and  candidate  outputs  transforming  associated system  of  output.  it  instead of in  The  a  an  step-by-step  candidate  well-formedness  taking  set  constraints,  is  underlying manner  into  evaluated which  form its  by  the  selects  the  12  actual  output  from  the  candidate  set.  the grammar is configured like this:  Therefore,  (6)  forms  (optimal)  Gen  (in)  Eval  , 1 {cand  ->  , 1 ({cand  , 2 cand  , 2 cand  .  })  ...  =  (McCarthy & Prince, 1993a)  The grammar defines a pairing of underlying and surface forms  (input,output)  which  is  by  fixed part  a  the  function  of Universal  Gen  (‘generator’)  Grammar.  The  function  Eval determines the relative harmony of the candidates. optimal output  is  candidate  which best  The  set  Universal by  set, of  at  the  constraints,  top of the harmonic order on the satisfies denoted  strict  dominance  the  constraint is  by  Grammar and an individual  imposing a  An  provided  grammar G 1  order,  system.  is  denoted by  by  obtained ‘>>‘,  on  the elements of C.  (7)  UG  =  1 G  , 1 {C , 2 ..,C} C  =  C  ( C ; >> (Ito, Mester & Padgett 1993)  OT has the attractive trait of allowing the output form to  violate  Smolensky  some (1992,  of  the  1993)  relevant have  constraints.  argued  that  Prince  the  goal  and of  developing a restrictive theory of Universal Grammar can be best  served  by  allowing  constraints  to  be  violated.  The  13  output,  therefore,  constraint. satisfies  For  the  will given  a  input,  constraint  definition the output input  typically  fail  the  the  meet  candidate  system will  that  to  be  optimal  that and  every bestis  by  grammar associates with the  (McCarthy & Prince 1993a)  OT  on  relies  the  notion  of  constraint  interaction  whereby the satisfaction of one constraint can be designated to take absolute priority over the satisfaction of another. The  means  rank  a  constraints  constraint lower can  that  in be  has the  grammar in  “strict  a  absolute  in  to  an  That  resolve  dominance  priority  hierarchy.  violated  uses  over  is,  optimal  all  conflicts  is  hierarchy”.  to  Each  the  constraints  lower-ranked  constraints  output  form  when  such  violation secures success in higher-ranked constraints. The following four principles are hallmark properties of OT presented in McCarthy and Prince  (8)  (1993a)  among others.  Principles of Optimality Theory  a.Violability; Constraints are violable, but violation is minimal. b.Ranking; Constraints are ranked on a language particular basis; the notion of minimal violation is defined in terms of this ranking. c.Inclusiveness;  The constraint hierarchy evaluates a  set of candidate analyses that are admitted by very general considerations of structural well-  14  formedness. There are no specific rules or repair strategies. d.Parallelism; Best-satisfaction of the constraint hierarchy is computed over the whole hierarchy and the whole candidate set.  There is no serial  derivation.  As mentioned above,  ranking and violability are the key  characteristics of OT. Let us, constraint  ranking  and  then,  constraint  consider the notions of violability.  Suppose  have a granuuar consisting of two constraints,  A and B.  grammar  with  forms: on.  functions  to  pair  underlying  , 1 ) )->out 1 Eval(Gen(in  Suppose  that  we  have  an  gives rise to a candidate set function Gen The  forms  ) )—>out 2 Eval(Gen(in , 2 underlying  form  and  so  which  through the  (Mccarthy & Prince,1993a,b).  following  tableau  illustrates how  the  satisfaction  of a constraint hierarchy proceeds.  (9)  The  surface  /ink/  2 , 1 {k-cand } k--cand  we  Constraint Tableau, A>>B  Candidates  A  B  k-c and 1 2 k-cand (Mccarthy & Prince, 1993a,b)  Ct  Ct  ?  o  r1 HCt  -  M CD  o  o  ?I  CD II CD  Ct  CD  ‘  CD  Ct  -  o  H  H Di Ct  o  Di H  -  H  -  Q  Di  Ct CD ‘-1  Dl Ct CD  ph  Ct Ct 0  H  H-  I-  Q  CD  Di  C)  Di H  Ct H-  0  CD  Ct  Ct 0  H 0  Ct Ct CD  U)  tDi  H  0  Ct  U)  C) 0  CD  Ct  0 H)  Di Ii C) CD  H CD  CD  t-  H-  CD  Ct  N CD U)  H-  ph  CD  HU)  CD  Di  Q..  • F-3  • U)  Q-  Di  U)  D’ II CD  C) CD H  -  U) CD  0  H  P’-  it CD  P’  C)  CD  I—’  Ct  H Di Ct CD  CDCD  o  C)  C) (D  H Di  Di  H C) Di Ct CD  H  HU)  Di C) Ct H 0  U) Di Ct HU)  : •— : •  1<  Q.  H CD  U)  M CD  Di  H 0 H Di Ct H 0 i U)  <  Di Ct Di H  CD  Ct  CL  Di  *  i<  CD  Di  HU)  H  Di  Q  • < H 0 H Di Ct H0  Ct  Ct Di H-  C) 0  CD  Ct  0 I-h  CD II  0 I-  Di Ct H0  H-  CL 0  CD  Ct  0  HII  CD  a 0  C) 0 H  Ct  Ct 0 I ‘ H-  • L CD I-h Ct  •  Di  ço  C) CD  H-  -  ‘  <  Di i—i Ct  C)  X  Di  —  cø L.i  HI  0  C) CD  1 H-  H H  H,  o  Ct  H  0  H-  Ct  Ct  CD  Ct  H  U)  it H0  CD  <  C) 0  H-  Di  Ct  H0  CD  rt Q  U)  H  Ct  <  •  ‘-<  HCD t-1 Di II C)  CD  Ct  H-  CD i-  0  ‘-<  H-  H 0  C  Ct CD  H  0  Di  CD  Ct Di  U) CD H)  -  C) CD  H CD Di I-I Ct  U] H-  Ct Di  H I-  ph  CD  Di Ct  Q.  H-  CL  Ph  C)  Di  0  CD CD  Q  HU) Di  W  Q  Di  CD  CT)  i  0  Di H  ‘<  b  CD  Q  Di  HU)  CL  Di  CD  CD  CD Ct  CD C) HU) H-  CD  Ct  II CD -  CD ‘CD H  •  W  V  V  Ct  U) it II Di H-  C) 0  -  Di Ct CD U)  H  0  .  Ct II Di H  C) 0  CD  Ct  CD  Ct  H-  -  0  Ct  Ct  0  Di H  Di C) Ct  CD  Ct  H-  I  C) CD  C’) H-  H, Di HH  Ct  CD  CD  HH CD  E  -  U)  CD  0 H Di  Di  Ct U)  CD  CD  Di  Di Ct CD  H-  CD  H CD Di  Ct Di  H  Ct CD  CD  Dl  Ct -  H H-  0  Ct  Di  U) Ct  Q  Di  CD  Di  CD  CD  Ct  <  U) CD Ct  Di Ct CD  Di  Ct  0  CD CD  Di  H  Di  H-  CD  CD  •  C) Di U) CD  HU)  it  H-  0  H  H0)  H0  .  CD it  8  Z  U)  C)  CD CD it U)  Di Ct  Ct  CD  0  -  H-  Di Ct CD  .  Di  H  Di  Ct H-  Ct D-  H) Di HH C))  CD II  0 Ct  CD  Ct  (U U)  Ct CD  Di  H-  Di  CD  0  Di  Ct  CD CD  Di  Di  Ct U)  U) Ct IDi H-  C) 0  0 Ct  Ct  Ct  0  Di H  Di  H U)  Di  0 U) CD  ‘d  U)  Cn  16  An  interesting  configuration  in the grammar admits multiple will  in  see  Korean  the  vowel  following  harmony  arises when  (or gradient)  chapter  involves  both  that  a  constraint  violations.  the  single  analysis and  We of  multiple  violations. Suppose we have  a pair of  candidates  constraints higher-ranked than C,  that  ties  on  all  and with C itself we have  the following.  (1O)Multiple Violation Candidates  C  ...  1 cand  *  ...  2 cand  ...  (McCarthy & Prince, 1993b)  The  principle  constraint  optimal form. output  Harmonic  entails  Smolensky,1993)’ single  of  will  the only  In this case,  because  its  : 2 than those of cand  Ordering  desirable be  violated  (Prince  result  that  minimally  & any  in  an  1 is the optimal we say that cand  accumulated  violations  of  C  are  fewer  C is violated minimally.  1 T he notion of Harmonic Ordering defines best-satisfaction in a way that encompasses hierarchical ranking of violation the and nonranking (‘violate lowest-ranked constraint’) the least constraint degree any single (‘violate to possible’) (McCarthy & Prince 1993).  17  Let  us  conclude  the  discussion  of  the  theoretical  background by looking at three principles that underlie the theory of Gen presented in Mccarthy and Prince  (1993a).  (i)Freedom of Analysis; Any amount of structure may  be posited. (ii)Contairiment; No element may be literally removed from the input form. The input is thus contained in every candidate form. (iii)Consistency of Exponence; No changes in the exponence of phonologically-specified morphemes are permitted.  Freedom  of  Analysis  allows  Gen  to  supply  outputs that include any degree of structure, of autosegmental prosody.  candidate  both in terms  features and associations and in terms of  It requires no specific rules or repair strategies  since the basic principles of representational form supply a range  of  property  candidates limits  this  that  are  inclusive.  The  freedom by requiring the  present in any licit candidates. Therefore, includes a feature specification  (i.e.  Containment input  to be  if an input form  [-ATRJ),  the correct  output form must have this feature. Consistency of Exponence means  that the lexical  be affected by Gen.  specifications of a morpheme cannot  Thus,  any given morpheme’s phonological  exponents must be identical in underlying and surface form.  18  2.2. Major Application  2.2.1.  Syllable Theory  One of the major applications of Optimality Theory is to establish a typology of syllable structure systems. The idea is  Universal  that  constraints fix  grammars (Prince  on  syllable  the  provides  languages  rankings.  Prince  structure  typology  1993)  is  and by  ranking .  given  these  Therefore,  the  the  of  by  Smolensky using  that  and of  the  (1993)  of  set  a  structure,  relative  Smolensky  &  possible  Grammar  set  derives  following  violable individual  constraints typology  of  all  possible  CV  syllable  constraints  and  the various rankings of these constraints.  (11)  The Basic Syllable Constraints  i)ONS;  Syllables must have onsets.  ii)-COD;  Syllables must not have a coda.  iii)PARSE; Underlying segments must be parsed into syllable structure. iv)FILL; Syllable positions must be filled with underlying segments.  PARSE and FILL comprise what Prince and Smolensky calls the “Faithfulness” that input  well-formed segments  family of constraints in the sense  syllable are  in  (1993)  structures one-to-one  those  in  which  correspondence  with  are  19  positions.  syllable  denoted as  !I  This  faithfulness  (and a number of it as  constraint  t) F 1  set  is  in the following  table.  (12)  CV Syllable Structure Typology (Prince & Smolensky,  1993)  Onsets ONS>>F  F>>ONS  ZCV(C)  Z(C)V(C)  1 -COD>>F  Codas  F>>—COD  The above typology is  consistent with that of  Jakobson  about syllable structure: “There are languages lacking syllables with initial vowels and/or syllables with final consonants, but there are no languages devoid of syllables with initial consonants or of syllables with final vowels.” (Jakobson 1962, When structural more  the  Quoted in Prince & Smolensky 1993)  Faithfulness  constraints  constraints  (ONS,-COD),  important than obeying ONS  dominate  respecting  and -COD.  the  -COD,  and  the  string  /V/  will  be  parsed  input  For example,  string /CVC/ will be parsed as a closed syllable, as  an  both is the  violating onsetless  20  syllable,  violating ONS.  the table in parsing  of  (12) the  This  the  language  On the contrary,  shows. input  gives  will  result  when  the  Faithfulness  onset.  The  a  member  violating PARSE, gives  the  can  /V/  every  remain  the  or both of,  must  have  The  an  unsyllabified,  violating FILL.  V., 3 .LI  cv(c)•  or  CV  syllable  either  or be parsed as  language  of  In the case where ONS dominates  constraints,  string  as  a more aggressive  Faithfulness constraints is dominated by either, the structural constraints.  (C)V(C)2  where  case  This -COD  dominates a Faithfulness constraint corresponds to languages in which codas are forbidden  (XCV  or  We can extend our explication by showing the interaction of  the  structural (PARSE,  Faithfulness interaction  of  ONS  tableaus  and  Smolensky  (1993)  Suppose  constraints  we  FILL) with  ONS  constraints.  Faithfulness  explanations  are  .V.  -COD  Let  us  first.  with discuss  The  largely  from  If  is  the the  following  Prince  and  chapter 6. have  an  input  /V/.  both of the Faithfulness constraints, be  and  as the tableau  (13)  ONS  dominated by  the optimal parse will  shows.  2 T he notation Yz denotes the language whose the pattern XYZ (Prince & Smolensky 1993) O represents an empty structural position.  syllables  fit  21  (13)Onset  Not  Required  /V/  FILL  PARSE  ONS  tr.v.  * *1  .LW.  Notice has  no  here  effect  on  FILL  is  both  constraints:  have  to  .LIV.  can  ranking  fatal  that  have be  of  the  the  because  an the  the  relative  ranking  outcome.  The  there  a  namely  onset  in  optimal  is  FILL  violation  candidate  .V.,  since  this  case.  parse  of  the The  when  we  of  PARSE  which  does  not  <V>  and  candidates the  and  satisfies  syllable  have  PARSE  following  constraints.  (14)Enforcement /V/  by Overparsing ONS  V  I  (Epenthesis) PARSE  .......  FILL  .................................. ......................................................  *1  <V>  *  LV  (15)Enforcement  /V/  and  by Underparsing FILL  (Deletion) PARSE  ONS *1  V  crr<v>  * II  *1  liii!! III!!!!!!  I  111111  I  I  II  I  I  II  22  The above cases show that we must have an onset. is  the  lowest ranked constraint,  overparsing is the  (.LIV.).  If PARSE is the lowest,  enforced by underparsing following FILL  and/or  a syllable  conclusion:  dominates  ONS,  (<V>)  is  onsets  are  enforced by  then a syllable  Therefore,  .  we  optional  and mandatory  If FILL  if  can if  ONS  draw PARSE  dominates  either PARSE or FILL. The cases.  same The  line  of  following  argument three  can  be  rankings  presented  determines  for  Coda  appropriate  outputs for each case.  (16)Coda Not Forbidden FILL  /CVC/  PARSE  -COD  cvc .  ‘SI<C)’  !  .  .CV.CO.  *!  (17)Enforcement by Overparsing -COD  /CvC/ CvC .  (Epenthesis) PARSE  FILL  *1 111111  .  crCVCLI  *  ! *  I I!  23  (18)Enforcement by Underparsing FILL  /CVC/  (Deletion)  -COD  PAR SE  1  *1  CVC  c.Cv<C>. .CV.CEI.  in a language if -COD is dominated by  Codas are optional and FILL as  both PARSE dominates  either  ranking,  then  underparsing  in  PARSE the  (16).  or  Codas  FILL.  optimal  If  form  (phonetic deletion)  as  are  PARSE will  in  has be  (18)  then it is realized by overparsing  lowest  forbidden if  .  the  -COD  lowest  realized If  FILL  by  is  (epenthesis)  the  as in  (17) The  heart  of  constraint  interaction  in  CT  is  to  build  individual phonologies directly from universal principles of structural well—formedness. of  highly  general  conflicting languages. these that are  well-formedness  constraints Languages  universal determines  violated.  Universal Grammar provides a set  are  differ  operative  primarily  constraints the  all  in  a  a  in  strict  circumstances  Therefore,  constraints.  These  in  the  often  individual  way  they  rank  dominance hierarchy  under  which  language-particular  constraints grammar  is  a  means of resolving the conflicts among universal constraints (Prince  & Smolensky 1993)  In this ranking  of  section, universal  we have  seen that  constraints  give  these  changes  different  in the  types  of  24  syllable typologies. ranking stages  can in  a  also single  Later,  we will see that the changes in  characterize  the  language  we  as  different discuss  historical  Korean  vowel  harmony.  2.2.2. Prosodic Morphology  As  we  have  briefly  seen  in  Chapter  One,  Optimality  Theory’s treatment of the harmony system is quite different from the standard approach. how  Optimality  way  in  standard  which  Theory OT’s  prosodic  In this section, we will observe  treats  prosodic  prosodic  morphology  morphology  presented in Mccarthy and Prince The  morphology,  based  differs on  the  and  the  from  the  arguments  (1993a)  standard theory of prosodic morphology is  embodied  in the following three core principles.  (19) Principles of Standard Prosodic Morphology (McCarthy & Prince, 1986) a.Prosodic Morphology Hypothesis Templates are defined in terms of the authentic units of prosody: mora(i),  syllab1e(),  foot(Ft), prosodic word (PrWd). b.Templatic Satisfaction Condition Satisfaction of templatic constraints is obligatory and is determined by the principles  25  of prosody, both universal and languagespecific. c.Prosodic Circumscription The domain to which morphological operations apply may be circumscribed by prosodic criteria as well as the more familiar morphological ones.  The  essence  of  the  above  principles  and circumscriptional morphology and  language-particular  formedness. however,  Optimality  gives  principles.  between  the  domains:  namely,  the  on  (McCarthy  different  templatic  prosodic Prince  &  perspective  well— 1993a),  on  these  The Template Satisfaction Condition and Prosodic  Circumscription can be  put,  Theory  that  governed by universal  constraints  rather  a  are  is  seen as  well-formedness prosody(P)  constraints  fixing a dominance  constraints  of  two  and morphology(M):  on prosodic  structure  relation different  P>>M.  Simply  take precedence  over the constraints on morphological structure in templatic and  circumscriptional  1993a:102) Campa  .  This  is  Reduplication  chapter  5•4  The  morphology  illustrated case  by  (McCarthy showing  from McCarthy  reduplication  and  process  I this study, we will only discuss the relevant to show the ranking schema P>>M.  & the  Axininca  Prince  is  Prince  (1993a)  suffixal  in  which  are  cases  26  Axininca  Campa.  given in  (20)  (20)  The  Base  crucial  data  that  we  will  discuss  is  Reduplication  a. /osampi/  osampi-sampi  ‘ask’  b. /osaijkina/  osaijkina-sagkina  ‘write  c. /n-osampi/  n-osampi-sampi  I  d. /n-osaijkina/  n-osaijkina-sakina  ‘write’  e. /n-apii/  n-apii-napii  ‘repeat’  f./naa/  naa-naa  ‘chew’  ask’  Axininca Campa reduplication involves C-initial roots as well  as  V—initial  discussion case  of  of  C-initial  interest  presented in  (21)  the  roots.  here.  We  will,  roots The  however,  since  relevant  they  omit  are  not  constraints  any the are  (21)  Constraints i)ONS;  Syllables must have an onset.  ii)FILL; Syllable positions must be filled with an underlying segment. iii)M1X;  The reduplication is phonologically  identical to the Base. iv)R<ROOT; The Reduplicant  (R)  contains only the  root. v)DISYLL;  The Reduplicant is minimally disyllabic.  27  The  ONS  constraint,  already  familiar  from the previous  section,  requires  the node  in the prosodic tree to be filled with a segment.  MAX  is  a  familiar  necessitates base  an  that  onset  feature  the  of  each  R<ROOT  .  syllable.  reduplicative  Reduplicant be  1988a)  (Steriade  for  an  exact  FILL  forces  theory  that  copy of  characterizes  its the  morphological composition of the source of the Reduplicant, demanding a kind of morphological integrity 1990).  Finally,  minimal  size  DISYLL requires (two  syllables),  a  (Mutaka & Hyman  reduplicant of a certain a  kind  of  generalized  templatic restriction. The last three constraints pertain to morphological structure while ONS and FILL apply to prosodic structure. Let us, initial form,  then,  roots more  osampi-osampi,  look at  ((20) a,b)  harmonic  reduplication with unprefixed V— Since  than  the  osampi-sampi total  is  the  reduplication  optimal case,  we can see that ONS dominates MAX.  (22) Candidates  ONS  o.sarn.pi-o.sam.pi  *  o.sam.pi-sarn.pi  MAX  *  The Base o.sam.pi must violate ONS, such  as  <o>.sam.pi or  constraints  PARSE  Lio.sam.pi are  and FILL.  But  because other options  excluded by higher the Reduplicant  ranking  should not  28  violate ONS even at the price of MAX violation. that MAX is of  crucially dominated by ONS.  V-initial  initial  roots  syllable  mentioned case root  copy  as  in  (22),  the  reduplication  neither (20)c,d.  candidate,  (which  includes  ruled  R<ROOT  because  only the  by root  according to  ONS  as  the  this  n-  the  nor in  the  in  constraint.  above— total  Total  Base  this  Reduplicant  root-  the  excludes  n-osampi-osampi.  prefix  shows  The prefixed forms  prefix  Just  constraint  reduplication out  the  This  case)  must  is  contain  Therefore,  the  actual output form violates only low-ranking MAX as tableau (23)  shows.  (23) Candidates  ONS  R<ROOT  MAX  n—osampl—nosampi *  i—osampi 1 n—osam  !  n—osamp1—samp1  Here, while  MAX  the  ranking between  is  the  violated in the however,  lowest  actual  demonstrates  and R<ROOT  ranking  output that  ONS  form. the  not  is  constraint  for  The next case  morphological  clear it  ((20)e),  constraint  R<ROOT is indeed ranked lower than prosodic constraint, Consider tableau  (24)  is  ONS.  29  (24) Candidates  ONS  Disyll  R<ROOT  Max  n-apii-pjj  *  n-apii.pjj  *!  4,  n-apii-napii  4,  The form that violates R<ROQT can still be optimal since all the other candidates violate highly ranked constraints, namely, The  ONS and DISYLL. next  constraint  example,  FILL  (20)f,  dominates  shows the  that  another  morphological  prosodic  constraint  DISYLL.  (25) Candidates  FILL  DISYLL  naa-naa  *  naa.E1L1—iia.a.E1L1  The  form since  DISYLL  *  naa-naa  is  the  other  higher constraint,  FILL.  The  analysis  constraints  ONS  constraints  such  !  * * *  optimal  even  candidate  of Axininca Campa and as  FILL  crucially  DISYLL,  R<ROOT  is  though a  shows  it  violation  that  violates of  the  the prosodic  dominate  reduplicative  and M7X.  That  is,  the  reduplicative constraints can be violated even in an optimal form.  Frequently,  the Reduplicant is an inexact copy of the  30  base, affixal  the of  violation  contains  Reduplicant  (n-apii-napii)  R<ROOT  the Reduplicant is monosyllabic,  in violation of  (naa-naa).  Certain conception Condition.  templatic  of  aspects of  CT  templates  constraints  in  are CT.  to  the  are  interface  constraints  lead  and  Templates  prosody/morphology  other  Sometimes  in  material,  Sometimes, DISYLL  MAX.  violating  Template  different  Satisfaction on  constraints  (McCarthy  violable We  very  a  will  in  Prince  &  1993a)  and  like  all  principle  conclude  this  the  section by  viewing the principles of Prosodic Morphology within CT from McCarthy and Prince  (1993a).  (26) Prosodic Morphology within Optimality Theory (Mccarthy & Prince 1993a:103) a.Prosodic Morphology Hypothesis Templates are constraints on the prosody /morphology interface,  asserting the coincidence  of morphological and prosodic constituents. b.Template Satisfaction Condition Templatic constraints may be undominated, which case they are satisfied fully, may be dominated,  in  and they  in which case they are  violated minimally,  in accordance with general  principles of Optimality Theory.  31  c.Ranking Schema P>>M  (P>>M)  The ranking schema  is a broad assertion about the  nature of prosodic morphology: is  to  prosodically  be  must dominate M  if some morphological domain  conditioned,  then  in  (Mccarthy & Prince 1993a).  that  domain  P  This development  reduces the theory of Prosodic Morphology to the P>>M schema and a set of constraints, mentioned  As  all violable in principle.  earlier,  CT  gives  very  a  different  perspective and conception regarding Prosodic Morphology. the OT  following section, lead  well.  to  a  rather  we will show that certain aspects of  P0K  presented in the next neutrality  in  view  different  Furthermore,  In  vowel  chapter,  harmony  harmony,  with  systems  which  contrasts  systems  harmony  of  will  as be  CT’s  treatment of  of  conventional  that  derivation-based theory.  2.2.3. Vowel Harmony  In this implications systems. vowel  We  of  CT  will  (1993)  Standard Yoruba, hypothesis  of  for  begin  harmony with  Pulleyblank  we will  section,  a  examine  the our  in greater detail  treatment  analysis  summary of  the  of  vowel  the  harmony  treatment  of  argument presented  in  of  CT’s  regarding tongue root harmony patterns in  a Kwa language spoken in Nigeria. The basic his  analysis  is  that  formal  patterns  of  32  harmony  are  derived  Kirchner 1993a) derived by press) are  derived  alignment McCarthy  constraints Prince  &  of  OT  1993a,b,  while substantive properties of harmony are  Grounding  That  .  1993,  Smolensky  &  (Prince  the  by  (Archangeli  from  the  interaction  constraints:  Pulleyblank,  &  the central properties  is,  phonological  Theory  in  of harmony systems  of  three  faithfulness  types  of  constraints,  alignment constraints and grounded conditions. Pulleyblank  (1993)  defines these families of constraints  as follows:  (27)Faithfulness Conditions PARSE: An F-element  Ct.  (Pulleyblank 1993)  must be dominated by an  appropriate node in the prosodic tree. (Recoverability of F-element) : An F—element  ReoF  (feature or node) a. that is present in an output form is also present in the input. (Recoverability of Path):  RecP  For any path between  an F-element a and some anchor  13  to  in the output then  f3,  if ais associated  a is associated to  f3  in the  input.  The discussed features little  faithfulness in into  the  conditions,  previous  prosodically  modification  as  section,  as are  well-formed  possible.  For  we  have  required  to  structures example,  already parse  with  the  as  parse  33  5 constraint  requires  a  input)  link  an  to  to  feature  (if  it  is  mora.  appropriate  present  in  the  Recoverability  constraints require that material in the output form also be present  in  association Rec-F  the  input.  line  will  prohibits  The be  of  insertion  proscribed by  changes  in  featural  any  these  feature  or  constraints.  content,  and  Rec-P  prohibits changes in associative paths. Alignment constraints cause edges of featural domains to coincide  with  the  edges  of  phonologically,  morphologically, defined domains. This is stated in  (28) Alignment Constraints ALIGN-L(o,L;D,L) :  or  (28).  (Pulleyblank 1993)  The left—edge of  feature c aligns  with the left-edge of domain D. ALIGN-R(c,R;D,L):  The right-edge of feature c aligns  with the right-edge of domain D.  For  example,  ALIGN-L  left edge of any [-ATR]  (-ATR,L;Word,L)  will  require  the  specification to be aligned with the  left edge of the word. Finally,  the grounded conditions,  Archangeli and Pulleyblank the  phonetic  (in press),  well-formedness  of  which are proposed in function to increase  feature  combinations.  The  basic claim is that implicational relations between features  5 T his constraint is, in essence, deals with prosodic structure.  the  same  as  (7)  which  34  must be phonetically motivated or conditions harmonic  govern  properties  neutrality  redundancy,  conditions  phonological rules, The  (opacity  first  on  of  the  type  “Such  segmental  and  and  grounded  inventories,  transparency), targets  and so on.”  substantive  grounded.  rules  of  triggers  of  (Pulleyblank 1993:8) of  implication advocated by  grounded conditions in Archangeli and Pulleyblank  (in press)  involves the movement of the tongue root implied by a change in  height.  tongue  with  an  [+highj)  upward  movement  Raising  .  of  the  correlate with tongue the physiological the  other  ([+ low]) ([-ATR])  hand, tends These  .  for  Consider,  to  the  tongue  root  fact the  of  instance, tongue  tongue  is  properties  with  body  ([+ATR]) a  downward movement correlate  tongue  ([+high])  body  advancement  that  the  root  (formally tends  to  because  of  single volume. 6 On of  tongue  the  tongue  root  can be phonologically  body  retraction expressed  as follows:  (29)  Grounded Path Condition:c/ATR (Archangeli & Pulleyblank,  a.HI/ATR Condition:If  [+high]  b.LO/ATR Condition:If  [+low]  See 6 the press:147)  diagrams  in  in press:148)  then then  Archangeli  [+ATR],not{-ATR]. [-ATR],not[+ATR].  &  Pulleyblank  (in  35  The  7 type  second  implied by  a  root  to be  the  tends  tongue  tongue body.  involves  root movement.  Movement  accompanied by a These  in  changes  tongue  height  of  tongue  the  sympathetic movement  dependencies  are  expressed  of  formally  in the following four path conditions.  (30)  Grounded Path Conditions: ATR(RTR)/cL (Archangeli & Pulleyblank,  in press:150)  a.ATR/HI Condition:If[+ATR]  then[+high],not[-high].  b.ATR/LO Condition:If[+ATR]  then[-lowJ, not[+low].  c.RTR/HI Condition: If[-ATRJ  then[-highj ,not [+highj.  d.RTR/LO Condition:If[-ATR]  then[+low],  Archangeli above  &  Pulleyblank  conditions  physiologically  (29)  (in press)  and  preferred  (30)  not[-low].  claims  alone  configurations  of  that  the  reflect  the  tongue  body  height and tongue root retraction/advancement. The have  three  types  discussed  of  phonological  ——namely,  constraints  faithfulness  that  we  constraints,  alignment constraints and grounding conditions-- will also be  the  system  central constraints  that derive the Korean harmony  even  stage  though  each  of  the  language  has  a  different ranking of these constraints.  7 E ven though we only need the above two conditions for the discussion of Yoruba case here, include I will other grounded conditions to give a general picture of Grounding Theory. Moreover, we make use of the RTR/LO condition, (30)d, in the discussion of Korean vowel harmony in Chapter Three.  36  With  above mentioned  the  consider  the  case  of  constraints  Yoruba  tongue  root  in mind,  let  . 8 harmony  Tongue  us  root harmony in Yoruba involves the spreading of the feature [-ATR] 1993)  (Archangeli as  in Korean.  morphemes:  Pulleyblank  (1989),  Pulleyblank  Pulleyblank  &  assumes  morphemes  with  1993, as  (1993),  that  and  1989,  there  without  Pulleyblank  in Archangeli  are the  two  types  lexical  & of  [-ATRJ  specification.  (31) Mid vowels in Yoruba a.ègè  The  [-ATRJ the  in  ‘cassava’  èké  ‘lie’  eke  ‘forked stick’  èse  ‘cat’  ese  ‘row’  morphemes  specification Vowels  ‘dirge’  and  in  (31)a  therefore  do  not  have  surface  as  (31)b appear retracted since  specification. interaction  Harmony of this  of  the  ALIGN  advanced  they have a type  is  (PARSE,RecF,RecP)  8 A ll the data, tableaus Pulleyblank (1993)  and  [—ATRI vowels. lexical  explained by  constraint  Faithfulness constraints  relevant  lexical  discussions  with  the  are  from  37  (32)  Mid vowels,  with and without a lexical  [—ATRI  speci ficat ion Yoruba  ][PRSE  a.  REC—F  TT(ThL..12  -—c-p  T  ege  V  -atr /EgE/  ege  \  -atr ege  ‘dirge’  /  -atr ege  ese  b.  V  -atr /E5E/  ese  [—atr)  -atr  ‘row’  ese  \  /  -atr ese -atr  RecF prevents the present will there  be is  lexically as the a  one  form in which optimal  one,  in  with  lexical  (32)a.  [-ATR]  is  with  where  Therefore,  advanced vowels  [—ATRJ  [—ATR] even  insertion of  is not  the optimal  (ege).  specification,  it  However, in  when  (32)b,  the  linked to both vowels will be  the  the  two  as  form  violations  of  RecP.  Other  38  are  candidates  worse  ALIGN  constraints,  because  and  PARSE.  they  In  constraints play a crucial role;  violate  this  higher  the  case,  these constraints,  ALIGN  however,  are not as important when we discuss cases like high vowels (34)  and the Later Middle Korean data in Chapter Three. The  conditions Let  us  and  high  well  as  low as  vowel  ALIGN  consider high vowels  cases  and  involve  Faithfulness  first.  As  shown  grounded  constraints. in  (33),  high  vowels can cooccur with both advanced and retracted vowels.  High vowels in Yoruba  (33)  The  a.bi  ‘guilt’  etiri ide  cases  in  ebi  ‘hunger’  ‘difficult’  èñgI  ‘molar tooth’  ‘brass’  ilé  ‘house’  (33)a  b.  are  problematic  if  we  expect  complete harmony without considering any feature cooccurence conditions  like  straightforward specification, vowels),  the  (33)a only.  HI/ATR. (these and  Since  morphemes  therefore,  following  the  cases do  surface  tableau will  not as  include  in  (33)b  have all the  are  [-ATR] advanced  data  from  39  (34)High vowels with a lexical Yoruba a  HI/ATR  ebi  PARSE  {-ATR]  REc-F  specification  ALIGN—R  ALIGN-L  REC-P  I  V  **  —atr /EbI/  ccbi  [—atrj  —atr  ‘gui_it’  eI,i  \  *!  I  -atr  11111  ebi  IllIllIllIll  liii I 111111  II I  \\ *1  -atr b  ide  *1  V  -atr /IdE/  ide  [-atr)  -atr  ‘brass’  ide  1111111  111111111  I  11111111111 111111  I  IlIlIllIllIll 11111111  I  II  *  \  111111111  I  II  111111  *  I  II  II!!  II  1111111  IllIllIllIll liii  *  I  -atr ide -atr  The second candidate of violates ALIGN—R, ranked vowel(I)  higher. will  candidate of [-ATRI  because  the  Therefore, be  ruled  (34)a is optimal even though it  out  any in  grounded condition HI/ATR form  with  the  first  a  retracted  place.  The  is  high last  (34)a is a violation of PARSE since the feature  does not associate to the appropriate mora.  (34)b can  be explained in the same manner. The incompatibility of high  40  vowels  retraction,  with  constraint HI/ATR, interrupted  be  (Pulleyblank,  represented  by  the  highly  ranked  causes the general pattern of harmony to in  the  appropriate  configuration  1993)  The low vowel cases involve another grounded condition, namely,  LO/ATR.  Low vowels in Yoruba  (35)  ‘witch’  a.àj  abbé  ‘needle’  àwo ‘plate’  a13  ‘cloth’  àdI  *eba  egba  ‘whip’  *egba  crákpó  ‘type of plant’  *erapo  low  property  is  higher  than  constraint  gari’.  ‘palm-nut oil’  ‘food made from gari’  c.êbà  The  b.âfè ‘Spotted Grass—mouse’  vowels  accounted  are  systematically  for by ranking  recoverability.  tableau  for  a  form  the  Consider like  eba,  retracted.  This  LO/ATR  condition  the  following  ‘food  made  from  41  (36) Morphemes with final low vowels,  no  [-ATR]  specification Yoruba  LO/ATR  HI/ATR  PJ\RSE  [REC_F  eba  *  V  /EbA/  -atr  ‘food’  cbc  ALIGN-R [IGN_L REC-P  I:  \  -atr eba  I  +  -atr  “I’ll  eb  *!  The form eba  it  requires  :  **  the  (as opposed to ebe) insertion of  a  is optimal even though  feature  (a  since the presence of a low advanced vowel  RecF violation)  ()  violates the  higher ranked constraint LO/ATR. 9 The following tableau shows morphemes with initial vowels  ((35)  low  a,b).  9 P ulleyblank(1993) mentions that the input with [-ATRJ specification will also derive an identical form (see Pulleyblank 1993:15)  lexical surface  42  (37)Morphemes with initial low vowels Yoruba  a.  LO/ATR  PARSE  HI/ATR  ALIGN-R  ALIGN-L  REC-P  aje  V  -atr aje  /AjE/  \  -atr je  [-atr]  I  -atr eje  ‘witch’  *!  -atr afe  b.  V  *  **!  *  *  -atr afe  /Af El  ‘H  -atr efe  ‘mouse’  *  /  -atr efe  Pulleyblank that  (1993)  the ALIGN-R condition  the ROOT in this case. ([—ATR])  is  not  optimal form in such  relies,  a  lexical  case  is  [—ATRJ  therefore,  not in  crucially, on the assumption restricted to  In other words,  subject (37)b  is  (afe) a  the  to  shows,  ROOT  (37)a  is  *  the  the inserted feature  ALIGN-R  condition  since the  [-ATRI  specification. a  ROOT  domain of  as  value in  However,  specification  is subject to the ALIGN—R condition  the  (i.e.  the and,  *aje)  43  The  important  grounding press)  point  condition  can  emerging  theory  directly  be  from  (Archangeli  incorporated  work  this &  is  that  Pulleyblank,  into  the  fabric  in of  phonological theory within the Optimality Theory framework. In  next  the  we  chapter,  will  see  the  that  harmony  phenomenon of Korean can also be explained in terms of the of  interaction conditions,  as  alignment, in  Yoruba.  faithfulness,  Harmony  in  and  Korean  is  grounded intimately  tied in to the discussion of Yoruba vowel harmony: are  the  Korean,  patterns like  of  vowel  Yoruba,  harmony  observes  formally  tongue  root  not only  similar,  but  harmony.  The  grounded conditions have the effect of blocking the effects of harmony in both systems. Differences are also observed in the two harmony systems: in  Yoruba  low  vowel  grounded conditions override REC-F  cases  in  (36);  we  will  see,  however,  that REC-F is still inviolate in the optimal form ——REC—F is ranked higher than grounded conditions-- in Korean. Another difference exists in that grounded conditions --as they are ranked  higher  than ALIGN-R--  Korean, but not in Yoruba.  define  the  Furthermore,  harmonic  is  due  to  the  difference  the universal constraint set.  in  in  it is interesting to  note that the language-particular variation Korean)  edges  (i.e. Yoruba vs.  ranking of members  of  44  CHAPTER 3  KOREAN VOWEL HARMONY  This  chapter will  examine  the vowel harmony systems  Present—Day Korean and in Later Middle Korean. this  is  study  to  determine  how  The focus of  Theory  Optimality  in  accounts  for the difficulties in the harmony system of this language. As  we  have  Korean has  seen  in  Chapter  One,  long been a problem for  the two  vowel  reasons:  harmony it  is  of not  clear how to characterize the features that distinguish the harmonizing vowels  ([i]  explained,  sets; and  and  the  neutrality  in  the  harmony  [ii)  of  front  system  is  unrounded yet  to  be  having been treated just as an exception in most  analyses proposed for Korean vowel harmony. In this  study,  we will  investigate  the hypothesis  Korean vowel harmony can be described by the (Song,1990)  feature  that [ATRi  and that OT can give a principled account of the  neutral vowels in the harmony system through an interaction of constraints on alignment and grounded conditions. We will also  discuss  how CT  treats  diachronic  system by showing the development  change  of vowel  in  a harmony  harmony through  Later Middle Korean to Present-Day Korean. We know that all constraints  are present  in principle  in the  CT hypothesis.  The diachronic change in the harmony system can be accounted  45  for  reranking  by  constraints while  some  still of  some  play  the  a  of  the  crucial  constraints  constraints.  role  after  no  longer  are  Certain  the  reranking  crucial  after  moving down in the hierarchy. We will see that both types of changes are found in Korean vowel harmony.  3.1.  Present-Day Korean  The vowel system is the preliminary basis of  vowel  harmony  in  any  language.  It  for the study  is,  therefore,  worthwhile to review the vowel system of Korean in order to discuss  vowel  harmony.  We  will  look  the  at  the vowel system from Later Middle Korean to  Present-Day  fifteenth  to  Korean  the  (henceforth;  sixteenth  PDK)  century)  had  development  (henceforth; •1  LMK  seven  (from  of  LMK) the  underlying  vowels:  (38)  i  u  i  0  a  Of (yang)  these vowels  A  seven and  considered neutral.  vowels [u,i,j  [o,A,aJ ‘dark’  have  been  (yin)  These two vowel sets,  1 T he vowel shift in the previous stage Korean) is disregarded in this study.  called  [ii  is  ‘dark’  and  vowels; namely  ‘light’  (Old Korean to Middle  46  ‘light’, <-->  each form a harmonic group as  in  (39).  (The arrow  denotes harmonic pairs.)  (39)  neutral  dark  i  U  light <--->  0  i  A  a  <-->  In the eighteenth century, consequence, retained  [a]  the  came  old  [eJ  the  beginning  opposition  opposition  nineteenth century, and  into  the vowel  we  with  flourishing vowels,  of  vowel [ö]  (40)  system  (oy  i  U  C  O  with  -->  i  o,  uy  two  U)  e, ay  -->  Korean  additional  c)  Since  .  has  had  front  about  a  round  through  This derives the PDK 10  u 0  four  additional  and  lost  one  derived  [Ay]  and  [ay].  a  -->  [e]  (40).  monophthongization  devise  .  the  front vowels  brought -->  in  it  a  obtained  from  (y  while  Then,  [a].  century,  [U],  shown in  C  PDK  twentieth  and  monophthongization vowel system  the  [ii  with  encounter two more  caused by monophthongization  was lost. As a  [A]  both  phonological  12  vowel  vowels vowel In  [e,e,U,O] [A];  this  system  for  and  study, PDK  through [ci we  is will  based  on  47  historical different  grounds.  sources due to the  is derived from LMK and  vowels  The  [a]. Therefore,  [Ay]  [e]  loss of [ay],  and  and [A].  and PDK  [a]  That [a]  have is,  two  PDK  [ci  from LMK  [A]  the phonological 12 vowel system will be  as follows:  (41)  i  U (uy)  e(y)  o(oy)  i  u o  (Ay)  1 a  2 (ay) c  2 a  (A)  The vowels in parentheses indicates the LMK vowels from which the P0K vowels are derived. in  ] 2 [e [ayj [a].  .  that  ] 1 [a The  it  is  indicates  from  developed  the reflex of  following cognates  ] 1 [e  is distinguished from  [Ay] [A],  while and  show that the  ] 2 [c  ] 2 [a above  is  is  from  the LMK  claims  are  born out.  (42)  LNK  P0K  uy  U  ‘up’  ny  ne  ‘you’  èamoy  ëamö  (ye11ow) cucumber’  OPAY  pope  ‘treasure’  hay  he  ‘to do’  pAlAm  palam  ‘wrnd’  na  na  ‘I’  48  Although differences,  1 V  and  2 V  not  do  have  it will be shown in the following section that  they play a phonologically distinctive system. In [A]  (as  phonetic  any  other words,  well  [ay]  as  the  and  role  in the  neutralization between  {Ay])  in  PDK  is  harmony [a]  and  realized only at  the phonetic level and the distinctions still remain active phonologically. LMK  [+low]  vowels  We may assume that  2 vowels  ([e], [a],  ——namely  ]) 2 [e]’ [a  the vowels derived  [a],  and  [j  remain  in PDK phonology. Hence,  as  from  [+low]  the following  feature specifications for PDK vowels can be drawn.  (43)  PDK vowel feature specification 3  U  atr  O  1 a  i  (-)  ()  (_)4  md  +  +  as  [+low],  above  +  specifications,  [e]  ] 1 {c  phonetically lower than press)  argue  that  a  is [e].  not  0  (-)  +  +  whereas  0  (-)  low the  U  +  bk  In  2 c  e  +  +  +  +  and  [+low]  ] 2 [e  even  2 a  (-) +  +  +  +  are though  treated it  Archangeli and Pulleyblank  retracted  high  vowel  [I]  —--which  is (in is  2 W e will discuss LMI< vowel feature specifications in a later section. I assume that values not specified in this table will be assigned by context—free redundancy rules: ]—>[+atr], [ ]—>[—rnd], [ ]—>[—bk], [ ]—>[—low]. Parentheses 4 indicate that [-ATR] is not specified segmentally but it is a property of a morpheme.  49  phonetically “lower” than an advanced mid vowel occur.  That  higher  than Eel  while ] 1 [e  is,  [e]  is not.  [e]  phonologically  Similarly,  [e]  is phonetically  considered  is considered ] 1 [e  [+high],  [+10w]  while  is phonetically lower  the vowel harmony phenomena can only be  symbolic words A—initial  (Ahn 1985,  stems  vowel  in Korean.  sound  called,  is  the  even though the vowel  In PDK, in  [ii  [i],  is not,  than  even though  ([e])-— may  and  in  5 suffixes  the  alternation of  following  C.W.Kim 1978,  verb  or  found the  so  adjective  J.M.Kim 1986, Kim—Renaud 1986  ,etc.)  3.1.1. Sound Symbolic Words  Sound symbolic words sound,  smell,  taste,  (or ideophones)  color, mood,  other perceptual experiences vowels,  PDK  vowels  symbolic words. traditionally depth, set  called  lightness,  etc.,  ‘light’  ‘dark’  [i,e,U,i,,u]  shallowness,  which  smallness,  As  or  in LMK  in  sound  form a harmonic  group  which  vowels  1986).  two  into  and the vowels vowels  type of movement,  (Kim-Renaud,  divided  The vowels  called  bigness,  are  size,  are words denoting  sets  denote  [c,ö,a,o]  gives etc.  darkness,  form the other  an  impression  of  (Kim-Renaud,1986).  Within a sound symbolic word, vowels must be either all dark or all light.  We will use 5  The only exceptions to this rule are the high  ‘A’  to indicate  []  or  [a]  as Song  (1990)  did.  50  unrounded vowels syllables light  and  vowels.  given in  [i]  and [ii which are neutral in non-initial  therefore Some  may  examples  cooccur of  sound  with  either  symbolic  dark  words  (44)  (44)  Dark  Light  dilc’l  cek’al  ‘chattering’  kilc’uk  kelc’ok  ‘tall’  b.  kelkel  kelkel  ‘exhausted’  c.  tils’k  tals’ak  ‘lifting’  kilc’k  kalc’ak  ‘scratching’  silc’ k  sale’ ak  ‘stealthy’  k’it’k  k’at’ak  ‘nodding’  p’11cn  p’alkan  ‘red’  spk  sapak  ‘crunching’  kntuij  kantoij  ‘jumping up and  a.  d.  down’ e.  f.  g.  p’yulutuij  p’yolotoij  ‘pouting’  sukun  sokon  ‘whispering’  kulkul  kolkol  ‘sleeping’  k’ult’k  k’olt’ak  ‘gulping’  hUhU  höhO  ‘round about’  kUcUcU  kökökö  ‘shabby’  pisil  pesil  ‘staggering’  k’ ecikk  k’ ecilak  ‘half-heartedly’  pnsil  pansil  ‘smiling’  pusisi  posisi  ‘shining’  or are  51  h.  k’umcilok  k’omcilak  ‘budging’  k’ukick  k’okicak  ‘crumpling’  sinkil  senkil  ‘smiling’  p’intil  p’entil  ‘staggering’  t’erjkibrj  t’erjkilarj  ‘clanging’  silkim  salaam  ‘stealthy’  hintil  hantil  ‘rocking’  kntiknj  kantilaij  ‘wobbling’  pusil  posil  ‘drizzling’  k’umtil  k’omtil  ‘wriggling’  (Kim—Renaud 1986, McCarthy 1983,  The data in  (44)g and  Sohn 1986,  (44)h  Song 1990)  (the bold faced characters)  show the neutrality of high unrounded vowels  ([i],[i])  in non  initial syllables. Vowel harmony in sound symbolic words has been difficult to describe because the dark and light vowel are  not  natural  Hitherto,  the  neutrality of  sets  been treated merely as In  the  following  classes  in  the  the  SPE  feature  system.  high unrounded vowels  has  an exception to the harmony system.  sections,  the  previous  accounts  for PDK sound symbolic words and the problems  proposed  thereof will  be discussed. We will then view the Optimality account which gives a better understanding of these problems.  52  3.1.1.1. Previous Accounts  Semantic Feature Analysis (1986)  Kim-Renaud  describes  vowel  harmony  in  sound  symbolic words by semantic features based on the traditional dichotomy,  [dark]  and  [bright].  harmony results  from velar  Middle  Since  Korean.  bright vowels was  claims  that  predictable 1950,  groups back  phonetic  vowels  and  vice  versa.  vowels  feature  the  found  [back].  in  various  features  (Sapir  were  [bright]  feature  semantic  between  since  1911,  replaced  by  semantic  the  two  are Poppe  harmonizing  some nonback vowels  Therefore,  distinguishing the  (1986)  vowel  a historic vowel shift in Korean  ([back])  the  of  features  distinction opaque,  back  the  symbolism  certain  However,  .  phonetic  of  feature  her,  to  harmony in Early  the  in time,  stage  that  only  from some phonetic  Haas 1970) the  and  redundant  proves  languages  (nonback/back)  all  that  presumably a  She  made  in  According  two  the  groups  feature  phonetic seems  to  ([bright]).  became feature  have  been  Kim-Renaud  further claims that the case of Korean suggests that  semantic  features  have  role  a  to  play  in  phonological  analysis in general. Although her explanation using semantic features  diacritic  for  PDK  vowel  nuances in sound symbolic words, for the  including the direct  feature  feature  phonological  requires  harmony  of  considerable  different  it lacks an exact mechanism  [bright] use  gives  a  in phonology.  Moreover,  nonphonetic  diacritic  clarification.  We  may  53  consequently  conclude,  therefore,  her  that  analysis  is  lacking in strong phonological grounding.  Diagonal Analysis Vowel  harmony  typologically harmony suggests  systems  into  two  and  vertical  a  third type,  (Aoki,1968)  major  groups:  (front/back)  of  vowel  dividing  harmony the  chart as in  (45)  is  harmonic  which  etc.  divided  be  horizontal  harmony.  “diagonal”,  languages as Korean or Nez Perce,  can  (height)  C.W.Kim  is  (1978) in  found  such  This particular type  called  “diagonal”  groups  runs  because  diagonally  in  the the  line vowel  (45);  a.  u/ e  i  b.  u/  /o  /o  Nez Perce  Korean  (C.W.Kim, 1978:221)  C.W.Kim (1978) writes that this vowel harmony system is regarded single  as  an  parameter  unusual or  phonological  distinctive  phenomenon  feature  of  since  vowels  no can  distinguish the two harmonic classes. He concludes that this diagonal  harmony  is  a  transitional  phenomenon  vowel harmony system in Early Middle suggests  a  sort  of  adjustment  rule  from a  and Old Korean to  explain  the  harmony in synchronic grammar. C.W.Kim (1978), however,  full ,  and  vowel does  54  not  include  front  a  full  support  the  even  vowels  inventory diagonal  ([i,e,e,ü,ö])  including harmony  in  the  the  inventory;  front  vowels  This  system.  cannot  analysis  little more than recapitulate a historic process; cites diagonal harmony as a result of vowel  and  does  it merely  shift,  without  offering an in-depth analysis of the phenomenon.  Underlying Vowel Analysis Mccarthy Korean  (1983)  vowel  proposed  system  in  an  dark/light  distinction under  assigning  [+10w]  and  Vowels  respectively.  i  to  i  [low]  as in  the the  feature  system,  light  vowels,  groups  according  (46)  u  a  The values of the the  represent  and  dark  of  dark =[-low]  c  is  to  are divided into two  u  version  the universal  e  [-low]  abstract  attempt  [-low]  to the values of the feature  (46)  an  ‘dark’  light=[+low]  feature morpheme  [low] and  constitute morphemes: [+10w]  is  the  ‘light’  morpheme.  The harmony phenomena are the result of spreading  [low]  feature. A context free rule, applied subsequently  the  to harmony, changes to  then takes [ö]  and []  all  [+round]  changes to  [o])  vowels .  to  [-low]  Although this system  works very well in grouping the harmonizing vowels sound  symbolic  vowel  harmony  into  (Re]  natural  for the  classes,  it  55  sets up  arbitrarily forms  of  [01  and  low vowels  [O]  grounds  plausible  (1986)  McCarthy  doing  without  as  underlying  providing  (Park,1990).  so  obligated to  [cc]  and  respectively,  for  is  [o]  include  any  Moreover,  an ad hoc  context  free rule in order to explain the harmony system.  Acoustic Feature Analysis Y.S.Kim (1984), for  the  [Deep  harmonic  Voice  in an attempt to find an acoustic basis  distinction of  Resonance]  as in  (47)  (47) i  u  i  e  O  naturally,  to  c  [+DVRJ  acoustic  feature  grouping  the  vs.  feature.  However,  use.  vowels  is  Furthermore,  the  feature  harmonic  class  a  device  good  according  he neither describes this  nor gives its source, its  6 [DVRI  dark  suggests  each  [—DVR]  a  light  group  u  c  His  PDK,  to  a  more  for  single  feature clearly  lacking any acoustic clue to justify the  distinctive feature like  necessity of  [±DVR]  establishing  a  new  remains yet to be justified  from a universal viewpoint.  6 F urther study is needed to find a relationship between the feature [ATRI and [DVR].  56  Tongue Root Feature Analysis  (1990)  Song described  proposes  tongue  as  analysis of Hwang  that Korean vowel harmony can be  root  harmony  (1983).  She  based  claims  on  the  formant  that vowels  in sound  symbolic words can be divided into two sets by the [ATRI  as below.  (48)  i  U  eJ  ö  i  e  Song’s  j  U  dark =[+ATR]  o  light=[—ATR]  a  (1990)  analysis  maintains  that  the  harmony  system is characterized by spreading of the feature She  claims  harmonizing  that  a  feature  light [-ATR]  sound and  symbolic harmony  word  has no harmonizing feature. symbolic word gets  Therefore,  [+ATR]  by a  takes  place  the by  however,  each vowel of a dark redundancy  operation of vowel harmony is illustrated in  7 T he formant chart and the relevant given in the following section.  [-ATRI has  spreading this feature. A dark sound symbolic word,  sound  feature  (49)  rule.  The  below.  explanation  will  be  57  (49)  /sapak/  /spk/ ‘crunching’  —  i. sApAk  ii. sApAk  x x x x x  x x x x x  I I  Skeleton  I I {  AA  Root node Supralaryngeal  AA  -  Place n. Dorsal,Radical n.  —  -.  —ATR  +ATR  Association&Spreading (i) Redundancy Rule (ii)  /sapak/  The  /spk/  neutrality  of  accounted for by the feature  the  vowels. That is, a Radical node another  and  [ii,  in  her  Locality Condition . 8  structures  depending on whether  to  [ii  [ii  of  and  She  [ii  are neutral  these  analysis, assumes  are  that  different,  vowels  if the vowels are neutral,  is  or  harmonic  they do not have  (spreading takes place from one radical node  in  her  analysis);  therefore,  these  vowels  are  skipped by the harmonic process as a result of the Locality Condition. assigned  The to  harmonizing value  [+ATR]  redundant  these  vowels.  feature value are  feature  present  She  [—ATR] on  [+ATR} also  (1990:22)  that  redundant planes  violation of the Line Crossing Prohibition  See Song 8  subsequently  assumes  and the  different  is  to  the  feature avoid  (Goldsmith 1976)  a  58  analysis  Song’s as  the  harmonizing  neutral vowels  is  attractive  feature.  in that  However,  relies only upon  the  she  her  takes  [ATR]  treatment  of  assumption that vowels  have different feature structures depending on whether they are  or  neutral  harmonic vowels;  Song  (1990)  fails  give  to  any independent motivation in defense of her approach.  3.1.1.2. Optimality Account  As we  have  considerable  difficulty PDK  characterizes Song  (1990)  already seen,  vowel  Perce. as  from based  for  vowel  In this  she  takes  light on  feature  harmony  the  vowels  [ATRI  [ATR]  harmony  study,  Hwang’s  is given in  finding in  a  have  single  sound  encountered  feature  symbolic  that  words.  argues against McCarthy’s analysis and proposes  the tongue root feature account  in  researchers  systems  such  as  Korean  and  we will basically follow Song  feature in  as the harmonizing feature to  [ATRI  PDK.  (1986)  She  formant  to  distinguish  provides analysis  as the harmonizing feature.  (1990)  dark vowels  acoustic to  Nez  argue  evidence for  the  The formant chart 9  (50)  Because Hwang (1986) considered [U] a diphthong while he 9 considered [ö] a monophthong, he deals with only [ö] but not [U] Song (1990), therefore, omits the value of [O] in the [ATRI value formant chart and deduces the contrast of between [U] and [0]. between [U] and [O] from that .  59  (50)  F2 4  2$ 21 27 2$ 21 14 12 12 21 20 10  II  Ti II  II 14  12  II  II  10  I  7  I  I  :r::::::::::::::::::::::::::  ——i————  2I  I — — —  —  —  -  —  -——— —  -  —  -  -  -  —  —  -—. —  .— . —  -  -  -  -  —  -  —  —  -  —  -  —  — —  -  -  —  -  -  —  -  —  —  —  —j  —  —  —  ::::s:::::::::::::::::::::: ‘::::::::::::::::::::::;::::‘ -—-  -  -——  -———--3  •“--r-----i_I--—-———— - -s—- —-—- -———-———- . . -  :  -——  -  -  : --  :::  ---  I——————  --  :  ‘;•  ---  -  c—  — -  :3-  ————  ---.  ---  p———  —  ,—---——---—--—-.———--——---————) —  -  -  -——  tL__7__  II  EEEEEIEEEE •  10  7  I  100 qs  unIt  Formant Chart  “The  major  acoustic  characteristic  [+ATR]  of  is  a  lowering of Fl and concomitantly a downward shift of P2 for back vowels and an upward shift of P2 the of  formant Fl  for  analysis  [e,a,o]  frequencies of P2 [e],  of present—day Korean  are  higher  for  [i]  and  and the frequencies of P2  than those of  [a]  and  for front vowels.  [o],  than  those  the of  higher  [e]  are  for  [ii, [],and  respectively.”  In  frequencies  [i,e,i,,u] than [U)  .  that  The of  are lower  (Song,1990:40)  Despite the fact that there has been a vowel shift from Later Middle Korean to Present-Day Korean, be  characterized  by  the  same  feature.  both systems can Hunminjongum  (the  60  Script  Korean  of  [u,i,]  “retracted”, “unretracted”.  1400  Later  “somewhat  Based  on  this  Middle  Korean.  “retracted”.  In his system,  vowels,  [-ATRI  will  A.D.)  describes  retracted”  description,  an interesting hypothesis on the  suggests of  circa  and in  see  the  He [+ATR]  includes  following  uses  section  that  and  [i] (1983)  six vowel  system  instead  of  [i,u,i,], the dark  includes the  as  C.H.Park  [±ATR]  [A,a,o],  [o,A.aj  light this  is  vowels.  We  consistent  with the featural specification of LMK. In  light  of  these  analyses,  we  may  conclude  that  the  vowel harmony in PDK and LMK is characterized by the feature [ATRI [ATRI  .  Vowels as in  (51)  can be  divided  into  two  sets by the  feature  (51)  i  U  i  u  dark [+ATR]  o  light=[—ATRJ  To capture the morphological relation between dark and light sound symbolic words, a  dependence  symbolic  of  words.  light She  sound claims  symbolic words without no  ‘light’  Song  (1990)  symbolic that  ‘light’  argues that there is words  there  are  counterparts,  sound symbolic words without ‘dark’  on  dark  ‘dark’ but  sound sound  there  are  counterparts.  She presents the following examples to back up the claim.  61  (52)  dark  light  mullcij  *mo&aU  ‘soft’  isisi  *asisi  ‘chilly’  Based on this dependence of light sound symbolic words on  dark  only  sound  [-ATR]  symbolic  can be  words,  Song  (1990)  considered a morpheme  concludes  her  however,  assertions,  there  are  dark  since  symbolic words are considered underlying forms. light  that sound  Contrary to  sound  symbolic  words without dark counterparts.  (53)  dark  light  *c’1c’l  c’alc’al  ‘busy’  *smsm  samsam  ‘not too salty’  the argument that dark sound symbolic words are  Therefore,  underlying forms has no support. McCarthy the values of the feature sound symbolic words: is  the  ‘dark’  [low]  [+10w]  morpheme.  (1983)  argues that  constitute morphemes for PDK  is the ‘light’ morpheme,  Our  account  on  the  [-low]  morphology  of  dark vs. light sound symbolic words is similar to McCarthy’s idea in that there is no dependence of light sound symbolic words on dark sound symbolic words. just  assume  that  marks  the  light  sound  symbolic  the class  words  feature of do  But unlike McCarthy,  [—ATR]  is  the  morpheme  sound symbolic words, not  have  this  that  while  morpheme.  That  words that denote light sound symbolism have lexical  I  dark is,  [—ATRJ  62  specification as  result  a  of morpheme concatenation,  while  dark sound symbolic words do not have such a specification. Before proceeding with the actual analysis of sound symbolic words,  we  will  discuss  some  of  the  constraints  that  are  needed for the task. As we have already seen in Chapter Two, of  optimization  rank  them  in  Smolensky 1993)  is a  to  formulate  “strict  a  set  dominance  of  the basic idea constraints  hierarchy”  instead of having ordered rules.  and  (Prince  &  Therefore,  there is no notion of step-by-step input-output derivation. What  we  consider  then  we  can  constraint  is  a  evaluate  ranking  set  of  candidates  them  in  relation  for the particular  produced by  to  the  language.  Gen;  appropriate (54)  shows  the constraints for the grammar of PDK sound symbolic words. Some of the constraints have already been discussed.  (54)  Constraints  PARSE: An F-element must be dominated by an appropriate node in the prosodic tree  (Pulleyblank  1993) REC—F (Recoverability of F-element) : An F—element that is present in an output form is also present in the input  (Pulleyblank 1993)  ALIGN-x—L/R:The left/right edge defined by feature a. aligns with the left/right edge of Domain D (Pulleyblank 1993) RTR/LO:  If  [-ATR]  then  [+LO];  if  [-ATR]  then not  63  (Archangeli & Pulleyblank 1993)  [-LOJ  If  RD/RTR:  [+RD]  then  [-ATR];  if  [+RDJ  then not  [+ATRJ  PARSE node: to  forces  if  a  appropriate  violation of  be  to  dominated  is present in the  [—ATRI  the  feature  the  mora.  constraint  input,  ensures no  that no  [—ATRI  it  as we will  see  words, this  in the  insertion of  the  will in  feature  feature can be added freely.  feature  The  constraint.  input, [-ATR]  ALIGN  as  prosodic linked  incur  a  light  sound  [-ATR].  REC—F  When there is  in dark  will  a  it must be  Otherwise,  symbolic words which have the lexical  by  sound  symbolic  incur the violation of  constraint  has  the  role  of  linking a feature to the left/right edge of each domain;  if  [—ATR]  it  fails  will  be  when  [-ATR]  The  to  violation  a  with  associated  to  status  the  established. press),  some  conditions  first  ALIGN-L.  condition  linking  of  of  the  mora  ALIGN-R  of  the  will  be  RTR/LO  nonlow  [-ATR]  vowels.  according  RD/RTR  condition,  According languages  such as  prevents  to  to  Round  violated  however,  BK/ATR or  less  L-tone/ATR.  &  [-ATRI vowels  RD/RTR  Archangeli  involve  the  is  an  example  of  a  feature must  condition; is  yet  to  Pulleyblank strongly  weakly grounded  be the be (in  grounded  Manifestations  these conditions appear to be much less frequent. condition  word,  is not linked to the right edge of a morpheme.  grounded  from  link with  of  The RD/RTR  condition  in  64  that  it  does  not  have  a  strong phonetic basis  is  and  not  found in many languages.  Words with lexical [-ATRI specification; Light Sound Symbolic Words Let us begin our analysis with the case of light sound symbolic The  words  symbols  which  have  the  input  in  a  lexical  forms  of  [-ATR]  specification.  tableau  (56)  feature specification of these symbols devoid of  and  the  [—ATRJ  are  as follows.  (55)  O i md  bk low  1 C  A  U  O  +  +  i  +  E 1 a  A  e  + +  +  u  o  +  +  +  +  2 a  +  +  +  +  Let us examine the candidate forms for the word ‘tall’.  65  (56) Korean  PARSE  kElc’Ok  kilc’uk  i:  RD/RTR  -F_ALIGN-L  *!  -atr  kilc’ok  [—atr]  /  -atr ‘tall’  lc’uk 1 ke  \-atr  ke lc’ok  \/  -atr  Harmony  of  this  basic  type  is  accounted  interaction of Faithfulness constraints constraints  on  alignment  (ALIGN-L,  (REC-F,  [-ATRI  is  by  PARSE) in  as  ALIGN-R),  ATR harmony.’° Since the constraint PARSE in the hierarchy,  for  the with  Yoruba  ranked highest  the optimal form --when there is a lexical  specification in the input—— will be the one in which  the feature  [-ATR]  is parsed to vowels.  REC-F is irrelevant  in this case because the light sound symbolic morphemes have the  lexical  specification  [-ATRI for  specification  “lightness”;  as  a  REC—F will,  result  of  however,  relevant when we deal with the cases with no lexical specifications.  ruled  out  since  The  it  first  candidate  violates  for  PARSE.  the word  The  next  ‘°The grounded conditions will play a crucial deal with forms including neutral vowels.  the  become [—ATRI  ‘tall’ form  is  kilc’ok  role when we  66  violates ALIGN-L  ,a  fatal  flaw  since  all  the  rest  of  the  candidates violate only lower ranked constraints; kllc’ok also violates  the  is linked to vowel  [—ATRJ  ruled out vowel  grounded condition RTR/LO because  [u]  [o] which is not  the  [+low]. ke lc’uk is 1  for violating the RD/RTR condition as is advanced.  Therefore,  feature  the  the form ke lc’ok, 1  round  since it  satisfies all of the higher constraints with the exception of RTR/LO, The  is the optimal one.  following  is  a  crucial  necessity for distinguishing [c ] 1  example  showcasirig  the  and [e ]. 2  (57)  Korean kElkEl  PARSE  REC-F  ALIGN-L  RD/RTR  RTR/L  kelkel -atr  [—atr]  l 2 kelke  /  -atr exhausted’  lkel 2 ke  \  -atr  1kc ke 1 2  V  -atr  The  optimal  form  lkc kc l 2  which  does  not  violate  constraint at all would have violated RTR/LO twice were not  considered  would have been the  [+low].  In  optimal  form giving a  such  cases,  the  if  third  any ] 2 [c form  surface pattern  67  [...c...i...j.  While  would be  incorrect  to  note  vowel  a  possible for  [kelkel).  the phonological  [e]:  the vowel  Korean  j 2 [e  form  Therefore,  distinction is  (see  [+low]  The following cases as well as  it  regarding  while (57)  j 1 [e  (60)), is  this  important  the  surface  is not.  demonstrate the need  for the ALIGN-R condition.  (58) Korean  PARSE  rr rnT_L  tis’k -atr tAls ‘Ak  tis’ a k 2  /  -atr [-atr]  1s’k 1 ta  *  lifting’  2 1 1 ta k s’a  *  \-atr  V -atr  spok -atr sApAk  k 2 spa -atr  [-atr]  sa p 2 k -atr  ‘crunching’  pa 2 sa k  V  -atr  *1  *!  68  For  each  because  the  third  it violates ALIGN-R.  condition [+low]  example,  since  it  is  candidate  The vowel [+low].  not  is  ruled  out  violates RTR/LO  ] 1 [a  However,  ] 2 [a  which  is  satisfies this condition.  (59) Korean kOlkOl  PARSE  REC-?  ALIGN-L  RD/RTR  ALIGN-R  RTR/LO  kuilcul -atr  [-atr]  kulkol  /  -atr ‘sleeping’  kolicul  -atr ko11co1  V  -atr  The RD/RTR condition is motivated by the above case well  as  have  been  (56)). the  Without optimal  the  RD/RTR  form  than RTR/LO as motivated in  since (60)  is  other  forms,  which  have  a  would  ranked  lower  below. kolkol is the optimal  form ——even though it violates RTR/LO twice—— the  koilcul  condition, ALIGN-R  (as  round  since  advanced  all of  vowel  [U],  violate the higher ranked RD/RTR condition.”  “The fatal violations of the first and however, are PARSE and ALIGN-L, respectively.  second  forms,  69  We  can  extend  the  with neutral vowels. vowels as  scope  of  our  analysis  This neutrality of the  to  the  cases  front unrounded  ([iJ,[iJ) in the harmony system has been treated merely  an exception in most  harmony.  In  this  study,  analyses proposed for Korean vowel we  will  see  that  the  problem  of  neutral vowels can be solved by the interaction between the grounded  condition  RTR/LO  and  the  alignment  constraints.  Consider the following tableau. (60) Korean  PA  pnsi’ pAnsl  -atr  [—atri  1 pnsy  AT1  I  I  I  *!  -atr ‘smiling’  nsi1 2 pa  \  -atr nse 2 pa l 1  V -atr  psl  pisil -atr  [—atri  l 1 pisc  /  -atr staggering  si1 1 pc  \  *  -atr  sc pe l 1  V  -atr  **!  -R  70  As we have already seen, initial  syllables  not  do  high unrounded vowels in nonparticipate  neutrality of these vowels  in non-initial  result of ranking grounded conditions than ALIGN-L,  in  harmony.  syllables  is  (RTR/LO, RD/RTR)  and higher than ALIGN-R.  Simply put,  The the  lower  the first  vowels must  always be parsed given the  fact that PARSE and  ALIGN-L  higher  however,  are  ranked constraints;  is ranked lower than any other constraints, to be  parsed  the  to  condition violation To  illustrate  the word ‘smiling’  second vowel (namely,  this,  in tableau  a violation of PARSE, second  candidate  let  us  look  (60)  .  ALIGN—L  form in which  grounded  at  each  candidate  The first form, pnsi1,  as  well  for  1 n 2 (pa l se )  as  violates RTR/LO  both the third and fourth  violate  RTR/LO;  is parsed to both moras  however,  s) 1 (pc l e  The optimal form,  is the one with the ALTGN—R violation  will show.  the  incurs  therefore,  (pe s 1 il)  A similar explanation can hold for the neutral vowel (61)  is  even though it violates ALIGN-R;  an additional RTR/LO violation.  as tableau  for  The  ‘staggering’ [-ATR]  a  RTR/LO.  which is ranked higher. Similarly, for  incurs  an RTR/LO violation)  the form that does satisfy ALIGN—R  candidates  it  tends not  [—ATRI  the most highly ranked constraint. The  violates  third form is optimal  if  as ALIGN-R  [ii  71  (61) Korean sAlkAm  PARSE  REC-?  ZT. T (TT—R  -  silkim -atr  [-atr]  silka 1 m  /  -atr ‘stealthy’  1kim 1 sa  \  -atr sa lka m 1  V-atr  sinkil sEnkAl  -atr  [-atr]  l 1 sinka  *  *!  *!  /  -atr ‘smiling’  se 1 nkil  *  \  -atr  1 sc,a -atr pusi’ pOsAl  -atr  [—atr]  l 1 pusa  /  -atr drizzling’  posi1  *  -atr ’ 1 p, -atr  *  *!  72  The cases in the above tableau demonstrate the necessity for a distinction between  ) 1 [a  the candidates in which [-ATRI  and  [a ] 2 .  If  ) were 1 [a  is linked to the second vowel  would not have violated RTR/LO.  If this were  could not explain the neutrality of the vowel The  following  neutral vowels.  tableau  Here,  [+10w),  shows  the case,  we  [ii.  polysyllabic  cases  with  the graphic representations are given  only for the optimal forms.  (62) Korean  PARSE  tenki1n tEn kAlAn  [-atrj  tenkila 7 n tenka 1 1 n tenka, 1a,n  ‘clanging’  *1  REC-F  j  I  ALIGN-L  RD/RTR  RTR/LO  *1 * *---  te 2 nkibn  *1  nki1a 2 te n -atr tenka, ion tenka,1an  ALIGN-R  *!  73  PARSE  Korean  k’ ukick k’OkEcAk  [-atri  1  *  k 2 k’ukica  REC-F  ALIGN-L  RD/RTR  RTR/LO  *1  k’uke c 1 k  *!  k’uke, cak  *1  4 11111111  4 p1111111111  1111  *  4 IplIpplIlIp IIIllII•,IlI  *  k’ okick  *  k’ okica k 2  *  crumpling’  AIIGN-R  V  -atr  k’oke c 1 k  *  k’oke, cak  *  pOsEsE  pusisi  [—atri  pusisel  shining’  puselsi  *!  pusel sd  *!  *!  *  [-ar] -  -  posisdl  *  *1  *!  1 Si POSC 1 sc pose 1  As  in  because  as  the  show.  of  bisyllabic  ALIGN-R,  examples  The  ‘clanging’  cases,  unless  nkila 2 tc i j  the  RTR/LO  ‘clanging’  representation  and  [—ATR]  k 2 k’okica  of  the  spreads  condition  and  is  violated  k ‘crumpling’ 2 k’okica  optimal  ‘crumpling’  rightwards  forms  have  of  a  nkila 2 tc r j  “gapped  I  III  74  configuration”. press),  According to Archangeli and Pulleyblank  gapped configuration has  the  motivation,  although  autosegmental Archangeli  it  literature  and  Archangeli and Pulleyblank that  the  gapped  2 peak’  configuration  however,  shows  suitable  in  having  an  frequently  (cf.  McCarthy 1987,  is  that  this  twin  granunar  additional  because  [—ATR]  Cole  The  etc.)  since  of  configuration  feature,  claims it  while the twin  case  this  the 1987,  1988,  condition,  peak  in  among others,  well—formed.  the  1984a,  ill-formed  is  (adjacency)  appeared  Vago  (in press),  configuration  violates the locality  received virtually no  has  Pulleyblank  (in  Korean, is  not  3 representatio , n’  violates  the  highly  ranked constraint REC-F. To summarize, is  interrupted  RTR/LO. the  the  by  ALIGN-L  left  the basic hypothesis here is that harmony  edge  ensures of  the  effect that  of  the  words.  the  grounded  feature  ALIGN—R  causes  feature to spread to the following vowels. L  and  ALIGN-R  (spreading). condition  together  derive  the  [-ATRJ  condition aligns  this  to  [-ATRJ  Therefore, ALIGN  harmonizing  effect  This harmony is blocked, however, by the RTR/LO  when  the  non-initial  vowels  are  not  low.  As  a  result,  the non—initial moras of each word surface as  [+ATR]  ([ij, [i])  in  [—ATR]  aligns  to  such the  cases.  right  In  vowel  other of  words  ‘ S 2 ee Archangeli and Pulleyblank For example, 2 3 ‘ nkila te n  -atr  -atr  words, like  the  feature  pa ‘crunching’ 2 sa k  (in press:18)  75  without incurring any violation. the  right,  then  the  form will  If  [-ATRI  violate  is not aligned to  ALIGN-R.  harmony proceeds to the right in normal cases. high unrounded vowels, it will incur an the  nsil 2 form pa  one  even  however,  (additional) for  though  the word  it  fact  [ii  that  syllables However,  and  [i]  are  is because ALIGN-L the  high  In cases with  harmony cannot proceed  RTR/LO violation.  for  For example,  ‘smiling’  will be  the  ALIGN-R  because  it  violates  important to obey the higher  Therefore,  optimal is  more  ranked constraint RTR/LO. neutral is  round vowels  only  in  The  non—initial  ranked higher than RTR/LO. ([U], [ü])  are  not  neutral;  they participate in harmony even though they incur an RTR/LO violation  because  condition.  Hence,  participate syllables  in  is  addition  we  the  can  harmony  more  conclude  highly that  (RTR/LO)  only  in  principled  do  not  non-initial  but they do so when  to  explaining  note the  that  Optimality  harmony  effect  Theory, through  interaction of faithfulness and alignment constraints, a  RD/RTR  (RD/RTR>> RTR/LO).  interesting to  ranked  high vowels  (ALIGN-L>> RTR/LO>> ALIGN-R),  they are rounded It  of  account  of  the  neutrality  vowels in terms of grounded conditions.  of  high  in the  gives  unrounded  76  Words without lexical [-ATR] Specifications; Dark Sound Symbolic Words Dark  symbolic  sound  and  specifications;  as  words the  do  input  not of  have each  lexical word  [-ATR)  lacks  this  feature, REC—F becomes relevant for this class.  (63)  Korean  PARSE  kElc’Ok  AT, T (Thi- L  REC-F  ki1c’uk  ‘tall’  kilc’ok  I  -atr lc’uk 1 kc  \-atr  lc’ok 1 ke  *!  V -atr  pnsi1 pAnsEl  1 pnse  -atr ‘smiling’  nsil 2 pa -atr nse 2 pa l 1  *!  -atr  In  the  potential  examples candidates  shown that  in  (63),  REC—F  a  [—ATRI  involve  eliminates  all  specification.  Such a feature is not present in the input forms; any output  77  faithful  to  the  violates REC—F. optimal  forms  input  will  be  These cases violate  the  irrelevant as there is no  ranked  above  are trivial highest  [—ATR]  form  a  since all  ranked  REC—F  that  the non— (PARSE  is  feature to be parsed in the  input). The vowel harmony in sound symbolic words by tongue root harmony in this  Light  study.  is  described  sound symbolic  words are characterized by the addition of a  [-ATRJ morpheme  and  interaction  the  PARSE,  harmony ALIGN,  effect and  is  derived  grounded  conditions.  symbolic words do not have this ,and,  therefore,  ruled  out  by  any  the  forms  The  dark  of  sound  [-ATR] morpheme underlyingly  that  constraint  the  by  have  REC-F.  retracted  As  a  vowels  are  consequence,  all  vowels surface as advanced in dark sound symbolic words.  3.1.2. A—initial Suffixes  In the initial syllable position of A-initial suffixes, [o]  alternates with  [a]  as demonstrated in  (64) a.po-a  ‘Look!’  ka-a>ka  ‘Go!’  ko-a  ‘beautiful’  malk-a  ‘clean’  b.cip-o  ‘Pick  (it)  up’  (64)  78  pe-  ‘Cut  cü-  ‘Hold (it)  ki-  ‘Mark  mu1-  ‘Bite!’  s->s  ‘Stop!’  me-a  ‘Tie  k’O-  ‘Tempt  (it)  (it)  (it) (him)  [a] appears after an adjective or a verb stem whose last vowel all  either  is  vowels  other  suffix  is  harmony  is  1986)  by  the  The  .  these  (He)  ‘  domain  in  A—initial  in  *makas’as’a  []  (64)a.  examples  other  observed  ,  in  as  [0]  with  as  not  .  Renaud  or  followed  (i e mak-as’-s’.  [a]  appears  (64)b.  When  suffixes,  subsequent  had blocked harmony,  of  after the  vowel  suffixes  (it)  (Kim—  ‘)  therefore,  is  restricted to the area between the stem final vowel of verb or adjective and the initial vowel of A-initial suffixes. The the  vowel  harmony  harmony  in  sound  observe ATR harmony. the  vowel  the  feature  adjective p0-a  harmony  or  ‘Look!’,  vowel is  of  Unlike  stem  verb  malk-a  suffixes  symbolic words  is  in  is  related to  that both  sound symbolic words,  in A-initial  the  the  [-BK],  in A—initial  suffixes  vowel. [+BK],  ‘clean’).  If  the  is  of  however,  conditioned by  stem  vowel  of  harmony may proceed  However,  harmony is blocked  if  them  the  the (i.e.  triggering  (i.e. me-a ‘Tie(it),  k’ö-  79  ‘Tempt (him) invoke  )14•  To  for the differences,  account  additional  the  constraint  ALIGN—RP  we need to which  is  formulated as follows:  The right edge defined by feature a.  (65) .ALIGN-ct-RJ:  aligns with the right edge of Domain D, vowel is  when the stem  [+BKJ  (Domain D  =  area between the stem final vowel of  verb or adjective and the initial vowel of A—initial suffixes)  The above condition is the  aligns  feature  to  the  restricted to  the  suffixal  vowels.  3 higher than ALIGN-R, ranking ALIGN-RI  case  in which  Therefore,  we can get the correct  for the harmony in both sound symbolic words  result initial  suffixes.  That  is,  by  ALIGN-RP  is  irrelevant  and Afor  the  sound symbolic word case since the application is restricted to  the  suffix  vowels,  ALIGN-R does not have case  because  tableau  is  is  a crucial  ALIGN-RI3  submitted  and  is  for  thus  satisfied.  effect on A-initial  ranked  the  vacuously  higher.  explanation  of  The  suffix  following  PDI< A-initial  suffix vowel harmony.  ‘ T 4 he harmony in sound symbolic words proceeds regardless of the feature of the stem vowel (i.e.kelcok ‘tall’)  80  In the above tableau, the  analysis  are  only the relevant constraints for  highlighted  although  are present in the grammar. That is,  all  the  constraints  the grounded conditions  RD/RTR and RTR/LO are not included because they do not have any crucial effect on the analysis.  Of the  four candidates  81  for the word ‘Look’, first  two  forms.  the RD/RTR condition is violated in the  But  these  forms  are  already ruled out by  the higher constraints PARSE and ALIGN-L, condition  RTR/LO  candidates.  The  is  violated  fatal  violation,  3 constraint which rules ALIGN-RI second example,  in  ‘Tie it’,  respectively.  the  third  however,  out  the  and  is  The  fourth  that  of  third form.  the  In the  the RD/RTR condition is irrelevant  since there are no round vowels and the RTR/LO condition is satisfied by all  the candidates.  Hence,  the effects of the  conditions RD/RTR and RTR/LO are not crucial  in this  case.  The ranking which includes the entire set of constraints for PDK  is:  P.4RSE>>  REC-F>>  ALIGN-L>>  RD/RTR>>  RTR/LO>>  ALIGN-Pfl>> ALIGN-R.  3 is slightly different from ALIGN-R in that the ALIGN-RI application of this constraint is restricted to cases where a stem vowel is  [-‘-BK].  let  po- and mc-,  compare  us  po-  example. [+bk].  me-a  vowel is though because  violates  Therefore,  is p0-a . 2  is  [—BK],  it  To illustrate the effect of ALIGN—R,  3 ALIGN—RI  third since  candidates the  stem  of  each  vowel  is  the optimal candidate for the word ‘Look!’ the optimal  therefore,  feature  [-ATR]  form of  ‘Tie  it’  for the  stem  it does not violate ALIGN—RI3 even  violates ALIGN-R.  the  the  2 is me-a  ruled  out  by ALIGN-RI3  aligns  rightward  from  [—ATR]  specification  a  [-BK]  vowel. Stems suffix  without  lexical  [] as shown in the tableau (67)  take  the  82  (67) PARSE  Korean  REC-F  ALIGN-L  ALIGN-R  IGN-R  mu1‘Bite!’ 2 mul-a  *!  /  -atr  mol-o  \  -atr mol-a  2 V  -atr  This  case,  symbolic words, violate  the  too,  is  since  highly  as  the  simple  as  that  candidates with  ranked  constraint  of  dark  sound  retracted vowels  REC-F  as  well  as  others. The  harmony  in  A-initial  suffixes  differs  from  the  harmony in sound symbolic words in that it is conditioned by the  feature  of  the  stem vowel,  and  shall  invoking an additional constraint ALIGN-RP.  be  explained by  Here,  neutrality  is not observed since we are only looking at low back vowels  ([a], {a])  in  non—initial  syllables.  Nevertheless,  the  harmony in both sound symbolic words and A-initial suffixes is explained by the same ranking in PDI< grammar.  83  3.2. Later Middle Korean  Before we begin, Middle  Korean.  LMK  this was shown in  (68)  let us review the vowel system of Later  (38)  i  i  has  an  underlying  seven-vowel  and is here repeated as  system;  (68)  u 0  a  The  A  feature  specifications  of  these  vowels  are  as  follows:  (69)  LMK vowel feature specification i  I  A  atr  U  (—)  md bk  +  +  0  a  (—)  (—)  +  +  +  +  low  These discussed (yang)  vowels  are  in  beginning  vowels  traditional system. except  the  [o,A,a]  that  and the  yin/yang  Within the  a  divided  word, vowel  of  vowels  two  section  ‘dark’  division  [i]  into  (yin)  is must  +  +  +  sets 3.1.: vowels  based be  +  on  all  may cooccur with  as the  we  ‘light’  [u,i,o] the  dark  have  .  This  harmony or  light  either dark or  84  light  vowels.  LMK  observed morpheme  vowel  harmony  internally as well  of a stem with suffixes  (Park,1990).  harmony involves almost every word. in  is  said as  to  in the  Unlike PDK,  (70) a.stem internally Light  kulum  ‘cloud’  namo  ‘tree’  pnky  ‘lightning’  sarm  ‘man’  simil  ‘twenty’  kaci  ‘branch’  miciky  ‘rainbow’  kamakoy  ‘crow’  nilkup  ‘seven’  kiliima  ‘saddle’  kiypyol  ‘news’  mili  ‘in advance’  tili  ‘field’  tozak  ‘thief’  tuk  ‘very’  maissAm  ‘saying’  chzom  ‘beginning’  api  ‘father’  mi  ‘mother’  nmu  ‘too much’  b.between a stem and a suffix  Dark  been  combination LMK vowel  Some examples are given  (70)  Dark  have  Light  pl-  ‘to eam-INF’  sal-a  ‘to live-INF’  pul-o  ‘to blow-INF’  tol-a  ‘to tum-INF’  85  ml-  ‘far’  mi’l-a  ‘ignorantly’  n-nin  ‘you-TOP’  na-nAn  ‘I-TOP’  nun-in  ‘eye-TOP’  son-An  ‘hand-TOP’  ki-lil  ‘he-ACC’  halmi-hi  ‘grandmother-ACC’  k-lil  ‘vehicle-ACC  kypy-lil  ‘news-ACC’  tozAk-Al  ‘thief-ACC’  sli-lil  ‘frost-ACC’  api-lil  ‘father-ACC’  kulum-il  ‘cloud-ACC’  mzAm-Al  ‘mind-ACC’  mm-il  ‘people-ACC’  li-Ll  ‘village-ACC’  cip-iy  ‘house-GEN’  kot-Ay  ‘flower-GEN’  mk-um  ‘eating’  cap-om  ‘holding’  tuyh-y  ‘behind-LOC’  pAhm-ay  ‘wind-LOC’  kulum-oy  ‘cloud-LOC’  namo-ay  ‘tree-LOC’  kith-oy  ‘street-LOC’  kaci-ay  ‘branch-LOC’  tuy-y-nin  ‘behind-LOC-TOP’ alp-ay-nAn  ‘front-LOC-TOP’  tl-um-il  ‘dcduct-Nom-Acc’  ‘know-Nom-Acc’  (S.O.Lee 1984,  al-om-Al  S.I-I.Park 1990,  In the harmony system of LMK,  [i]  alternates with  [A],  and  can see from the above data, LMK,  whereas both In  1985’s;  previous Park 1982),  [ij  and [ii  studies  of  [o]  [U]  Song 1990)  alternates with  alternates with  [a].  [o],  As we  [ii alone is a neutral vowel in are neutral in PDK. LMK  (Ledyard  1966;  B.G.Lee  the harmonizing feature of vowel harmony  harmony ‘ A 5 lthough Lee (1985) advocates a horizontal analysis for Korean vowel harmony, he also suggests a different type of harmonic distinction, [ATRI, based on his  86  has  largely  [back]  or  been  [low].  distinguishes  assumed  to  the  be  tongue  None of these analyses,  between  the  two  the feature specifications in  harmony (69)  however,  groups  [back]  as the harmonizing feature  takes  [a,A,o]  as  as  [a,o,A]  groups  as  according  to  [u,i,,i]  as  (Ledyard 1966, [—back].  On the  while all others are regarded  H-low]  These hypotheses,  [-low].  and  correctly  the analysis in which the harmonizing feature is  other hand, [low]  [+back]  feature  The analysis that adopts  .  the feature etc.)  body  however,  are suspicious because  it is generally accepted that the features of the LMK vowel system are 1985,  Hwang 1986,  feature [back] [ATRI  similar to  of nor  as  LMK  the  K.M.Lee 1987)  vowel  [low].  those of the  In  harmony this  harmonizing  argument presented in Song “The contrast between vs.  [o]  PDK vowel  Therefore,  .  can  study,  be as  feature  6 system’  the harmonizing  specified in  in  (Huh  PDK,  we  accordance  as  neither  will  take  with  the  (1990:62);  [ii vs.  [A],  [j  vs.  [a],  and  [U]  can be described by referring to tongue root  movement from an articulatory point of view: tongue root is moved forward,  the tongue body is  compressed and therefore raised, tongue root is retracted, down and therefore lowered  as the  conversely,  as the  the tongue body is pulled (Hall & Hall,1980:207).  interpretation of Hunmin-chongum-haerye Korean Script of fifteenth century). Compare (43) with (69) 6 ‘  (Explanation of the  87  Therefore, we can assume that [a,o,Aj  are [—ATRI  Hence,  vowel  characterized  by  [i,A,uJ  {+ATRJ  are  and  .“  harmony the  in  feature  LMK  ,as  [ATRI.  in  The  PDK,  LMK  can  be  vowels  are  divided into two sets by this feature:  (71)  __r i  i  a  U  dark=[+ATRJ  o  light=[—ATR]  A  3.2.1. Optimality Account  This section will give the optiniality account for Later Middle through  Korean. to  LMK  variation.  The  grammar of  each  We PDK  will and  see  discuss  hypothesis stage  the  is  changes how  that  CT  the  (i.e.LMK and PDK)  in can  the  grammar  explain  differences are  the  this  in  result  the of  changes in the ranking of the universal constraint set. Let us consider some of the crucial data from are repeated here as  (72)  (70)  (72)  Dark  Light  nmu  ‘too much’  namo  ‘tree’  mi  ‘mother’  kaci  ‘branch’  mm-il  ‘people-ACC’  li-hi  ‘village-ACC’  mi-  ‘far’  mAi-a  ‘ignorantly’  which  88  LNK vowel harmony involves nearly the  while  P0K  vowel  harmony  is  words and A—initial suffixes.  found  in non-initial  one neutral vowel,  [ii  the vowel  the word li-1AI  is  not  neutral from  explained (73).  Again,  light vowels  symbolic found  P0K has two neutral vowels,  syllables;  whereas  LMK has  regardless of position.  shows. Also, when  the  by  sound  only  For example,  is neutral even in syllable initial positions  as  ‘TOP’  [i],  in  The other difference is  in regard to the neutral vowels: [i] and [i],  only  entire vocabulary  compare  examples  the we  we  we can see that the vowel  ranking  in of  (70)b.  lexical  with dark vowels do not.  These  constraints  are assuming that  have  suffixes  [-ATRI  like  -in  [ij  VS.  —An  differences  are  shown  in  tableau  the morphemes which have specification while  those  89  (73) Words with lexical PARSE  REC-F  [—ATRI BK/RTR  nmu  Specification ALIGN-L  RTR/LQ  ALIGN-R  **  -atr nmo  *!  I  -atr namu  *!  \  -atr namo  *  V  -atr ‘tree’ koci  *!  -atr  Lz  koci  *1  I  *  *  -atr  1  I  I 11111111!!  kaci  *  \  -atr branch’ kaci  *1  V  -atr  In PDK,  the constraint ALIGN-L is ranked higher than the  grounded conditions since the high unrounded vowels neutral  [iJ  in  only LMK  syllable.  is  in  non-initial  neutral  Therefore,  syllables.  regardless  both  of  the  of  However, its  the  position  alignment  [i,i]  are  vowel in  the  conditions  are  90  ranked  than  lower  the  grounded  conditions.  In  fact,  the  alignment constraints do not play a crucial role in LMK. The condition  RD/RTR much  lower  LMK.  In LNK,  because  in  PDK  of  replaced  hierarchy  the  the  by  and  therefore  17 BK/RTR  pushed  condition  in  there is no need to group round vowels together  all  vowels  round  distinguish round vowels ([ö,ü])  is  are  back.  in PDK since  We  must,  front  however,  rounded vowels  do exist.  Let us consider the word for ‘tree’. The first candidate violates  PARSE,  and third vowels  []  forms  the  highest  are  ruled out by BK/RTR because  [U]  are  and  ranked constraints is  optimal  parsed  to  candidates. (RTR/LO)  even  ranked  [+ATR].  constraint.  They  also  such as RTR/LO and ALIGN.  with  nonlow  the  [o] .)  vowel  However,  violation  the  of  because  violation  of  [+BKJ  violate  lower  form namo  The  ([-ATR]  and BK/RTR,  for  respectively,  ‘branch’  is  beats  all  this  constraint  is fatal when we have the high front vowel  first and second forms  second  the  RTR/LO it  The  other  [ii. The  are ruled out by PARSE  in the same manner as in  ‘tree’.  The fourth candidate kaci is ruled out by RTR/LO because the optimal  form kaci passes  this  ALIGN-R  which  lower  in  the  [i],  it  is  when [-ATR]  there to  ranked  is  is this  the  vowel  vowel  BK/RTR Condition: 17  If  constraint  because  [+BK]  then  it  and violates  hierarchy. better  will  [-ATR],  not  That  not  incur  only  to an  [+ATR]  is,  align RTR/LO  91  violation. and [U]  [—ATR],  however,  can be parsed to vowels like  [ij  due to the BK/RTR condition.  The following tableau shows that it is more important to satisfy  the  BK/RTR  condition  when  between BK/RTR and RTR/LO conditions. (74)  there  is  competition  92  The  form mAl-a is optimal  even with an RTR/LO violation  because the form without this violation mu-a violates BK/RTR which  is  ranked higher.  The  forms  have  The BK/RTR condition prevents  violate BK/RTR.  all other advanced back vowels a case. Hence,  that  ({u,])  the  [i]  vowel  [ii  as well as  from surfacing in such  we may conclude that the fact that  [ii  is not  neutral in LMK is due to the relatively high ranking of the BK/RTR condition in this grammar. Morphemes with dark vowels can be explained easily as in the  dark  which  sound  [-ATRJ  optimal form,  is  symbolic  words  parsed to  therefore,  case  in  a vowel will  PDK.  The  forms  violate REC—F.  in The  is the one without retracted vowels  as the following tableau shows.  93  (75) Words without lexical PARSE  REc-F  [—ATR]  BK/RTR  specification ALIGN-L  RTR/LO  ALIGN—R  **  namu ‘too much’ *1  namo  /  4  -atr  *  *1  namu  \  -atr  1111111  IlIllIllIllIll II  *7  namo  V  I  IllIllIllIlIlIll  II  111111111111 N  III  *  -atr  *  min-i1  N  ‘people-ACC’  ‘liii IlIllIllIl  111111111111  *7  mm-Al  /  -atr  *7  \  IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII  I  1111 II  ‘1111  *  III 111111111  mm-il  II  I  1111111  11111111  *  1  1111111  I  N I  1111  I  1111111  *  1111  *  -atr -  *7  mm-Al  V  -atr  In  this  section,  the  diachronic  changes  in  the  vowel  harmony phenomena in LMK and PDK have been explained by the differences in the two grammars’ Optimality  Theory  framework.  ranking systems within the  The  illustrated in the following scales.  diachronic  changes  are  94  (76)  Diachronic Change  LMK:  PARSE>>REC-F>>BK/RTR>>RTR/LO>>ALIGN-L>>ALIGN-R  PDK:  PARSE>>REC-F>>ALIGN-L>>RD/RTR>>RTR/LO>>ALIGN-R  We  in  claimed  certain  constraints  the are  beginning still  of  crucial  this after  chapter  that  reranking  the  while certain constraints cease to play a crucial role after moving down in the hierarchy. scales, higher from  the ALIGN-L than the  LMK  to  constraint was moved up  relevant PDK,  As we can see  and  grounded conditions both  ALIGN—L  and  from the to  a  position  in the the  above  change  grounded  conditions were crucial in PDK after the reranking from LMK. However,  the BK/RTR condition,  which was moved down in PDK,  ceased to play any crucial role in the grammar after the change in ranking.  95  CHAPTER 4 CONCLUSION  This  study  presents  the  hypothesis  the  that  vowel  harmony patterns of Korean can be described as ATR harmony and  that  better  a  achieved  with  the  grasp  of  this  application  harmony  of  system  Optimality  can  Theory.  be The  concept of constraint interaction allows the characteristics of neutral vowels in the harmony process to be accounted for by the on  interaction of  alignment  constraints,  and  grounded the  conditions  appropriate  with  constraints  ranking  of  these  namely RTR/LO>> ALIGN-R.  The standard OT claim that an individual grammar is the result  of  variation  constraint  is  set  in  the  further  ranking  of  developed here  the  to  universal  conclude  that  different historical stages in a single language can also be treated  as  the  result  of  changes  in  ranking.  the  We  have  shown how LNK grammar develops into PDK grammar by reranking some of the  constraints:  while  the  ranked higher than ALIGN-L in LMK,  grounded conditions  are  the ALIGN-L constraint is  moved up in PDK because it is important to align the feature [—ATR] vowels whereas  to  the  are they  left  found are  edge only found  of  a  in  non-initial  in  word.  any  The  fact  that  syllables  position  in  LMK  neutral in can  PDK be  96  accounted for by the changes in ranking from LMI< to PDK. The BK/RTR condition is moved down since this constraint cannot group  PDK  round  differences  in  responsible  for  vowels the  including  inventories  the different  role  front of of  round LMK  vowels.  and  PDK  The are  the BK/RTR condition  in each stage. Further work, order  to  however,  substantiate  characterized  by  the  is needed on other languages, claim that  variation  in  diachronic constraint  change  in is  rankings.  97 BIBLIOGRAPHY Ahn,  S.C. (1985) in Korean,  The Interplay of Phonology and Morphology Ph.D. dissertation, University of Illinois.  Archangeli, D. & D. Pulleyblank (1987) ‘Maximal and Minimal Rules: Effects of Tier Scansion’, Proceedings of NELS 17, 16-35. Archangeli, D. & D. Pulleyblank (1989) ‘Yoruba Vowel Harmony’, Linguistic Inquiry 20, 173—217. Archangeli, D. & D. Pulleyblank Phonology, MIT Press.  (in Press)  Grounded  Archangeli, D. & D. Pulleyblank (1993) ‘Two rules or one. • .or none? [ATRI in Yoruba’, Proceedings of BLS 19, 13—26. Ard,  J. (1984) ‘Vowel Harmony in Manchu: a critical overview’, Journal of Linguistics 20, 57—80.  Bickmore, Lee (1993) ‘Tone Distribution in Optimality Theory’, ms. University at Albany. Binnick, R. (1980) ‘The underlying representation of harmonizing vowels: Evidence from Modern Mongolian’ in R. Vago (ed.), Issues in Vowel Harmony, 113-134. Bird,  Steven (1990) Constraint-based Phonology, Ph.D dissertation, University of Edinburgh.  Chang, N.G. (1982) ‘Phonological Variations in 15th Century Korean’, Journal of Chinese Linguistics Monograph Series No.1. Chomsky, N. & M. Halle (1968) The Sound Pattern of English. New York: Harper and Row. Cole,  J. (1987) Planar Phonology and Morphology, dissertation, MIT.  Ph.D.  Coleman, John (1991) Phonological Representation Names, Forms, and Powers. Ph.D. dissertation. University of York.  -  their  98 Goldsmith, John (1976) Autosegmental Phonology, Indiana University Linguistics Club. [Published by Garland Press, 1979.] Goldsmith, John (1990) Autosegmental and Metrical Phonology. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. Goldsmith, John (1993) ‘Phonology as an Intelligent System’, Bridges between Psychology and Linguistics: A Swarthmore Festschrift for Lila Gleitman, ed.Donna Jo Napoli and Judy Kegl, 247-267., Hillsdale, NY: Lawrence Eribaum Associates. Hall,  B.L. and R.M.R. Hall (1980) ‘Nez Perce Vowel Harmony: An Africanist explanation and some theoretical questions’, in R.Vago (ed), Issues in Vowel Harmony, John Benjamins, Jinsterdam, 201-236.  Hamp,  P. (1958) ‘Vowel Harmony in Classical Mongolian’, Word 14, 291—294.  Hamp,  P. (1980) ‘Mongolian vocalic features and the problems of harmony’, in R.Vago (ed), Issues in Vowel harmony, 101-111., John Benjamins, .1msterdam.  Hwang, ELY. (1986) Introduction to Korean Phonology, Leewoo Express: Seoul (in Korean). Huh,  U. (1984) Korean).  Ito,  Junko, Armin Mester & Jaye Padgett (1993) ‘Licensing and Redundancy: Underspecification in Optimality Theory’, LRC—93-07, University of California, Santa Cruz.  Korean Phonology,  Jung-Eum sa:  Seoul  Kim. C.W. (1968) ‘The Vowel System of Korean’, Language 44, 516—527 Kim,  C.W. (1978) ‘“Diagonal” Vowel Harmony?: Some Implications for Historical Phonology’, Recent Developments in Historical Phonology, 221-236 Mouton, The Hague.  Kim,  J.M. (1986) Phonology and Syntax of Korean Morphology, Ph.D dissertation, University of Southern California: Los Angeles.  (in  99 Kim,  K.O. (1977) ‘Vowel System of Korean Revisited’, Papers in Korean Linguistics.  Kim-Renaud, Y.K. (1986) ‘Semantic Features in Phonology: Evidence from Vowel Harmony in Korean’, Studies in Korean Linguistics, 63—76. Kim,  Y.S. (1984) ‘Ideophones in Korean’, paper presented at the meeting of Linguistic Society of Korea.  Kim,  Y.S. (1985) Aspects of Korean Morphology. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Texas, [Reproduced by Pan Korean Book Corporation, Seoul).  Kiparsky, P. (1973) ‘How abstract is phonology?’, in 0. Fujimura (ed), Three Dimentions of Linguistic Theory, TEC Co.: Tokyo, 57-86. Kirchner, Robert (1993a) ‘Turkish Vowel Harmony and Disharmony in Optimality Theory’, ms. UCLA. Kirchner, Robert ms. UCLA.  (1993b)  ‘Optimizing YidinY Phonology’,  Ledyard, G.K. (1966) The Korean Language Reform of 1446: The Origin, Background and Early History of the Korean Alphabet, Ph.D dissertation, University of California: Berkeley. Lee,  B.G. (1985) The Generative Phonology of Modern Korean, Ilgisa: Seoul (in Korean)  Lee,  K.M. (1985) Studies in the Phonological History of Korean, Korea Research Foundation: Seoul (in Korean).  Lee,  S.O. (1984) ‘An overview of issues in the Vowel System and Vowel Harmony in Korean’, Language Research, 417-451.  Lighter, T.M. (1965) ‘On the description of vowel and consonant harmony’, Word 21, 244-250. McCarthy, J.J. (1983) ‘Phonological Features and Morphological Structure’, in CLS (ed.), The Interplay of Phonology, Morphology, and Syntax, 135-161.  100 McCarthy, J.J. (1984) ‘Theoretical Consequences of Montañes Vowel Harmony’, Linguistic Inquiry 15, 291318. McCarthy, John & Alan Prince (1993a) Prosodic Morphology I: Constraint Interaction and Satisfaction, ms., University of Massachusetts, mherst, and Rutgers University. McCarthy, John & Alan Prince (1993b) ‘Generalized Alignment’, ms. University of Massachusetts, 1mherst & Rutgers University. Mutaka, N. & L. Hyman (1990) ‘Syllable and Morpheme Integrity in Kinande Reduplication’, Phonology 7, 73—120. Myers, Scott (1991) ‘Persistent Rules’, Inquiry 22, 315—344.  Linguistic  Myers, Scott (1993) ‘OCP Effects in Optimality Theory’, ms. University of Texas, Austin. Paradis, Carole (1988) ‘on constraints and Repair Strategies’, The Linguistic Review 6, 71—97. Park,  B.C. (1982) The Study of Old Korean, Press: Seoul (in Korean)  Park,  C.H. (1983) A Study on Korean Phonology, University Press, In (in Korean)  Park,  S.H. (1990) ‘Vowel Harmony in Korean’, Research, 469—499.  Korea  University  Wonkwang  Language  Poppe, N. (1965) Introduction to Altaic Linguistics, Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.  Prince, Alan and Paul Smolensky (1993) Optimality Theory: Constraint Interaction in Generative Grammar, ms., Rutgers University, New Brunswick, and University of Colorado, Boulder. Pulleyblank, D. (1993) ‘Vowel Harmony and Optimality Theory’, to appear, Proceedings of the Workshop on Phonology, University of Coimbra, Portugal.  101 Pulleyblank, E. (in press) ‘Phonetics, East Asian: History of’, to appear in Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, Edinburgh: Pergamon Press. Ramstedt, G.J. (1968) Publications.  A Korean Grammar, Anthropological  Scobbie, James (1991) Attribute Value Phonology. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Edinburgh. Scobbie, James (1992) ‘Towards Declarative Phonology’, Edinburgh Working Papers in Cognitive Science 7, 1-26. Singh, Raj (1987) ‘Well—formedness Conditions and Phonological Theory’, in W.Dressler et al., ed., Phonologica 1984, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Smolensky, P. (1988) connectionism’, 11, 1—74.  ‘On the proper treatment of The Behavioral and Brain Sciences  Sohn,  H.S. (1986) Toward an Integrated Theory of Morphology: Vowel Harmony in Korean, Studies in the Linguistic Sciences 16, No.2, 157-184.  Song,  J.S. (1990) Vowel Harmony in Nez Perce and Korean, M.A.thesis, University of Ottawa.  Steriade, Donca (1988) ‘Reduplication and Syllable Transfer in Sanskrit and Elsewhere’, Phonology 5, 73—155. Stewart, J.M. (1967) ‘Tongue Root Position in Akan Vowel Harmony’, Phonetica 16, 111-139. Svantesson, J.0. Mongolian’,  (1985) ‘Vowel Harmony Shift in Lingua 67, 283—327.  Tohsaku,Y.H. (1983) Dissertation,  A Formal Theory of Vowel Harmony, Ph.D University of California, San Diego.  Vago,  R.M. (1973) ‘Abstract Vowel Harmony in Uralic and Altaic Languages’, Language 44, 579—605.  Vago,  R.M. (1988) ‘Underspecification in the Height Harmony System of Pasiego’, Phonology 5, 343-362.  102 APPENDIX :  List of Constraints  1.ALIGN-a-L/R: The left/right edge defined by feature x aligns with the left/right edge of Domain D. 2.ALIGN-x-RP:  The right edge defined by feature a. aligns  with the right edge of Domain D, when the stem vowel is [+BK]. 3.ATR/HI:  If  [+ATR]  then  [+high],  4.ATR/LO:  If  [+ATR]  then  [-low],  not not  [-high]. [+10w].  Syllables must not have a coda.  5.—COD:  6.DISYLL: 7.FILL:  The Reduplicant is minimally disyllabic.  Syllable positions must be filled with underlying  segments. 8.HI/ATR:  If  [+high]  9.LO/ATR:  If  [+10w]  10.MAX:  then then  [+ATR], [-ATR],  not not  [—ATR]. [+ATR].  The reduplication is phonologically identical to the  base. 11.ONS:  Syllables must have an onset.  12.P.ARSE: An F-element  (feature or node)  a. must be dominated  by an appropriate node in the prosodic tree. 13.REC—F (Recoverability of F-element) : An F—element a. that is present in an output form is also present in the input. 14.REC-P  (Recoverability of Path):  F-element a. and some anchor  13  f3,  For any path between an if a. is associated to  in the output then a. is associated to  input.  13  in the  103  15.RD/RTR:  If  [+RD]  then  [-ATR],  16.R<ROOT:  The Reduplicant  17.RTR/HI:  If  [-ATR]  then  [-high],  18.RTR/LO:  If  [—ATR]  then  [+low],  (R)  not  [+ATRJ.  contains only the root. not not  [+high]. [—low].  

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0087341/manifest

Comment

Related Items