UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

A prosodic analysis of Nłek̉epmx reduplication Jimmie, Mandy Na’zinek Beverly Dale 1994

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

Item Metadata


831-ubc_1994-0322.pdf [ 3.31MB ]
JSON: 831-1.0087452.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0087452-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0087452-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0087452-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0087452-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0087452-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0087452-source.json
Full Text

Full Text

A PROSODIC ANALYSIS OF N4EKEPMX REDUPLICATIONbyMANDY NA’ZINEK BEVERLY DALE JIMMIEB.Ed., University of British Columbia, 1979A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OFTHE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OFMASTER OF ARTSinTHE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES(Linguistics Department)We accept this thesis as conformingto the required standardTHE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIAApril 1994© Mandy Na’zinek Beverly Dale Jimmie, 1994In presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirements for an advanceddegree at the University of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make itfreely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensivecopying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the head of mydepartment or by his or her representatives. It is understood that copying orpublication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my writtenpermission.(Signature)Department of LinguisticsThe University of British ColumbiaVancouver, CanadaDate April 27. 1994DE.6 (2/88)ABSTRACTN+e9kepmx (Thompson-Salish) spoken in the Pacific Northwest, is morphologicallycomplex, and consequently provides a rich data base for analysis within several differenttheoretical frameworks. Of particular interest to the present research is the furtherdevelopment of the theory of Prosodic Morphology as applied to the different types ofN4e9kepmx reduplication. Although specific analyses of selected reduplicative processesfrom N4e9kepmx and other Salishan languages have been advanced in the literature, therecontinue to be many issues which require clarification. It is the intent of this analysis toprovide empirical data from the five N+e9kepmx reduplication types (augmentative,diminutive, out-of-control, characteristic and affective) to support the essential claims ofMcCarthy and Prince’s theory of prosodic morphology (1.986, 1990), i.e. that templaticmorphology does indeed rely on units of the prosodic hierarchy. A further goal is to clarifyissues presented in previous analyses, (Thompson and Thompson (1992), Broselow andMcCarthy (1983/4), Broselow (1983), and Jimmie and Shaw (1991)).Chapter 1 provides an introduction to the basic N4-ekepmx phonological andmorphological structure. Chapter 2 discusses the fundamental units of prosodic organization(mora, syllable, foot and prosodic word) and the constraints on canonical structure andconsonant clusters. Chapter 3 provides a descriptive analysis of the five types of N+e9kepnixreduplication processes. Chapter 4 discusses the theoretical framework of McCarthy’sProsodic Morphology (1986, 1988, 1991) and previous analyses of N4’e9kepmx reduplication(Thompson and Thompson (1992), Bell (1982), Broselow (1983) and Broselow andMcCarthy (1983/4)). Chapter 5 presents a prosodic templatic analysis of Ne’kepmxreduplication and discusses a number of issues and problems that arise from the data inregard to prosodic morphology.In conclusion, each of the reduplication processes is uniquely defined by: whether thebase is prosodically or morphologically defined; how extraprosodicity of the base ischaracterized; whether the reduplicative template is monomoraic or bimoraic; and whetherthis template suffixes or prefixes the designated domain. Also, several interrelated issuesregarding the N1e9kepmx prosodic analysis still require further research: syllable theory(including internal constituency, moraic representation) and the status of schwas and glides.II‘-I.TABLE OF CONTENTSAbstract iiTable of Contents ivList of Tables viiAbbreviations viiiAcknowledgement ixChapter 1 Introduction 11.0 Introduction and Background 11.1 Basic Phonological Structure 41.1.1 N+e9kepmx Consonantal and Vowel Inventory N{e9kepmx Consonantal Inventory N4-e9kepmx Vowel Inventory 61.1.2 Underspecification of the N+e9kepmx Vowels and Consonants 71.2 Basic Morphological Structure 101.2.1 Root Types: Me9kepnix Words 101.2.2 Affixes Prefixes Grammatical Suffixes Lexical Suffixes Infixes and Morphological Prosodies 141.3 N+e9kepmx Stress System 161.3.1 Thompson and Thompson (1992) Analysis of Stress 161.3.2 Czaykowska-Higgins’s (1993) Analysis of Nxa’amxcin (Columbian) 171.3.3 N+e9kepnix Stress System 18Chapter 2 N{e9kepmx Prosodic Representation 222.1 Mora 232.2 Syllable 252.2.1 A Descriptive Analysis of the N+e9kepmx Syllable 252.2.2 Extraprosodicity Status of Glides 282.2.3 Zec’s (1988) Work 332.2.4 Bagemihl (1991) 332.3 Constraints on Canonical Structure and Consonant austers 342.3.1 Canonical Root Structure 342.3.1.1 CVCC Roots 352.3.1.2 -CCC(C)# Roots 432.3.1.3 CCVC Roots 462.3.2 N{e9kepmx Derived Stems 512.3.2.1 #CC- Derived Stems 512.4 Prosodic Categories: Minimal Word and Foot 62iv2.4.1 N+e9kepmxcin Minimal Word 622.4.2 Lexical Smallest Stem 632.4.3 N+e9kepmx Vocatives 64Chapter 3. N4-e9kepmx Reduplication: Basic Types and Previous Analyses 653.1 Basic Types of Reduplication 663.1.1 Augmentative Reduplication: CVC-/CV- 663.1.2 Diminutive Reduplication: -CV/-C 733.1.3 Out-of-control Reduplication: -VCI-C 793.1.4 Characteristic Reduplication: -CVC 823.1.5 Affective Reduplication: CV- 843.2 Multiple Occurrences of N4-e9kepmx Reduplication 863.2.1 Augmentative and Diminutive Reduplication 873.2.2 Augmentative and Out-of-control Reduplication 873.2.3 Augmentative and Augmentative 883.2.4 Diminutive and Out-of-control Reduplication 883.2.5 Affective and Out-of-control Reduplication 903.2.6 Characteristic and Diminutive Reduplication 913.2.7 Three Independent Cooccurrences of Reduplication 913.3 Conclusions 92Chapter 4. Theoretical Frameworks 934.1 Bell (1982) 934.2 Broselow (1983) 964.3 Broselow and McCarthy (1983-84) 994.4 McCarthy and Prince’s Prosodic Morphology (1986, 1990) 1024.4.1 Assumptions and Claims 1024.4.2 Prosodic Circumscription (1990) 1044.5 Carlson and Bate’s Analysis 105Chapter 5. A Prosodic Template Approach to Nle9kepmx Reduplication 1075.1 Issues and Problems : N+e9kepmx Data 1075.2 Syllabification and Morafication 1085.3 Augmentative Reduplication 1125.3.1 Prosodic Base 1125.3.2 Prosodic Reduplicative Template 1155.3.3 Subsequent Phonological Processes 1155.4 Diminutive Reduplication 1205.4.1 Prosodic Base 1215.4.2 Diminutive Reduplicative Template 1255.4.3 Subsequent Phonological Processes 1295.5 Out-of-Control Reduplication 1315.5.1 Prosodic Base 1315.5.2 Reduplicative Template 1355.5.3 Subsequent Phonological Processes 1365.6 Characteristic Reduplication 1385.6.1 Prosodic Base 138V5.6.2 Reduplicative Template 1395.7 Affective Reduplication 1405.7.1 Prosodic Base 1415.7.2 Reduplicative Template 1425.8 Summary and Conclusions 1445.8.1 Summary of Descriptive and Theoretical Issues 1445.8.2 Identification of Interrelated Issues and Residual Questions 145Bibliography 148Appendix I. N{e9kepnix Root Table 152viLIST OF TABLESTable 1. Phonemic Inventory of N+ekepmx Consonants 5Table 2. Underspecification of Vowels 8Table 3. Underspecification of N4-e9kepmx Consonants 9Table 4. Cooccurrence Restrictions in -CC Root Final Clusters 36Table 5. Cooccurrence Restrictions in-RC[Oflt] Root-finalClusters 40Table 6. Cooccurrence Restrictions in Onset Clusters of RootForms 46Table 7. Cooccurrence Restrictions in #CC[COflt] Cluster ofderived stems 53Table 8. Cooccurrence Restrictions in #Cl[+COflt]C- Clusters ofstems 55Table 9. Cooccurrence Restrictions in #C1[+COflt]C2[+COflt] ofderived stems 57Table 10. Cooccurrence Restrictions in #Cl[OflL]C2[+C lt]-]clusters 60Table 11. Cooccurrence Restrictions in #C[+coflt]C[+coflt]]$temclusters 60Table 12. Cooccurrence Restrictions in #C[+coflt]C[oflt]]stemclusters 61Table 13. Cooccurrence Restrictions in #C[sofl]C[sofl]JstemClusters 62Table 14. Nle9kepmx Reduplication Types 92viiABBREVIATIONSThe abbreviations for the cited forms used are listed below:AFF affective V vowelAUG augmentative reduplication 3pS 3rd person-subjectAUG TEMP aumentative template 3pO 3rd person-objectAUT autonomous rootBENE benefactive a alphaC consonant / / root formCAUS causitive [ J surface formCl-TAR characteristic lexical suffixcont continuant- affixationcor coronal # word boundaryCT characteristic augmentation syllable boundaryDEV developmental 6 syllableDIM diminutive reduplication moraDIR directive < > extraprosodicFMV formative * unacceptable formG glide § sectionHAB habitualTM immediateIMP imperativeINDEF indefiniteINFL inflectiveINSTR instrumentalLAB labialLEXSUF lexical suffix morphemeLOC locativeMDL middleN nasalNOM nominativeOC out-of-control reduplicationOCP Obligatory Contour PrinciplePHAR pharyngealp1. pluralp055 possessivePRE prefixQ uvularsRECIP reciprocalRED reduplicationRELAT relationals.o. someoneson sonorantsonor sonorantSTAT stativeTRANS transitiveVIIIACKNOWLEDGEMENTI would like to thank the Scw’exmx, ‘People of the Creek, People of the Nicola Valley’, whohave supported and encouraged me throughout my studies while attending the Universityof British Columbia. These qwdmqwamt ‘wonderful’ people include friends, family, Elders,fellow language and cultural keepers, Shackan Band council and staff, Nicola Valley TribalCouncil and staff.Also, I would like to thank Dr. Patricia A. Shaw, Dr. Dale M. Kinkade, Dr. EwaCzaykowska-Higgins, and Dr. Henry Davis for their support, encouragement, knowledge andguidance during my studies. Without these special people, I would never have completedmy studies and completed this thesis.Also, a special k”uk”scémx” to Laurence and Terry M. Thompson and Steve Egesdal whofirst gave me the inspiration and encouragement to further my studies in linguistics and entergraduate school.To my children, Sk’’Isetk’’u andK4’isëist, and my mother who have been patient, supportiveand understanding while I completed my studies and thesis, a very, very special thank-you.Ham ‘e1-ixChapter 11.0 Introduction and BackgroundN4-e9kepmx (Thompson-Salish), a northern Interior Salish language, is spoken in south-central British Columbia along the following rivers: Fraser (Yale to Lillooet), Thompson(Lytton to Aschroft), Nicola (Spence’s Bridge to Nicola Lake) and Coidwater (Merritt toMeadows, approximately 14 miles south of Merritt).The majority of the work on Nle9kepmx has been done by Laurence and M. TerryThompson who earnestly began to do their field work beginning in 1962 and continued untilthe early 1990’s. To date, published materials include The Thompson Language (Thompsonand Thompson 1992) and Stylized Characters’ Speech in Thompson Salish Narrative (Egesdal,1992). To be published in the near future are “The English-Thompson Finderlist’(Thompson and Thompson, 1990ba) and the “Thompson-English Dictionary? (Thompson andThompson, 1990b). In addition, numerous articles have been written and publishedprimarily by Laurence and M. Terry Thompson, Steve Egesdal, and recently, Paul Kroeber,a syntactician. Prior to the work done in the sixties, the earliest work on N+e9kepmxreduplication was done by Herman K. Haeberlin (1918), and early lexical lists were collectedby James Teit (1904, 1908).The works of Thompson and Thompson (1990a, 1990b, 1992) have been the primarysources used for this thesis. Although in some cases, additional data from members withinthe Scw’exmx ‘People of the Creek’ (Nicola Valley-Merritt) community has been elicited tosupport my analysis.Me9kepmx (Thompson-Salish), like many other Salishan languages spoken in the PacificNorthwest, is morphologically complex, and consequently provides a rich data base formorpho-phonological investigation. Of particular interest to the present research is the1further development of the theory of Prosodic Morphology as applied to the different typesofN+e9kepmx reduplication. Although specific analyses of selected reduplicative processesfrom Nle9kepmx and other Salishan languages have been advanced in the literature, therecontinue to be many issues which require clarification. The intent of this analysis is toprovide test data from the N+e’kepmx reduplication types against the essential claims ofMcCarthy and Prince’s (1986, 1990) theory of prosodic morphology, i.e. that templaticmorphology is defined in terms of the units of the prosodic hierarchy. A further goal is toclarify unresolved issues presented in previous analyses, that of Thompson and Thompson(1986, 1992), Broselow and McCarthy (1983/4), Broselow (1983), and Jimmie and Shaw(1991).McCarthy and Prince’s (1986, 1990) theoretical framework for prosodic morphology hasprovided an insightful basis for several analyses of non-concatenative morphology, includingreduplication. Within this framework the reduplication process is conceived of as applyingto a prosodic or morphological base; it copies this base and maps it onto a morphologicalframe which is represented by a prosodically-defined template; this template is associatedwith its base by either prefixing left-to-right or suffixing right-to-left, immediately adjacentto its target. This thesis will present a prosodic morphological analysis of five reduplicativepatterns in N+e9kepmx, and discuss the particular problems and issues associated with it.Chapter 1 of the thesis will provide an introduction to the basic phonological andmorphological structure of N+e9kepmx. This will include a representation of theN4-e’kepmx consonant and vowel inventory (c.f. Thompson and Thompson 1992), followedby a preliminary analysis of the underspecification of the N4-e9kepmx vowels and consonants(Archangeli, 1986). Next the morphological structure of the N1e9kepmx words will bepresented stating the root types, both strong and weak, and the affixes, both prefixes and2suffixes. Finally, I will discuss an analysis I adopt for the N+e9kepmx stress system basedon Czaykowska-Higgins’ (1993b) analysis of a related Salishan language, Nxa’amxcin(Columbian-Salish).Chapter 2 will discuss the fundamental units of prosodic organization, viz.: mora, syllable,foot and prosodic word, which are relevant to the present research, drawing particularly onthe work of Bagemihl (1991) and Zec (1988).Chapter 3 will be a descriptive analysis of the five types of Nle9kepmx reduplicationprocesses, specifically: 1) augmentative, 2) diminutive, 3) out-of-control, 4) characteristicand 5) affective. The first three are productive, whereas the last two are not. This chapterwill also discuss previous analyses of N4-e9kepmx reduplication (Thompson and Thompson(1986), Broselow (1983), Broselow and McCarthy (1983/4)) and Carison and Bates (1990).Chapter 4 will discuss the theoretical framework of McCarthy and Prince’s ProsodicMorphology (1986, 1988, 1991). The theory of prosodic morphology entails a number ofclaims and assumptions in regard to non-concatenative morphology which should besupported by empirical data from the many languages of the world. In opposition toMcCarthy and Prince’s (1986, 1990) model, Steriade proposes (1988) a model of modifiedreduplication where she states that there is a joint occurrence of base copying and one orboth of the operations of truncation and segmental insertion. Syllablic adjustment, one oftwo mechanisms that accompanies reduplication, employs two constraints: i) prosodic weightof the affix and ii) markedness of its syllable structure. In clear contrast to McCarthy andPrince’s analysis, templates result from the intersection of weight and syllable markednessconditions, rather than existing independently.Chapter 5 will offer a prosodic template analysis of N4-e9kepmx reduplication anddiscuss a number of related issues and problems. Each reduplication process targets a3different base. Moreover, each of the reduplicative processes employs a different prosodictemplate or characterization of extraprosodicity. Their formal characterizations and theirinteraction with one another provide an extraordinarily rich empirical testing ground forseveral tenets of McCarthy and Prince’s theory. Further, there will be a discussion of howeach of these reduplication processes interacts with phonological processes, including (i)syllabification and morafication, (ii) stress (re)assignment, (iii) vowel-deletion, (iv) glide-vocalization, and (v) vowel coloration and consonantal assimilation.Thus, the basic goal of this thesis is to present a reanalysis of the Ne9kepmxreduplicative processes within McCarthy and Prince’s prosodic morphology framework (1986,1988, 1990). I conclude that in N+e9kepmx, each reduplication process involves aprosodically defined template which is affixed to an adjacent prosodically- ormorphologically-defined base. Further, the postulated constructs of extraprosodicity and ofminimal word are both shown to play a critical role in the proposed account of theN+e9kepmx reduplication. Preparatory to a detailed investigation of the complexmorphophonological interactions outlined above, let us begin with a discussion of the basicphonological structure of N4’e9kepmx.1.1 Basic Phonological Structure1.1.1 N4-e9kepmx Consonantal and Vowel InventoryN+e9kepmx has a significantly complex consonantal inventory. There is a particularilyrich post-coronal inventory, with systematic round oppositions as shown in Table 1. As well,there are contrasts in glottalization throughout the stop!affricates and resonant series. N4e9kepmx Consonantal InventoryTable 1. shown below is the Ne9kepmx consonantal inventory as represented byThompson and Thompson (1992). Note however, that Thompson and Thompson treat4velars as: simple-(pre)velars and round-(pre)velars and the uvulars as simple-(post)velarsand round-(post)velars. In addition, they differentiate coronals into dentals, laterals, postdentals, and alveopalatals.CONSONANTS labial coronal velar uvular glottalSTOPS p t c c k k’ q qW 9GLOTTALIZED p’ (t’) k’ k’’ q’ qWSTOPSFRICATIVES 4, s s x x” hRESONANTS m n 1 z y w çGLOTALIZED m’ n’ 1’ z’ y’RESONANTSTable 1. Phonemic Inventory of Me9kepmx ConsonantsRetracted coronals, according to Thompson and Thompson (1992), are related to theset of alveolar and palatal segments2. Retracted coronals include the phonemic Ic! and !!,and underlying retracted [l(’)]. Thompson and Thompson (1992) claim /i(’)/ underlyinglymerges with the plain [l(’)]. Similarly, however the underlying Is! will retract to [s].Resonants are treated as sonorants rather than obstruents. Thus, in addition to !m, n,1, yI and their glottalized counterparts, plain and glottalized /z, fW/ are also sonorant.Thompson and Thompson (1992:4) state that resonants are syllabic in certain positions, inparticular when interconsonantal between a resonant and an obstruent, when between anobstruent and a pause, or when in initial position. Note that Thompson and Thompson(1992) state that /r(’)/ and the Iw(’)/ are very similar, and in some cases appear to be in1The gLottalized It! according to Thompson and Thompson (1992) is rare and Limited to apparenttoanwords’ -2 Thompson and Thompson (1992:7) state that this set of obstruents apparentLy has evoLved from an earLierset.3Note I phonemicalLy represent the /1(’)/ and /10/ as the Latter adopting Thompson and Thompson a (1992:3)anaLysis.5free variation, for example (1):(1) pac” ‘freeze’paw’ ‘freeze’However, note the following example (2) which has a 1w! in the initial consonantal positionand a If! in final consonantal position of root /wf/’ ‘shake-off-AuG’.(2) [waI-p-s-t-és]5 ‘knock seeds or fruits off from plant accidently’ N4-e9kepmx Vowel InventoryThere are two sets ofNe9kepmx vowels, plain and retracted, represented below in (3)a. and b., although the retracted set is considered “to be less common and to some extentautomatic variants of the primary vowels” (Thompson and Thompson, 1992:11).(3) a. Phonemic Vowels: b. Retracted VowelsUe 0aThompson and Thompson (1992:40) state that the hi retracts to its counterpart [i] before/j and 1’! in closed syllables that have underlying stress. They further state that the hi! to [j]is optional. The /u/ retracts to [o] immediately preceding uvulars (post velars), /1, ‘ and z(’)/.Similarily IeI retracts to [a]:a) between uvularsb) between rounded obstruentsc) after uvular continuantsd) before /z, z’I except when preceded by a prevelare) optionally between labials and uvular obstruentsf) after a labial or postvelar that does not by itself call for retraction, when thereis a postvelar or /zi later in the word;41n Chapter 2, 1 discuss the Morpheme Structure Constraint which states that phonemes with (near) identicalplace features within a morpheme can not cooccur.5The interconsonantal schwa in the root has been lowered by the following pharyngeal. This will bediscussed further in Chapter 5.6Thompson and Thompson represent the retracted schwa as both phonemic and phonetic.They state the retracted schwa [] is sometimes derived from its non-retracted counterpart/o/, although they qualify their statement that the [?] is different from the other retractedvowels. An example of the retraction of the schwa is shown below (4):(4) !-pf-> [-?p]‘speed’[pm-p] ‘(something) goes fast’fast-INCAt this time I present no further analysis for the retracted schwa6.1.1.2 Underspecification of the N+e9kepmx vowels and consonants1.1.2.1 Underspecification of N+e9kepmx VowelsThe following chart, Table 2, presents the underspecification value of features of bothsets of N+e’kepmx vowels as presented by Thompson and Thompson (1992). These setsare assumed in the present analysis. Oppositions of particular sets of vowels have beendetermined by identifying the four basic oppositions by a minimal number of phonologicallyfunctional features. Retracted vowels have a [PHARYNGEAL} feature in opposition to thephonemic vowels which do not. The feature [round] is clearly a functional feature, asevidenced by vowel colouration discussed in section 5.3.5. Therefore, the /u/-[o] pair is setoff by being distinctively [round]. The // is assumed to be totally unmarked.Since the [round] vowel and // are as represented above, the lu and the /e/ must eachhave some feature which distinguishes them from k/, and from each other. Phonologicalinformation as to what features are functional in various rules reveals what the appropriatefeatures are here. These are further discussed in § does however appear that the feature [pharyngeal] is floating, therefore resuLting in the retractedschwa in the Lexical. form shown in (4).7The use of a feature [back] is not fully compelling because /eI crosses into traditional[+ back] territory, although it is unclear as to whether it is phonologically relevant. Note,however, there clearly is a height distinction in the non-[round] vowels which is notapparently functional in the [round] vowels. In order to keep /o/ with no features, both[high] and [low] are needed. For further discussion of //->[a], see chapter 5.The following is a preliminary underspecification of N+e9kepmx features analysis of theof the vowels including the retracted ones7. Much further consideration will be required todetermine a more definitive underspecification analysis to be chosen for further work.N4-e’kepmx Phonemic Vowels:FEATURES: i j e a u o[round] + +[10] + +[high] + +[PmGEAL] + + + +Table 2. Underspecification of VowelsTable 3. represents a preliminary analysis of underspecified values of both theN4-e9kepmx obstruents and resonants8.These are based on discussions with P.A. Shaw (pc.)8Glottal stops are [+consonantaL] since they behave with the natural class of obstruents. They are also[+constricted glottis], although not [pharyngeal] since they can be adjacent to pharyngeals. If they werepharyngeal, a violation of the place feature constraint would occur as discussed in Chapter 2. 1, also, presentthe Eh] as the least marked segment, that is, [+consonantal]. Note however, [h] is epenthetic when on formswhich have a vowel in stem—finaL position and a suffix beginning with a vowel, for example [k’nk”enmeh-ü+]‘critical person, c.f. [n-k”énme-tn] ‘court house. These forms are from Thompson and Thompson (April1990:132). C+continuant] is considered to be unmarked (Shaw 1991).8Table3.UnderspecificationofN4’e9kepmxConsonantalInventoryObstruents:pp’tk’cc’kkwk’k”qqWq’qWsc+xx”h[conhinuant]---[strident]+++++[lateral]++LABIAL++CORONAL+++++[dorsal]++++++++[round]++++++PHARYNGEAL++++++[const.glot.]++++++++Resonants:mm’nn’11’yy’zww’ççWç,çW[sonorant]+++++++++++++++++[continuant][nasal]++++[lateral]++LABIAL++CORONAL?+DORSAL++++++++[round]++++PHARYNGEAL++++const.glot.+++++++++1.2 Basic Morphological StructureLike all Salish languages, N1e9kepmx is morphologically complex. Affixal morphemescan be categorized into two basic groups: (i) lexical (roots, lexical suffixes), and (ii)grammatical (prefixes, suffixes and infixes). Forms usually have several affixal types attachedto the root. Each of these categories will be discussed in the following sections.1.2.1 Root TypesN4-e9kepmx has several canonical types of roots with the most common being !CVCI,athough as claimed by Thompson and Thompson (1990b, 1992), roots range frommonoconsonantal to multiconsonantal-multisyllabic forms. In the Thompson-EnglishDictionary (1990b) approximately 2032 roots are listed; these roots are the basis for theanalysis discussed in this section.Below are examples which have roots with one consonant, IC! or ICy!9 as exemplifiedin (5):(5) /X’/ ‘=éni’° ‘ear’Roots which have up to five consonants may have three or four syllables as shown in(6)a., although some are considered bisyllabic as in (6)b., ((.) = syllable boundary)(6)a. /+a9.pn.té9/ ‘oyster mushroom’Ic’akales.p’ü9/ ‘thistle’b. !y’tném! ‘in-laws’[i9t.ném]/wi9nümt/ ‘beautiful’[s-wi9.-nümt!qwysqne! ‘Canford’ PLACENAMF.[qwiys.qne]9Twelve root forms of this type occur in the Thompson—EngLish Dictionary (1990b).10Following other Salishanists, I adopt the equal signs () for lexicaL suffixes.10Many of these multisyllabic root appear are lexical forms, although there are some whichare not, for example /kéy’i9st/ ‘groan (weakly)’ which unanalyzable (Thompson andThompson, 1990b.), however, the lexical suffix, !=ey’st! ‘stone’, is very similar to the endingof the lexical form. Of the lexicalized types, 324 were identified in the Thompson-EnglishDictionary (1990b).The present analysis of the reduplication patterns only considers bi-consonantal andtn-consonantal roots since four-consonantal and five-consonantal roots are less frequent andrequire further analysis. Perhaps, some of these multiconsonantal roots can be reanalysedin forms of simplex canons since it seems that some of these roots may have morphemesaffixed to a CVC root”.N4-e9kepmx roots generally have one or two interconsonantal vowels. I assume thatNle9kepmx roots have underlying (albeit maximally unspecified) schwas (Thompson andThompson, 1992), as opposed to Czaykowska-Higgins’ analysis (1993b) that Nxa’amcin(Columbian-Salish) has vowelless roots and all schwas are epenthetic. Under theassumptions adopted here, then, roots in N4-e9kepmx are generally considered to havevowels, except for the very rare forms which are monoconsonantal as discussed in (5). Theprincipal rationale for this position is that particular phonological processes require prosodictemplates to be copies of prosodic bases, where the copied form has vowels reduced to aschwa or coloured by the effects of adjacent consonants (as discussed in Chapter 5).Some of the N+e9kepmx roots are glottalizing roots, where glottals do not surfacealthough these roots will have a glottalizing effect which surfaces only on resonants inAn example of one these potentiaLly reanaLyzeable forms is c’kIkik chicadee which is almost certainLyonomatopoeic. Thompson and Thompson (1990), however, indicate uncertainity with the root by putting a questionmark between the root form and the gLoss. The form couLd possibLy be a redupLication form resuLting from a/c’kIkI base.11suffixes, e.g. /k’eq”91, [naqw..m1 ‘lick a bowl’.1.2.2 AffixesFour groups of affixes append to roots: prefixes, suffixes, lexical suffixes and infixes.Often more than one group affixes to a lexical form, creating the highly complexmorphological forms common to the Salish language family. Each of the four groups arediscussed independently below. PrefixesThompson and Thompson (1991) state that there are two types of prefixes: non-reduplicating and reduplicating prefixes. Of the first type there are only seven prefixes,which is a small number in comparison with the vast number of N4-e9kepmx suffixes. Stative‘es, nominalizer s-, and locative n()- are the most frequent prefixess, and they commonlycooccur. These are shown below (7):(7) ‘(berries, roots) made into pudding with dumplings’9es-t-Roo’r-AFFIx(Es)stative-qualitative-pulverize=liquid?The other prefixes are the reduplicative ones, with an augmentative and affectivesemantic effect. Examples of these are shown below (8):(8) a. s-müec womanb. s-m4’-mü4-ec womennom-(aug)-woman(9) a. wiyx-ü1- ‘crying all the time’cry-habitualb. w-wiyx ‘cry’all-cryAs these constitute part of the subject matter for this thesis, they will be discussed in detailin Chapters 4 and Grammatical SuffixesSuffixes in N4-e’kepmx are more common than prefixes. Again, they can be12reduplicating or non-reduplicating. Due to the uniqueness of lexical suffixes, they arediscussed in more detail below in § Therefore, in this section only the grammaticalsuffixes are discussed.N4e9kepmx forms can have up to seven grammatical suffixes (10) attached to the roots(in addition) to prefixes which may also be present.(10) c’ex’’-min-t-iyxs-e-t-im-es ‘They congratulate you people.’happy-RELAT.TRANS-3pS-?-TRANS-3pS-2p0There are rare instances where suffixes can be ‘cyclical’, that is, a form will have twocases of a particular suffix as shown below (11):(11) ‘They judge them.’judge.TRANS-(3p0)-DIR-TRANS-3p0-3pS2As was the case with prefixes, there are allophonic variations to these suffixes which areconditioned by the adjacent environment. Some of this variation will be discussed inChapter Lexical SuffixesRoots can also have lexical suffixes attached to them. Lexical suffixes of this particulartype occur only in three language families of the world: Salishan, Wakashan, and Tarascan.It is noteworthy that they constitute a very productive affixation process in N4e9kepmx. M.Dale Kinkade (p.c.) has stated that the maximal number of lexical suffixes in N4e9kepmxcould have been over two hundred. Thompson and Thompson have listed at least 133 ofthese suffixes. The uniqueness of this type of suffix is that they have a lexical meaningattached to them, unlike grammatical suffixes. They should not however be confused witha compounding of stems, since a lexical suffix can not operate independently, as shownand Thompson (1992:81) state that forms with IIyxs/ can be further expanded. Also the additionof a In—ti creates a new transitive stem. The addition of a second /iyxsl, the first /iyxsl pluralizes theimplied 1—0/, 3object.13below in (12).(12) xw’é+ ‘road’es-n-ch=éw’s ‘the trail/road is fixed’STAT-LOC-do=road*ewsThere are independent, semantically-related lexical forms which enter into truecompounding processes. In Me9kepmx, as cited in Thompson and Thompson (1992),compounding can occur with two root forms occupying one root position (13) or when thesecond form is an independent lexical form, as shown below (14):(13) n-cq-xw’é+-ne ‘I put it right on the road/trail’LOC-set-road-1-3(14) +a9=ans ‘food’s-qáa9 ‘dog’3’+a9=ans-s-qáa9 ‘put horse out to graze’eat=tooth-NOM-dogCompounding also occurs with forms that are affixed with a ligature, a compoundingconnective /-e+/. An example is shown in (15).(15) tm-+-n-I’p=ic’e9 ‘he has no shirt on’lack-LIG-LOC-under=clothingNote that the following example, also has the ligature, /-e4-/, but according to Thompson andThompson the {{] has been deleted because of the following [-s], resulting in a allomorphicform [-ej, as shown below in (16):(16) kwn-e-s-qáa9 ‘catch a horse’catch-LIGATURE-NOM-dog1.2.2.4 Infixes and morphological prosodiesThompson and Thompson (1991) list only six infixes, four of which could be consideredallophones to certain reduplicative processes, that is in some cases they occur as analternative form to the more typical reduplication processes. These infixes are: plural [9j]13The gloss may more likely refer to domestic animal in general.14and [c’e] and repetitive [a9] and [e(9)j. Another infix, the inchoative, [9], isattached after the first consonant of a strong root. In complementary distribution with [9],the suffix,-op, is attached after the C2 position of a weak CVC root which has the voweldeleted. Examples of both types of inchoative allomorphs are shown below in (17) and (18):(17) Strong root:kw[9]uc ‘become crooked’crooked[INCHOATIVE](18) Weak root:q’w’-6p ‘break in two’break-INCHOATIVETwo types of morphological prosody occur in N4-e’kepmxcin in addition to the inchoativeabove; these are ‘glottalizing’ roots and the specializing extension, [‘]. Thompson andThompson (1992) refer to glottalizing roots as those three or four consonantal roots whichhave a /9/ in final position, e.g. /zm”/ ‘send-message’. Suffixes with resonants attached toglottalizing roots will glottalize the resonants following the root. This is shown below in (19)which has two affixal resonants glottalized.(19) zom’-cin’-m’ ‘send a message’send-message-mouth-MIDDLEThe other morphological prosody is the specializing extension, [‘], which appears to affix toresonants. Thompson and Thompson (1992) state this is unpredictable and not clearlyunderstood. An example of the effect is shown below (20) on the root, but note thespecializing extension does not occur on the lexical suffix:(20) kn’=éyt ‘midwife’kn=éyt ‘helper, assistant’It can also occur with the diminutive, affective, and repetitive forms as shown below (21):(21) /p’ém/ ‘kindle’p’ep’-m’ ‘fireplace in a house’fire-DIM151.3 N+e9kepmx Stress SystemThe N+e9kepmx stress patterns, to date, have not been analyzed in any currenttheoretical frameworks. This section discusses briefly Thompson and Thompson’s analysisof the N+e9kepmx stress patterns and Czaykowska-Higgins’ analysis of stress-assignment inNxa’amxcin (Columbian-Salish). The theoretical approach of the latter provides anapproach for a preliminary analysis of stress assignment in Me9kepmx.1.3.1 Thompson and Thompson’s Analysis (1992) of StressThompson and Thompson (1992:22) state that the position of main stress in a stem isdetermined by the combinations of possible morpheme types. They state that “main stressfalls on the morpheme which by virture of its inherent properties, partly because of itsrelative position and the inherent properties of accompanying morphemes, is most dominantin that word”. They further state that other morphemes are unstressed or have secondarystress. Morphemes which attract main stress and are more ‘dominant’ are underlyinglyassigned stress. Other morphemes are underlyingly assigned secondary stress; therefore theynever have primary stress. Two N4-ekepmx stress-related rules, (22) a. and b. below, arefrom Thompson and Thompson (1992).(22) a. main word stress falls on a strong morpheme or, in absence of sucha morpheme, on the first suffix that can take stress, or, in the absenceof any such suffixes, on the root (prefixes and morphemes without avowel cannot take stress);b. unstressed vowels disappear unless they are followed by more thanone consonant in a syllable before the main stress.Further, Thompson and Thompson assign the roots as strong, weak or ambivalent eachwith predictable characteristics in terms of stress assignment. They define the strong rootas taking main stress on the syllable with underlying primary stress. However, if a derivedform has two underlyingly stressed syllable stress falls on the last stressed syllable, and the16previously underlying stressed syllable will now have secondary stress, which will be deletedat a later stage. However, some weak roots can have underlyingly secondary stress, and theywill take main stress if there is no other stressable syllable.In addition to the roots underlyingly having stress, suffixes can also be stressable ornonstressable. Thompson and Thompson (1992) define three types of suffixes: strong, weakor ambivalent. Weak suffixes and non-strong suffixes lose stress in the presence of any otherstressable suffix. Greater in number than the weak suffixes, the ambivalent suffixes will takemain stress if they are in first position after the weak root. This occurs, in addition, if thereis a succession of weak suffixes. With strong suffixes, the main stress remains on the lastsyllable, as with stems which have a succession of strong suffixes. The previously derivedstressed suffixes will now have secondary stress.1.3.2 Czaykowska-Higgins’ Analysis of Nxa9am cin (Columbian-Salish)Czaykowska-Higgins (1993b) argues that the Nxa9amxcin stress-assignment is accountedfor in a principled manner by assuming that two rules of stress-assignment interact withmorphological properties of cyclicity and accent. Roots are either strong or weak, and eachroot type is designated as either “extrametrical assigning” or ‘non-extrametrical assigning”.Further, the suffixes14 are either recessive [-accent] or dominant [+ accent].Czaykowska-Higgins elaborates on this by assuming that on cycle II, suffixes adjacent tostrong roots are assigned extrametricality by the roots, and therefore can not delete thestress that is on the root; but, on the other hand, on strong roots where there is noassignment of extrametricality on the final suffix, stress deletion of the stem andreapplication of the stress rule will occur. In general, I assume that the same operationsstated earlier (Thompson and Thompson, 1992) prefixes never have stress assigned to them.17occur in N4-e9kepmx, which will be further discussed in the following 1.3.3.Similarly, roots which are weak assign extrametricality to the suffixes adjacent to the root.Weak roots which do not assign extrametricality only get stress if followed by suffixes withno underlying vowels.Suffixes are considered to be accented as either recessive or dominant, where thedominant suffixes will be cyclically assigned stress depending on the weak or strong statusof the preceding root and whether it is an extrametricality-assigning root.1.3.3 N+e9kepmx Stress SystemAs stated earlier the N4e9kepmx stress system generally appears to be similar to that ofNxa9am cin. Therefore, in accordance with what Thompson and Thompson (1992) callweak and strong roots, the stress patterns of derived stems of both need to be reviewed.From an initial analysis of the basic stress patterns in N+e9kepmx it appears that thereare irregularities in stress assignment. This is consistent with the analyses of Thompson andThompson (1992), Czaykowska-Higgins (1993b), and other Salishan stress systems. Stresssometimes falls on the root and sometimes on one of several suffixes, and it sometimes fallson internal, non-final suffixes. When it falls on one of the suffixes, stress can fall on eitherthe first or last suffix. Stress assignment also has further irregularities when a lexical suffixand an inflectional suffix are attached to the stem. Again, sometimes it will fall on theformer and not on the latter, and vice versa.Czaykowska-Higgins (1993b) states that the strong roots [+extrametrical] and weak roots[-extrametrical] occur more frequently, than their suffixal counterparts. The followingexample (23) shows affixes attached to a weak root.(23) Weak roots [-extrametricality]:a. RED-ROOT=LEXSUFFa9 =étk”u ‘haunted lake’18RED-restrict=waterb. RED-ROOT=LEXSUFF=LEXSUFFxa9-x =etk” =üym’xw ‘haunted-water country’RED-restrict=water=countryc. ROOT-INFL-SUFFIX(ES)a9 -s-t-és ‘prevent s.o. from doing s.t.’restrict-CAUS-TRANS-3-3d. RED-ROOT=LEXSUFF+ INFLa9 -‘ =eyq”’ -wI9x ‘develop supernatural power’RED-restrict=spiritul-ability-DEVHere the weak root does not have the main stress, which is on the rightmost suffix in allthe examples. The above examples in which there is more than one suffix attached to theroot exemplify both previous analyses, in that weak roots will yield the stress to suffixes withunderlying vowels.A strong root is shown in the following example.(24) Strong roots [+ extrametricality]:a. (PRE)ROOT=LEXSUFFcék =kst ‘cool hand’cool=handn- cék =tm ‘(of house) get cool inside’LOC-cool[INCHOATIVE] = insideb. (PRE) +ROOT=LEXSUFF=LEXSUFFn -ce’k=énk =xn ‘sole of one’s foot gets cool’LOC-cool[INCHOATWE] =belly=footc. ROOT +INFL-INFL-INFLcé9k -s-t-es ‘s.o. causes s.t. to cool’cooI1NC-CAUS-TRANS-3-3d. ROOT=LEXSUFF+INFLcék=kst -m ‘he cooled himself’cool=hand-MDLIn all the forms in (24), except for (24.b) which has two lexical suffixesstress falls on thestrong root. The examples in (23.b) and (24.b) suggest that stress is cyclic since stress isreassigned to the final stressable suffix. The reader is refered to Czaykowska-Higgin (1993b)for other details of this.The following is the N+e9kepmx stress rule (25) based on a very preliminary analysis:19(25) Ne9kepmx Stress Rule:Assign stress to the rightmost stressable element with thefollowing conditions which are dependent on the type of root orsuffix which can also be marked as either strong or weak;1) Strong roots:If the root is strong, stress will fall on the root except whenthere is more than one lexical suffix or if the lexical suffixis itself strong.2) Strong suffixes:If the suffix is strong, stress will fall on it except if morethan two suffixes are attached, when it will fall on therightmost suffix.As stated earlier, some of the above examples suggest that stress is cyclic. Otherforms which suggest stress is cyclic are the following:(26) a. ROOTSUFFIXATION [[9j = etkwu]STRESS ASSIGNMENT n/a stressb. ROOT cekSUFFIXATION [[cék] -ekst]STRESS ASSIGNMENT Stress n/aIn (26.a) stress assignment is not applicable on cycle 1 since the root is weak and asa result the vowel in the root has been deleted. In (26.b) suffixation does not affect stressassignment, since stress remains on the strong root.In summary, in keeping with Czaykowska-Higgin’s analysis, N4-e9kepmx roots can bemarked for extrametricality and N4-e9kepmx suffixes can be marked recessive or dominant.The basic phonological and morphological Structure of Me9kepmx discussed in thischapter is not meant to be an exhaustive analysis; however, it presents the foundation andnecessary information required to discuss the subsequent chapters. In chapter 2, thefundamental units of prosodic organization will be presented. Discussion will focus on theMe9kepmx mora, syllable, foot and prosodic word, all of which are relevant to the present20Tz)JIOMChapter 2. N4-e9kepmx Prosodic RepresentationA definitive analysis of syllable structure in N1-e9kepmx, as is the case with the syllablestructure of many other Salishan languages, still requires a considerable amount of work.This chapter, an initial attempt to do such an analysis, is a descriptive and theoreticalanalysis of the prosodic representation of the N4e9kepmx syllable.In order to determine N4e9kepmx syllable structure, several procedures need to beperformed. After a brief discussion of the basic Nle9kepmx syllable structure, I examinefirst, the canonical form of roots and stems, showing acceptable and unacceptable clusters.Here I adopt Clements and Keyser’s (1985) approach to onset clusters in English, usingcolumnar tables to designate well-formed and ill-formed clusters. In this section, there isalso a discussion of N4e9kepmx extrametricality and appendix status (Steriade 1982, Booijand Rubach 1990). Extrasyllabicity of segments in roots and stems is crucial. Aninvestigation of the canonical structure of roots is used to determine the underlying patternof consonants at both edges.Zec’s (1990) and Bagemihi’s (1991) analyses form the basis for this discussion of syllabletheory. Within Zec’s (1990) analysis of syllable inventories, there are four possible languagetypes. Each type is defined by a different relation between moraic and syllabic segments.Syllabic segments are the syllabic peaks in the languages, which occupy either the first moraof a heavy/closed syllable, or the only mora of a light/open syllable. Moraic segments areto the immediate right of the syllabic mora of heavy syllables. Further, Zec claims thatsyllabic segments are always a subset of the entire set of segments. They can either be aproper subset of or a set coextensive with the set of moraic segments.Since subsequent chapters demand a clearer understanding of what segments are moraicand non-moraic in N4e”kepmx, the distinction will be discussed here. An examination of22constraints on acceptable and unacceptable consonantal clusters will be done first. Adistributional characterization of the status of pre- and post-nuclear segments will furtherbe validated by particular phonological and morphological processes which interact withroots and stems. These will be discussed in Chapter 4 and 5 in more detail.With the overall purpose of providing a conclusive analysis of the N+e9kepmx syllable,this chapter is organized in the following manner: in section 2.1 I discuss the mora, insection 2.2 I discuss the syllable, in section 2.3 I discuss the canonical structure of roots andstems, and, lastly, in section 2.4 I discuss the foot and prosodic word. These are the essentialcomponents of the framework I use to discuss the main N+e9kepmx reduplication processesthroughout this work.2.1. MoraIn many current theoretical phonological studies, such as McCarthy and Prince (1986,1990) and Steriade (1988), the mora is argued to be an element of the prosodic hierarchy.The N4-e9kepmx moraic representation motivated here is based on the distribution of theinchoative [‘p] (see section and the various reduplication morphological processesdiscussed in chapters 4 and 5. The prosodic representation argued for here is shown below(1):(1) a. 6/FltCVCSince the inchoative infix, [9] for the strong stems is inserted before a stressed vowel of thestrong root, the association of the onset C must be directly to the syllable node as in (1) andnot directly to the initial mora, as represented in (2) below (Zec 1988):23(2 * 6“ ‘ I”....JIL/11cvcThus, (3) is a moraic representation of an inchoativized [+ strong] root/stem:(3)a. 6 b.* 6//I\//LI LL/711-7iIé + c’ 9 é+‘become cooler’If the N4-e9kepmx prosodic representation included both the initial consonant and thenuclear vowel dominated by a mora, then the inchoative, glottal would be ‘true’ infixationof a segment into the middle of a prosodic constituent as in *(3.b). Broselow and McCarthy(1983) and McCarthy and Prince (1986, 1990) argue against the existence of such infixationprocesses. Since they convincingly demonstrate that characteristically such cases reduce toprefixation or suffixation to a prosodically well-defined base, I therefore conclude that theinitial consonant of N+e9kepmx roots is in fact attached to the syllable rather than the mora.This allows the position of the inchoative [9] to be characterized as prefixation before thesyllabic (Zec 1988) or nuclear (Shaw 1992) mora.Now, the next issue is whether the segment which immediately follows the left-most morais either attached to it as in 4(a) or attached to the syllable root as in 4(b), or to anothermora as in 4(c).(4) a. b. 6 c.CvC CvC CvC24I take the position that the N4-e9kepmx closed syllable, CVC, is bimoraic as in (4.c)’.The status of segments which are not immediately adjacent to the vocalic nucleusrequires discussion. Since it is very common in N1-e’kepmx to have consonant clusters instem-initial and -final as well as stem-internal positions, two questions arise: what is theprosodic status of these ‘other’ pre- and post-nucleus positions, and how is each attached tothe syllable?In the next section, based on preliminary observations of N4’e9kepmx data, evidence willbe presented on the prosodic representation of N4-e9kepmx syllables.2.2 Syllable2.2.1 A Descriptive Analysis of the Nle9kepmx SyllablePreliminary observations show that the N4-e9kepmx syllable minimally can be either open(5) or closed (6)2.(5) open syllables: (6) closed syllables:q// //u‘ é. n i ‘ear’ s m u. 4- é c ‘woman’There is no vowel length distinction, therefore heavy open syllables (CV: or CVV) do notexist. However, there are vowel-glide sequences as shown below (7):(6) /‘eyk/ ‘kinnickinnick (or bearberry)/céwt/ ‘ultimate’s-céwt-mx ‘youngest child’NOMINATIVE-ultimate=peopletéw-mn ‘store’c.f. Czaykowska—Higgins (1993b) for a similar cLaim regarding syLLables in Nxa7amxcin, BagemihL (1991)for Bella Coola and Jimmie and Shaw (1991) for N+e’kepmx.2The dot C.) represents the syLlabLe boundary.25sell-INSTRUMENTALtwu ‘sold to someone’ OUT-OF-CONTROLsell-OUT OF CONTROLThe maximal representation of the N4-e’kepmx syllable is not simply CVC for, frequentlythere are consonantal clusters in pre- and post-vocalic positions. In fact, as discussed insection 1.2.2, there are some morphologically derived forms which can have up to 6consonants clustering in final position as (7).(7) cü.+=qsxtxv ‘you disconnect his end of it’disconnect=head-BENE-TRANS-2-3With respect to syllable nucleus positon, in addition to N4e9kepmx vowels representedas syllabic segments, there are syllabic nasals3 (Thompson and Thompson, 1986:141).Significantly, however, their distribution is limited. That is, syllabic nasals seem to only occurin hi- or poly-syllabic forms; that is, they never constitute the sole syllabic nucleus in a wordas shown in (8).(8) 6 6/1 IN/uip u n m s ‘he found/finds it’Another interesting related fact is that only vowels are stressed; syllabic nasals are neverstressed. Both the unstressability of nasals and their distributional limitation are undoubtedlyrelevant to foot structure, but a detailed investigation ofNe9kepmx foot prosody is beyondthe scope of the present study.Also, with my native speaker judgement, I consider the nasals in word-initial position tobe non-syllabic, similar to Czech (Booij and Rubach, 1990). Such onset clusters thenconstitute a sonority hierarchy violation, as shown in (9.b), but I propose that the initial nasal31n fact, Thompson and Thompson (1991, 1992) state that in word initial positions liquids are usuallysyll.abic, as discussed further in this section. However, semi—vowels, they state, wilL retain their semivocalicquality in the same environment; However, if they become syllabic they are preceded by a glottal stop.26is licenced by extrametricality. Examples where a nasal [m] is syllabic in the rightmostsyllable, whereas the [n] which is adjacent to a vowel or more sonorous element is notsyllabic4 as shown in (9).(9) a. b.hr I\1 /tr<m>lam mns <m> t olt‘his medicine’ ‘blot clot’Consonantal clusters at word-initial and -final position of stems generally have nasals,as in the following example (10) where both the LOCATiVE prefix and the INSTRUMENTALsuffix have nasals.(10)iII.L /I iUii I! H IInp ti flu tnn-pt=Inus-tn ‘way of thinking’LOC-?intervene=mind-INST2.2.2 ExtraprosodicityExtraprosodicity always occurs at the edge of a prosodic domain, and it can be either<C(C)>. Booij and Rubach (1990) claim it to be linked to the phonological word and notstray erased. A representation of a syllable with an appended segment is represented by adotted line from the syllable node to the consonant, and the extrametrical segment is shownwith the angle brackets, as below (11):(11) 6 6I\LLI IV CCC<C> VC<C>“me [n] could be considered ambisyllabic, but I do not represent it as such in (8); [m] in the secondsyllable in (9) is considered the same.27<Cc>Three non-moraic consonants in stem-initial/final positions as shown below (12). Theexamples below show a typical formation of stem-initial forms which have three consonants.(12) stem initial:a. C1[NowsTA7E] C2[Loc]C3[Roo s-n-x”üy’t ‘springtime’stem medial:b. C1[N0M or LOC] C2[RooT] C3[JNCH] n-c’m-p=ép ‘(of basket)For this analysis, I look at both root-initial clusters and root-final clusters; the latter aremore common than the former. I then extend this approach to consonant clusters, both ininitial- and final-positions of stems. Each of the allowable or occurring clusters for root andstem forms are shown in the following sections. Clusters in initial, internal, and finalpositions are also examined. Status of glidesThe status of glides is a contentious issue as stated by (Hyman 1985, Guerrsel 1986,Hunt 1991, Shaw 1993). Glides, on one hand, have been regarded as the surfacerepresentation of underlying vowels, for example by Shaw (1991, 1993) in her analysis forNisgha. That is, lu-> [y] or /u/-> [w]. On the other hand, it has been argued that glides areunderlyingly consonants (Hunt 1991). Thus, the question regarding Ne9kepmx is: are theCVy(’) and CVw(’) roots really /Ci(’)/ or lCu(’)/? At this stage of my analysis, I considerNe9kepmx glides, [y(’)j and [w(’)], to be consonants rather than underlying /(9)/ or /u(9)/.Substantive evidence for the underlying representation of glides in N4-e9kepmx is discussedbelow.Consider the following CVC roots, where C2 is /y/. Note from data such as (13)a. andb. that although a /y/ can vocalize to [i] in roots where the root vowel // is deleted, such [i]’s28suggests that they are underlyingly non-vocalic.(13) a...1cy ‘new’ci-cy=éw ‘new boat’ci-cih = éw+AUG-new=conveyancefmy ‘cross-over’n-mi = cm ‘interpret’n-mi = cm = éyt ‘translator’LOC-cross-over= mouth =agentb. fmy’x ‘kick’miy’x-e-cüt ‘kick o.s.’miy’x-xi-c ‘kick s.t. for someone’kick-BENE-3-3Note, in contrast, the stress behavior of CVy roots where the nucleus is a full vowel, as in(14.c,d).(14) c. /Ciy/sftIy ‘tea’ LOANfcíy ‘open?’c’iy=kst ‘five’ciy-ci=kst-m-tm ‘the five of us worked together on it’ciy-ci=kst-mIn-tm5 ‘AUG-spread=hand-REL-3-3d. /Cuy/9es-püy=qn ‘(of container) covered’STATIVE-cover=heade. /Cay/n-qáy-ix ‘swim’LOC-dive-AUTThe following example (15) retains the nuclear root vowel /e/ and the C2 /y/, althoughone would expect that the /e/-> [] when unstressed, which would then be subject to deletion,triggering vocalization of the /y/. Thompson and Thompson (1991, 1992) posit that theunderlying !é/- > [e] is retained here because of its previous stressed status (from an earlierstage of the derivation).5mis form and the one above are cited from the Thompson and Thompson (1990) and are acceptable to NoraJimmie, my mother.29(15) fmeyqve9‘cause rope to be tangled’LOC-tangle=rope-CAUS-3-3The form below shows variation in the reduplicated form. Like the examples in (14),the forms in (16)a. retain the [uy], whereas this is reduced to [i] in the second form, (16)b.This latter form is derived by the regular processes of unstressed V-reduction ([uy] -> [oy])and subsequent a-deletion and glide vocalization ([y]->[y]->i)(16) fmuiyn-muy-müy-1e9=xn-me ‘immerse one’s legs’n-mi-müy-le9 =xn-me6LOC-AUG-dip-in-water-FORM=foot-INDEFExamples which have glottalized ly’! as C2 are shown in (17) below. These behave in thesame way as the unstressed forms in (13):(17) ..fc’éy’ c’éy’-m ‘warn about something’warn-MDLc’i9-c’éy’-m ‘warn about things’AUG-warn-MDLc’i9-c’ey’-m-ü+ ‘informer, tattletale’AUG-warn-MDL-HABThe other glide, /w!, in C2 position is shown below (18):(18) %fwek or twa. n-tuwek=Ik’n-s ‘walk behind s.o.’b. n-twek=Ik’n-sLOC-jump-over=back-3%Jliw lI[l}u-tn ‘Thunder Spirit’ME, MYTHOLOGYrumble[DIM]-INSTfpIw n-piw=le9x ‘bread’ PROBABLY LOAN, OKANAGANLOC-swell-up=bread%Jlüw s-lüw=ec’ ‘shredded inner bark of red cedar’NOM-?warm = bark../láw n-láw=cin-me ‘gargle throat’LOC4constrict=mouth-INDEF6These two semantically identical forms are cited from Thompson and Thompson (1990), note however, thesecond form is not an acceptable form to Nora Jimmie.30‘kinnickinnick’‘gather kinnickinnick’yoqves ‘splash something’yqwyu[y1qw..fls‘splash s.t.!s.o. a little repeatedly’AUG-splash(DIMj-INDEF-3-39es-t-y1”-p-e ‘s.t. has just now disappeared’STATIVB-QUALITATIVE-disappear-INC-MDL..Iq’aw ‘es-q’áw=qn ‘have loops [for attaching]’STAT-attach-by-string=headfx”üw wüwmn ‘traditional spinning toy, top’?spin-buzz-INSTRThe data below illustrate that other canonical root forms which have a glide in C2position all behave the same way as the /CVG/ roots exemplified above. There are severalCVGC roots which have an underlying IyI or 1w! shown below.(19) a. %fméyx s-méyx ‘snake’NOM-snakes-mi-méyx ‘snakes’NOM-AUG-snakeb. %fk”’Iy’t skwIyt ‘PLACE NAME’NOM-(placename)c. fcéwt s-céwt=mx ‘youngest child’NOM-ultimate=peopled. fc’Iwq’ c’Iwq’-e-s ‘tear in small pieces’tear-small-DIR-3-3However, I do not consider them relevant for this argument; therefore I do not discuss themany further here. All the forms above have examples where the root vowel has main stress.Compare a form below (20) which has a suffix attached to it and the root vowel is deleted,as in the CVG forms.(20) I9éyk! 9éykik= éi-p-mkinnickinnick= plant-MDLWith CVC roots, C1 can also be /y/. Initial /y/ may be followed by Ii,u,I, but not by Ia!.It may be hypothesized that this is because height of articulation is significantly different.Examples are shown below (21):(21) a. %fyuqb.31c. [yi n-y-yi=é+c’i9 ‘quick-witted, intelligent’LOC-AUG-lucid=insidesd. *fyaC no examples (Thompson and Thompson, 1990b)Ne9kepmx morphological processes consistently treat the glides as a consonantalsegment. Consider, first, the behavior of reduplication as in the example (21)a. above.Evidence of the /y/ behaving as a consonant is shown by the affixation of the two types ofreduplication as shown in the example, In both instances ofreduplication, the prefixed (CVC-) AUGMENTATIVE and the infixed [C1] DIMINUTIVE, the /y/ istreated as a consonant. Also, note that (21)b. is an example which has other types ofaffixation, INCHOATIVE and MIDDLE. Here one might imagine that the [y] would vocalize, toyield *[9esticwpe], but it does not; instead, it retains its consonantal status.A second type of morphological process, inchoative infixation, also treats glides asconsonants. Recall from the discussion of (3) in section 2.1 earlier, that the inchoative formof [+ strong] stems is formed by the insertion of a [9] after the initial C of the stem, andbefore the first mora. As shown below in (22), the initial glides 1w! and ly/ are treated as(onset) consonants, and not as moraic consonants.(22) a. /wVCI --> [w9VC] w914 ‘to fray’b. IyVCI --> [y9VC] y9Ic’’ ‘to become loose’y9á ‘come to be apart’A further argument for the underlyingly consonantal status of the glides stems from thefact that they occur with phonemically contrastive glottalization. In this respect, theglottalized /y’I and /w’! parallel all other segments in the resonant consonant series, e.g. m’,n’, 1’, z’, y’, 1’ and Note that this parallelism would not exist if [y] and [w] underlyinglywere considered vowels since the non-high vowels I/ and Ia! have no glottalizedcounterparts, such as *a or32In summary, since the glides !y(’)/ and /w(’)/ function as consonants, I conclude that theyare not underlyingly vocalic segments. That is, /CVG/ and /GVC/ roots do in fact occur.I use this as a basis for further discussion in subsequent sections when I discuss canonicalroot consonantal clusters. Glides, however, may change their consonantal status; forexample in chapter 5, I provide evidence that glides vocalize when syllables require a nucleusafter vowel deletion.2.2.3 Zec’s Framework (1988)Following Zec’s (1988) syllable typoiogy, I categorize the N4-e9kepmx syllable as a TypeOne, that is: (i) syllabic segments are a proper subset of the set of moraic segments; and(ii) any consonantal segment can head the second mora of a syllable. N4-e9kepmx syllablescan either be open/light (CV or CN, where N=nasal) or closed/heavy (CVC). The subsetof moraic segments which can be syllabic includes vowels and nasals. Thus, N4-e’)kepmxnasals are the syllable nucleus, moraic or the onset (as shown earlier in (8)).According to Thompson and Thompson (1992), the property of syllabicity is furtherextended to the velar [-y] and pharyngeal [cj segments in initial position as shown below (23):(23) ‘yn-p ‘he shivers’shiver-INCcc-op ‘It gets ensnared.’snare-INCAs stated earlier in § 2.2.1, I consider the initial resonants excluding nasals to be nonsyllabic.2.2.3 Bagemihl’s Analysis (1991)Bagemihi’s (1991) analysis of Bella Coola claims that the theory of prosodic of licensingrequires further revisions particularly with the status of the mora. In earlier works prosodiclicensing demanded that a segment be syllabified and that it be affiliated to a higher33prosodic constituent and to remain in the representation. However in Bella Coola, manyhave claimed it to be a language with vowelless words where it is necessary to determine thestatus of the obstruents in relationship to the syllable. It is noted that Bella Coola segmentsthat cannot be syllabified are not necessarily deleted. In fact, Bagemihi concludes that inBella Coola segments which are linked to the mora cannot be deleted. In other words,obstruents which are linked to the mora cannot be deleted. They also must be in therepresentation. Thus, the mora which had previously considered to be only part of thesyllable, now must have the ability to remain in the representation.2.3. Constraints on Canonical Structure and Consonant Clusters2.3.1 Canonical Root StructureThe majority of the Me9kepmx roots have the canonical structure CVC (Thompson andThompson, 1992) which can be subdivided into three types (24):(24) i) weak roots with an underlying schwa;ii) weak roots with a full unstressed vowel; oriii) strong roots with a full stressable vowel.There are also tn-consonantal roots of the form CCC e.g. /cp/ ‘break-ice’, CCVC e.g.!c+Iq’/ ‘muddy’ or CVCOC e.g. /k’é9y ‘waste-away’ where the V represents a stressablevowel. It should be noted that in some cases, there are too few lexical forms to uniquelydetermine the underlying representation of certain tn-consonantal forms. Since the essenceof this discussion is the representation of the N+e9kepmx syllable, the status of consonantsother than those in the core syllable (CVC, CVC and CC roots) will not be discussedfurther in this section7.7As stated earlier, the majority of the data provided throughout this paper is primarily from the Thompson—English Dictionary (1990); thus, the root designations are as determined by Thompson and Thompson unlessexplicitly stated to the contrary. Throughout this anaysis, if I make a different caim on the status or formof the root, I discuss these variations in footnotes or in the body of this paper.34I adopt Clements and Keyser’s (1985) methodology for the analysis of constraints onsyllable-initial and -final consonant sequences. The following is an application of theirapproach to the analysis of N+e9kepmx #CC- and -CC# consonant clusters in roots. Rootswhich have consonantal sequences greater than #CC- and -CC# are discussed, but they arenot exemplified in tables.In § and tables are used to show root-final clusters. § will be adiscussion of root-initial clusters. #C1C2-initial segments will be represented with the C1consonants in rows and the C2 consonants in columns. Final clusters -C3C4# will berepresented with -C3 consonants in rows, and the -C4 consonants in the columns. Allowableclusters are represented by a “+“, whereas unallowable clusters are shown by a Rootsapparently do not occur with clusters at both ends, that isC12VC34.Root-final clustersare more frequent, than root-initial clusters; therefore, I discuss them first. CVCC RootsAlthough N+e9kepmx primarily has CVC or CC roots, there are 148 CVCC roots outof the total of 2032 Ne9kepmx roots examined in this analysis. In this section, I representthe canonical forms of the CVCC roots, and I discuss the consonantal clusters in terms oftheir sonority relationship with each other. I also propose a constraint which seems to bein effect in regard to the correlation between various consonant clusters.The following is a representation of the 148 roots with consonant obstruent clusters inroot-final position. Table 4 presents the particular cooccurrence restrictions found betweenthe stops in these clusters.35C2\C3 p p’ t k c c’ k k’ k” k\v q q’ qW qW ‘p - - - - +-p’ --t - - +- - - - - ++ + - + -C - - + - - - +- +- - - + - +C’ --k -- +k’ +-k” -- +kv -- +q - - +-q’ - - + - +qW +qW -+9 -- +- +Table 4. Cooccurrence Restrictions in CC root-final clustersAn issue to be reviewed is how Ne9kepmx clusters in root forms can be representedin terms of the Sonority Hierarchy shown below (25), (Steriade, 1982) in comparison withHankamer and Aissen (1974), Kiparsky (1979):(25) Sonority Hierarchystops/affricates << fricatives << nasals << liquids << glides << vowelsThe universal Sonority Hierarchy states that the adjacency relationship between segmentsin tautosyllabic forms is restricted according to the sonority of each segment. The mostsonorous segment will be the nucleus element, and the other segments outside of the nucleuswill be progressively less sonorous elements. The sonority value will decrease or will beequal between segments, and the least sonorous segments will be outer segments.Because stop-stop clusters are equal in sonority, the segments in the following -CC#consonantal clusters of CVCC roots do not violate the sonority hierarchy (25). The CVCCroots8 in (26) and (27) below exemplify the data presented in Table 4.forms are represented here being underLying marked for stress if strong and unmarked for stress if36weak.(26) stop+stop#:métk” ‘transport fire’mék’p ‘testicles’k’Iqt ‘sky’(27) stop +glottal#9:cBk” ‘?independent-visible’‘?relentless’Ieqw9 ‘lick’cIq’ ‘?encourage-practitioner’c’uq’’9 ‘point-out’Now compare the distribution of affricates and stops. Affricates occur in both post-nucleus positions, C2 and C3, as shown below in (28) and (29). Based on this behaviour, itis reasonable to posit that aifricates have the same sonority value as stops. Further, thispatterning of the aifricates with stops motivates representing both classes as [-coNT], as inShaw (1991).(28) stop + affric.#:qápc ‘spring-warmth’(29) aifric. +stop#:qeck ‘older-brother’9écq” ‘bake’k”1iIc’p’ ‘flea’Let us turn from a consideration of manner, to a consideration of place. From theevidence in Table 4 above, a striking cooccurrence restriction in these tautomorphemicclusters emerges. Except for a single form, which Thompson and Thompson (1990b) noteis from the Lytton dialect: k’éct, ‘tanning stick’, there are no clusters of [-coNT] consonantswith similar place features. That is, in dividing the segments of Table 4 according to themajor place of articulation categories - LAB (p,p’), [coR] (t, ‘, c, c’), [DORSAL] (k, k’, k”, kv),9Glottals, although patterning with stops, are grouped differentLy here because of their effects onfollowing segments. The status of all /CVC’I roots have glottalizing effect on resonants which follow it,although questionable, I adopt those forms. These forms are referred to as glottal.izing roots (Thompson andThompson:1990). The surface froms of these CVC roots wiLl not have gLottals, but following resonant(s) in thestem will be glottalized. For exampLe: n-c’Iq’-n’-s ‘encourage s.o. to do their best.37‘move s.t. accidently’‘new dancer’‘I take s.t.’.[PHAR] (q, q’, qW, q”), it is evident that no two segments from the same place clustertogether. From this, it may be concluded that there are Obligatory Contour Principle (OCP)effects functioning to constrain identity of place in directly adjacent segments. Note thatMcCarthy (1986) defines the OCP in terms of absolute identity, i.e. “at the melodic level,adjacent identical elements are prohibited”. Here in the Nle9kepmx data that is underconsideration, it is not only strictly identical segments which are prohibited, but also partiallyidentical segments, specifically segments which are both [-coNT] homorganic (for othersimilar cases of identity of place constraints, see McCarthy (1991) and Pierrehumbert (1992).This OCP constraint against identical place specification is an underlying morphemestructure constraint, but it is not applicable at later derivational levels. This is shown by thefollowing data (30), where it is clear that identity of place is tolerated across morphologicalboundaries.(30) qwc..c..s..t..esmove-OC-CAUS-TRANS-3-3mlám-mheal-MDLk”én-natake-3-3Two other observations are worth noting from Table 4. First, it is evident that none ofthe uvulars ever cooccurs with the velars. If the velars are exclusively defined by the[nwmoE] node for place, then their failure to cooccur with the [DORSAL] segments wouldbe explained. This suggests, therefore, that the uvular segments in N4-e9kepmx might be coarticulated as both [DORSAL] and [PHARYNGEAL]. The second observation is that /9/ freelypatterns with CORONAL, DORSAL, and PHARYNGEAL segments. This would not be expected if /9/were [PHARYNGEAL] in N+e9kepmx, as it arguably is in certain Semitic languages (McCarthy1991) and in Nisgha (Shaw 1991). This suggests then that /9/ is PEAR in Me9kepmx; this38supports Bessell and Higgin’s (1991a) conclusions about its behaviour in other Interior Salishlanguages.The following is a preliminary version of the proposed Morpheme Structure Constraint,the Nle9kepmx Place Feature Constraint (31), that is in effect for root final consonantclusters.(31) Morpheme Structure Constraint* [-cont] [-cont]1.place 1place[a] [a] ROOTNext, I discuss Nle9kepnix roots in terms of the sonority relationships between thesegments in consonant clusters other than [-coNTINuT][-coNTINuT] clusters. It will beshown that most clusters follow the sonority hierarchy, although some do violate it.Table 5 documents the particular resonant (C2) - obstruent (C3) sequences which arefound. All these are cases which show that the more sonorous segments, the resonants, doindeed occur before less sonorous obstruents.It should be noted that It! and /9/ occur freely as C3, in striking contrast to the verylimited distribution of other segments in C3 position. In terms of radical underspecificationtheory, /t/ and /9/ are posited to be the least marked segments of the consonantal inventory(see, Table 3). Specifically, neither is postulated to have any place specification(CORONAL being underspecified for It!, as argued in several papers in Paradis and Prunet(1990); and /9/ not having any place specification at all). These independent hypotheses inregard to their lack of phonological place specification correlate directly with their extensivefreedom of distribution in C3.39Table 5. Cooccurrence Restrictions in RC[Oflt] root-final clustersBased on the -CC# data above, Table 5, resonants in C2 and obstruents in C3 do notviolate the sonority hierarchy as shown in (32) and (33).(32) C21+sonor1+C3[Ofl]#:qáytq’Iyt9ey’kXwüytzéltmil’tc’Iwq’céwthéw’t‘reach top’‘avoid-rain’‘kinnickinnick’‘exit’‘dish’‘visit’‘tear-small’‘?ultimate’‘rat’(33) -C2[l]+C30j#:1 mkX’ümk’qwjntc’mzm’10‘niece’‘drinking-tube’‘marmot’‘eat-soapberry-confection’‘send message’10As the other roots which have glottals in final position, there is a glottalizing effect on resonantswhich are suffixed, e.g. [zm’=cin’-m’] ‘send a message (by word).+ -+C2\C3 p p’ t k’ c c’ k k’ kE k” q q’ qW qW- - -- ++ + - +++m - - + - +m’ - - - - - -n - - + - -n’ - - + - -1 - - +- -1’ - - ÷ - -y - + - +y’ - - + - -z - - -- -z’ - - -- - -w- +- - -w’ - +.y- -..y’- -c.- +çW - -c,çW+ - + - + -+++++40It should, also, be noted that only some resonants occur in C2, i.e. y(’), l(’), and w(’),whereas the following do not occur in C2 position: /z’/, /-y(’)/, /1’/, /f’! and /fW/•Let us now turn to a consideration of the subclasses of root clusters, which entails areversal of the expected sonority relation. In the tautomorphemic root forms (34) below,fricatives are external to the aifricates(34) aifric. +fric.#:méc’x ‘blink’‘survey (one’s catch)’ücs ‘abuse’If fricatives are considered an independent class in the sonority hierarchy, as in theproposal in (25), then this would constitute a violation of the expected sonority ranking.Significantly, however, there are no examples where a fricative in C2 position precedes anaifricate in C3 position. Perhaps this suggests that the classes of stops/affricates andfricatives should be merged into a single class of obstruents on the sonority scale. A similarconclusion derives from an examination of the sequencing of glottal stop, which was shownabove to pattern with stops and fricatives. As illustrated in the data in (35), /9/ is internalto fricatives (35.a) and to the fricative resonants (35.b).(35) /9/ + C #:a. +a9 ‘eat/food’c’i ‘PLANT NAME’b. na9z ‘goat hair blanket’Further, the following show both stop-fricative sequences (36), as well as fricative-stopsequences (37).(36) stop+fric.#:9ép ‘choke’cItx’’ ‘house’n6st ‘eh?’c’éxt ‘brother-in-law’(37) fric+stop#:41qwIsp ‘buffalo’qW‘leg’ást ‘rock-cliff’X”St ‘diverge’l’at ‘friend’As these sets of data (35-37) can be accommodated by the more general version of theSonority Hierarchy which group all obstruents together:(38) Sonority Hierarchy (revised from 25):Obstruents << Nasals << Liquids << Glides << VowelsThe final class of sounds to be considered are the nasals. Roots with a nasal which occuroutside of a less sonorous element, a stop, are shown below in (39):(39) stop+nasal#:mütm ‘blue grouse’méq”m ‘swamp’Even though these roots have the same CVCC canonical forms as the roots above, the /m/in final position after a stop will be assigned syllabic status by the principles of moraficationdiscussed in § 2.1. That is, these roots surface as bisyllabic, this syllabification beingtriggered, as would be expected, by the reversal of sonority in the root-final cluster.In the following root forms, nasals which are more sonorous than fricatives also occurin the most rightmost position of a root. Again, these roots, e.g. [k”am’], will surface asbisyllabic forms as in (40):(40) fric.+nasal: kvaIn ‘yellow?’c’é4m’ ‘vegetable-strings’k”üsn’ ‘star’k’x”m’ ‘cluster’‘horse-tail’p9zm’ ‘PLACE NAME, Spuzzum’sm’ ‘balsam root’It is curious to note that the fricative/nasal forms involve glottalized nasals. On the basis ofthe available evidence, it is not yet clear whether glottalized resonants should be attributed42a less sonorous ranking than plain resonants in N4-e9kepmx (see Zec’s 1988) analysis ofKwakwala). Both nonglottalized (39) and glottalized (40) nasals trigger syllabification, butthe distributional anomaly in (40) is nonetheless striking.In summary, if the fricatives, affricates and stops class together, it appears that theN+e’kepmx root-final clusters follow the Sonority Hierarchy. Of particular note are twofacts: (i) glottal stop groups with the other stops; and (ii) a nasal external to a less sonorantsegment triggers syllabification.Finally, in order to account for the significantly constrained cooccurrence restrictions onconsonant clusters in post-nucleus positions, the N4e9kepmx Place Feature Constraint (31)is proposed to be in effect, this prohibiting adjacent consonants which have the same placespecification. -CCC(C)# RootsIn Me”kepmx, there are only 13 roots which have -CCC# in final position as shown in(41), (43) and (45), and there are only 2 roots which have a -CCCC# cluster (46). Theexamples are presented and grouped into three categories which are discussed below.The following -CCC# clusters of roots in (41) all begin with a resonant, followed by anobstruent cluster which patterns like the CC# clusters discussed in § /+wéy’st/ ‘fall’/k’len’tx’”/ ‘tule’II/q’áy9”! ‘?cascara’/pénckl ‘summer’11The forms in the Thompson and Thompson (Thonipson-EnglishDictionaiy, ‘1990b) do not have any surface forms withthe glottal, i.e. q’éy’=e4p, although the root is I.isted in Thompson and Thompson (Tlwrnpson-EnglishDicuonary:1990b)as ‘—final.43/wew’qi’/12 ‘fish’Assuming that syllables are bimoraic, at this point it is an open question as to how theresidual consonants in these clusters should most appropriately be represented. The syllablestructure motivated thus far is (42):(42) 6/Lp e n c k ‘summer’This question can be more fully addressed when non-final clusters are investigated.Available evidence, see (45) below, suggests one C can be adjoined as non-moraic to theright-edge of a syllable, and that the final C, being in word-final position, would be licensedby extraprosodicity.Moving on to a consideration of the second category, note that the -CCC# forms in (43)all have a nasal in the final consonantal position. As this nasal will trigger syllabification, theimmediately preceding C will function as an onset, and the antepenultimate C will close thepreceding syllable. Thus, all of these consonants fall within the clear parameters ofN+e9kepmx syllable structure discussed in sections 2.1 and 2.2, as shown in (44) and (11).(43) /mxéc’xn/ ‘?purple-huckleberry’/qwistm!‘(a type of) saskatoon”3/qwtm/‘?stumble’/qIcec’kn/ ‘barn swallow’(44) \ 6,I.Li.LVCCN12The stem form, n-q’m-wew’q4, ‘Bald Mountain, PLACE NAME’ only occurs as a compound. Note this may bea diminutivized form. The Lw’] could be copied from the initial segment. This type of reduplication isdiscussed in chapter 5.form could be from the root fq”y ‘ripe’, -s ‘T, -tm ‘?‘. Nora Jimmie, my mother, states this type ofsaskatoon specifically refers to the type for drying.44The forms in (45) do not appear to have any particular pattern except that a fricativeIs! is present in each of the three forms. This follows from the idiosyncratic behaviour offricatives discussed in the previous section. For the present, these forms will be analyzedlike those in (44), with the first C of the sequence being moraic and with the prosodic statusof the final 2 consonants indeterminate as in (42):(45) kéy’i9st ‘groan’sIsq’t ‘(Place Name) Gody’to9üstk ‘catch-fish’The following -CCCC# forms in (46) can be syllabified as below’4 if the nasals are syllabic.(46) k”iik”.wns ‘cranberry’qWilx.qn ‘wolverine’(47) -CCCC#6tt /kW It k’’ w n s ‘cranberry’The final form in (46) provides evidence of medial clusters which cannot be accommodatedsimply into a syllable which is maximally bimoraic with a single C onset. That is, the medial[x] must somehow be prosodically parsed, assuming that N4-e9kepmx is a language withexhaustive syllabification, at least up to word margins. For present purposes, it will beassumed that a maximum of one consonant can be adjoined as non-moraic to the rightedge’5 of a bimoraic syllable, i.e.:using my native speaker judgement in syllabifying the forms, I represent the syllable boundaries witha period (.).15Whether this C adjoins to the rightmost mora or directly to the syllable node is immaterial, to thepresent analyses.45(48) A/t /1qW 1 1 x q n ‘wolverine’In summary, the forms do not provide systematic or broad-based evidence for multi-consonantal root-final clusters. They do, however, behave like the -CC# root forms. Itherefore conclude that the same analysis can be made for the -CCC# and -CCCC# rootforms. CCVC RootsThe occurrence of #CC- clusters in root forms as shown above is quite rare; there are34 out of a possible 2029 roots. These #CC- clusters are shown in Table 6. below:\C2 p p’ t k’ c c’ k k’ k” kw q q’ qW qW x” XW m n 1 y -y w cClp(’) ++k(’) ++C +C’ +q(’) +qW++qW++ +S -- +x +xw ++w +z +++çW++Table 6. Cooccurrence Restrictions in Onset Clusters of Root forms.Of interest is the fact there are 29 occurrences of the glottal stop /9/ in the C2 position, e.g.c’9al ‘tingle’. This suggests that /9/ has some kind of unique status which permits it to occurbetween the syllable onset C and the nuclear mora. There are other issues regarding /9/, but46these will be discussed shortly. This leaves only 6 forms which have consonants other thanthe /9/ in C2 position. These forms are shown in (49). As they seem clearly to be ofmarginal status, no attempt will be made to modify the general, broadly based syllablecanons of the language in order to accommodate these apparently anomalous forms.(49) plIt ‘priest’ LOANqwxwp ‘rustle’ EXPLETWE and ‘snowb(r)ush’9kén ‘what-happen?’+k’Iw ‘climb’stá ‘snowb(r)ush’swét’6 ‘who’The first three examples above follow from the sonority hierarchy of (38) whereas thelast two examples violate it. Interestingly, /+/ and Is! are the only two fricatives which arecluster-initial. (These are the few of the examples which do not have a /9/ in C2 position.)Further, as evident from the leftmost column in Table 6, /4’! and Is! are the only class of C,segments which systematically do not occur with a /9/ in C2 position.’7 The resonants inTable 6. are not a complete list, but only the ones listed occur with a /9/ in C2 position.Interestingly, resonants do not occur external to an obstruent.The forms in (49) above are questionable on a variety of grounds. The first one is aloan; the second is an onomatopoeic form (which coincidentally has a second synonymousform, the last example above). It can, perhaps, be analysed as [q4p] (IqwxINcHoATwE)The third example has a glottalizing effect on the prefix attached to it as shown below (50):(50) c’-kén(’)-m(’) ‘how?, why?, what is the matter?’PREF?-what-happen-MDLGiven the paucity of such forms, no conclusive arguments can be made regarding how they16Thompson and Thompson (1990b) represent the root form for /swêt/ as /wêtf. The nominative Cs—] prefixing/wêt/ and resulting in Cs—wet]. However, the augmentative reduptication on a /CCVC/ form typicaLLy surfacesas Csu—swêt] (see 3.1).17Given the existence of I#lcç)/, /#q”9/, i#q’I, /x,x”, the absences of Ik’(’)/, /#q”9I, I1q”I and /I areinterpreted as accidental, gaps.47should be parsed.A couple of questions arise as a result of the observation that in all the other initial#CC- forms, the second C is the glottal stop, /9/. Could the /9/ actually be the inchoativemorpheme which is infixed between the first consonant and the vowel of a #CVC root? Orcould these IC’?! forms be underlyingly represented as IC’! segments? Consider first theinchoative morpheme [9], an infix’ which is inserted between the initial consonant and vowelof a strong root, that is a root which is underlyingly marked for stress as in (51.a). [9] is anindependent allomorph of the inchoative, /-p/, which is suffixed to a weak root, that is, aroot which is not marked forstress and whose vowel is generally a schwa, as in (5Lb):(51) a. strong Root:q”?é4 ‘become dull coloured’q94 I?/qW/ qW9ajc‘become rancid’b. weak Root:q’sp=ékst ‘hand, arm gets numb’numb-INC=handThompson and Thompson (1992) refer to some forms, [C9VC], which appear to beinchoative, but which cannot be conclusively identified as such because they do not havecorresponding simplex /CVC/ forms. Since there is no evidence that there arepolymorphemic [CVC+ INCHOATIVE] I adopt Thompson and Thompson’s analysis of these asunanalyzable monomorphemic roots. An example they provide to support their argumentis (52):(52) [c9iI’9 ‘it bleeds’*/CIIW/The second question is whether these forms actually have an independent segment1The glottal infix [1 is discussed in stop in C2 position, or whether they can be analyzed as having an initial glottalizedIC’!. Evidence in support of the independent status of /9/ in such clusters is shown below;an initial C’ can cooccur with [9], as for example (53):(53) c’9o1 ‘tingle, sting’k’w’ ‘loss of power’‘sink, submerge’Of further interest and relevance is the fact that CCVC roots may be divided into twodistinct classes with respect to the allomorphic realization of the AUGMENTATIVE. One smallsubset of these forms, as discussed by Thompson and Thompson (1992), marks theaugmentative by a non-productive infix /-‘y-/ ---> [9ijl after the root vowel, i.e. by[CCV-9i-C]. In contrast to forms in (54)a., those in (54)b. form the augmentative byprefixation of a usual reduplicative (C)CVC- template20:(54) a. /cés/ ‘come’c9é[9i]s ‘AUG form’&céck/ ‘mother-in-law’Icé[9i]ck ‘mother-in-laws’190ther augmentative infixes inserted after the stressed vowel are I—ce—I and /—z’e—/. For this analysisI do not discuss these variants any further.20other canonical stem forms which have the augmentative infix I—7y / are shown below in the followingexamp1es‘?similars-9=éstm ‘cross—sex in—laws-9=é[9i]stm ‘AUG./qéck/ ‘older brotherqe[9i]ck ‘older brothersInésl ‘gone[9i]s ‘they goné[?i]t ‘we gocü[9i]t ‘they say’qW4nu[?iJt pt.. persons accompanyki[’i]c-x ‘p1. persons arrive at a particular pLace’x”s-x’’esI[?i]t ‘they waLk, travel’c.f. x”’zs-x”es’it ‘s.o. travels a lot’49b. /c9éx”/ ‘happy’ce-céx” ‘AUGMENTATIVE form’cece9c9éxw‘AUGMENTATIVE form’/qw9ey/ ‘?withered’qwa9qw9ey‘(of many flowers) withered’Referring again back to Table 6, it is clear that the glottals occur internal to all fricativesexcept for &/ and Is!. Interestingly, these two are the only C1 segments which systematicallyhave other consonants in C2 position.As discussed in the § 2.3.1, the fact that /9/ and /Q21 can occur next to each other inviolation of the place contraint provides evidence that the /9/ in N4e9kepmx is notrepresented by the PHARYNGEAL place node. The representations of these two stops areshown below (55):(55) 9 QLARYNGEAL PLACE[coNsT.GLorrls] PHARYNGEALA sampling of the 280/715 other root types, i.e. other than C, CV, CVC, CCVC andCVCC, provides five further #CC- initial forms. These ‘other types’ are documented belowin (56).(56) /caxJ ‘spruce’/q’y’ü9e/ ‘pull-down’!qwtjxa9/’‘louse’/çqwqwne/22‘a type of duck’/céck/ ‘mother-in-law’One could perhaps assume many of the stems with initial clusters were originally /CVC-!refers to the set of uvuLar stops.22 is possibLe that this and the following form are diminutive.50forms from which the V1 has been deleted. 391 documented cases of CVCVC22root formsare recorded by Thompson and Thompson; however, I do not discuss them further here.In summary, I conclude that there are very few #CC- root forms and the vast majorityof those have /9/in C2 position. On the basis of this extensive survey of canonical root form,I conclude that the basic syllable structure of N4’e9kepmx root morphemes generally allowsa maximum of one C in onset position. One systematic deviation from this is the seemingwell-formedness of a /9/ in second position. For the very few forms, (49) and (56) whichhave an initial cluster other than #C9, the C at the left margin will, in the present analysis,be considered extraprosodic. These conclusions are exemplified below (57).(57)a. 6 b. 6 6 6/I / I /cj.ka9X rn(47) ‘spruce’ (38) ‘purple huckleberry’c. 6 6/.u /L9 us <tk>(45) ‘catch fish’These syllabifications allow a maximun of one C as extraprosodic in initial position anda maximum of two in final position, with the proviso that at least one of them is coronal.2.3.2 N4e9kepmx Derived Stems2.3.2.1 #CC- derived stemsN+e9kepmx derived stems exhibit many more #(C)((C)C)- clustering possibilities. Thefollowing analysis investigates these complex sets of clusters, using two major assumptions.The first is, as discussed earlier, that the several sonorancy-based groupings are analyzed22Thi List includes aLL voweL—types.51independently. Secondly, clusters are also differentiated according to how they are derived,that is in terms of Kiparsky’s (1973) distinction between phonologically-derived andmorphologically-derived clusters. They result from consonants being juxtaposed to oneanother through morphological concatenation. Common sources of such clusters include thefollowing prefixes /he9-/, the 2nd person possessive marker; Is-I, the nominative marker; In-Ior /n-/, the locative prefix or 1st person possessive; and /9es-/ which is the stative prefix.Cluster derivation is schematized below in (58):(58) Morphologically derived: [C[CC]rt]Phonologically derived stems are created by the application of some phonologicalprocess to a string. All the phonologically derived forms to be considered here entail caseswhere an unstressed schwa has been deleted from a weak root, resulting in the neighbouringconsonants now surfacing adjacent to one another. This type of situation is schematizedbelow (59), where C represents any Ne9kepmx consonant:(59) Phonologically derived: /CC=ekst/ -->[CC=ekst]Under the alternative hypothesis that [] in weak roots is epenthetic, rather than partof the underlying root, the generalizations which I described here as pertaining to“phonologically derived” stems would in fact be root structure constraints.Interestingly, where unstressed V deletion might be applicable to a monomorphemicstem of the canonical form #C9VC, the results are either a bi- or tn-consonantal cluster withthe [9] generally moving after the following vowel as shown in (60)a. below, whereas in(60)b. the /9/ remains in the original position:(60) a. .fc’9o1 n-c’ól’=ñs ‘have one’s eyes sting’LOC-acrid-eye23There are two others, but I do not discuss them here since they are not as common as the ones listedabove.52fc’9a1 n-c’á9=kst ‘hand tingles (from cold)’LOC-tingle=handb. Ik”ek s-k’9ák ‘arrival’NOM-arrive%/k9éx s-k9ex=I’t ‘male youth’NOM-male youth=childConsidering first phonologically-derived clusters by the rule given in (59), the followingTables 7-13 document according to manner of articulation, the #CC sequences, which areattested in N+e9kepmx. On the basis of these tabulations, the present analysis identifies anumber of significant co-occurrence restrictions on place and sonorancy. Note that thesetables represent only #CC and not the #CCC-clusters which will be discussed later in § 7 shows which stops and affricates can cluster with each other in phonologicallyderived contexts.C1\C2 p p’ t c c’ k k’ k” k” q q’ qW qW h “p - - + + + + - + - + - + - - (+)24p’ - - - - + - - - - + - - +- (+)+ - - - -- + - + - + - + -- ++ - - - - - + - + + + + + +- +C + - - - -- + - +- +- -- + +C’ - - - - -- + - + + + + + +- +k - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- ++ - +- + + - - -- + + - -- +k4” - - - + + - - - - - - - - -- +k’s” - - - + + + - - - - - + - -- +q + - - - + + - - - - -- - -- (+)q’ + - + + - + - - - - - - - -- +qW -- +- + - - - - - - - - -- +qW - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- +Table 7. Cooccurrence Restrictions in #CC[COfltI clusters of derived stemsAs expected, obstruent consonant clusters occur where they do not occur as initialclusters in underlying root forms. In general, the vowels in ICC! roots undergo -de1etion24The bracketed forms are inchoativized forms.53when unstressed, thereby creating #CC- stems.Again, as discussed in § 2.3.1, there are no instances where obstruent clusters in stemsoccur with the same place feature. The constraint previously formulated as (31) can nowbe replaced by a more generalized revised Place Feature Constraint shown below (60) whichoutlaws homorganic stop clusters:(60) N+e9kepmx Morpheme Structure Constraint on Place Features:* [[-cont] [-cont]Place Place[al [a]Given the strength of this constraint against adjacent homorganic clusters, it is significant tonote that p’, a [LABIAL] consonant, cooccurs with a rounded consonant, as shown in thefollowing forms (61).(61) /pqW/ pqwekst ‘have rash on one’s hands’skin eruptions=handpqw=use9‘(of potato) scabby’skin eruptions=round obj.The fact that a [LABIAL] consonant !p’/ can cooccur with a rounded consonant may beconsidered to be strong evidence that rounding in N4-e9kepmx is not represented either byor under the [LABIAL] node, since this would violate the constraint in (60). As shown in Table7, rounded velars as C1 only cooccur with coronals or a non-rounded uvular as C2 (viz. k’’)’,k”c, k”’c’, k’’q), and rounded uvulars as C1 only cooccur with coronals (e.g. qwt qwc).Furthermore, rounded velars and uvulars in C2 position only cooccur with labials or coronalsas C1. These cooccurrence restrictions on rounded consonants will follow directly from thepostulated constraint in (60) if the true labial consonants !p, p’, m! are represented by a[LABIAL] place specification in a feature geometric model as in (62)a. below, whereas roundedobstruents will be represented with an independent distinctive feature [round] under the54[DoRsAL] node, as in (62):(62) a. /p/Place[LABIAL]b. /kv/ c. /qW/Place,,,/ fce[DORSAL] . [ooi.su] [PIR][round] [round]Interestingly, glottalized obstruents freely cooccur as shown below (63):(63) p’c’-I‘k”c’q’k’c’k”’- k”c’-q’c’- q’k’This freedom of cooccurrence follows directly from the fact that [glottalization] is not aplace feature and, therefore, not constrained by (60); rather it is a dependent of theLARYNGEAL node higher in the feature geometry representation.The following chart, Table 8, represents #C1[+cont]C2[cont]]stem positions.C1\C2 p p’ t k’ c c’ k k’ k” k”’ q q’ qW qW c+SSCzz,xxwx+ + + - + + + + - + + + + + ++- + + - - + - + + + + + - +- -- + - - -- +- + - - - ++ + + + + - + - - - - -- ++ + + - + + - -- + - -- + ++ + + + + + + +- + + + - - +- -- + + + - - - - - -- + +-- + - -- + + - - - - -Table 8. Cooccurrence Restrictions in #Cl[+COflL]C-clusters, of stems:The following examples (64) have rounded velar fricatives adjacent to rounded velarglottalized stops. The Morpheme Structure Constraint appears to need further revisionssince the following examples have segments which have the same place of articulation.55(64) /xk’7 xwkvp ‘dry gulley with gravel, developed fromcrevice-INCHOATIVE earlier erosionSimilarily, rounded velars will also cooccur with labial stops, both plain and glottalized, as:(65) /x’p/ xvpóm ‘pull straight out of ground’rise straight up-MDLx’p-Iyx ‘rise, get up’rise straight up-AUTIxpI x”p’-m ‘dig up, pull’rip out-MDL/xq”7 x”q”éke9-s ‘prune s.t. (trees) from s.t.’lessen = hand-3Moreover, uvular fricatives will cooccur with uvular stops as (64), although they sharea common place feature. The status of fricatives preceding stops also raises questions inregard to their independent versus merged position in the sonority hierarchy (or theirextrametricality) as discussed earlier. The following are examples which support the fact thatidentity of place is not a crucial factor between fricatives and stops as it is with stops.Further evidence and discussion will precede a revision of the Morpheme StructureConstraint.(66) /qI q-p ‘tight, snug’wedge-INCq=etxv‘(of animal) short haired’short fur=fur?Uvular fricatives also occur with rounded uvular stops as shown below, but only with areduplicated form:(67) ‘several snore’AUG-snore-?-noseFurther Cj[+COflt] segments cooccur withC2[+CQflt] segments in N4-e9kepmx #CC- clustersin stems, as shown in Table 9. The segments which are identical are given neither a (+) nor(-) designation.56+ S Z Z’ X Xx” X ç jW ‘ -y h+ - - - - + + + + - -S + - + + + - + + - - + +- + + - + -ç - - + - - - - - - - - - - -z - + + - - + + + - + - + - +x - - - - - - - - - -xw- + - - - - - - - - -- + - + + - - - + -- + - + - - - -- + -c - - - - - - - -çW + + - - - - - - + - - - -Table 9. Cooccurrence Restrictions in #Cl[+COflt]C2[+COflt]- of derived stems.It should be noted that !h! and fyi do not cluster with any other fricative when in C1position.The Morpheme Structure Constraint, in general, seems to be in effect. Note once againthat a difference in [continuant] can overide identity of place, as // and Ic! differ only by the[-continuant] feature of the latter segment.Do fricatives comply with the Morpheme Structure Constraint (60)?The following examples (68) have fricative-fricative onset clusters:(68) /c/ cs-óm ‘roast-drying of meat over fire’thy roast-MDL/sz9/ sz’=éks-tn’ ‘toy’toy=hand-INST!zsI zS=éwt ‘in the wilderness, etc.’bend-low=?!x!wçwp‘cough excessively’cough-INCThese examples show that the Morpheme Structure Constraint (60) does not apply toadjacent fricatives in stems.There are also morphologically derived stems where #CCC- clusters will have two57fricatives, +- and s- prefixes25,preceding an obstruent, as in (69):(69) +-s-cm=éyt-kt ‘our children’1pIPOSS-NOM-small=offspring-2+n-s-cm=éy’t ‘my children’1sgPOSS-NOM-small=offspringAn exceptional stem form which has #CCC, that is no vocalic segment that is[+sonorant] or [nasal], is (69)26.(69) x”st ‘EXPLETIVE, AN ENDEARMENT TERM USED BY ELDERS TO YOUNGER PEOPLE’Expletives as refered to by Thompson and Thompson are forms such as (69) which does notnecessarily mean the same as in English.As to be expected, derived stems shown below (70) can also have maximally -CCCCCclusters:(70) cu4’=qs-x-t-iyxs ‘they point a gun at him’disconnect=point-BENE-TRANS-3-3cü+=qs-x-te ‘point the gun at him’disconnect=point..BENE-IMPAs a speaker, I intuitively would syllabify this form as (71):(71) cu+qs.xtiyxs ‘they point a gun at him’?cu.qs.xtiyxs27*cu.qsx.tiyxsA templatic representation of the above forms are shown below:(72) Syllabification representation of -CCCC- clusters:a.6 6icu+qs xtiyxs25lnterestingly, note that this particular form ends in a —GCCC# cluster, s-cm=éyt-kt.26This is an expletive form Thompson and Thompson (1990:417) usually said three times by an elderly personto a younger person, especially a child, to show affection.current theoretical frameworks do not prosodically represent this form as I do, therepresentation of the former form does not intuitively seem appropriate. However, the following form isintuitively incorrect. Nonetheless, this form requires a prosodic representation which is shown in (72)c.58b.6 6 6‘Ncu4- qs xtiyxsc. 6 6JIJI LJIJI JIJI JJLII ii •11cu+ qsx tiy x SThe medial syllable in the representation in (72.b) is exactly what Shaw (1993) motivates asthe structure of minor syllables in Semai, Temiar, and Kammu (Mon Khmer) and in Berber.Such syllables function as monomoraic and non-nuclear. The representation in (76.c) followsBagemihl’s (1991) hypothesis that only “Simple Syllables”, i.e. maximally CRVC, are parsed;other residual segments remain licensed only at the moraic level. Such an appeal to moraiclicensing is not otherwise a crucial factor in Ne9kepmx. Other than the [q] in thisparticular form all the other stranded segments are linked to a fricatives. It may benecessary to conclude that voiceless fricatives segments are extraordinary.The following Table 10 is a representation of #C1IOIC21O clusters of stems inNe9kepmx. Recall these clusters are phonologically-derived forms rather thanmorphologically-derived forms, and their examples adhere to the sonority hierarchy. Aquestion to consider is whether these sequences follow the Morpheme Structure Constraint(50) I presented earlier § 2.3.1. and revised in § + s s c x x” x “ hp + + + - - + - + -p’ + + - - - - + + -+ - - - + + + + -+ + - - + + - - -C + + - - - + + + +C’ + + - -- + + +k + + - - + + - - -k’ + + + - + + - - -+ + - - - -- + -k” + + - -- + - - -q + + - - - - - -q’ - + - - - + - - -qW + + - - - -- + -qW- + - - - - - - -Table 10. Cooccurrence Restrictions in #Cl[COfltIC2[+C lt] ClustersAs discussed in an earlier § 2.3.1 (37), fricatives and stops with the same place features canco-occur, thus, no additional revisions are necessary to the constraint in (60). Note, howeverthat although they do cooccur they do so less frequently.The following Table 11 provides coocurrence restrictions for #C[sofl]C+coflt]}stemsclusters. Contrary to the data provided above, these forms violate the sonority hierarchy,since nasals are more sonorous than fricatives. Also, very few glottalized segments cooccurwith other segments in stem-initial positions.+ s s c x x”m + + - - + - + +II - - - - + - - -1 - - + - + - - +y + - - - - - + -z - + + - + - + -w - + - - - + + +- - -- - - - -+ - - - -- + -çW + + - - - - - +Table 11. Coocurrence Restrictions in #C[+cont]C+contllstems clustersThe above forms show no clear place feature constraint. Segments which have [roundjfeatures also cooccur.No obvious explanation for the violation of the sonority constraint is evident. This60could perhaps be due to the special status resonants have, that is, they may be extrametricalsince this does not happen with the segments in initial position in root forms.C1/C2 p p’ t k’ c c’ k k’ k” k” q q’ qW qW 9m - - + + + + + - + - + + + - -n + - - - + - + - - - - - - - (+)1 + - - - - - - - - - + - - + (+)y - - - - - + + + - - + - - + (+)z - - - + - - - - + - - + - - +w + - + + - - - + + - - + - - +-- + - -- + + - - - - - - -- - -- + + - + - - - - - - +çW - - - - - - - - - - - - -- +Table 12. Coocurrence Restrictions in #C[+cofltCcoflt]]stems clustersInterestingly, some of the resonants do not cooccur with stops when both have thesame place feature, but other resonants can cooccur with resonants with similar features.Segments which can cooccur have the following features: [+coRoNAL], [+RouND]. Forexample, the [y] can cooccur with [s], which is marked [+c0R0NAL]. Another cooccurrenceenvironment involves velars which are marked for [+R0uND]. Segments with the feature[DoRs?.t], [‘y] and [k, k’], can also cooccur. On the other hand, this cooccurrence does notoccur with uvular resonants and pharyngeals. Segments which do not cooccur are thosewhich are marked for [LABIAL], [pj and [m], or those marked for the feature [PHARYNGEAL],i.e. uvular resonants and stops.There is only one glottalized resonant, [y’], which occurs in the C1 position ofN4e9kepmx stems. Examples are shown below (72):(72) y’h-ém ‘do s.t. well’s-ih-éms ‘good?’y’-wi9x- ‘get better, improve’y’i-ép ‘get sick again, relapse’The following Table 13. represents the cooccurrences of resonants in C1 and C2 position.61C1/C2 m m’ n n’ 1 1’ y y’ z z’ w w’ -y c c’ c”’ ç.’Wm (+)- + - + + - - + - - - - - + - - --- + - - - - - - - - - - - - -II + + - - - - - - - + - - - - -1 - - - - - - - - - - + - - - + - + -y + + - - - - - - - - - - + + + + + -z - + + - + + + - - - + + - - + + - -w + - + - + + - - - - + + - - + - - --y - - + - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- + - - - + - - - - -çW - - -- + - + + - - - - - - - - - -Table 13. Coocurrence Restrictions in #C[son]C[sofl]}stems clustersIt can be seen that segments which have identical place features do not cooccur, asin (73).(73) zy-ém ‘make channels for water to flow e.g. irrigation’In conclusion, N4-e9kepmx segments do not cooccur with segments which haveidentical place features except for adjacent [continuant] segments. Examples below show(74):(74) nh-éh ‘named’ch-ém ‘s.t. is put away’shéw ‘yawn’s-zh-éw’s ‘second child’2.4 Prosodic Categories: Minimal Word and Foot2.4.1 N+e9kepmx Minimal WordIn order to motivate an analysis of the Me’)kepmx minimal word as a bimoraic foot,three arguments are presented. I use some of the same arguments McCarthy & Prince(1990) use for the Arabic minimal word, namely smallest stems, truncated vocatives andborrowed loan words, each of which involves a minimal bimoraic foot, as in (75).62(75) Minimal Bimoraic Foot:a. Foot Foot6 66L2.4.2 Lexical-smallest stemThere are very few N4’e9kepmx smallest-stem monosyllabic lexical items that arebimoraic. They are shown in (76):(76) cuk”’ ‘finished’cu9 ‘(continually) trying’he” ‘high’Most bimoraic lexical stems have a consonant which affixes to the CVC bimoraicminimal word resulting in CVCC or CCVC canonical structures. One is the nominativeprefix, s-, which attaches to the root, as in for example [s-naq”9 ‘a stolen object’. The otheris the inchoative which is either an infix [9], with strong roots, or a suffix [-()p] with weakroots (see § 1.3.1 (18) and 2.3.2 (51)). The deletion of the vowel in the weak root resultsin the following forms: i) strong roots, [m[9]e’I]/ ‘become rested, and ii) the weak root: [mtp] ‘become cramped from sitting too long’.However, a stem such as [CjtXv] ‘house’ is a CVCC form which can still be analyzedas a bimoraic root, plus an additional segment.Examples from English loan words also have bimoraic forms as in (77):(77) English loan N+e”kepmxized formtea tiyiron “ayncat pussoap supIn summary, the N4’e”kepmx smallest stems must be one of the following: CVC,CCVC, CVCC, which can all be represented bimoraically. N4-e”kepmx smallest stems canbe represented as in (78):63(78) Mm word = [pp.jóa. CVC b. CCVC c. CVCC6 61 tC VC CC VC C VC<C>2.4.3 N4-e9kepmx Truncated VocativesN+e9kepmx truncated vocatives, as in many other languages, are minimal wordsconsisting of monosyllabic or disyllabic bimoraic feet. Examples of N+e9kepmx names (79)and kin terms (80) which have been truncated to bimoraic forms are shown below:(79) Personal names: Vocative forms:C’u’sinek C’u9Lapina LapiSuli SuliCece9 CecSinci9 Si(y)n(80) Kin terms: Vocative forms:skixza9 Kix ‘mother’Yeye’ Yey ‘grandmother’There is another kinship form, 9ep, which does not have an equivalent English gloss,but it is used to address an older sibling or cousin, male or female. Following theN4-e9kepmx minimal word constraint, 9ep is a bimoraic monosyllabic minimal word. Otherkinship terms are not truncated to bimoraic minimal words and are therefore not discussed.These truncated vocative forms confirm that the minimum word in N+e9kepmx is abimoraic foot. Interestingly, forms such as [lapi] and [suli] show that this can be satisfied bya sequence of two monomoraic syllables, as well as by a single bimoraic syllable as illustratedin (78). In chapter 3 the descriptive analyses of the five types ofNe9kepmx reduplicationprocesses will be discussed and presented.64Chapter 3. N+e9kepmx Reduplication: Basic Types and Previous AnalysesThe N4e9kepmx language has five types of morphological reduplication processes.Three of these reduplication processes, augmentative, diminutive, and out-of-control, arevery productive, whereas the other two types, characteristic and affective, are not productive(Thompson and Thompson: 1992).In the first section of this chapter a description of each of these processes will be given.The reduplication processes may be associated with more than one meaning; these will bepresented along with the data. Different representations of the various canonical forms anda description of each of the independent morphological processes will be presented. Thespecffic target and base of each process which will be discussed, although a more detailedexplanation of the prosodic and morphological bases will be presented in Chapter 5. Lastly,a discussion of each copied template will be presented, stating whether the template eitherprefixes or suffixes its targeted base.The second section, 3.2, will consist of a discussion on the interaction of variousreduplication processes. One occurrence of each reduplication type is the usual for a stem,but application of two or more different processes can be common; In these cases, theprocesses not only occur independently of each other, but can be templatically adjacentwithin a stem.Each N+e9kepmx reduplication type undergoes phonological processes that are ‘acrossthe-board’ in that they also occur in other phonological environments. These processes willbe discussed in more detail in chapter 5.This chapter, a descriptive analysis of each of the five types of N+e9kepmxreduplication, refers to the different canonical patterns of the copied base/form and thedifferent canonical targets of the copy. Presented in the first section, 3.1., are basic types65in the: augmentative, diminutive and out-of-control, characteristic and affective. In § 3.2.multiple co-occurrences of N4’e9kepmx reduplication will be discussed, and in § 3.3 previousanalyses of Me9kepmx reduplication will be presented.3.1 Basic Types of Reduplication3.1.1 N4e9kepmxcin Augmentative Reduplication: CVC-/CVNe9kepmx augmentative (AuG) reduplication is used to express the collective,intensifier and repetitive forms. Thompson and Thompson (1992) state these forms are partof a general notion of “augmented”, interpreted differently according to stem-type, (e.gnominatives, statives and pronominals). Other pluralizing processes in N+e9kepmx, thesewill be discussed briefly in this section, this thesis discusses the most common form whichcopies the initial CV(C) of the root, and prefixes it to the stem as shown below in (1):(1) {(PREFIx)ICV(C) + (suFFTx(Es))JsThM--> [(PREFIx)CV(C)-%fC7(C)..(surnx(Es))JSThMaugIn general, as represented by the brackets the copied form can either be a CVC- or a CV-prefix.Shown below are CVC- examples where (2) a. is a collective form, (2) b. is an intensifierform, and (2) c. is a repetition of action.(2) a. CVC- collective forms:fk’én’i k’n’- k’én’i ‘ears’AUG-ear%fai +c-+ái’ ‘They are cold.’AUG-coldb. Intensifier:%fcék ck-cék ‘very cool’1Thompson and Thompson (1992) and other SaLishanists note that there is a transitive and intransitivedistinction between the forms. Here cold is an intransitive, therefore, subject is plural; whereas atransitive form would pluraLize the object. H. Davis (p.c.) states this is actually an ergative/absoLutivedistinction.66AUG-cool*/XWéS‘something is greasy’AUG-grease-t-3-3c. Repetitive:‘s.o. twists strands together’AUG-twist-?%fpu9 p’u9-p’u9-e-cñt ‘continuously flatulating’AUG-fiatulate-RESULTIVE-REFLcu9-cu9=qmn ‘to hit s.o. in the head’AUG-punch=headCVC- forms can also have one of a number of prefixes, including NOMINATIVE, LOCATIVE,and STATrVE; in addition, compound forms can be attached before the stems, resulting in thefollowing (3):(3) Collective:s-k’m-Ic’mk= éy’t ‘nieces’NOM-AUG-niece=agentn-k’ot-k’tni-m’-tn ‘fishing places in creek’LOC-AUG-rod-fish-MDL-INST9es-qX’-qiX’ ‘having many scars’STAT-AUG-scar‘lots of dirt on them’many-LIG-AUG-dirtThe forms in (4) are also CVC- augmentatives. However, in these forms either thecopied template has different consonants than the base, or the copied vowel has not beenreduced to a schwa, in contrast to examples in (3) above.(4) a. collective: q”i9-q”üy’3 ‘it is cloudy’AUG-cloudp’ac-p’ac-t ‘burned in several places (skin)’AUG-burn-IMk’l’-k’l’-mmn’ ‘scissors’AUG-cut-sheet-INST2Another reduplicative form for this root is c’up-’up-ix grow twisted and cLimbing.3This particular form onLy occurs in the reduplicative form, that is it does not occur in a singular form.For example, *q’üy is not a singular lexical form.67k’l-k’l-t-és ‘cut s.t. up into many pieces’AUG-cut-TRANS-?The first form can be accounted for by a CVC- copy in which: (i) the [(ij has reducedto a schwa, then (ii) the [y’] has become [j9]. In the second form the vowel retains itsoriginal quality since it is followed by a pharyngeal which has a lowering effect. The last twoexamples associated with the retracted schwa in the root, but the {+PHA YNGEAL] feature isdeleted or not copied, while the retracted surfaces as a glottalized 1’. I can nOt account forthis at this time, though \fk’ is possibly a glottalizing root, since the [n], the final C of theINSTRUMENT suffix, has been glottalized. Although this seems to only occur with this form,other forms have neither the glottalized [1’] nor the retracted [1] as shown in the last exampleabove.Other interesting forms below are associated with a repetitious meaning. They have an-e’ suffix in between the copied form and the target form, as shown below. The form alsohas no vowel reduction of the copied form, though the last example has the last vowel of theroot deleted.(5) %J1woy’ cwoy[e91cwoyt ‘doze off and on’AUG-?-sleep-IMciy-e9-cIy=kst4 ‘sequences of five repeated’AUG-REPETIVE-open=handn-ciy-e-ci=ks=qin-m ‘five times five’LOC-AUG-REPETIVE-open?=hand=head-MIDDLEThe other main canonical type of N+e9kepmx reduplication is CV-, as shown below:(6) a. CItXW ci-cItx”’ ‘houses’AUG-housefch c3-ch-e ‘s.ts. put away’AUG-arrange-?MDLb. Ic’iy-t k’i-X’Iy-t ‘be still, motionless’AUG-still4other augmented forms of this root have the foliowing prefix, ci—.68sqThqwy= ép ‘strawberries’NOM-AUG-npe=bottom?This alternation of the copied domain shown in the (6.a) examples seem to be anObligatory Contour Principle (OCP) effect as stated by McCarthy (1986): “identical adjacentsegments are prohibited”. This principle may account for some of the CV- forms since theseparticular forms in most cases have near identical segments, e.g. cltx” --> cicitx”. If theresulting form were *cit..ciw, [c] and [t], both have coronal features which would violate theOCP assuming the reduplication process occurs, then tier conflation occurs. (McCarthy,1986) Violation of the constraint would result in near identical adjacent segments.However, there no violation with morphologically derived forms which have -C][c- asdiscussed Chapter 2. The examples in (6.b) have vowel deletion first and then glidevocalization of the /y/-> {i} as discussed earlier.The forms below considered bisyllabic root5 (Thompson and Thompson:1990) havevocalization of the glide as show in (7).(7) yéxv xiyéxv ‘teeth’AUG-toothWhereas, the form below would also be a OCP violation if a CVC were copied.(8) Jshéw s-shéw ‘they yawn’AUG-yawnThe following forms either have a glottal stop in the base or the stem form and in thecopied form (9):(9) ..fcex ce-céx” ‘glad, happy’AUG-?happyci9c9I1v‘bleed in several places’AUG-bleedfc’z c’o9-c óz ‘be rather dark, a little dark’65There are many of these bisyl.l.abic roots, therefore there can potentiaLLy be many, many examples of thissort.6T&T state that this has an unexpected meaning.69AUG-darkc’a9-c”áq” ‘get very wet, several get wet’AUG-wet.fc’é n-c’e9-c’e94-=qmn ‘have one’s head get cold’LOC-AUG-chill=’headThese forms unlike the preceding forms do not copy the root, either copy a #CC- of thestem and insert a vowel, or they metathesize. The vowel quality of both the copy and thebase must be conditioned by the laryngeal.The examples below (10) and (11) are further examples of a CV- reduplication, theseforms are similar to the CVC-wopy, a prefix is attached before the copied form or the rootof the singular form, however the C2 of the root is not copied.(10) a. CV- Collective:fqáy n-qi-qáy-ix-kt ‘we all swim’LOC-AUG-move back and forth-AUT-2p..Jk’ey s-ICi-k’ey ‘dances’NOM-AUG-dancefcw “es-cu-cuw ‘houses built here and there’STAT-AUG-build..fcüté4 s-cu-cutél- ‘sons-in-law’STAT-AUG-son-in-lawfçWy‘burned in several places (generic)’sTAT-AUG-burnb. CV- Repetitive:%/kéy n-key-rn ‘he follows’n-ki-kéy-m ‘he keeps following’LOC-AUG-follow-MDLc. CV- Intensifier: NO EXAMPLES AT PRESENTAgain, prefixes attached to the stem are not copied as shown above (8), that is, prefixesdo not become reduplicated, but the surface forms only show the first CV- of the root. Theabove forms delete the copied vowels and the glides /y! and 7w! have vocalized to [i] and [u]respectively. The vowel alternations, of the !e/-> [} and [i] are phonologically predictable.70‘father-in-law’‘male-in-laws’The former, schwa, is a vowel reduction of either the stressed and unstressed copied vowel,and the latter is glide vocalization. (Thompson and Thompson: 1992).Also, note however in some cases as in (11), the copied form has a reduced vowel, butthe target vowel has not been deleted or reduced. Additional morphemes have, also, beensuffixed. This can be accounted for by stress reassigning cyclically, and the /e/ surfacesunstressed and does not reduce.(11) qw4..qwen..cut ‘invite people (plural) to accompany’AUG-invite-DIRECTIVE-REFLThere are several types of idiosyncracies illustrated by the augmentative reduplication.Stem forms have been lexicalized as in (12)a. Another idiosyncracy is shown below in (12)where AUGMENTATIVE reduplication appears to occur twice as shown in (12)b. The singularform ‘k’’IX’p’ does not occur. This may be accounted for by cyclic application or pluralreduplication of an inherently reduplicated form7. Also in (12)c. the both the target and thebase do not have a vowel.(12) a. JhIy’s-hi-hI’s-hi-hi-hi9STAT-AUG-AUG-father-in-lawb. ‘fleas’AUG-AUG-fleasC. .fçm“es-cm-cm-ále’=xn ‘feet are very dirty’Other cases where there is only an the reduplicated forms only occur in the augmentativeform, and it does not have a non-reduplicated lexical form (13):(13) kc-kóc ‘she is a willing worker’AUG-willingsx-sx-t ‘he makes a mistake’7pc. M.D. Kirikade71AUG-mistake-IMOther cases include other forms other than prefixation of the reduplicative affix, CVC- andCV-. Forms appear similar to the CHARACTERISTIC8reduplication pattern, for example (14).The following data are anomalous in two ways. First, if analyzed as 6.qi-prefixation (CVC-)then theC2/second 6 slot is not a complete faithful copy of the base C2. That is, in (a) [k’]is copied as [9] without the oral cavity features; in (b) the complex diphthong [ey] surfacesin the (stressed) prefix, but is reduced to the simplex nucleus [i] in the (now unstressed)base.Secondly, it is normally the case with prefixation that stress stays on the base, or shiftsrightward to a subsequent morpheme. In these data, however, stress shifts leftward onto thereduplicated prefix. Alternatively, if these data were analyzed as suffixation of areduplicative representation of the augmentative, then stress would appropriatelly remainon the (word-initial) base, but it would be the only subset of cases where augmentative wasrealized by suffixation.(14) áI’-m á-a1’-m’9 ‘very steep’AUG-high-MIDDLEkéyx kéy-kix ‘hands’AUG-handThe analysis I adopt for these anomalous form is similar to the ‘regular’ forms. However,stress has shifted from the base to the copied form.Other non-reduplicated augmentative forms include:(15) i) ablaut forms e.g. /sok””/ ‘break, smash, crack (sg.)’, /sIkv/ ‘break, smash, crack(p1)’., andii) suppletive forms. e.g. mIce9q! ‘ sit (sg.)’ and /4áq/ ‘sit (p1.)’.8This type of redupLication wiLl be discussed Later in this chapter.9T&T comment that this form is unusual.72Other forms, as mentioned in Chapter 2, are independent morphemes which are suffixedafter the stressed vowel.In conclusion, the Nle9kepmx reduplicative augmentative pattern is generally a CVCprefixed before the root. This pattern semantically referrs to plurals, intensifiers, andcollective forms. There are idiosyncrasies, although some are not necessarily relevant to thisdiscussion. However, some are explainable as discussed in the previous sections.3.1.2 Diminutive Reduplication: [-CVI/[-C]N+e’kepmx stems undergo a diminutive reduplication process which refers to a smalleritem, a small amount or a reduced amount of the base lexical form (Thompson andThompson, 1992). This process is also used for references to children’s speech orbelongings. The stem can be one of the following: simple lexical forms, lexically-pluralforms, lexically-diminutivized forms. The diminutive affix, -CV or -C, suffixes the consonantand a stressed vowel.The vowel in the diminutive reduplication affix is deleted in the environment of aconsonant, that is obstruents and resonants. The brackets in the following examples andsubsequent examples in this section designate the reduplicative affix.:(16) smIvi: fqemüt ‘hat’DIMINUTIVE: qemü[m’jt’° ‘small hat’STEM: fk”áf’e ‘box’DIMINUTIVE: ‘small box’sTEM: s-fnüye9 ‘money’DIMINUTIVE: s-nü[n’]ye9 ‘a small amount of money’STEM: s-fm-yew’ ‘lynx’DIMINUTIVE: s-myé[y]u9 ‘baby iynx’10This form and some of the fo1owing diminitivized forms have a glottalizing effect on most of theresonants. There will be further discussion of this in a subsequent section.73Of interest is the fact noted that in many cases the resonant which follows the stressed vowelof the target base is glottalized. In other cases the resonants which follow the copiedtemplate are glottalized. The above examples have glottalization of the [m, n] but not the[y, cj which Thompson and Thompson (1992) also claim to behave as a syllabic resonant.The following (17), an extension of (16), show the intermediary forms prior to voweldeletion.(17) sTEM: fqemüt ‘hat’qemü[m’u]tDIMINUTIVE: qemñ[m’]t1’ ‘small hat’sTEM: %Jk”’áx”e ‘box’DIMINUTIVE: k’”á[k’a]x”e ‘small box’VOWEL -> 0: k””á{k’]x”’e ‘small box’sTEM: s-nüye9 ‘money’s-nñ[n’u]ye9DIMINUTIVE: s-nü[n’]ye9 ‘a small amount of money’sTEM: s-fmyew’ ‘lynx’DIMINUTIVE: s-m’ye[ye]w’VOWEL -> 0: s-m-ye[y]u9 ‘baby lynx’On the contrary, the copied vowel is not deleted if the the stem (base form) or thetemplate which is reduplicated ends in a glottal stop as shown below (18):(18) smrvl: s-fpozu9 ‘animal’DIMINUTIVE: s-pzu[-zu]9RESONANTGL0rFALIzED: s-pzu[z’u]9 ‘bird (small animal)’Motivation for these derive from the reduplicative behavior of stems which have alaryngeal in the C2 position of the stem. And again note, the copied vowel is not deletedin the reduplicated forms in (19):11This form and some of the fol.Lowing diminitivized forms have a glottaLizing effect on most of theresonants. There will be further discussion of this in a subsequent section.74(19) a. xé-xe- ‘a little high’b. s-pzü9 --> s-pzü-z’u-9 ‘small bird’c. es-c’é --> 9es-c’6-c’e9 ‘s.t. small laid out’out’The forms with the 9 in the C2 position are fully regular. Compare, however, the followingwhere there is no glottal and the augmented stem has not made any compensations at thesurface form (20):(20) c’y’é-y”2 ‘little basket’Another phonological process which occurs is with phonemic forms which have a /y(’)/or /w(’)/ after the copied target. The surface forms result in [i(9)] and [u(9)] respectively asin (21).(21) 9es-c”iy ‘it is burned’‘it is burned a little’Iwóyt‘she sleeps’çwÔcwj9t ‘she takes a nap’s-néw’t ‘wind’nu-néw’-t ‘there is a wind blowing’nu-né-n-u9-t ‘there is a little breeze blowing’The following shows a derivation of the above forms:(22) ROOT/sTEM: /1wOyt/ /nu9new’t/AUG n/a nu9-new’tDIM: nu9ne-ne-w’tVOWEL DELETION: cwOwyt nu9nenw’tMORAFICATION:1q R/U ftLçW0 çwnu9 he nu 9 tOnce the DIM reduplication process has been applied, the copied vowel is deleted. Thisresults in a ‘syllable’ without a nucleus, thereby, necessitating resyllabification of the finalcLaim that the root for this form is Ic’y’éh ‘basket’.75syllable. The !y’! -> [i9] or 1w’! -> [u9j which now both have a nucleus.Other examples of diminutivization occur with English loans which have beenN+e9kepmx-ized as in (23):(23) a. k’’eü ‘pig’ k”eü[u]9 ‘little pig’b. 9épls ‘apple’ ‘)é[9jpls ‘little apple(s)’c. káh ‘car’ ká{ka]h ‘little car’ (530)ká{ka]9(23.a) stem does not have a consonant in final position, but interestingly the diminutivizedform has a glottal stop in final position. Therefore, it provides further evidence that thediminutive template is really -CV. The following forms are not possible *kwesüs or *kwesüsu.The English loan [kah], provides fwther evidence the [h} patterns with the [9], a laryngeal.The diminutive does not necessarily need to fall on the stressed vowel of the root; it canfall on a strong suffix which has a stressed vowel on a stem form as in (24):(24) [CVC(C) +VCAFFIX(ES)[+strongl]stem --> [CVC(C) + VCnCAFFIX(ES)[+strongl]stemFor example in (25) =áns is a ‘strong’ or an accented lexical suffix:(25) ax=áns ‘(a person) eats’+a9t=á[c}n’s ‘a little person eats’food = teethes-9sx”= u[xv1i9t ‘baby small seals’STAT-seal=offspring-[DIM]9is-t-é[tjs ‘plague, tease, torment s.o’tease-TRANS-3-3c[9]é[9]k ‘get a little cooler’cool-[INC]-[DIM]cu-xi[x}-cm-e ‘Do this for me!’ (DIM)do-BENEFACTIVE-[DIM]-3obj-IMPERATTVEAs stated by Thompson and Thompson (1992), in some cases there is a contrast betweenCVC and CC as in the following stem form, es-c’é ‘s.t. laid out’ resulting in the diminutiveform, es-c’c’e ‘s.t. small laid out’. At the point in which reduplication is applied the [] is76stressed, therefore it must be present. Here the reduplication process interacts with thevowel quality of the reduplicative affix. Since the copied vowel precedes a glottal stop [9]which appears to condition the k/, vowel coloration of the !/ must occur in the environmentof the glottal stop.Again, the contrast above suggests that the prosodic affix is a CV. Throughout thisanalysis I assume the diminutive is suffixed after a stressed syllable, and the diminutivereduplication is a CV which is discussed further in section ?5.There are also examples where the diminutive is applied a second time as shown in (24).In the example below the non-diminutive stem is not an acceptable form, (*).(24) ROOT: cw’x ‘snow melts’*s-cw,exDIM: s-ewé[w’]x ‘creek’DIM: s-cw’é[w’]u9x’a tiny creek’In an earlier footnote reference was made to resonants which have been glottalized.Here I present further discussion on this, first by presenting some of the pertinent forms’3presented earlier, and I provide additional examples below (25):(25) Glottalization of resonants:a. weak roots+a’c=áns ‘a little person eats’kn-t-és s-ké[k]n’ ‘partner’p’ém-e-s p’é[p’]m’ ‘small fire’s-pzü’ s-pz’ü[z’u]9 ‘small bird’k”mime k”m[m’]i9me” ‘tiny’9es-sIy,Isoyl ‘es-s[s]i9 ‘tiny strands are twisted together’q+-q+-iyx qo+-q4-I[4i’x ‘to cheer themsives up a little’9es.wovwyl4 ‘it is a little burned’qIy-t qaqi’-t ‘it is a little damp’cok”-e-t-wá[w’]x”-e9 ‘tug-of-war’‘small people, elfcom-cm-[m’]i9e7-t ‘very small, tiny’l3 do not discuss forms which underlyingly have glottal.ized resonants.form is simi Ian ly derived from /“y’/, but meaning ‘a little lopsided’.77b. strong rootss-nüye’ s-nü[n]y’e?nu[n’]y’-tnqemüt qemü[m’]tc’ék”’-m c’é[c’]k”-m’nqWoxW1etn nqWo[qW]xWletns-t-pac-pa-pac-t s-t-pa’-pa[p]c’-paf’-t’5qWjfl=e4 qW4jfl=e[fl]mxs-méyx s-mé[m’]i7xcItx” cI[cltx”-m’cIy=kst co[c]i9=kst(26) Non-glottalization of resonants:‘pls “é[9]pls ‘little apple(s)’k’ém-n ‘é[k’]m-n ‘small feather’s-xáy’wi s-xa[xji9wi ‘dear husband’s-pzü’ s-pzü-zu ‘small bird’NO FORM n-mI[m]+ ‘we (EMPHATIC)’According to Thompson and Thompson “most often resonants following the stress areaccompanied by //[]//b6 SPECIALIZING, but this does not always happen and there seems nobasis on which to predict whether it will or not” (Thompson and Thompson, 1992) glottalizethe resonant(s).Glottalization of resonants can occur with one or both resonants being glottalized. But,in some cases the glottalizing effect does not occur at all. The glottalized resonants canoccur in various syllabic positions, pre- and post-vocalic either immediately adjacent or ?twopositions from the nucleus or in the nucleus position. At this stage of this analysis I havenot been able to determine where this glottalizing effect occurs.Further examples which could be considered idiosyncraciesreduplication are shown below in (27). These, however, appear to bevowel coloration.(27) ckl[ól’e]=s ‘catkins’‘a small amount of money’‘a little purse’‘small hat’‘he shines a light to attract fish to spear’‘sleigh-riding place’‘little grey faded ones’‘small birch-bark basket’‘small snake’‘he made a little house for himself‘five animals or birds’of the diminutivefurther examples of15This form is listed as s-t-pac-pac[pJc’-pa’-t (Thompson and Thompson 1992:90).16Thompson and Thompson (1992) use the double sLashes to represent the underLying representation and thesingle slashes to represent the phonemic representation.78c’q-c’q9=ew+[ü+e]=c’e ‘miniature toy boats’‘(of child) attractive’‘attractive’cq”-c6cq”’tIn conclusion, the diminutive reduplication is a copy of a stressed syllable in the stem withthe copied vowel deleted if the syllable is a closed syllable, if the syllable is open the vowelremains.3.3.1 Out-of-Control Reduplication: -VC/-CThe third productive type of Me9kepmx reduplication is out-of-control reduplicationprocess. The references are to limited control notions, such as simply out-of-control tospontaneous events and acts achieved with difficulty (Thompson and Thompson, 1992).The out-of-control reduplication affix attaches to a stem which involves the copy of thestressed vowel and the immediately following consonant (Thompson and Thompson, 1992)attaching it after the base, that is, C”’C -- >C’C-VC, for example as in (--). Out-of-controlreduplicative template surfaces in the following forms: [-VC], [-R/-q, [-‘QC] and [-V]. Theseare discussed below in the examples (28), (29) and (30).(28) [-VC] forms:a. xüss ‘it foams on its own’foam[OC]c’’-Ic’ ‘s.t. got pitch on it’pitch[OC]‘cooled off’cool-OCtüp-p-s-ne ‘I smash it up accidently’break[OC]-CAUS-3-1+ep-p=qIn ‘sunset’extinguisth-OC=head9ecqW=nsse9 ‘berries dried and useless because baked by thebake=berry[OC] SUn’79b. c1tltXw ‘a house finally becomes available’house[OC]9es ‘üq’’-oq”e ‘managed to have a drink’drink[OC]‘it finally got completed’complete[OC]c. céw’-u’ ‘discussed’talk[OC]n-c=éw’-u-s17 ‘s.t. laid on trail by s.o.’LOC-Iay-Iongobject[OC]-3-3Most of the above examples (28.a) reduce the copied vowel to a [a], but in the (28.b)examples the vowel has not been reduced to a schwa, but either it retains its original vowelquality or is conditioned by its environment. Examples above have been rounded by thefollowing rounded consonants. The last forms in (28.c), however, has vocalization of thw [w’]--> [u9] as discussed in the earlier sections (see section 3.2). The reduction of the copiedform is the more common form.The examples in (28) are either of stems which are derived tautomorphemic roots as aresult of the out-of-control reduplication. Other out-of-control examples are morphologicalderivations. Therefore, substantiating the fact that it is a copy of a stem.The second set of examples are shown in (29) copied vowels are deleted. In most casesthey are followed by a resonant except for the last three forms (cited in Thompson andThompson: 1992). These forms do not have a resonant as the copied consonant, yet thevowel of the copied form is deleted. In all those cases the segments are [coronal], that is,[c], [c’] and [+}.(29) [-R] n4-ém’-m’ ‘s.t. goes into s.t. unnoticed’carry[OC]‘7The root here is Ic/ Lay—long—object. InterestingLy, this form deletes the schwa rather than h—epenthesis as one might expect. Thus at the surface, the root appears as a single consonant. The onLy otherexample which has a vowel after the root consonant is Lc—eyexke—tn], that is, Clay long object—?scale—intrument] ‘scales of snake’80‘how one appears (the way one can can not help)’LOC-look[OC]9es-cy-’y-e ‘stuck in upright position accidently’STAT-stuck[OC]-MDLyóS”-I”=an’i-n-s ‘they manage to keep (an event) secret from s.o.’hide[OC] =ear-?-?9üy-y=us ‘happen to get together’get-together[OC -?topsurfacecm-e-m=üse’8 ‘of small berry (no control on size)’small REPETITIVE-[OC] = round object[-C] ‘it gets full suddenly and unexpectedly’fuIl[OC]-MDL‘you manage to move it’move[OC]-CAUS-TRAN-3-2‘es-c-+-e ‘(of liquid) spurt suddenly’STAT-spirt[OCI-MDLCompare the following example (30) which has the lateral affricate [4W] which has not hadthe deletion of the vowel.(30) 9u=[]xv ‘manage to enter’enter=house[OC]Out-of-control rduplication process also surfaces as shown below in (31) where the vowelis deleted, or the vowel is not reduced to an unstressed schwa as in the above examples.(31) [-‘C] ch-éh ‘s.t. is put away’put-away[OC]‘you managed to put it away’put-away[OCJ-CAUS-TRAN-3-2c’ix-x ‘grabbed, grasped’grab[OC]Note, in the last example, above, does not delete the root vowel. Thompson andThompson represent the root of this form as /cy’, therefore both of the vowels of the rootwould otherwise be deleted. The stress of both these weak stems also must be on the suffixand other forms with the same root are unusual, where the out—of—control reduplication does notoccur immediately after the root or the stressed sylLable, but after the repetitive. Thompson and Thompson(1992:117) have occurrences of the repetitive /[e’?]I in between the augmentative reduplication.81which adjoins the root as discussed in chapter two. At present I have no analysis as to whyone would be a fully stressed vowel, and the other a stressed schwa. Thompson andThompson account for this by stating that since it is followed by a suffix that can take stress;that is, stress has shifted cyclically to the inflectional suffix.The fourth surface variation of the out-of-control reduplication is a singular -V. Thisoccurs with forms which have a glide in final position of the out-of-control base or stem asin (32). It should be noted that both examples below are acceptable.(32) -V ciiw-u ‘done, made, fixed’cüw-wdo-OCIn conclusion, the out-of-control reduplication is a copy of the stressed -C’c’, and itsurfaces as one of the following [DC], [R], [C], [V] and [-‘c/C], and the template is suffixedto a stressed vowel.3.1.4 Characteristic Reduplication: -CVCCharacteristic reduplication process as stated by Thompson and Thompson (1992)extends the meaning of the base, has a general characterizing quality and is not productive.A copy of the stem’s first two consonants (and usually associated vowel) is inserted directlyafter the stem-inital syllable, resulting in an infix if other morphemes are involved -C(V)C.Examples taken from Thompson and Thompson (1992) are shown below in (33).(33) k’aq’-Icq’-t ‘thorny’perforate[CHAR]-IMcáq-cq-t ‘spruce grouse’tame[CHAR]-IMcêp-cp-t ‘s.t. that stains s.t. red’smearblood[CHAR]-IM9üp-9pn=ekst ‘ten people’both?[CHAR]=hand82As shown in earlier discussions of other templates of the copied forms, -CVC copiedforms generally have a full vowel reduced to a schwa. So is the case with the aboveexamples in (33).Whereas, the following forms (34) do not have a -CVC copy, but the copied vowel hasbeen deleted surfacing as either -VC or a -CC copy which are not identical to the stem form.(34) zéw’[zu9]-t ‘tiresome’annoy[CHAR]-IMn-wén-wn ‘early’LOC-early[CHAR]Above in (34) the first example and below (35), also the first example, are exampleswhich show the copied vowels are conditioned by the adjacent consonant to the right. Noteone of the following form has an exact copy of the root. In reviewing this further, the rootis /miy’! ‘distribute-plural’, therefore the copied form has been reduced and the [y’] hasvocalized as discussed in earlier sections. In some cases the features of the adjacentconsonants are [laryngeal] conditioning the immediate segment In another case, thefollowing morpheme, suffix in this case, begins with a vowel therefore the final consonantof the copied template is not deleted or reduced to a schwa, [a], or an [i]. However in onecase the following lexical suffix is affixed to the root-CHAR, but an epenthetic [h] has beeninserted.(35) mé-mi9-t ‘its very contagious’distributePL[CHAR]-IMci-cy=él’qs ‘have new clothesnew[CHAR] = clothesci-cy-éle9=xin ‘have new shoes’new[CHARI-? = footci-cih=é4-x’ ‘have a new house’new[CHAR]=houseNote however, the following example in (36) which has not had a vowel reduction of the83copied form as earlier examples discussed. However, the two segments of the root and thecopied template have similar [PLACE] features.(36) cñ+-cu+=ke’ ‘seven people’point[CHAR]=digitIn conclusion, the characteristic reduplication template, -CVC, -CRC -CC or a suffixes thefirst bimoraic syllable of a stem.3.1.5 Affective Reduplication: CV-Thompson and Thompson describe the affective reduplication as a process which “derivesstylistic variants connoting special attitudes ranging from familiarity, perhaps with overtonesof nostalgia, to extreme specialization’. Further Thompson and Thompson (1992) state theCV- prefix is often reduced to a [a], but in some forms variation is heard between /e/ and// and a few cases show consistently /e/. Very often, but unpredictably, affectives areaccompanied by the specializing extension, [‘1. The form is unproductive, but provides manyderivatives some of which are shown below (37):(37) t-tz-e9 ‘arrow head’AFF-protrude slightly-FORMATIVEc-cp=Ikn’ ‘sun goes down over mountain into ocean (sunset)’AFF-fit in=backp-py’éx ‘very tired’AFF-tiredx-xw’é ‘trail’AFF-roadn-c-céw’s ‘exhausted, tired out’LOC-AFF-fatiguedn-ta-tm=ltn ‘there are no berries in the basket’LOC-AFF-lack=harvestAgain, as previously discussed similar processes occur here as with other reduplicationprocesses. One of these is the [+PHARYNGEAL] feature of the vowel which is not copied asçw..1wóyt ‘sleep erratically’. Also, the vowel of the base is deleted if a strong suffix is84attached, and the prefix before the target is not copied.However, the following examples in (38) are conditioned by the consonants in theimmediate environment of the vowels in question, that is, the rounding of the vowel in theenvironment of [+roundj consonants and the Lowering of the vowel in the environment ofthe laryngeal [9].(38) nkwe*kücel9 ‘(s)he goes downstream’LOC-AFF-descend water‘carry s.t. around eating it’AFF-grasp-LIGATURE-food9e-9uiy-m’ ‘laugh’AFF-laugh-MIDDLEce-cItx”2° ‘a bunch of houses together’AFF-houseIn some cases, as Thompson and Thompson state, the affective form is the morecommon lexical form (39), that is the non-reduplicated forms are not lexical forms, or it isused less often. Also, as with the other reduplication processes the non-affective formappears with other affixes as shown below in the derived forms below (39). Thompson andThompson (1990) refer to some of the stems as affective stems. These stems, I presuppose,do not appear in the non-affective reduplication pattern.(39) t-té- ‘no (NEGATIVE)’AFF-nowe-wIyx ‘he cries’AFF-cryccuikwe‘by oneselfAFF-finish-FMV(40) s-p-plánt ‘skunk’NOM-AFF-skunk190ne wouLd expect the copied vowel to assimilate the [+roundj feature and become Lu], but it does not.should be noted that the affective form has a full voweL EeJ as opposed to a schwa. If it were aschwa the form would be ambiguous with the augmentative form. There are other cases where the copied vowel doesnot reduce to a schwa or is it coLored by its environment.85s-c-cu9 ‘pattern’NOM-AFF-do9es--6p ‘it is pleated’STAT-AFF-pile flatn-k-kic-n’-cm-s ‘he haunts me’LOC-AFF-?-1-3And, again the vowel is deleted in forms which have a resonant as in (41). Note howeverthat in (41) the vowel is retained in the copied form.(41) ccwoyt ‘sleep erratically’AFF-sleepSome forms are ambiguous as shown below (42):(42) n-c-citx”-tn’ ‘empty house’LOC-AFF-house-INSTRUMENTn-c-citx”’-tn’ ‘winter village, group of several houses’LOC-AFF-house-INSTRUMENTIn summary, affective reduplication prefixes a lexical root with C, Ce or C. As the otherreduplication processes also have phonological processes. In most cases, the copied vowelis reduced to a schwa, whereas some others are conditioned by their environment. Thereare, however, cases where the copied template is a Ce- which I can not explain at this time.3.2 Multiple occurences of N4t9kepmx reduplicationN4-e9kepmx reduplication processes, as to be expected, should be able to occur withinthe same lexical forms. The N+e9kepmx reduplication is generally not limited in the numberof instances the different types of reduplication can occur. However, they can not occurrandomly. The amount of occurences is semantically limited, and the ordering relationshipsbetween some of them are evident.The following will present the various acceptable forms of multiple occurences ofN4-e9kepmx reduplication. First, I present the data and then provide an explanation wherenecessary.863.2.1 Augmentative and diminutive reduplicationThe application of both the augmentative and diminutive form is quite common. Thesereduplication types can either target the same part of the stem or different parts of the stem.Since the diminutive does not necessarily target the initial part of base form but the stressed-CV syllable. Examples of these are shown below in (43):(43) STEM: cItx” ‘house’AuG: ci-citx’’ ‘houses’DIM: Ci[C]tXv ‘small house’AUG/DIM: cici[cjtXV ‘small houses’AUG: cak-cék ‘pleasantly cool (weather)’AUG/DIM: cak-ce[c}k ‘a little cooler’ROOT: k”’amSTEM: k’me9txn ‘small foot’, =xn ‘foot’AUG/DIM: ‘have small feet’ROOT: Cewt ‘ultimate’STEM: s-céwt=mx ‘youngest child’, =mx ‘people’DIM/GLOT: scé-cut=m’x ‘last child in family’DIM/GLOT: s-cu9t= m’x= qI[q]n’ = kst ‘little finger’, = ekst ‘hand’AUG/DIM: s-cu9-cu9t=m’x=qi[q]n’=kst ‘little fingers (on both hands)’GLOT.Since both reduplicative process function frequently, the co-occurences of them is notunusual. The examples above also show the phonological processes which occur with thesereduplication processes, that is vowel reduction, resonant glottalization, and orderingrelationship.3.2.2 Augmentative and out-of-Control reduplicationThe augmentative and out-of-control reduplication processes can also cooccur. Both theseinteract with each other and have independent phonological and morphological processes.Since these reduplication types can target different parts of the stem no further discussionis required at this time.87(44) ROOT:oc:AuG/oc:ROOT:AUG/oc:+p’-p’-qincwn-cu-cuw-w= Ip‘hang over’‘(of plants) droop, wither’, =qin ‘head’‘(of plants) droop, wither’‘make,do’‘decendants’‘enter’‘go in without been noticed’‘a small container’x’y’=aq-[aq}s-e-tI[t]yxs ‘they carried a little baby’carry=nose[OC]-DIR[DIM (on a stretcher or coffin)‘arrow heads’, /tQz/ ‘protrude-out’‘laugh’‘laugh’,plural[zj are near identical segments, and that3.2.3 Augmentative and affectiveBoth the augmentative and affective reduplication processes prefix the ?inital CV of astem. The example below shows that both the augmentative and affective reduplication asidentical copies of the base [tz].(43) AuG/AFF: t3-t-t4z-e9AFF: 9e-üy-m’AuG/AFF: ‘e-e-9uym’Are the results the same because the [t] and thethey both have the same place feature?3.2.4 Diminutive and out-of-control reduplicationIn N4e9kepmx, the diminutive can also be used with theNote the following example (44) has a ‘lexical’ suffix:(44) RooT: [4-em’OUT-OF-CONTROL: n-4-ém’-m’DIMINuTIvE: n-4-é-+m’-m’-tnLOC-ROOT-DIM(2)-INSTout-of-control reduplication.(45) ROOT: x”’us ‘foam’OUT-OF-CONTROL: US-S ‘foaming’DIMINUTIVE: xvu[x\]ss ‘a little foam’Note the following example has out-of-control reduplication and then diminutive is applied.Stress has cyclically been reassigned, therefore the diminutive has been applied to a laterderivation.(46) oc/DIM:88Note the example in (46), in that it has two reduplication processes applied to this stemform. The out-of-control reduplication applies to the stressed vowel of the root. Then, thediminutive reduplication applies to the lexical suffix. The out-of-control reduplication andits interaction with diminutive reduplication must have an ordering relationship. From theabove examples it is evident that out-of-control reduplication must precede diminutivereduplication. An ordering relationship is necessary since both out-of-control and diminutivetarget a stressed base. If stress was not already assigned neither the first or the secondreduplication process would have an identifiable target, thereby not being able to be applied.Other evidence supporting the fact that out-of-control reduplication precedes thediminutive reduplication is shown in (47).(47) OUT-OF-CONTROL: “1S-S ‘foaming’DIMINUTIVE: xwu[xw]s..s ‘starting to foam a little’The above form has the base of the root undergoing the out-of-control reduplication appliedfirst, the the diminutive reduplication applied next. If the diminutive were to apply beforethe out-of-control the following derivation would result (48):(48) DIMINuTIvE: XWUXWSOUT-OF-CONTROL: *xWl[xWl [u’]sAlso, note the following form which has a lexical suffix (48):(49) OUT-OF-CONTROL: xwy=aq[aq]sDIMINUTIVE: X”’ aq[aqjs-e-tl[-t]iyxs‘person/corpse lifted in astretcher/coffin’‘person (e.g. child) lifted ina stretcher’Again, to account for the form (49) we must assume that stress was assigned at the pointat which out-of-control took place. The first suffix, -aqs, which is a strong suffix has had thestress cyclically assigned after it has been attached. But when the second inflectional suffixis attached stress has again been cyclically assigned. Therefore, out-of-control is ordered89‘a little foam’‘starting to foam a little’before stress is assigned to -tiyxs thereby creating an environment for the diminutive.To summarize this section the following derivations (50) show the variations ofreduplication and how they interact with one particular root.(50) a. ROOT: ém’ ‘enter’b. INSTRUMENTALIZER: n4ém’-tn ‘a container’C. ouT-oF-coNTRoL: *n4émem.tn unacceptabled. DIsTRiBuTIvE: n-4-m’-4-ém’-tn ‘containers’e. OUT-OF-CONTROL: n-4-ém’-m’ ‘to carry s.t. unnoticed’f. DIMINuTIvE: n-4-e[-i-]m’-m’ ‘manage to carry things’g. DIsT/DIM/oc: n-m-+ém’-(?e)m’ ‘small things are carriedunnoticed’In (50.b), an acceptable form, a locative and instrumental affix are attached, whereas thesame form which has had the out-of-control reduplication applied to it is unacceptable,perhaps due to the restrictions of the morphological process. In (50.d) this form is simplya plural form of (50.b), and (50.e) is an out-of-control form. However, (50.0 is anapplication of diminutive after the out-of-control reduplication as discussed earlier. The(50.g) example has three applications of reduplication showing that the augmentative isindependent of the the diminutive and out-of-control. But again, we see the interactionbetween the latter two showing the ordering relationship and cyclicity of the reduplicationprocesses.3.2.5 Affective and Out-of-ControlStill another multiple occurrence of reduplication processes occur with affective and out-of-control. The following example (51) shows this:(51) AJ-oc ce-cIt-gtx’’AFF-OC c-cun-ém’-m ‘directing s.o., they aretelling s.o. what to do’These two reduplication forms occur isolated from each other; therefore, there is no90significant phonological process or interaction between the two.3.2.6 Characteristic and Diminutive:Characteristic and diminutive reduplication also cooccur within the same stem as shownbelow in (52).(52) c’ü[c’]l’-c’l’-t ‘a little, somewhat, kind of sour’Again, the diminutive reduplication process must occur after characteristic reduplicationprocess. Otherwise, the characteristic copied form would not be a copy of the root/stemform.3.2.7. Three independent cooccurring applications of reduplicationThe example (53) below shows a rare example of three different reduplication processesoccurring within the same root and stem.(53) c’n-cé[c’]n’-c’n’ ‘small grasshoppers’AUG-grasshopper-[DIM]-CHARAgain, significant interaction occurs between the three since they occur within targets andresult in reduplication in three different locations. It should be noted that characteristicreduplication must occur befor diminutive. And augmentative must occur before diminutive.Therefore, the ordering relationship among the three must be either as shown in (54) or(55).(54) AUGMENTATIVE ---> CHARACTERISTIC ---> DIMINUTIVEor(55) CHARACTERISTIC ---> AUGMENTATIVE ---> DIMINUTIVEWhereas, (56) below shows the ordering relationship between out-of-control and diminutive.(56) OUT-OF-CONTROL ---> DIMINUTIVE91The relationships between the other are not known at this time, it will not be discussed anyfurther since the relationship between the ordering relationships and the reduplicationprocesses are not crucial to this analysis.3.3 ConclusionsIn conclusion, the reduplication processes can be represented below in the Table 14 asshown below:REDUPLICATION TYPE OF TARGET COPIED FORM OThERTYPE AFFIX (BASE) (TEMPLATE)augmentative prefix CVC CVC-/CV-/Cmorphological stemdiminutive suffix CV of stem CV-/C- glottalization of posttemplatic resonants,ordering relationshipout-of-control suffix CV -VC/-Cbimoraic syllablecharacteristic suffix CVC or CVC, -CVC/-VC/-CCfirst of rootaffective prefix ?stressed CV, CV-/C-!C-I(Ce) glottalization of postlexical root templatic resonantsTable 14. Me’kepmx Reduplication Types92Chapter 4. Overview of Theoretical Approaches and IssuesBuilding on the descriptive analyses of N+e9kepmx reduplication reviewed in thepreceding chapter, the focus of this chapter is to provide a critical overview of previoustheoretical accounts of reduplicative behaviour in Salish, and to outline the theoreticalframework of Prosodic Morphology which will be adopted in the present analysis.Specifically, §4.1 summarizes Bell’s (1983) insightful discussion of internal -C diminutivereduplication in Shuswap (e.g. [sqee] ‘dog’, [sqeqeJ ‘little dog’ within Marantz’s (1982)framework. § 4.2 discusses Broselow’s (1983) treatment of the diminutive and distributivereduplication in Lushootseed as compared with Thompson and Shuswap, and §4.3 presentsBroselow and McCarthy’s (1983-4) subsequent discussion of this same body of data, as wellas of the -VC reduplication patterns in Lushootseed. This general overview will illuminatethe particular nature of the difficulties which Salish reduplication created for the earlytheoretical frameworks of autosegmental templatic morphology.The subsequent developments within the Prosodic Morphology approach of McCarthyand Prince (1986, 1990) are then outlined in §4.4, and Carlson and Bate’s (1990) applicationof this framework to out-of-control reduplication in Spokane is discussed in §4.5. AsMcCarthy and Prince’s (1986, 1990) theoretical framework provides the basis for the analysisto be presented in Chapter 5, the discussion here intends to provide the essentialbackground of theoretical assumptions and analytical mechanisms which crucially underliethe present approach, and to document the specific types of Salish reduplication data whichas yet have not received a fully satisfactory and systematic theoretical treatment.4.1 Bell (1982)Bell observed that the Shuswap diminutive reduplicative pattern, internal Creduplication, had implications for Marantz’s (1982) theory of non-concatenative93morphology. Two areas of identifiable issues Bell stated are (i) that the domain of a copiedmelody borrowed by a reduplicating affix may be an entire word and (ii) problems with theprocedure as proposed by Marantz (1982). Therefore, an alternative procedure is proposedas discussed in this section.Evidence presented below in (1) reveals that the Shuswap diminutive places a copyof the C preceding a stressed vowel such as:(1) Shuswap diminutive1:a. sqéfe ‘dog’sqéqe ‘little dog’b. pésXk°e ‘lake’péps&s..k°e ‘little lake, pond’c. cq’ékp ‘fir tree’cq’éq’Xp ‘little fir tree’d. kpqin’ ‘her head aches’kpqIqn’kn ‘my head aches’Bell’s first observation in regard to the diminutive reduplication is that it applies acrossmorpheme boundaries, including inflectional endings may be crossed. She refers toMarantz’s (1982) theory of reduplication, ‘that internal C reduplication (can) ignoreboundaries implies that a reduplicating affix may borrow an entire word’s phonemic melody,not just the stem’s melody”.Another conclusion which reinforces Marantz’s theory is that the locus ofreduplication is fixed only with respect to stress which has been assigned beforereduplication. Since Bell accepts the claim that Salish languages generally can be dividedinto three stress classes: strong, variable and weak, the position of the Shuswapreduplicationg affix can be determined at the level of the word (Bell, 1982:334). Thus, sheclaims that reduplication may copy the entire phonemic melody of the relevant domain1These are Shuswap diminutive reduplication forms presented by BeLL (1982). The example in (1.c) does nothave a glottalized [q] in the root, that is the second consonant.94which will be copied, and association will proceed from right to left.Bell concludes that entire melody of the relevant domain is copied in reduplication.It also allows parallel treatment in respect to the position of the reduplicating affix relativeto the relevant portion of the skeleton. Thus, Bell proposes a variation in the procedure,although there is an undesireable consequence. Both analyses are shown below in (2) and(3):(2) Marantz’s analysis:kpqI n’knI Icvccv +c+ ccckpqi kpqI n’knI Icvccv +c+ ccc(3) a. Bell’s analysis (336:(8))kpqIn’kn(-->) kpqi n’knIIH\ HIcvccvccc cvccv +c+ cccBell states when the reduplicating affix is inserted, association lines between themelody and portion of the skeleton following the infix are broken as in (3). Then the entiremelody is broken and association proceeds from right to left, as in (4), the correct outputresults.(4) kpqI n’knIH i\cvccv +c+ ccck p q I h’k nThus, Bell’s analysis copies only the relevant domain is copied rather than the entirephonemic melody. The undesireable consequence, however, is since infixation causes adisruption of association lines; however, unlike Marantz’s analysis the “internal reduplication”is a subspecies of infixation.95Since’s Bell’s (1982) analysis of Shuswap is applicable to N4-e9kepmx, this earlyanalysis on Salish language revealed an insightful discussion of internal -c diminutivereduplication which identified some problematic areas.4.2 Broselow’s Analysis (1983)In her previous analysis of Thompson diminutive reduplication,Broselow (1983) statesthat the diminutive reduplication is a prefix C(V) which copies the consonant preceding thestressed vowel, e.g. [q’ümqn] ‘head’ [q’oq’umqn’j (diminutive). She makes several relatedclaims and assumptions: 1) the diminutive reduplication is internal i.e. infixing in theInterior Salishan languages (namely in Nlt9kepmx and Shuswap); 2) that the diminutiveis entirely predictable, in that the reduplicated form is a copy of the stressed vowel of thebase and the consonant preceding it; and 3) that the diminutive affix can also occur betweentwo morphemes, i.e. is not necessarily morheme-internal, e.g. [s-t’malt] ‘cow’ [s-t’malt-Iy’t].Broselow concludes her discussion by stating that the diminutive infix is subcategorizedto occur before a stressed syllable rather than before a morphological stem. In other words,the author assumes that the diminutive infix is attached to a phonological constituent, ratherthan to a morphological constituent. The fundamental question she addresses here is “atwhat level and in what ways infixes are related to the other morphemes of a word”(1983:345). Derivations to illustrate how her analysis actually applies to a given form(including distributive2and diminutive) is shown below3:2The term is the same as augmentative which I have chosen to use throughout this thesis.3For further expanation of the representation in (5) and (6) refer to Broseow (1983:340).96(5) wordstemdist. stemSi! Si sil’ii \ ii IIIcvc cv cvcV6(6) wordstemdist. stemt’ u m t’ u m a m a I tI I I I I I I N\cvc cvcv+cvccc66She also deals with doubly reduplicated forms which I refer to as cooccurrenceapplication of reduplication where both the diminutive and distributive are affixed on thesame root, e.g. [s-cuw] ‘something done, work’, [s-cw’cócw’j (distributive-diminutive). Shestates that the two reduplicated forms are associated at different levels of representation;i.e. first, the distributive is prefixed to the stem, whereas the diminutive is is attached to asyllable; that is both subsequent affixes are associated at different levels as shown in (6).The basic tenets of Broselow’s actual analysis are that the base form of the diminutiveaffix is an infix (compared to Lushootseed which she concludes is a prefix) attaching to somephonological representation as shown in (6)With this analysis areas which were retained in Broselow and McCarthy’s (1983-84)analysis state the following exist (i) internal reduplication exist and (ii) copy and associationof melody as either prefixal or suffixal reduplication, On the otherhand, a more set ofrestrictive operations exist including: (i) two types of internal reduplication, “true’ and97“apparent” infixing reduplication, infixation is either the entire melody or to a prosodicconstituent. This dichotomy resolved what Bell (1982) considered to be a “problem”.Broselow concludes the “diminutive as an infix is not included in the morphologicalstructure at all”. The present analysis agrees with Broselow that the base of diminutivereduplication is prosodically defined, but disagrees that this should disqualify thereduplication affix from having morphological status within the word. Thus, in the analysisproposed here, the diminutive suffix is indeed treated as having full morphemic status.Depending on where stress falls, the diminutive may (e.g. (a) [si[si]lj ‘little piece of fabric’or may not (e.g. (b) [s-t’malt] ‘cow’ [s-t’malt-Iy’t] result in the morphological root surfacingas a discontinuous constituent (e.g. [s-t’malt-i[tijy’t]. Compare Broselow’s (1993:339)examples below (H = Haeberlin):(7) Thompsona. s + t’omállt’ (H) cows + t’omámallt’ diminitives + t’omallt’ét calfs + t’omallt’étet diminitiveb. qoesp (H) buffaloqoiqsp diminitiveqospé9ot young buffaloqospépet diminitiveAlthough Broselow and McCarthy treat diminutive as prefixation, I consider thedomain of the diminutive affixation site a stressed syllable, and the suffixation is immediatelyafter the first i of the stressed syllable. This analysis pre-empts having to manipulate stressshift leftward as shown below (8):(8) ROOT: qWIsp ‘buffalo’DIMINUTWE: qwj[qijspVOWEL-DELETION: [qwI[q]sp] ‘little buffalo’98ROOT: qwIspLEXICAL SUFFIX.! q”isp=IC’e9 ‘buffalo hide’STRESS REASSIGN:DIMINuTWE: [q’’isp=ipc’e9] ‘small buffalo hide’4.3. Broselow and McCarthy (1983-4)Broselow and McCarthy’s (1983-4) paper addresses the general issue of infixing orinternal reduplication. They argue for a particular conception of infixing reduplication whichis generally compatible with the theory of prefixation and suffixation with a minimum ofconstraints. They do not succeed, however, in reducing all cases of classical “infixation” toeither prefixation or suffixation. They must conclude therefore that there is a typologicaldistinction of two particular types of internal reduplication. “True” infixing reduplicationinvolves infixation within a template, copying of the entire stem melody, and association ofthe infix with that melody from either the left or the right. The other type, “apparent”infixing reduplication, involves prefixation or suffixation of the reduplicative morpheme toa prosodic constituent - a syllable or a metrical foot - rather than to a morpheme; copyingand association then applies as in the case of normal prefixal and suffixal reduplications.This analysis provides a more restrictive set of operations. With true infixation, the entirestem melody is copied and the direction of association is specified, whereas when thereduplicative affix is prefixed or suffixed to a prosodic constituent, the melody of theconstituent is copied and association proceeds in the unmarked direction of association aswith other reduplication types. Among the several languages which they draw on forempirical Support for their conclusions, Broselow and McCarthy refer to two Salishanlanguages, Thompson [here referred to as N4e9kepmx] and Shuswap [here referred to asSzx”epmx4]for this analysis. They conclude that these languages have apparent infixing4mis is the N4e7kepmx form for Shuswap.99reduplication. The basis of their analysis for these languages is the diminutive reduplication.As is claimed in the traditional Salish literature (e.g. Kuipers (1974), Thompson(1990), Broselow and McCarthy (1993-4) note that the diminutive in Szx’’epmx is stresssensitive: a copy of the consonant preceding the stressed vowel in the base form appearsafter that vowel in the diminutive. Recall (4.2) that Broselow’s (1983) earlier analysisclaims that the reduplication of Szx”epmx and N4-e9kepmx both prefix CV- to the stressedsyllable, shift stress forward onto this CV, and delete the original vowel of the base (exceptbefore a resonant in Szx’’epmx and before a laryngeal in N4-e9kepmx). Broselow andMcCarthy (1983-84:66-67) however note that Broselow’s (1983) analysis is not fullycompatible with the general in that forms which have an initial consonant cluster cause aproblem for the analysis e.g. cqép ‘fir tree’ cqéq+p ‘little fir’. The solution that Broselowand McCarthy propose entails a reanalysis of syllable structure. That is, following Newman’s(1947) analysis the Coast Salish language Bella Coola Broselow and McCarthy assume “thatShuswap also has vocalic consonants” (1983-84:67). Consequently, they claim that theprefixation of Szx”epnix forms can be shown as (9) which has a [c] in initial position.(9) 6 6 UNDERLYING REPRESENTATIONc qé+pDiminutive reduplication then prefixes to the second, i.e. the stressed syllable:(10) 6 6 PREFIXATION OF CV TO STRESSEDSYLLABLEC+ CV+ C VCCc q é4pTo draw on the “syllable” status of initial consonants in obstruent clusters would undoubtedlybe profitably recast in the light of Bagemihl’s (1991) more recent arguments that suchobstruents are demonstrably not syllabic, but would be analysed a independentllllly moraic.100However, Broselow and McCarthy’s essential claim here may be interpreted as a constraintagainst complex onsets: if the stressed syllable has a simple onset, then the CV- prefix ispositioned directly before it, for example:(11) C[CV-[qe+p]6A more contentious aspect of Broselow’s (1993) diminutive analysis, adopted inBroselow and McCarthy (1983-84), is her claim that it is consistently prefixal. WhileBroselow’s treatment of the diminutive as a CV- prefix in Lushootseed seems empiricallywell motivated, Broselow and McCarthy (1983-84:66) claim more generally that:In all these related [Salish/MNJ] languages, then the diminutive is a CV prefix;the languages differ only in the constituent to which the CV is prefixed (Thestem for Lushootseed [sic] and the stressed syllable for Thompson andShuswap).This contrasts with the widespread treatment of this reduplication pattern by traditionalSalish scholars as insertion of a -C(V) after the stressed vowel.The major empirical consequence of Broselow (1983) and Broselow and McCarthy’s(1983-84) claim that diminutive reduplication in Thompson (N4’e9kepmx) is prefixing is thatthey would have to account for the fact that stress “shifts leftward from the base onto this“prefix”, and that the root vowel then deletes (unless followed by a [9].(12) (PREFIX)-CV-fC’’C(C)- --> CV-C’7(C)Base Dim. Redup. Stress Shift Base-Vdeletioncitx” ‘house’ cicItxv c1citxv cI-ctx”xé ‘high’ xe-xe’ xé-xe -s-pzü9 ‘animal’ sp-zu-zü9 s-pzü-zu9 -fwóyt ‘she sleeps’ Iwo coy’t ¶moct55Broseaw does not present any data which has a Cy] —> [19], however I represent it as such in this form.101A major difference from the previous analysis is that the stress on the base form isdeleted or shifted and the original stem/root vowel subsequently deleted except before /9/thereby creating the proper result.While deletion of unstressed (or detressed) root vowels is not uncommon in InteriorSalish, what is particularily problematic is the requisite treatment of this stress “shifting’leftward from the root to a prefix, as this type of phenomenon is otherwise unattested inthese languages.A further consequence of treating diminutive reduplication as suffixation rather thanprefixation relates back to the issue discussed above of how to treat initial CC- clusters inorder to “prefix” the diminutive between them. Note that under the suffixation hypothesis,it is no longer critical to split the prosodic constituency of an initial CC- sequence. Rather,the problem is now redefined as how to identify the post-stressed-vowel insertion site interms of prosodic constituency. This issue will be addressed in chapter 5.4.4 Prosodic MorphologyThe central assumptions and claims from both McCarthy and Prince’s theoreticalprosodic morphology framework of (1986) and subsequent theory of prosodic circumscription(1990)6 which will be drawn on in the present analysis are discussed below.4.4.1 Assumptions and ClaimsMcCarthy and Prince’s article (1986) provides a theoretical basis for nonconcatenativemorphology. In word derivation, a strategy requiring a target to accommodate a base mustbe defined in categories and rules of prosody provided by syllabification and stress/accent.Templatic morphemes must be defined prosodically rather than segmentally. Prosody places6Donca Steriades (1988) model discussed in RedupLication and syllable transfer in Sanskrit andelsewhere.’ will not be discussed here.102strong conditions of adequacy on templatic theory; in particular, templates can only (be)count(ed) “up to two” and only moras, syllables and feet can be counted. The templatesmust be structurally adjacent to an element, this constituting a strict locality condition.Further, a condition on templatic interpretation states all elements in a template must becategoricallyly satisfied, that is the Satisfaction Condition.Prosodic categories within the McCarthy and Prince framework (1986) include thefollowing categories: prosodic word, foot, syllable, monomoraic syllable, bimoraic syllable,and core syllable (defined essentially by stipulation as a CV syllable). Mapping parameterswhich allow for the prosodic reparsing of a copy of the base accommodate the templaticdomain.As in Marantz (1982), the three following assumptions are made. First, the entiresegment melody of the reduplicative domain is copied onto a new plane. Secondly, themapping of the segmental material into the template is directional and continuous:left-to-right for prefixes, right-to-left for suffixes, and free choice for root-and-patternsystems. Lastly, the domains of affixation are fixed prosodically and morphologically.In order to characterize phonological structure and morphological consequencesMcCarthy and Prince (1986) appeal to two basic principles: the Prosodic MorphologyHypothesis and Template Satisfaction Condition. These are stated below:(13) Prosodic Morphology Hypothesis. Templates are defined interms of the authentic units of prosodyMcCarthy and Prince, following Selkirk (1980), Hayes (1989), Hyman (1985), etc., assumethat the units of prosody defined by the Prosodic Hierarchy are: mora (i’), syllable (6), foot(F), prosodic word (W), and so on. Following Shaw (1992,1993), 1 assume that thishierarchy must be extended to include a distinction between nuclear and non-nuclear moras.103The second condition constrains mapping into the template:(14) Template Satisfaction Condition. Satisfaction of templaticconstraints is obligatory and is determined by the principles ofprosody, both universal and language-specific.4.1.2 Prosodic Circumscription (1990)In order to account for misalignment between the edges of a templatic domain andof the base, McCarthy and Prince (1990) propose that morphological domains may becircumscribed according to well-defined prosodic constituency.(14) Prosodic Circumscription of Domains. The domain to whichmorphological operations apply may be circumscribed byprosodic criteria as well as by the more familiar morphologicalones. In particular, the minimal word within a domain may beselected as the locus of morphological transformation in lieu ofthe whole domain.Several phenomena within the theory of prosodic circumscription of bases requireattention. To discuss these, McCarthy and Prince (1990) introduce the following formulismto specify mechanisms of morphological functions which operate on a base.(15) B = baseo = function*= an operator which designates therelationship between the two factors.O = operationB:o = factoring on the baseB/o = residueC = constituentE = edgeo:<C,E> =One phenomenon is extrametricality which defines the location of an edge forpurposes of a given rule or sets of rules is characterized by the constraint shown below:(16) Factoring Imposed by Phonological ConstraintB = B4*B/104Below as in (17) provides an example which shows how the base is divided.(17) Definition of Operation Applying under Extrametricality0/4) (B) = B:Ii * O(B/)(18) Definition Operation Applying under Positive Prosodic Circumscription04 (B) = O(B:) *In the analyses which follow extrametrical constituents will designated as angle brachets.The prosodic criterion always selects the minimal base. McCarthy and Prince proposethat the prosodic circumscription of the base to which a rule applies is limited by thefollowing constraint:(19) Minimum Word Constraint.Positive prosodic circumscription of a base may only appeal tothe category Minimal Word. That is, in: 0:o <C,E>, C =minimum wordMcCarthy and Prince further claim that the minimal unmarked foot is two moras, andthat two moras is the lower limit on word size. In support of their hypotheses, McCarthyand Prince discuss truncation of words where the template for truncation is defined by theminimal word as its base. This approach also allows that a language may characterize atemplatic affix as a minimal word.4.5 Carlson and Bates’ AnalysisCarison and Bates (1990) have have applied McCarthy and Prince’s framework ofnonlinear phonology and prosodic morphology to the analysis of out-of-control reduplicationin Spokane Salish, paying particular attention to “the stress system...(and)...surface variantsof the OC reduplication that occur with root shapes other than canonical CVC” in theSpokane language (1990:73). They state that the out-of-control reduplication as copying aprosodic constituent, the mora of the root and since the melody of the mora (VC) is copied,right to left association of the suffix can never incorrectly link the final consonant of CVCC105root. Their representation is shown in the following example (12):(20) ac’c’ ‘observe’ (9ac’ [sj ‘watch’)After copying and association (20) would have the following representation as in (21).(21) ac’CVC-VC-C -> stress and Unstressed Vowel Deletion ->ac’c’, ‘ac’Further discussion in Carlson and Bates state weak CVCC roots regularly form OCas C C C VC C. In summary, they account for this form as single or double mora copying.Issues in question, they conclude with, are the status of stress in morphologically basedlanguages and the syllable weight distinctions.The Carlson and Bates’ analysis does not clearly state what constitutes as a mora. Ifthey conclude that there is single mora copying should that not only include the vowel? Or,is that specifically referring only to the second mora, and if it does what of the instancesthey refer to as weak CCVC root derive [cnnip’p’] meaning ‘it suddenly got banded’. Again,what is the status of the mora? Is it, as in (22)?(22) a. 1st 2ndVCb. cnnip’p’The forms which are further analyzed in Carison and Bates in regard to other canonicalforms are not discussed here, since comparable forms are not clearly evident in N+e9kepmx.N+e’kepmx does not have similar forms as those present in (22); therefore, I do notdiscuss it any further.106Chapter 5. A Prosodic Template Approach to N+e9kepmx ReduplicationN+e9kepmx as shown in Chapter 3 has five independent reduplication forms designatingspecific morphological processes. In this chapter each of these processes will be presentedwithin the prosodic morphological framework of McCarthy and Prince (1986, 1990). Specificissues related to the application of this theoretical framework to N4’e’kepmx data will bediscussed in § 5.1. As it is crucial to the prosodic definition of templatic domains, theN+e9kepmx syllabification and morification presented in chapter 2 will be reviewed againin § 5.2. Specific analyses of each of the five reduplication processes will be presented in§ 5.3 to § 5.7. Discussed will be the appropriate representations within the framework ofprosodic morphology of the base and template, the role of prosodic circumscription tocharacterize extraprosodicity, and the subsequent phonological processes relevant to eachreduplication process.5.1 Issues and Problems: N4’e9kepmx DataThe reader is referred back to chapter 3 where the five N4-e9kepmx reduplicativemorphological processes were descriptively identified. Now the representation of each ofthese patterns needs to be determined as to whether the reduplicative template is in factprefixed or suffixed, whether the base is defined prosodically or morphologically, what theappropriate form of the prosodic template is, and whether extraprosodicity is in effect. Withrespect to the potential role of prosodic circumscription, it is important to ascertain whatdefines the “minimal word” in Ne9kepnix, and whether this plays a critical role in thedefinition of the base and/or affixes in the reduplicative morphology.A particularily challenging issue is the definition of the prosodic category of some of thereduplication templates for N+e9kepmx. For example, the template for the reduplicated107diminutive (e.g. s-mü[m]+ec) and out-of-control (e.g. q’c-c-s-t-és) forms have a singleconsonant as the copied form. However, the prosodic criteria defined in McCarthy andPrince’s theoretical framework do not characterize a single consonant as a prosodic level:therefore, how is the single consonant defined as a premoraic (onset) and as a single morain second position? Similarily, the out-of-control reduplication pattern -VC is not definabletemplatically in terms of authentic prosodic unit, since nothing within the current theoriesadopted by McCarthy and Prince (1986, 1990) recognizesany internal constituency within thesyllable above the moraic level. Thus, the units of prosody as presented and claimed byMcCarthy and Prince, do not suffice or completely address the N4-e9kepmx templates.Another problem as discussed in chapter 4, is the fact that the location of the stress inthe base is the locus of infixation in the diminutive and out-of-control reduplicative patterns,e.g. ‘es-9a-’I{9]‘have several stripes, DIMINUTIVE’ and 9es-t-k’át[t]-e ‘pierce something witha sharp end, OUT-OF-CONTROL’. That is, the place of infixation is not the end or the beginningof an edge-defined syllable or foot as to be expected, but more restrictively, the stressedsyllable. Detailed treatment of this issue is given in § 5.4 and § 5.5 below.5.2 Syllabification and Morafication5.2.1. MoraAs presented earlier, McCarthy and Prince (1986, 1990) claim the mora is the lowestelement of the prosodic hierarchy. Recall that the motivation for the N+e9kepmx moraicrepresentation is based on the inchoative infix [9] which was discussed earlier in §,and the various reduplication morphological processes discussed in chapters 3. Theinchoative infix, [9], is crucial for the argumentation that the onset C must directly link tothe syllable node as in (1) and not directly to the initial mora, as represented in (2) below108and earlier in § 2.1.(1) c\/tcvc(2) 6AlcvcThus, (3) is a moraic representation of an inchoativized {+strong] root/stem:(3) a. 6 b. 6/N//I’ll,//\\ //Um[9] é 4- m[9] é 4- ‘become less painful, lesserpain’Recall if both the initial consonant and the nuclear vowel were dominated by a moraas in (3.b), then the inchoative glottal would be ‘true’ infixation into a prosodic constituent.Broselow and McCarthy (1983) and McCarthy and Prince (1986, 1990) argued against theexistence of such infixation processes, reducing the majority of apparent cases of infixationto cases of prefixation or suffixation to a prosodically well-defined base. If the initialconsonant of N4-e9kepmx roots is in fact attached to the syllable rather than the mora, thenthe position of the inchoative can be defined as prefixation to the first mora.The other issue is in regard to the segment immediately following the left-most mora.Is it attached to the preceding mora as (4)a., or attached to the syllable as in (4)b., ordominated by another mora as in (4)c.(4)a. 6 b. 6 c. 6/\ /NCvC CvC CvCEarlier, I posited that the Nle9kepmx closed syllable, CVC, is bimoraic, as the prosodic109form represented in (4.c) SyllablePreliminary observations show that the N4e9kepmx syllable can be either open (5) orclosed (6)2. There is no vowel length distinction nor tautosyllabic vowel sequences;therefore no heavy syllable of the form CV: or CVV exists.(5) a. open syllables: b. closed syllables:6 6 6 6/ / ,‘/f H)‘ é. n i ‘ear’ s m u m’. + é c ‘little woman’Vowel-glide sequences, nonetheless, occur as shown below (6):(6) a. I’eyk/ ‘kinnickinnick (or bearberry)b. /céwt/ ‘ultimate’s-céwt-mx ‘youngest child’NOMINATIVE-ultimate=peoplec. téw-mn ‘store’sell-INSTRUMENTALcf. d. tawu ‘sold to someone’ OUT-OF-CONTROLsell-OUT OF CONTROLThe above examples, except for (6.d) show the glides [y/wj as coda, and therefore they closethe syllable.At the surface as shown in (7) the maximal representation of the N+e9kepmx syllablein word-final position has consonantal clusters in post-vocalic positions. Earlier in § 1.2.2,it was shown that morphologically derived forms can in final position have up to six (6)consonants clusters as in (7).(7) cül- = qsxtxv ‘you disconnect his end of it’1c.f. Czaykowska—Higgins, 1993a for a simiLar cLaim regarding syLlables in Nxa’amxcin.2The dot (.) represents the syllable boundary.110disconnect=head-BENE-TRANS-2-3The syllable nucleus position can be filled by either a vowel or a syllabic nasal.Thompson and Thompson (1990) state liquids in word-initital position are usually syllabic,semi-vowels in the same environment retain their semivocalic quality, and if syllabic must bepreceded by a glottal stop. With their limited distribution, syllabic nasals only occur inmultisyllabic forms, never constituting the sole syllabic nucleus in a stem. Shown below in(8) is an example which has a syllabic nasal.(8) 6 6A /fu n rn s ‘he found/finds it’Only vowels are stressed; syllabic nasals3 are never stressed.Although I earlier considered proposing that the initial nasal is licenced byextrametricality, I will represent the nasals as being moraically licensed consistent withThompson and Thompson’s (1992) analysis. Consonantal clusters with LOCATIVE prefix, n-,and the INSTRUMENTAL suffix, -tn, at stem-initial and -final position respectively are veryproductive, and thus, occur frequently. As shown in (10), both affixes are syllabic nasals.(10) 6 6 6 6I, /r\L. L /L fL IL LI il/Iln p tiflus tnn-pt=Inus-tn ‘way of thinking’LOC-?intervene=mind-INSTExtrasyllabic segments are represented with the angled brackets.(11)V C<C> VC<C><C>3me nonstressability and distributional limitation of nasals are undoubtedly relevant to foot structure,but this will require further study111In conclusion, the N+e9kepmx representation is maximally a bimoraic syllable [p4iJó. Aswill be motivated in the remainder of this chapter, this corresponds directly to the maximaltemplate.5.3 Augmentative ReduplicationThe Ne9kepmxcin augmentative reduplication process presented and discussed earlierin chapter 3 will be further examined and represented prosodically here. In the subsequentsections, I present several hypotheses for discussion. These are in regard to theaugmentative reduplication prosodic base, reduplicative template, extrametricality of theprosodic base and template. I also discuss ensuing phonological processes that come intoeffect as a result of the augmentative reduplication and morphophonological outcomes.5.3.1 Prosodic BaseBased on the data shown in chapter 3 (e.g. [s-ma+-mü4-ec] ‘women’) I postulate theprosodic base of the N+e9kepmx augmentative reduplication is the morphological root.Upon initial analysis, the augmentative operation appears to be an ‘affix’ surfacing either atthe beginning of the stem or after the first consonant of the stem. Therefore, the firstquestion is when the initial C should be outside of the reduplicative domain.The first argument here is in regard to an initial [s]. Is the initial [s] a part of themorphological root, or is it a prefix? Interestingly, the initial [sJ of a stem can be either aprefix or the initial consonant of a root these will be shown below.As shown by Thompson and Thompson (1992), the nominative prefix is an [s-]. Nowon the other hand, the [SI can also participate in the reduplication process. The two variableforms representing each type is shown below as (12):112(12) a. JseplIl sop-seplIl%fSéfl san-senb. s-fmü4’ec s-ma+-mfrecConsequently, a morphological distinction on the status of the initial [s] must be madebetween the two reduplicated forms. Again, the examples above and their reduplicatedforms are:(13) sap-%fseplIl (14) san-Jén (15) s-ma+-fmülecAUG-bread AUG-pine cosmetic NOM-AUG-womanThus, the reduplicated prosodic base targets the morphological root, excluding any prefixes.Another argument to maintain the fact that the base is a morphological root is discussedhere where I argue that the base is not the syllable. Using the same data as evidenceparticularily, the third form above (15), where the base is the root. I maintain that if theprosodic base were a syllable, the form would not be as shown below in (16) but rather asshown in (17):(16) base augtemp baseEm l”é {L trfl(17) base augtemp base•6• 6 * _6 6 6L /cNiiSm u I é c smu m u 4- ecAdditional data show that the augmentative reduplication of CCVC and CRVC rootsprovide further evidence that the prosodic base is indeed the morphological root. In fact,it is clear that the base of each form includes the initial premoraic consonants of the baseor the root.113(18) CCVC bases:+k’iw’-ix 1k’-+k’Iw’-ix ‘they climb’climb-AUTONOMOUS climb[AUG]-AUTONOMOUSqWxp qwxqwxopsnowbrush AUG-snowbrush ‘snowbrushes’tüt tu9-t9i49]t ‘little boys’little-boy AUG-little boy[DIM]Thus, the following (19) is a prosodic representation of the augmentative reduplication ofCCVC roots.(19) aug.base template base6 6/iLJ [1 IqWx qWx qWxpWith CCVC bases as shown below in (20), reduplication copies the initial two consonantsof the morphological root, irrespective of prefixes to the left.(20) n-put n-p1-plitLOCALIZER-priest LOC-AUG-priest (English loan)However, note the following in (21) where a compound form has a lexical root Cv?/ meaning ‘much, many’ and the ligature I/concatenating it with the second lexical root /k’k’/ ‘dirt’. Note that reduplication applies to the rightmost lexical root.(21) ‘lots of dirt on them’many-LIGATURE-AUG-dirt(22) aug.template base16 6I I\ I I”—’IiFLPLk’k’IThus, I claim from the above examples the base of the augmentative reduplication is themorphological root, not a prosodic base.1144k’4k’Iw’-ixclimb[AUG]-AUTONOMOUSqwxqwxwpAUG-snowbrush5.3.5 Subsequent Phonological ProcessesSeveral phonological processes occur in conjunction with the reduplication operations.Little boys appears to be an anomalous in that the reduplicative form has a [U] instead ofa [] as expected.5.3.2 Reduplicative TemplateThe augmentative reduplication forms on CCVC bases below establish that the templateis a bimoraic syllable [p4.u prefixed to the base. Further, unlike the base, the onset of thereduplicative prefix is a single consonant.(23) CCVC bases:+k’Iw’-ixclimb-AUTONOMOUSqWxpsnowbrush/t9iit/t9ütlittle-boyx9ittu9-t9i[9]t4 ‘little boys’AUG-little boy[DIM]x9-x9i[9]t ‘scout/raider’AUG-scout[DIM]One example below (24) shows that CRVC bases behave the same as CCVC bases. Thatis, the base of these canonical types includes both the initial CR premoraic (or prenucleus)consonants.(24) n-put n-pl-p1itLOC-priest LOC-AUG-priest (English loan)The analysis below shows how these behave in similar fashion:(25)baseaug.template base6 6 6//r? /±put pal p1 itc9ex”’ ca9 c’ éx115Mechanisms in effect are deletion, Obigatory Contour Principle, vowel colouration, glidevocalization and stress assignment.First of all, some variation of the [CVC] template is evident with forms that havedeletion of segments. The data below (26) appear to require a different template [CV-] forthe augmentative. Instead, I present them as evidence that the Obligatory Contour Principle(OCP) is in effect, as shown by the starred outputs.(26) Obligatory Contour Principle effects:a. cItx” ‘house’ sg. ci-citx” ‘houses’AUG-house*CjtCft)Wb. 9e-9uy-m’ ‘he laughs’ 9e-9e’uy-m’ ‘they laugh’?AUG-AUG-laugh-?*e9uy..mc. s-nen’eke’ ‘orphan’ s-ne-nen’eke9 ‘orphans’NOM-AUG-orphan*snenneneke9Thompson and Thompson (1992) in their analysis do not suggest how one can predictwhen the final C in the template will be filled or not, although they claim it will not be whenthe copied template CVC has identical consonants in the C1 and C2 positions as in (26b,c).This alternation in the copied domain is, I propose, a direct effect of the Obligatory ContourPrinciple: as stated by McCarthy (1986), “identical adjacent segments are prohibited”.Although this principle accounts for a CV- prefix in forms which would otherwise result inthe concatenation of identical consonants, the form in (26.a) has merely near identicalsegments as in (27):(27) a. citx” --> cicItx”*citcitxW116b.t c[-cor.rr] [-com][coRoNi] [cooi][+ STRIDENT]If the resulting form were *Cjt.Cftxw both {c] and [t] would have [coRoN] features. Iconclude then that these adjacent segments identical in manner and superordinate placewould violate the OCP; therefore, the first deletes.A second apparent irregularity occurs with vowels, where alternations such as /e/ -> []are phonologically predictable. These are cases of reduction of the unstressed copied vowel(Thompson and Thompson, 1992) as shown in 28:(28) fc’é+ ‘chill’c’+-c’é+ ‘cold’AUG- chillNote in (29), the base has an unstressed, but unreduced vowel. Here, the cyclicalreassignment of stress to the following stressable suffix leaves the [e] unstressed; but becauseit was stressed on a previous cycle the [e] does not reduce to [o] (Thompson and Thompson,1990):(29) qw94qwe4ncut ‘invite people (plural) to accompany’AUG-invite-DIRECTIVE-REFLEXIVEAnother variation occurs when the reduced [] deletes. In (30) a copied vowel has beendeleted, and the [y] has vocalized.(30) Vowel deletion of the template:k’iy—t ‘still’k’i-Ic’iy-t ‘be still, motionless’The derivation for (30) is shown below:(31) RooT: /I(’iy-1’Iy-t/VOWEL REDUCTION: I(’y-k’iy-tVOWEL DELETION: )‘ y-k’iy-tGLIDE-VOCALIZATION: )(‘ i-I(’iy-t[‘ i—Ic’Iy—t]117Other alternations include roots which are not ICVC/ but, according to Thompson andThompson (1992), they propose /CVC’C/ roots exist. If they indeed areC1VC2’(73roots,the vowel after the C1 has been deleted as shown below in (32). The first vowel in the rootis unstressed subsequently deleted after the application of the reduplication process.However, if the copied vowel in the template were to be deleted, the remaining cluster [#spzp} would violate constraints.(32) V1 deletion of CV1’QC roots:s-pz-pzu9 ‘birds’NOM-AUG-birdStill other phonological processes occur, but in specific interconsonantal environments.That is, vowel colouration occurs in the environment before uvulars and velars. As shownin (33)a. and b. the reduplicant vowel, schwa, surfaces as [+PFwmGEu] [a] preceding apharyngeal. The reduplicant vowel in (33)c. also has been colored by the precedingsegments. That is, in this case the [round] feature has colored the schwa in the copiedform.5(33) Phonological processesa. p’af-p’ác-t ‘burned in several places’AUG-burn-MDLb. ‘he broke my door down’AUG-break=opening=house-DIREcTIVE-TRANSITIVE-3-ISGc. ép ‘strawberries’NOM-AUG-ripe=bottomNote however, unlike (33.c), the form in (34) does not have vowel colouration of the copiedvowel. One must therefore ask: does vowel colouration of [+round] only occur with [-cont]obstruents, or under conditions of left-to-right directionality? Complicating these issuesfurther, observe that the stressed vowel in the base of the root /t’! ‘straight’ has been5Thompson and Thompson (1990a) note that the SPECIALIZATION EFFECT has occurred on the resonant Cy] of theroot.118affected by the [round] feature spreading right-to-left from a continuant. When thisadjacency is interrupted by the diminutive infix [t], the vowel colouration no longer isapplicable.(34) a. tvt6t ‘straight, direct, accurate’AUG-straight-IMMEDIATEcf. b. to”-t[t]-t ‘correct, right, the right way’AUG- straight[DIM]Other phonological process occur with the reassignment of stress. The example in (35)a. hasstress on the suffix; the [] is thus in a non-stressed position but is not in a context for Vcolouration, nor is it subject to deletion, presumably because it is preceding a resonant codaconsonant. Compare this with (35)b where the unstressed [] does delete if the followingresonant is functioning as an onset rather than a coda.(35) Stress effects:a. s-k’m-X’mk=éy’t ‘nieces’NOM-AUG-Jhiece=agentb. ‘m-’m=éke-s ‘chop off/down branches’AUG-chop=branch-30-3SIn contrast, the reduplicant vowel in (36) is also unstressed, but nonetheless exhibits Vcolouration.(36) Laryngeal effects:%fpu9p’u-p’u9-e-cüt ‘continuously flatulating’AUG-flatulate-RESULTIVE-REFLEXIVEThe vowel retention of (36) above is a result of the immediate adjacency of a [9]; its qualityis perhaps attributable to the rounding to [u] as an effect of the [p].In (37) two phonological processes have occurred:(37) Morafication:fcw’cu9-cu9=qIn ‘to hit s.o. in the head’AUG-punch=headFirst of all, the root vowel loses stress and then deletes after the suffixation of the lexical119suffix /-qin/; and then the [w’] vocalizes to [u9]. That is, the monomoraic [w’] splits into abimoraic [u9] form. Glides can not take the nucleus position, thus the occurrence of thephonological split.Both of the examples below, (38) and (39), have specializing effects occurring with thereduplicated forms. In (38) the [PHARYNGEAL] feature of the C2 consonant of the root hasshifted from the Ill to the root vowel. Also, both the base root and the copied template(38)a. now are glottalized, [1’]. At this time, I am unable to account for these effects. Themovement of the [pharyngeal] feature in both examples in (38) is not copied onto thetemplate. Consequently, the status or condition of this feature needs further discussion.Thompson and Thompson (1992) address the former by stating the roots have a pharyngealfeature, and they refer to the glottalizing effect as a specializing effect [‘].(38) Special(izing) effects:k’l’-k’l’-mIn’ ‘scissors’AUG-cut-sheet-INSTk’l-k’l-t-és ‘cut s.t. up into many pieces’AUG-cut-TRANS-?In conclusion, I have argued that the appropriate analysis of the augmentativereduplication is (39):(39) Base: morphological rootTemplate: prefix to the left edge of the root a bimoraic [6i’p] syllable.Extrametricality: non applicableDerivational prefixes occur outside of the base and the template. Several independentphonological processes affect both the template and the base, that is vowel reduction,deletion, vowel colouration, morafication, stress reassignment and special(izing) effects.5.4 Diminutive ReduplicationThe diminutive reduplication surfaces as a [-C] or [-CV] copy infixed into the120N4’e’kepmxcin form. Given that infixing can be more insightfully analyzed as suffixing toa prosodically defined base, the present analyses focusses particularily on the prosodicrepresentation of diminutive reduplication process. First of all, I propose the prosodic baseis a stressed [p]6 where the onset can maximally have one consonant. Secondly, I proposethe prosodic template is a monomoraic syllable, 6u, suffixed to the prosodic base, where thesecond mora of a stressed syllabic base is extrametrical. In the concluding section, I discussthe subsequent phonological processes relevant to the diminutive reduplication process.5.4.1 Prosodic baseThe diminutive reduplicated forms as shown earlier in chapter 3 appear in several forms.Consequently, in identifying the prosodic base as shown below (39), several factors must bediscussed.First of all, the base may be tauto- or hetero-morphological, and may involve either theroot or a derived stem. In reviewing the diminutive reduplication process, it is evident thatthe base for the diminutive reduplication is not morphologically defined, but is insteadprosodic, i.e. the stressed syllable of the stem. This is in fact the traditional claim of manyother Salishanists; what needs formal definition in the present context is the form of thesyllable. In current terms, the base is prosodically represented as a stressed monomoraicsyllable, [p]6 as shown in (39).(39) Diminutive reduplication:a. qemüt qemü[m]t ‘small hat’Jhat hatfDIM)b. 4ax=áns +a9=á[]n’s ‘a little person’Jèat=teeth eat=teeth[DIM]c. is-t-és 9is-t-e[t]s ‘plague, tease, torment s.o.’tease-TRANS-3-3 tease-TRANS-3-3121d. cu-xI-cm-e cu-xI[x]-cm-e ‘Do this form me!’Each of the examples in (39) have targeted a different location of the stem. Forexample in (39a.) the target is the root, whereas in (39b.) the target is the lexical suffix.Now the example in (39c.) the target is an inflectional suffix (pronominal marker), and in(39d.) the target is another derivational suffix (benefactive). Thus, I conclude that theprosodic base is the stressed syllable.Also, I argue that the onset of the stressed syllable is a single consonant as shown belowin (40). Recall from the discussion in chapter 2 that the Ne9kepmx syllable is maximally[i]6 or minimally []6. The examples below have pre-nuclear consonantal clusters;however, the templatic representation of the reduplicant must be restricted to only have oneconsonant in the onset as only the single C immediately preceding the nucleus is copied inthe reduplication process. Consequently this is stated as a condition on the onset below.(40) Diminutive reduplication base: h]6, onset = single Ca. c[9Jek ‘become cool’c[9]é[9]k ‘get a little cooler’b. s-%fpzü9 ‘(large) bird, animal’s-pzü[z’u]9 ‘small bird’Therefore, the initial C of (40)a. is not part of the prosodic base. Nor is the initial C [p1 ofthe root in (40.b). The nominative [s] in (40.b) is independently excluded from the basedomain because of its prefixal status.These are prosodically represented as in (41).(41) a. base base DRT6HRII Ic 9ék c eks-p s-p zñ _zu9Although I claim the stressed 6 of the stem is the base, a major issue is how to effectthe infixing of the diminutive mora into the stressed bimoraic syllable, [p4.u]6. Since forms12 Ztcan have a stressed syllable with a second , an explanation is required for the status of thesecond p. I propose the second p of a stressed syllable is subject to prosodic circumscriptionsince the template is affixed immediately after the monomoraic stressed nucleus.(42) domain of affixation site:a. prodically defined domain: stressed syllableb. suffixation: after first jj. of stressed syllable5.4.2 Diminutive reduplication templateIn this section evidence is considered in regard to whether the proposed monomoraictemplate [j.i.]6 is suffixed or prefixed to the base. Several points will be discussed to maintainthe suffixation hypothesis presented here.Current prosodic theory (McCarthy and Prince; 1986, 1990) claims reduplicationtemplates must either be a prefix or suffix. For this analysis, I adopt the several claims andconditions as presented by McCarthy and Prince concerning nonconcatenative morphology.The first argument presented here deals with whether the template is a prefix or asuffix. In conjunction with the prefixation of the template additional phonological processeswould need to be applied. On the other hand, if suffixation occurs, the final output isderived by fewer phonological processes; thus a simpler analysis can be presented.The prefixation analysis entails particular complexities with respect to stress behaviour.The major issue here is to determine how stress is copied, and once it is copied, how is itdeleted in the base? Although I consider stress to be a separate process, it is significant thatthere have been no other cases where stress is copied. Consequently, I do not propose thecopying of the stress from the prosodic base, although it is the target of the reduplicationprocess. Therefore, stress cannot be deleted from the base or copied template.I conclude then that the reduplication template is a suffix. However, to substanstiate12.3the claim, I present the following derivations to evaluate whether the template is bettertreated as a prefix (43 ff.) or a suffix (48). Broselow (1993) argues that the template is aprefix; therefore I present the possible prefixation analysis first. (DRT = DiminutiveReduplication Template)(43) Prefixation:a. base DRT[6 6/ /pfl[p 1 .t x” é I d Ijt x” ‘little house’b. base DRT6 6 6 6\NI’ I-’s m ñ + e c s m u m ü 4- e c ‘small woman’c. base DRT -66 6 6 6J1L LIl Ii \ 11qW4-j n é 4- m x q”’+i n e n é 4- m xTwo derivations which illustrate alternative ways of treating the base V-deletion and stressreassignment phenomena:(44) Prefixation:a. ROOT: fcitx’’ fmü+ecDIMINUTIVE: cic1tx” mu-mül-ecBASE VOWEL DELETION: Ci-CtX’ mu-m4-ecSTRESS REASSIGNMENT: cjctxw mü-m+ecRESONANT GLOTrALIZATION: mfl-m’+ecNOMINATIVE: s-mü4-ecouTpuT: ci-ctx”] [s-müm’4-ec]b. ROOT: fcItx” mi+ecDIMINUTIVE: CiCItXw mu-mül-ecBASE STRESS DELETED: Ci-Citx” mu-mu+ecSTRESS REASSIGNMENT: c1-cjtx”’ mñ-mu4-ecBASE VOWEL DELETION: CI-CtX” mu-m4-ecRESONANT GLOrrALIZATION: n/a mü-m’+ecNOMINATIVE: n/a s-müm’+ecouTpuT: [ci-ctx”] ‘little house’ [S-müm’+ec] ‘little wnian’12A crucial question is why stress re-assignment applies and the base stress is deleted. Perhapsit would be simpler to assume copy of the stress along with the melodic material, then thedeletion of the copied stress. Therefore, another prosodic representation and derivationwould be as in (45):(45) Prefixation:base DRT -LEThTXW L!1Thus, two alternative revised derivations, assuming stress is copied, are presented below (46):(46) a. ROOT:..fcítxDIMINUTIVE: cI-cItx’’BASE VOWEL DELETION: Ci-CtX”b. ROOT: fCitX”DIMINUTIVE: CI-C1tX”BASE STRESS DELETED: cicitxvBASE VOWEL DELETION: clctxwAlthough the above analysis can be made to generate the right output, I do not adopt it,particularily since there is no principled way to account for the shift or copy of the stress.In contrast, these stress facts are not at all problematic under the suffixation hypothesis,as illustrated below in (47):(47) Suffixation:a. base base DRTF/Th’ [H [/3FNtc I t x” C I - c i t X” ‘little house’b. base base DRT6 6 6 6/1_il /FJ\/IS m + ec S m ñ m u 4- ec ‘small woman’qW4-jn é + mx q+ n é n e + mx ‘small birch bark basket’12The derivation below shows subsequent deletion of the unstressed V in the reduplicant.(48) RooT: .fcitx”DIMINUTIVE: cI[ci]tx”VOWEL DELETION: Cl[c]tX”As shown, in this analysis no ad hoc mechanism is necessary to shift stress. Further, theV-deletion in the suffix follows directly from its unstressed post-tonic status.Another issue is that the prosodic category which defines the reduplication templatesurfaces as either a monomoraic (or core) syllable [ji]6 or a single consonant [C]. Recallaccording to McCarthy and Prince’s (1986) framework, it is necessary to define the templateas one of the prosodic categories. The issue therefore is the prosodic status of the singleC reduplication cases. The suffixation analysis above offers a unified treatment of both the-CV and -C cases by positing that the template consistently copies and maps the [CV]sequence, and that a subsequent general rule of unstressed vowel deletion then applies todelete the vowel under certain circumstances, specifically unless it is followed by a laryngealAn alternative approach would be to consider that the -C cases represent the generaldiminutive reduplication process; the template might then be defined as a single mora. Butif the template is a mora, the diminutive reduplication process could not account forexamples such as in (49). The process would never allow for copying the vowel andtherefore result in unacceptable forms such as: [xe9] ‘high’ --> [*XéX9] or [*XX9] ratherthan [xe-xe-9] ‘a little high’ and [9es-c’e9] ‘s.t. laid out -> [*9esc’éc’9] or [‘es-c’-c’é’] ratherthan [9es-c’e-c’e9] ‘s.t. small laid out’. The following derivation results in [*spzuz9] or[*s.pz..zu91 (49)a. rather than [s-pzü-zu-9] (49)b.12 o(49) Suffixation:a. base DRTI *[o1 [Tjs pz u 9 ‘animal’ >s p z u z 9b. base DRT*?Ill \“1s-pt ü 9 ‘animal’ --> s-p z zu9Note that because the vowel quality before the [9] is systematically identical to that of thestressed vowel of the base, an epenthesis analysis would not account for this. Therefore, Iconclude that the diminutive reduplication template is a monomoraic syllable, []6.Subsequent phonological processes occur in conjunction with the diminutive reduplicationprocess, and these are discussed in the following section.5.4.3 Subsequent phonological processesIn the previous section, I stated the deletion of the copied vowel of the templateoccurred in the reduplication process. Motivation for this derives from the reduplicativebehavior of stems which have a laryngeal in the C2 position of the stem. The copied vowelfollowed by a laryngeal is not deleted in the reduplicated forms. Note the followingexamples in (50):(50) xé ‘high’ --> xé[xe]9 ‘a little high(er)’s-pzü9 ‘animal’ --> s-pzü[zu]9 ‘small bird’es-c’é ‘s.t. laid out’ --> 9es-c’é[c’e]9 ‘s.t. small laid out’The retention of the copied vowel with the [“] in the adjacent position is fully regular.Another phonological process is with phonemic forms which have a /y(’)/ or /w(’)I asthe second mora of the base. These segments vocalize to [j9] and [u9] respectively in thediminutive reduplication forms, as in (51).127(51) c’’óy’-t ‘she sleeps’--> c’’o[c’9i9t ‘she takes a nap’nu-néw’-t ‘there is a --> nu9-né[n]u9-t ‘there is a little breezewind blowing’ blowing’After the deletion of the copied unstressed vowel, the /y’/ and 1w’! become [i9] and [u9]respectively. Since the final sequence -CG’t is not syllabifiable, the glide vocalizes, creatingthe necessary nucleus and retaining the glottalization independently (as was seen earlier inthe AUGMENTATIVE reduplication of the root fcw’ in (37)). The two derivations in (52)represent the vocalization of the glides discussed above:(52) RooT/STEM: /r’oy’t/ /new’t/AuGMENTATWE: n/a new’-néw’tVOWEL DELETIoN: n/a nw’-néw’tGLIDE VOCALIZATION: n/a nu9-new’tDIMINUTIVE: co[1wO]yt nu9-né[nejw’tVOWEL DELETION: çW0[ç. ]yt nu9-ne[njw’tGLIDE VOCALIZATION: {IWOIWI9t] {nune u9t]Once the diminutive reduplication process has been applied, the copied vowel is deletedsince it does not have a laryngeal following the stressed vowel of the target. This results ina sequence of segments which cannot be syllabically parsed; this necessitates vocalization ofthe glide. The /y’/ -> [j9] and /w’/ -> [u9] both now serve as the nucleus of the finalsyllable.In contrast, note the behaviour of the copied /y’/ in a stem which is vowel-final, as shownin (53):(53) a. c’y’é c’y’éy’ ‘small basket’b. ROOT/STEM: /C’y’e/DIMINUTIVE: c’y’é[y’e]VOWEL-DELETION: c’y’e[y’jGLIDE VOCALIZ’N: n/a[c’y’éy’]Here there is no stem-final glottal causing the copied vowel to remain, nor is there1Z3motivation for glide vocalization.Therefore, the above analysis demonstrates that diminutive reduplication templatecannot be simply a consonant.To summarize, I have argued that the diminutive reduplication receives a unified andprincipled account under an analysis which claims the following:(56) Diminutive reduplication process:base: stressed syllable of stem, onset = single Cprosodic circumscription: a non-nucleur p at the right edge of the base isextraprosodictemplate: suffix a monomoraic syllable, 6i5.5. Out-of-control reduplicationA prosodic analysis of the out-of-control reduplication process detailing the prosodicbase and template will be discussed here. It appears the prosodic morphological frameworkas presented by McCarthy and Prince (1986, 1990) does not adequately capture aspects ofthe N+e9kepmx out-of-control reduplication, particularily the template. This issue as wellas other issues will be discussed in subsequent sections.I hypothesize that the base for out-of-control reduplication is prosodically defined as astressed bimoraic syllable [ji.p.,]6 with the onset extraprosodic, and the template is a bimoraicsyllable [qi]6 which is suffixed to the base. Each of these claims will be discussed in detailin the next several sections, as well as the phonological processes associated with out-ofcontrol reduplication, or those which work in conjunction with the reduplication process inquestion.5.5.1 Prosodic baseAs stated above, I postulate that the prosodic base of the out-of-control reduplicationis a stressed bimoraic syllable. Three aspects of the prosodic base of the out-of-controlladreduplication are directly relevant here as earlier presented by Jimmie and Shaw (1992).The first area to be discussed is in regard to N4-e9kepmx roots which have initial Cclusters. As discussed earlier, few CCVC exist; different canonical subclasses are shown in(56). Occurrences of glottal stops [9] in second position (56)e. are the most frequent class.What forms do occur with out-of-control reduplication indicate that the existence of onsetclusters does not affect the affixation site, which is consistently after the first segment whichfollows the stressed vowel.(56) Out-of-control reduplication on CC-initial roots:a. f+k’Iw k’Iw-u-wiyx ‘climb’..fstax n/a ‘snowb(r)ush’f+céck 4-céc-c-k ‘mother-in-law’b. fq’p n/a ‘rustle (onom); expletive;snowb(r)ush’c. fplIt n-plIt-t ‘become a priest’ ENG.L0ANd. mlám mlám-m ‘heal, affect by supernatural spell, new dancer’e. C9VC../k’9ek )c”ék-k ‘s.o. finally managed to arrive’The second type of data of interest are roots with a final cluster. As Thompson andThompson (1992) state: ‘if a stem involves more than a single consonant after the stressedvowel, the affix is automatically infixal”. Data exemplifying this are given in (58):(58) Out-of-control reduplication on -CC final roots:C1tXW cit-it-x’’ ‘house’, ‘house finally becomes available’9écq’’ 9éc-c-q” ‘bake’, ‘s.t. was accidently baked’ücs üc-c-s-c- ‘abuse’, ‘to be intentionally abused’This suggests that the base is truly defined as a bimoraic syllable [p]6, where a maximumof one post-vocalic consonant can attach to the end of the syllable.The third type of data provides compelling evidence that the base must be syllabically130defined. Again, these facts are observed by Thompson and Thompson (1992) who state:“With longer bases involving suffixal stress, the out-of-control reduplication operates on thestressed syllable of the underlying form, regardless of the position and valence of the rootinvolved”. In the forms in (58), a lexical suffix has attracted stress away from the root, andit is this stressed syllable which functions as the base for out-of-control reduplication. Onceagain, the syllable must be defined in terms of a maximum of one post-vocalic C.(58) Out-of-control reduplication on stressed syllable of derived stem:a. ../1-a9 4a9x=án-n-s kn ‘I manage to eat (with difficulty).’The above data suggests indeed that the base is defined not morphologically, butprosodically as the stressed bimoraic syllable.However, the issue of extraprosodicity needs to be discussed in that neither the onsetsegment nor any additional segment(s) at the right edge of the stressed syllable are evercopied. As shown below (ORT = out-of-control reduplication template) the onset <C> isnot copied; therefore I conclude that it must be circumscribed as extraprosodic, i.e. outsideof the prosodic domain of the base. McCarthy and Prince’s (1990) theory of ProsodicCircumscription allows for a “constituent” at the edge of a domain to be designated asextraprosodic. In a case such as /cItxv/, this is possible as there is only a single segmentfunctioning as the syllable onset. This single segment is interpretable as a constituent, andcan therefore be designated extraprosodic at the left edge. Where this approach becomesproblematic, however, is in cases like those documented in (56) above where there is acomplex onset, e.g. (56.c) [plit] [n-plIt-t].(60) Suffixation:base base ORT\ \\1<c> i t W <c> i t it x”’ ‘little house’13,(61) Suffixation:base base ORT6 6[rrj frj[<p1> i t <p1> 1 t i t ‘become a priest’Unless the “onset” were given formal recognition as a prosodic constituent (which nostandard version of moraic theory allows for), it is not possible to characterize the sequence<p1> as a single extraprosodic constituent. Since the data in (56) clearly establish that theappropriate descriptive generalization is that the “onset”, whether it be a single C or acluster, is not copied in the out-of-control reduplication, these data therefore point to aserious inadequacy in the theory of prosodic circumscription in not being able to formallycharacterize this behaviour.Returning to examples like (60) [cItx”] ‘house’ which have a complex coda in the root,the out-of-control reduplication [cft[it]x”1] shows that the base must also be prosodicallycircumscribed at the right edge. That is, to account for the apparent “infixation” of the out-of-control reduplication in between the two final consonants of the CVCC root, an additionalsegment beyond a single (moraic) coda must be prosodically circumscribed as outside of thedomain of the out-of-control reduplication.To summerize the above discussion, it has been argued that in order to identify the basefor out-of-control reduplication, both onset segment(s) at the left edge and any residual codasegments at the right edge must be considered extraprosodic, i.e. [<CC>VC<C>].Although McCarthy and Prince’s theory of prosodic circumscription allows for a singleconstituent at an edge to be circumscribed, it does not accommodate the fact that an onsetsequence (as in (61)) must be eliminated from the domain.132Quite independently of the theory of prosodic circumscription, an interestinggeneralization emerges from a consideration of the prosodic structure in (60) and (61).Under the assumptions argued for in chapter 2 that (i) syllables are maximally bimoraic, and(ii) onset segments link directly to the syllable node, then the following prosodicgeneralization is evident: the content of the base which functions to determine both what iscopied and where the affix is positioned is precisely definable as all and only the moraiccontent.5.5.2 Out-of-control Reduplicative templateTurning now to a consideration of the appropriate form of the template, thereduplicative suffix, as shown earlier in chapter 3, is either a single [-C] or a [-VC].Although there are surface templatic variations, I propose that the template is [.qi]6Examples supporting the fact that the template is bimoraic syllable [jiji] suffixed to astressed bimoraic syllable where onset is extraprosodic are discussed below.First of all, I present data in (62) that appears to have a single [R] as the prosodicconstituent.(62) ném’-m’ ‘s.t. goes into s.t. unnoticed’carry[OC}‘how one appears (the wayLOC-Iook[OC] one cannot help looking)’9es-cay-y-e ‘stuck in upright position accidently’STAT-stuck[OC]-MDL“uiy-y=u9s ‘happen to get together’get-together[OC]-?topsurfaceIn chapter 3, I discussed these anomalous forms as well as the following in (63):(63) a. q”ác’-c’-e ‘it gets full suddenly and unexpectedly’fulI[OC]-MDLb. qwaccs4exw ‘you manage to move it’move[OC]-CAUS-TRAN-3-213c. 9es-c6+-I-e ‘(of liquid) spurt suddenly’STAT-spirt[OC]-MDLIn (63.b) the base is not stressed, therefore with the affixation of the derivational suffixes itis evident that stress must be cyclic. If it were not the case, the stress would be on the base.Czaykowska-Higgins (199b) presents evidence that there is a class of cylic suffixes includingtransitivizing ones. Thus, the example above (63.b) must be a cylic transitivizing suffix whichtriggers cyclic application of stress.If the template was indeed a single p (or a sole C2), the prosodic representation wouldbe as follows in (64) where an explanation would be required for the extraprosodicity notonly of the onset but also of the first [ii].(64) Out-of-control reduplication with a single C2:* base * base ORTL I•1 I I<qw> a Lz <qw> a z z ‘perspire, sweat’But as shown in a previous examples (61), the out-of-control reduplication template alsosurfaces as a bimoraic syllabic template.If the template is hypothesized to be a bimoraic syllable [Fq’]6 which is suffixed to theprosodically circumscribed base, then there must be explanations for the deletion of the firstmora (or copied vowel) and the syllabification of forms which have no nucleus. These willbe discussed below with the supporting data.5.5.3 Subsequent phonological processes: V-Deletion and Glide VocalizationThe deletion of the unstressed suffix vowel of the template creates a pair of identicalresonants in sequence. These are not geminates; in fact, the second resonant is realized asa syllable nucleus. As shown below:13 ‘(65) Out-of-control reduplication: Glide vocalization of a single C2:base base ORT-\N1111 LI LII I Hi H<c> é w’ <c> L é w’ u 9 ‘discussed’(66) ROOT: céw’ ‘discuss’our-oF-coNTRoL: céw’-w’COPIED VOWEL DELETION: CéW’-W’GLIDE VOCALIZATION: C W’ u9These occur in cases where the prosodic base has the glottalized [y’] and [w’] in the secondmora position. Significantly, the bimoraic 6 template remains as a bimoraic syllable [jiji],that is either a [j9] or a {u9]. Cases with a non-glottalized [yJ or [w] in the second moraposition behave differently. After the schwa deletes, the [y] and [w] vocalize (as above) to[i} and [u] respectively. The second p.. however remains empty, as shown below in (67).Given (i) that there is no other melodic material to fill the mora; and (ii) that the languagedoes not have either long vowels or geminate consonants, there is no principled way of fillingthis second mora after glide vocalization.(67) Out-of-control reduplication: glide vocalization of a single C2:base base ORTILFLH IIc ui w c ii w u 0 ‘done, made, fixed’(68) RooT: cw ‘do, make, fix’OUT-OF-CONTROL: cêw-wCOPIED VOWEL DELETION: CêW-WGLIDE VOCALIZATION: Cw-UVOWEL COLORATION: C UW-UTherefore, I conclude that the out-of-control reduplication is as follows:(69) Out-of-control reduplication:Base: stressed bimoraic syllable where onset and any non-moraic codasegments are extraprosodicTemplate: suffix bimoraic syllable [p..p..}61355.6 Characteristic ReduplicationOn the surface, the characteristic reduplication (informally -CVC) is very similar to theaugmentative (informally CVC-) reduplication process. However, the former suffixes to thebase (cf. § 5.3), whereas the latter prefixes to the base. Also, the former is not productive,whereas the augmentative is very prolific. Let us consider the comparison more deeply, inthe light of a formal characterization of the properties of the base, template, and subsequentphonological processes.5.6.1 Prosodic baseThe prosodic base of the characteristic reduplication process is very similar to theaugmentative except for a very major difference. The base of the characteristicreduplication is prosodically defined as the first [FLp]6 of the stem. As argued earlier, theaugmentative base is morphologically defined as the stem. Like the other reduplicationprocesses, the characteristic reduplication also has surface variations. In most cases theprosodic base is a bimoraic syllable [iji]6, as shown in (70). (CT = characteristic template)(70) Characteristic reduplication:a. cáq[cq]t ‘spruce grouse’tame[CHAR]-IMcep[cp]t ‘s.t. that stains s.t. red’smear blood-[CHARI-IMb. Base Base CI’6 6 6IPI’I I I I Icaq caq cq tcép cép cp tOn the contrary, the following examples in (71) have what surfaces as a monomoraic syllableas the prosodic base.13:(71) Characteristic reduplication, -CC:a. ci[cy]=él’qs ‘have new clothes’new[CHAR=c1othingci-cy-éle=xn ‘have new shoes’new[CHARl4foot=footb. base base CR1111H II iicy cy cy ele=xincoy ciø cOy éle=xnI would like to argue, however, that the above examples do have a bimoraic root /fcoy/which has undergone deletion of the root vowel [o]. Then the [y] has filled the nucleus, butin order to fill it the [y] vocalizes. Thus, following Thompson and Thompson’s (1992)analysis of roots, I propose that in cases where the realized base surfaces as an unstressedmonomoraic syllable, the roots are in actuality !CoG! roots. The effects of these types ofroots on the template will be discussed in the next two sections.5.6.2 Reduplicative templateI propose that the characteristic template is a bimoraic syllable [ii,u]6 which is suffixedto the first bimoraic syllable. In the instances where the template is reduced to amonomoraic template, as above in (71) and shown below in (72), subsequent phonologicalprocesses have come in effect. As in earlier examples, the empty mora has been fified bythe vocalization of the glide after the unstressed copied vowel deletes and the [constrictedglottis] feature fills the second mora, surfacing as a [9].(72) Characteristic reduplication: glide vocalizationa. zéw’[zu9]-t ‘tiresome’tire[CHARI-IMb. base base CRtII Iiz é w’ z é w’ z u ‘ t ‘tiresome’Other phonological effects are shown below in (73). Here both the root vowel and thecopied vowel have been deleted. The deletion of the root vowel (schwa) has caused thevocalization of the /y/ -> [i]. Similarly, deletion of the unstressed vowel in the reduplicativesuffix has triggered glide vocalization there too. An epenthetic [hj fills the onset for thefollowing syllable, since a vowel-initial lexical suffix has been attached to the previouslyvowel-final stem. (CT = characteristic template)(73) Vowel deletion and h-epenthesis:a. ciø[ciø]=hé+x” ‘have a new house’new[CHAR] = housebase CT1li1i.i, I1P Ic i 0 c i 0 J h é + x” ‘have a new house’In summary, I conclude that the characteristic reduplication is as in (74):(74) Characteristic reduplication:Base: first bimoraic syllable of stemTemplate: suffix a bimoraic syllabe [pp.]65.7 Affective ReduplicationOn the surface, the affective reduplication appears also to have a counterpart, thediminutive reduplication process, in that they are very similar. Both templates are the sameexcept the affective prefixes to the base, whereas the diminutive suffixes to the base asshown earlier in this chapter. However, like the characteristic reduplication, the affectiveis not productive whereas the diminutive is very productive. The prosodic representationof the base and the template will be discussed and presented in the following section, along13Swith relevant subsequent phonological processes.5.7.1 Prosodic baseI propose that the prosodic base of the affective reduplication is the lexical root.Although very similar to the diminutive, this is a very significant difference. Recall theprosodic base of the diminutive reduplication is a stressed monomoraic syllable. However,with the affective it is the first monomoraic syllable of the root.(75) t-tz-e9 ‘arrow head’AFF-protrude slightly-FORMATIVEc-cp=ikn’ ‘sun goes down over mountain into ocean (sunset)’AFF-fit in=backp-py’éx ‘very tired’AFF-tiredIn cases like the last form above, the base appears to have a complex onset, i.e. twoconsonants. Thompson and Thompson (1990) however represent the underling roots of thethree forms above as (76):(76) ..ftz ‘protrude’fcp ‘fit in’cp-p ‘get fitted into position, INCHOATIVE’..fpy’ex ‘tired’Thus, I conclude that the prosodic base of the affective reduplication can be generalizedsimply as the lexical root.(77) Affective reduplication prosodic base: lexical roota. n-c-céw’s ‘exhausted, tired Out’LOC-AFF-fatiguedn-t-tm=ltn ‘there are no berries in the basket’LOC-AFF-lack=harvest13b. template base6 6JI fijin ca cew’sc. template base6 6 6Ii fijiI I In ta ta mltn5.7.2 Reduplicative templateThe template, a monomoraic syllable [ji]6, is prefixed. In virtually every case thetemplate has not been reduced to a single consonant as with other reduplication processes,i.e. the vowel in this prefix is never subject to unstressed V-deletion (unless the prefix isan initial resonant (see (83)).Although Thompson and Thompson (1992:115) claim that the ‘vowel of the prefix ismost often reduced to Ia/in regular fashion, but in some forms variation is heard between/e/ and Ia! and a few cases show consistently [e]’. All my data have the reduced vowel [a]except for two forms which have an [e]. Forms derived from weak roots as shown below:(78) ta-tz-e9 ‘arrow head’AFF-protrude slightly-FORMATWEca-cp=íkn’ ‘sun goes down over mountain into ocean (sunset)’AFF-fit in=backpa-py’éx ‘very tired’AFF-tiredxa-xw’éI ‘trail’AFF-roadn-ta-tam=1tn ‘there are no berries in the basket’LOC-AFF-lack=harvests-pa-plant ‘skunk’NOM-AFF-skunk140s-c-cu9 ‘pattern’NOM-AFF-do9es--p ‘it is pleated’STAT-AF’F-pile flatHowever, other forms which have the copied templatic vowel as a schwa are strong rootsas shown below (79):(79) c-ci’ik”-e ‘by oneself’AFF-flnish-FMVn-c-céw’s ‘exhausted, tired out’LOC-AFF-fatiguedn-k-kIc-n’-cm-s ‘he haunts me’LOC-AFF-?-1-3Again, as previously discussed similar processes occur here as with other reduplicationprocesses. One of these is that the [+Pi.iRmGEj feature of a vowel is not copied. Also,the unstressed vowel of the base is deleted if a strong suffix is attached.Further, there, are vowel coloration effects. The following examples in (80) areconditioned by the consonants in the immediate environment of the vowels in question. Thatis, (80)a. shows the rounding of the vowel in the environment of {+round] consonants, and(80)b. shows the vowel [e] in the environment of the laryngeal [9]. However, (80)c. incontrast with (80)a. and (80)b., the [e] is not conditioned by its environment.(80) Vowel coloration effects:a. kwukwe+cIn ‘carry s.t. around eating it’AF’F-grasp-LIGATURE-foodb. 9e-9üy-m’ ‘laugh’AFF-laugh-MIDDLEC. we-wIyx ‘cry’AFF-cryIn some cases, as Thompson and Thompson state, the affective form is the more commonlexical form as in (81). That is, either the non-reduplicated forms are not independentlexical forms, or the non-reduplicated form is less often used. Alternatively, as with the141other reduplication processes, the non-affective form appears only with other affixes.Thompson and Thompson (1990) refer to some of the stems as affective stems. These stems,I presuppose, do not appear in the non-affective reduplication form.(81) t-té ‘no (NEGATIVE)’AFF-noThe vowel is deleted in forms which have an initial resonant, as in (82). Note however thatelsewhere the vowel is retained in the copied form before an obstruent.(82) 1wwóyt ‘sleep erratically’AFF-sleepStill some forms as shown below (83) are semantically ambiguous:(83) ‘empty house’LOC-AFF-house-INSTRUMENTn-c-cItx”-tn’ ‘winter village, group of several houses’LOC-AFF-house-INSTRUMENTIn summary, I conclude that the template is a monomoraic syllable.(84) Affective template:temp base6RI-1iiwe wiyx ‘cry’AFF-cryThese generalizations are stated in (85):(85) Affective reduplication:Base: first monomoraic syllable of rootTemplate: prefix prespecified monomoraic syllable, [RI65.8 Summary and Conclusions5.8.1 Summary of descriptive and theoretical issuesIn conclusion, each of the reduplication processes is uniquely defined by: (i) whetherthe base is prosodically or morphologically defined; (ii) how extraprosodicity of the base14Z.is characterized; (iii) whether the reduplicative template is monomoraic or bimoraic; and (iv)whether this template suffixes or prefixes the designated domain.Several inadequacies with the theory of prosodic circumscription exist. As discussedearlier in § 5.5.1, the designation of a prosodic constituent with the out-of-controlreduplication is problematic. The initial cluster of CCVC roots requires circumscription.Since an onset cluster cannot be designates as a single extraprosodic constituent, thiscannot be formally characterized.A striking dichotomy is evident with the N4-e9kepmx reduplication once the prosodicrepresentations of each of the prosodic bases and reduplicative templates are analysed. Thegeneralization which emerges that the augmentative, affective and characteristicreduplication templates are all prefixed to the morphological base. In contrast, thediminutive and out-of-control are both suffixed to a prosodically defined stressed base.That is, all the prefixing reduplication processes attach to a morphologically defined base(the root), whereas all the suffixing reduplication processes attach to a prosodicallycharacterized base.5.8.2 Identification of Interrelated Issues and Residual QuestionsSeveral interrelated issues regarding the N4-e9kepmx prosodic analysis require furtherresearch. The primary issue is the representation of complex onsets (pre-nuclear) and codas(post-nuclear) segments. Particularily problematic are those that are in medial positions;although they do not occur frequently, they nonetheless occur. At present I am unableto take a clear position on this matter, since the status of the Cs at both edges cannot beexplicitly motivated. For example, if the prosodic representation of initial and finalclusters is simplified to a maximum of one onset and one coda by extraprosodicity, as in(86)a. and (86)b. below, then one might expect forms of type (86)c.14(86) a. 6 ... b. c.<C> CVC CVC <C> <C> CV C <C>The third example above, however, is really not an acceptable form since N4ekepmxroots like fCCVCC do not exist.Thompson and Thompson (1990) designate almost 400 N+e9kepmx roots as CVCVC,many of which have a [] in either first or second V position. If the status of the [] isepenthetic, many of these designated 391 roots would require reanalysis, resulting inCCVC or CVCC root forms. If this were the case, clearer evidence for the actualprosodic representation may surface. On the other hand, since many N4e’kepmx stems canbe shown to have glide vocalization as a result of schwa deletion, the existence of glides[y] and [w] must exist in the N4’e’kepmx root. Particularily since the N4-e9kepmxaugmentative template can not be both CVC- and CV-; it must be either the CVC- or CV-.Earlier in this chapter I presented an analysis where I claim that the augmentativetemplate is CVC-. If the augmentative template had epenthetic schwas, a problem becomesevident. That is, how would the Prosodic Theory represent the prefix for a CC- templatewith subsequent epenthetic schwa? This argument, however, does not supercede the factthat epenthetic schwas do exist. They must occur in some forms, primarily when there is anunsyllabifiable consonant cluster. Thus, I claim that there must be two different types ofschwas in N+e9kepmx: (i) underlying schwas in roots and (ii) predictably derived schwas.Although this is a fundamentally important issue, further exploration of the status of theschwa is beyond the scope of this thesis and requires a detailed investigation.As stated in chapter 2, CCVC and CVCC roots were less than one-tenth of all rootsdesignated by Thompson and Thompson (1990). With the CVCC roots which occur more144frequently (almost four times as many as the other type of root), apparent sonorityviolations occurred with forms which primarily were fricatives, therefore one must positas with other languages, that there are consonant clusters which are acceptable.For the present, I adopt the following assumptions although they may be subject tofurther investigation. With the exception of [CR- and [sC- initial clusters in roots, I adopta simple {CVC]6. As there is no clear evidence for coda clusters functioningphonologically, I take the cautious position. Another assumption is that underlying schwasdo in fact exist. As well, I have assumed the existence of underlying glides, based on thereduplicative effects of forms which have a glide in C2 position.This analysis of N+e9kepmx reduplicative process has verified and clarified manyreduplicative issues, but much further work is necessary in several other phonologicalareas, i.e. syllable theory (including internal constituency, moraic representation), lexicalphonology, stress, the sonority status of fricatives.14BibliographyArchangeli, Diana. 1988. “Aspects of Underspecification Theory.” Phonology 5: 183-207.Bagemihi, Bruce. 1991. “Syllable Structure in Bella Coola.” Linguistic Inquily. 22.4:589-644.Bell, Sarah J. 1983. “Internal C Reduplication in Shuswap”. Linguistic Inquiiy 14.2:332-338.Borowsky, Toni. 1989. Structure Preservation and the Syllable Coda in English. NaturalLanguage and Linguistic Theoty, Vol. 7, 1989.Bessell, Nicola J. 1992. “Toward a Phonetic Phonological Typology of Post-VelarArticulation.” Ph.D. Thesis, University of British Columbia.Bessell, Nicola J. and Czaykowska-Higgins, Ewa. 1991a. ‘The Phonetics and Phonology ofPostvelar Sounds in Moses-Columbian Salish (Nxa’amxcin)”, ms. presented at theCLA, Kingston, Ontario.Bessell, Nicola J. and Czaykowska-Higgins, Ewa. 1991b. “Interior Salish Evidence forPlaceless Laryngeals. NELS 22. GLSA: University of Massachusetts, Amherst. Pp.35-50.Broselow, Ellen. 1983.”Salish Double Reduplications: Subjacency in Morphology”, NaturalLanguage and Linguistic Theory, 1:317-346.Broselow, Ellen and John McCarthy. 1983-4. “A Theory of Internal Reduplication”, LinguisticReview, 3:25-88.Carison, Barry. 1989. “Reduplication and Stress in Spokane” International Journal ofAmerican Linguistics 55:204-214.Carison, Barry F. and Dawn Bates. 1990. “Modeling out-of-control reduplication in Spokane”,XXV International Conference on Salish and Neighbouring Languages, Pp. 73-79.Carison, Barry F. and Laurence C. Thompson. 1982. “Out of Control in two (maybe more)Salish Languages”, Anthropological Linguistics 24: 5 1-65.Clements, G.N. and S.J. Keyser. 1983. c-v Phonology. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Czaykowska-Higgins, Ewa. 1993a. The Phonology and Semantics of CVC Reduplication inMoses-Columbian Salish. University of Montana Occasional Papers in Linguistics,No. 10.Czaykowska-Higgins, Ewa. 1993b. ‘Cyclicity and Stress Moses-Columbia Salish(Nxa’amxcin), Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 11:197-278.14bDoak, Ivy G. “Another Look at Coeur d’Alene Harmony,” International Journal ofAmericanLinguistics, 20.Egesdal, Steven M. 1992. Stylized Characters’ Speech in Thompson Salish Narrative. Universityof Montana Occasional Papers in Linguistics No. 9.Guerssel, Mohammed. 1986. “Glides in Berber and Syllabicity.” Linguistic Inquiiy. 17.1; 1-12.Haeberlin, Herman K. 1918. “Types of Reduplication in the Salish Dialects.” InternationalJournal ofAmerican Linguistics. Vol. 1; 154-174.Halle, Morris and J.-R. Vernaud. 1987. “Stress and the Cycle,” Linguistic Inquiiy.18.1; 45-84.Hankamer, J. and J. Aissen. 1974. “The Sonority Hierarchy”. In A. Bruck, R.A. Fox &M.W. Lagaly (eds) Papers from the Parasession in Natural Phonology of the CLS.Pp. 131-145.Hayes, Bruce. 1986. “Inalterability in CV Phonology”. Language 62. 321-352.Hayes, Bruce. 1989. “Compensatory Lengthening in Moraic Phonology,” Linguistic Inquily.20:253-306.Hunt, Kathy. 1991. “The Status of Glides in Gitksan”, Paper presented at WECOL 1990. ms.,University of British Columbia.Hyman, Larry M. 1985. A Theoty of Phonological Weight. Publications in LanguageSciences 19. Dordrecht: Foris Pubi.Ito, Junko. 1986. “Syllable Theory in prosodic phonology”. Ph.D. Dissertation, Universityof Massachusetts, Amherst.Jimmie, M. N. and P.A. Shaw. 1992. “Out-of-Control Reduplication in N1-e9kepmxcin”.Paper presented at the 31st Conference on American Indian Languages, Society forthe Study of the Indigenous Languages of the Americas (SSILA) in conjunction withthe American Anthropological Association (AAA), San Francisco.Katada, F. 1990. “On the Representation of Moras: Evidence from a Language Game”,Linguistic Inquiiy 21:641-646.Kirkham, Sandra. 1991. “A Preliminary Analysis of Reduplication in Lushootseed:A Prosodic Approach,” XXVI International Conference on Salish and NeighbouringLanguages, 241-257.Kiparsky, Paul. 1973. “Abstactness, Opacity, and Global Rules.” In 0. Fujimura (ed.), ThreeDimensions of Linguistic Theoty. Tokyo: TEC. Pp. 5 7-86.141Kiparsky, Paul. 1979. “Metrical Structure Assignment is Cyclic.” Linguistic Inquiry10.3;421-442.Kiparsky, Paul. 1985. “Some Consequences of Lexical Phonology.” Phonology Yearbook2:83-138.Kuipers, A. 1974. The Shuswap Language. Mouton, The Hague.Marantz, 1982. “Re Reduplication.” Linguistic Inquiry 13.3:435-482.Mattina, A. 1989. “(V)C2 Reduplication in Colville-Okanagan, with Historical Notes”.unpublished paper, presented at the International Conference on Salish andNeighbouring Languages.McCarthy, John. 1986. “OCP Effects: Gemination and Anti-Gemination”, LinguisticInquiry. 17:207-263.McCarthy, John. 1991. “On Gutterals.” Manuscript, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.McCarthy, J. and Alan Prince. 1986. “Prosodic Morphology”, ms., University ofMassachusetts, Amherst, and Brandeis University.McCarthy, J. and Alan Prince. 1988. “Quantitative Transfer in Reduplication and TemplaticMorphology.” In Linguistic Society of Korea (ed.) Linguistics in the Morning Calm 2.Seoul: Hanskin. Pp.3-35.McCarthy, J. and Alan Prince. 1990. “Foot and Word in Prosodic Morphology: The ArabicBroken Plural”, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory. Vol. 8:209-283.Newman, 5. 1947. “Bella Coola 1: Phonology.” International Journal ofAmerican Linguistics13-3:129-134.Paradis, C. and J-F. Prunet. 1991. The Special Status of Coronals: Internal and ExternalEvidence. Phonetics and Phonology. Vol. 2. New York: Academic Press.Rubach, J. and Booij, Geert, E. 1990. “Edge of Constituents Effects in Polish.” NaturalLanguage and Linguistic Theory. Vol. 8.3; 427-463.Selkirk, Elisabeth. 1980. “The Role of Prosodic Categories in English Word Stress”.Linguistic Inquiry 11:563-605.Shaw, Patricia A. 1991. “Syllable Structure in Northwest Coast Languages: Melodic Skippingin Nisgha”. Paper presented at the Conference on Linguistic Research at U.B.C.Shaw, Patricia A. 1992. “Templatic Evidence for the Syllable Nucleus.” In Proceedings ofNels23. Amherst: GSLAShaw, Patricia A. 1993. “Minimal Prosodic Constituency.” Paper presented at WECOL,University of Seattle, Washington.Shaw, Patricia A. and Walsh, Linda. 1991. “Syllable Structure in Nishga.” ms.Steriade, Donca. 1982. “Greek Prosodies and the Nature of Syllabaification. Ph.D.Dissertation, MIT.Steriade, Donca. 1988. “Reduplication and syllable transfer in Sanskrit and elsewhere.”Phonology, 5:73-155.Teit, James A. 1898. Traditions of the Thompson River Indians. American Folklore Society,Memoir 6. Boston and New York, Houghton, Mifflin.Teit, James A. 1904. Unpublished lexical lists, texts, miscellaneous material. Boas Collection.American Philosophical Society. Philadelphia.Thompson, L and M. Terry Thompson. 1990a. “The English-Thompson Finderlist.”Unpublished ms. University of Hawaii.Thompson, L. and M. Terry Thompson. 1990b. ‘Thompson-English Dictionary.” Unpublishedms. University of Hawaii.Thompson, L. and M. Terry Thompson. 1991. Appendices to the Thompson Grammar andthe Thompson Dictionary, forthcoming publication. University of Montana.Occasional Papers.Thompson, L. and M. Terry Thompson. 1992 (orig. 1986). The Thompson Grammar.University of Montana Occaisonal Papers in Linguistics No. 8.van Eijk, J. 1985. The Lillooet Language: Phonology, Morphology, Syntax. Doctoral thesis,Universiteit van Amsterdam.Zec, Draga. 1988. Sonority Constraints on Prosodic Structure. Ph.D. Dissertation, Stanford.14?Appendix I: Me9kepmx root table (Thompson and Thompson, 1990b.)The following underlying root representations proposed by Thompson and Thompson areorganized (i) in terms of canonical forms and (ii) into classes phonologically defined by theonset consonant(s).symbol C,CV CVC CCVC CVCC CVCVC OTHERCoez 9áJ ‘ké(n) ‘áyn écon ‘amálà‘écq’’ ‘ék”4’on ‘éqe’11 áz 9j9 or ‘élès ‘élmon‘él’ ‘etuq’’ ‘émayx‘éq’ 9ép 9éwi ‘épols‘éh ‘esx’’ 9itom 9ésnex‘éyk 9Ic’om étwon‘éyc’qe’‘ék’ ‘ey’ 7imec ‘éyicq”9ém 9ac’x 9ixic 9èlile’‘ipn 9IyOw ‘Mile9 ???‘ép’ ‘oys 9uyüxW ‘sxeh‘ée 9jW 9üpoyew’ 9ücs ‘ispIn 91k’lOxW9exw 9uy9 ‘upon 9Iswe+‘éy ‘üq”e’ ‘imoyx”‘éy’ 9im’on‘1k’ 7jnowoIk’ ‘istk‘iq’ 7itxVe“C’76m96sh--- h?m héh héw’t hécow howéyihékw hék”i’hem henoy’hem’ hèléw’hen’ hIhè’heyhIc’hiphIy’hClhCp150symbol C,CV CVC CVC CCVC CVCC CVCVC OTHERc co ceq cáz c’és céwt céteh cénmncü(n) cex” céc c9éx” céw’s céw’ek cépnIcoy cék cok9 cokeJ cétwicow cék”' cIkn comèh co+’ilcow’ cern cItx”‘’ com’ox coq”ollmcoc cén’ conuip cowéx”tcoh cép con’és ciqe94-cox”' céq copo ca?zcok” céqW cowescal’ céw cow’éxca4- céw’ ckencorn céz c’i4-oncon cik cImè+cop cik’” ckté+caq cIqcoq”' cIq”'coq” cIcascot dyco cI’co”'coy cólcokcoc’ ciik”'ciw cC+cuw cCqcCtcItx”'ccc”'c’ c’ac” c’áp c’9a1 c’é+m’ c’áleh c’á9mosc’ek c’áq c’1am c’éxt c’áq’èn’ c’ák”èc’o9 c’áq’ c’7aq c’ex(9) caqwa1 c’ályèc’a-y c’ék’ c”1o1 c’om9 c’ámà9q”‘c’ak cékW c’i9 c’èli’is c’éyèc’ok’ c’é4’ c’iq’9 c’ènéc’ c’èk’épè+c’ak”' c’érn’ c’iwq’ c’è+óy’sc’ol’ c’én c’Cp’n’ c’ok””o’l c’èpi9esc’o4- c’ép’ c’üq”‘” coloxW c’okolosp’u9c’ok’ c’éq c’ul’9 c’ol c’ok”la’c’am ceqW c’olIq’ c’o+ax”'c’orn’ c’éw’ c’olü”' c’od-huy’c’on céx”' c’ol’ox c’oolépèc’oq’ c’éy’ c’o+op c’kIkIkc’oq”' c’cl’ c’o+I’coqV c’Ik’ c’amoq’c’os c’Ip’ c’om’éxc’aw c’Iq’ c’omec’aw’ c’Iw’ c’oqi’c’áJ c”?ál c’oteh151symbol C,CV CVC CVC CCVC CVCC CVCVC OTHERCacaxV c’I c’awéncont’ c’ac c’Ix” c’aw’a+c’ac” c’iy c’ax”ec’ay c’ic” c’aaz’c’az c’k’ c’ayap’c’aI c’óq” c’ayaxc’aV” c’áJ’ c’ayaV”c’ c’ük” c’ayüV”c’i9 Cu1CW c’ay’éhc’üJ c’imaq’c’ám c’itam’c’üm’ c’iwaq’cuq\r c’ik”utk4”c’usç camcal’ç9mc?flçók ka ken káh k9éx kéyk kálac(UNR kew káz kéyx ké9aw’ kàwpüykac Ice’ ki9x kéze’ ke’+éskay kém’ kIyxW képay’ kèknIyka+ ken képCw kèlekam’ kép kètax” kéntihkan kéw kM’ax” kéy’i’stkan’ kéw’ katazkas kéx” kaxam kalákèkkac key kayè’ kélzamkaxW kéz kay’ax”' kaná’yekaz’ kIJ kikax k9ltankIc kikh kikxkaykik kInat kalikI+ kayè’kin kaz’ahkixklck’e’ k’éIc’ k”w’ k’éct k’é’ay k’a’é+ay’tk’e+ k’ém k’éy’ k’éce9 k’èk’nimk’ew’ k’ép k’iwIc’ k’écèh k’éynik’ac k’és k’émè+ k’atnik’ac’ k’éw’ k’émCsk’a4- k’éx k’ém’èc k’+aqe’152symbol C,CV CVC CVC CCVC CVCC CVCVC OTHERCok’--- k’aJ k’éX” k’étye’ k’owéye’coil’ k’ok’ k’éy’ k’olIc’k’am k’il k’o4-a%k’am’ k”il. k’opax”k’on k’ik’ k’atox”k’an’ k’ip k’oyox”k’oq k’ls k’oy’epk’oq’ k’It k’Isémk’os k’Ix k’itox”k’ot k’Ix”k’ax k’Ick’ax”k’oyk’ay’k’k’o+k” --- k”oc k”ál’ k”awk” k”ocok k”áük”ol kvac k”ax”m’ k”ok’ok’ k”am’k”'oJ k”'át k”U’t k”ayat k”'o’unoyk”al’ k”'á k”üsn’ k”'ètIh k’oha’qkM’o+ k”ác” k”usp k”upoy’ kVa1héloxk”om k”'ék’ k”upoy’ k”'oltepIsk”on k”'él k’”üceh k”ol’IqIqk”on’ k”'én k”ümeh k”'a+tAznek”os k”éw k”üye k”'am’y’éx”kM’ot k”'éw’ k”ÜZe k”oncá?tnk”a? k”éy kVIykesk”ay’ k”éy’ k”ük”Svflsk”oz k”ók’k”iw k”Isk”Ul k”itkwhkwiykwu kwk”ümk”flm’kwupk”ák”ès kwenmehkwey kwek kwiyxw kwaxweh rek’um’yek”ac k9y’t k”atec kwewekaxtrum k”oc’y’ésk””ok’ k”éy kwene9 kwokjyekwam kw6k k”esjxw kwomoyxwkwu+ kVacok kwotnoykwow k”'Iq’ kwoloc k”oy’19èkwaxw k”Iw k”ak’ak kvulowxwkwoy kwjy153symbol C,CV CVC CVC CCVC CVCC CVCVC OTHERCok”’ k”oz kW1y k”’iuèxcont’ k’”oz’ k”’ól k”’üceh??k’”il k”tlc’kWUC k”ñk”k’”üp’k”üyk”üzbc’ lap’ léle7 láa”xbo.y laq” 1c’i’ lep’oq’ikslop law 1óq”’i” losopikloq lá lohéc’ li’mI7loq’” liq’ lopoxw bItelo us lopéllow lI lopixlox lix lo’ayloW 11w file”lof lIf lIséklof” ljfwlix lük”'li léw4- 4-ac 4-ac +k’iw 4-a” 4-ánec’ 4-aq”‘’owt4-e” 4-ak 4-éwt +áoy +àfáse94-ew’ 4-otk”’ 4-okép 4-e”kép+oc +iz9 +om?k +o”pnte”+áy’ +oPoqW 4-oq’éw’s4-ok +éc 4-otox 4-oq”'”tm4-ok”‘’ +ék 4-owéy 4-owéy’st4-ok’ +ék’ 4-oyok”'4-op +ék”' 4-oyoq”' +ü”qIm’4-op’ +ék’ 4-oc”’e9 4-céck4-oq”' 4-em’ 4-ofop4-oq’ 4-en’4-qW4-ép4-os 4-eq4-ot 4-éw4-ow 4-éx”'4-ow’ 4-é4-o 4-1k4-OXW 4-1k”'4-OXW 4-1k’4-of 4-Im4-ç.W4-iq’4-k 4-jqW4-n 4-lw4-Ix4-14-Iy154sbo1 c,cv eve CVC CCVC CVCC CVCVC OTHERCo4- +Izcont’ 4-I4-Ok’4-uc,4-urn’+üq’Ic’ k’o k’eh k’ál’ k”ek k’émn k’àx”üs Ic’áqne9k’e+ k’á+ k’eq’ k’émox Ic’ék’yeIc’ok” k’6k k’ok” Ic’epé9 keqwukokv ?c’ék’ k’omk k’oko Ic’e9hIk’ol Ic’Ok” k’Iqt k’okom’ k’en’iIc’ol’ k’On k’iy9 k’ok”om’ k’o1én’tx”Ic’ép k’ámk’ Ic’om’oq k’oné1tx”’Ic’Oq k’üwx Ic’opoq koqaqwneIc’om’ Ic’éq’ k’iix”n’ Icoqwe9 k’oq’ésk’owIc’eq”’ Ic’oq”’u7 Ic’o”qe’k’op k’Ow Ic’oq’omk’oq k’éx Ic’oyInk’oq’ Ic’éx’’ k’oyIy’koqN k’éy koyoqWIc’os k’éz Ic’ozéhk’ox k’Ik” Ic’oz’ütk’Ik’ Ic”iIc’èpk’o Ic’in k’Im’oqk’ay k’Iq Ic’Inüx”k’Iq’ Ic’Iq’e’k’oz k’iq” kiXW+kjqW kjyoqWk’Iw’ k’uile’k’u9 k’ixk’ik’ük’k’üpk’üsIc’üy’m me mal maJ’ máq”m méc’i9 máwèmel maq mát mé4-üs mék’èmac’ mat méc’x mOah mémoytmok máS mék’p meloq’” méyè155symbol C,CV CVC CVC CCVC CVCC CVCVC OTHERCom ma+ mac’ mén’x macaz’ méyq”e9cont’ mak’ méc’ meq’m moc9k’ mlèk”óze9man mék”’ métk’’ moc’ax mac’éy(?)moq’’ mé+ meyx moc’ox’” moc’u+tmoq’ mék’ moyc mo!akV moktwar1mos mém mim’x moJám moko9umat men mülx mak’aq’” mak”y’éc’n’max méx mütm mak’us mok’qi’moe’ mé müyx monIp manemay méy’ moqa’ masténmay’ méy masin max6c’xn’mac mik’ matCi mlmmk’ mix” may’ax mzèmmi9 ?? mi” mayéw’ mIce?qmIy’ mazéc miktC9móc mc’eh mómosmoe’ mIc”’ay mCk”lacmól mits mCmlaqsmCc’ miye’1 mCq”’èmilk’ mClèmilq mC+ècmCsmilymCy’m’--- m’ann no ne7 náq’ na9z naqaz nac7lpnah naq” nst né’èk” nék”ènam’ né? nèyi9 nén’eke9nan née napél néwzenap né(h) naq’ém’ nacenax nak ni9a nahzik”enék’ nIhe’ namIm(è)4-néq” niwénés nCk”e9 nCzélènew nCyehnew’néxflexwn1kVnIk’nI4-nIqVnjznc’flilk\V156symbol C,CV CVC CVC CCVC CVCC CVCVC OTHERn nuimcont’ nusn’ n’op paz páh put pác”9 paqwu9 pé9l’wepen pal’ pet pe4’uis péke(e)pok páq’ pétk” péyèq pénckpokAI páq p6zm pe”èc pen’zepol pay p1q peyè9 pétole’po4- pá pi9 poloc’ pétk”èpoq pék”’ pi9 poliw péy’èpoqW pé+ piys po+á pocok+pos pek’ püyt pok’oq”’ pok+énpot pen pu9t pone9 poq”l’Icpow pep puys poséx posn’u+pox” péq” poték poz’ow’x”pox”’ pés p010k”' pI9u7spoy pet potoq pIkcèpoy’ pew p0tiw pIypk’ péx”' powén polantpm pé poy’ox pol’üx”e9pi’ péy poy’ok”' poayekspu’ péy’ pozoq”' potékw+pul p1k pozén poz’ow’x”p1k’ pozoq”' pstpIq poz’é+pjqWpozu’p1w ptékpic pkihp_1 plOXwpjWpól pisui+po pIlbpó”' pish+pac pücInp6k”’ pütéyp64-p6k’penpCsputpCXWpCypCy’157symbol C,CV CVC CVC CCVC CVCC CVCVC OThERp’ek’ p’éc’ pén’I’ p’én’èq p’é9yenp’oc’ p’ék” p’éyq’ p’éy’+e(h)p’ok’ p’ék”’ p’lc’ p’oc’z’e9p’k’ p’él p’oyoq p’ük”le’p’l p’émp’o+ p’éq’p’on p’esp’q p’éwpqWp’Ic’p’aspjqWp’aw’ p’Isp’ p’Iwp’x” p’ixp’y’ p’ix’”p’f p’Ip’u+p’ük’p’ümq --- qc qáy q”em qá1x’’ qal qapeqc’ qaz qáyt qáca’ qe9nImql qol qayx’’ qàyém’ q+mmnqo+ q+ qapc qéwos qowéw’+qm qom qéck qèmüt qIqèc’knqp qom’ qeyoqqos qap qoláq’qow qaw qolex”qoy qic qolilqoz qic’ qonoc’q14- qomutqik’ qow’éwqix”' qIqèk’qIq’---q’o9 q’ác’ q’am’n q’amIn q’álq’ecq’oc’ q’áw q’áwm q’aq’ek”' q’áq’me’q’ol q’á q’Iy’m q’aw’è q’áyonocq’om q’áy’ q’iyt q’apox” q’áyx?q’on’ q’áz q’ém’ès q’lze’q’op q’é+ q’épe’1 q’1èn’oyq’os q’éx”' q’olox”' q’o+ax”'ilq’ox” q’Ik’ q’alo q’onix”'èc’k’q’ow q’Ip’ q’ollp’ q’opk”olehq’ow’ q’iw’ q’o+ow q’owéqè+q’oy’ qjxW q’omok’ q’yü’èq’I q’omo”q’Iy q’otoq’otuk”q’owIs158symbol C,CV CVC CVC CCVC CVCC CVCVC OTHERq’ q’ow’4-cont’ q’oyáq’yq’q’ylq’q’yoq’yiq’Ile’q’ic’i?qW qWoc qwam qW9ep qwint qWon(W qWajxWe9qwm qW qw7ez qwisp qwse9 qwasqwyqWon qway qw9it qWjy+ qWte4 qwayele9xwqwon qwaz qW9ut qwyaw qwaneyqwa9qwas qWec qWxWop qwyc qwoseqwqWow q”én’ qWozem q”aléwe(9)qWgy qWey qW4jqWy qWey qWoyey+qwz qwez qWjlxqnqWW qWjc qwoqweski9qWu9 qwIc qwoxwole9qwIl qWtjxa9qwj1q”in qWikqwImqwIwqWjxWqWjWqwozqWu9qWu+qWapqWnyqW qW09 qWW qW96y qW qWgrn qwa9qqwom qW qwe+t qwgsew qWcyes9qws qWw+ qwoxaq qwwmqWw qw6l qwuls qWoze9 qWoysqneqWoy qwe+ qWuys qwuke9 qwjyyeqWy qWIc qwune9 qWistm.qWW qWIl qW9itxwqwxw qWj11qWun qwucqwut qWu+qwumqWumqWupqwutqWuy159symbol C,CV CVC CVC CCVC CVCC CVCVC OTHERs --- sew sé9 stá sent sé’iàq sélèso’y s6c’ séw’t se7lIssol sék séykV séme9 seyèsok sém sek9 sépon sopoillsok’ sen sem’t sohéw sox’’letsok” sep seye solok soywen’x”'som’ sew sot sok’ok”' 5jj9sop sew’ soz9 sonèy’ sitistsoq sex sCtu soyop sj4-c’u9soq” sex”' sCx”t sayoq’ sisqe9saq’ se sC”'m’ sisèk” sisq’tsgqWse”' suyp sic’om sii”estsow séy sipoc’ sCwlesow’ séy’ siqe9 süestsox sic’ sCsek”'sox”' sik”'so”' sIlsay sik’soy’ sipsac sip’sIqslq’sIq”'SIWSiXwsisIwsIcsIc”’sCcsCc’sCk’sumsup,sCq”'sCXwsCysCy’áw’ ayn áwas ol’pixipi’acik ulàpsCsIy160symbol C,CV CVC CVC CCVC CVCC CVCVC OTHERt t tern tá t9ix” ték+ tékarn tákttay ta tüt tay’x’4’ teyih tak’’uJ’stak’” tah trn4 talax ték”’x”’etal tok” tinx takéy’ téxkantol’ ta+ tüt tak”i teylirnetol tarn’ tuiwn’ tomix”' 6méytéstan tap turn’x tom’os twontap toq” tuwx tom’ax ta7ászehtaq tow’ tawac’ ta9iistktaq”' ta towék tarnlIkehtax toy”' tawép tam4-Iktax”' toy tawIt tamnéc’tax tl taxéc’ tom’é!ttz tax”ap toaw’ttoy tIk”' tay’méttoz tIq”' tik”olustaf tIq”' tkktItof”' tix tü+kIstt$ lix”'tin tiict’lytotüturn’tüptüqtüq”'tüzt’oq”' t’á t’éx”' t’áqe’1 t’aq”Inet’éw t’Iyne9t’ük”'w wok’ wák”' w9ex waq’t wáaz’ wéwlèwal wá wék’k’ wéc’eh wéykonwon wá+ wénx walirn wèw’y’okwop wá wéw’+ woloq”' we9itwoq’ wác” wéyc wolo wew’qtwow wáz wéyk’ wolIk’ woc’métwax’’ wék’ woc? wol’oc wolk’zewo wén wIyx wok’ok’ wal’Iqtwo”' wén’ wux”t wornéx wotérntkway’ wet wosak’ wI9nürntwoz wéy woton wIne’x”'waf wéy’ woyot wIy’ewik waza wiwewIl ‘cvuq”olwj+161symbol C,CV VC CVC CVC CVCC CVCVC OTHERCaw wIscont’ wjy’wit!witpvw,x xa Xe9 xé4- xit xen’x xèc’an xaxalélux”xac xék’ xalaV’ xe7iy’am’xac’ xép’ xaJixxak xét xamen’xa4- xéw’ xawé+xak’ xéx xayakxam xéy xayalxan’ xéz xixe’xap xic xixixxap’ xic’xat xIkxaw xik’xay xl!xaz xik’xinxisxjtxiw’xiyxiy’xlzx” --- xWa9 xák” x”ux” xVosl x”èsit x”anitmtx’ac x”áJ x’t7us x”’iyl x’’óse x’tesitl àcxWu9t x”a’iy x’’itx”èc’ehx”ak”’ x”itc’ x”uy’t x”acakx”al x”itl x’’ac’ak’x”’aJ x”itl x”ac’aqx”am x”ém x’a1ók’x’’an x”en’ x”alak”x”ép x”ayak”x’’ap’ x”es x’tip’isx”aq” xWlc xixVekx”as x’lkW x”ityak”x”at xWlk x”itlehx”ayx”az x”itx”us162symbol C,CV CVC CVC CCVC CVCC CVCVC OTHERCoXw XWulcont’ x’vumx”upxwusx”üyxwu+cac’ ál ast án’ih áy’wiliák’ c6k’oytoc áq’ àtoy’ pléw’yeok ás cocoq owelk”ok’ áw’ oc’éc’ owéyx”xáy oc’oq’ oyoptcam Ay’ ploq py’tnémol áz o1éx”’ xozontakok’ éc onoq’ iépehom’ onáq’on’ ék”rap él apehop’ 4c cotoqaq Ic’ cotékcoq’ owéy’os cin oyex’’cow’ Iq cozénoy CIW’ ozümay’ ‘iy Ic’oq’oz’ Iyaq’4toqxwoc xWacx”ayt xWa9es x”onak’oyx”ac’ x’Vah x’”ast x”ác’eh x”oyiqx”’al xVal *9ms x”ac’oq’ x”oy’lomx”am x”ok’oq’ x”oy’qexwan xVaq’’ ?icyüs?‘ow x”óx”lèméy’èx”oy x”áy x”üèk’x”ay’?vazxWac xmcwjccwjc,xWilxW1kwIscwocw163symbol C,CV CVC CVC CCVC CVCC CVCVC OTHERxwuc,cont’ x”ük’x”üpwusx”’üyy --- yo’y yém yu9s yéc’ü yécutyak’ yew ykém’ yó”aqyam’ yew’ ymétyq yé ywinyéy yói9yew’ yIq yüweliyoxyjqWyo yjyW yjçWyocW yjmyip,yüq”y4qWy’ y’ali y’em y’olép y’64-oy’ty’eny’eyz zè ze9 záq z9ut zelt zolok” zolk”Czo zác zux” zom’9 zok’oq’ zowéstzoh zéc zom’én zix”ehzok” zé zonokzol zé zonix”'zok’ zé+ zosow’zam’ zék’ zox”épzoq’ zen zoyek”'zos zéw zix”ehzos zéw’ züx”ehzow zéxzow’ ZéXWzox zéyzox”' zIkzo zIq”zoy zIwzo zIxzoc”' zjZiXw ZCCzCmzen’zCq164symbol C,CV CVC CVC CCVC CVCC CVCVC OTHERZ 711Scont’ zixwit:iyz’ z’a--c các’ c’il’ cal’pxcac cak’cal canSac’ capck’ Saci cayca4- dc’dan dIldan 51k’das SImSaw’ dIn’da disSay 51wdazSW9al dWóyt d’yIxm5Wal 59n’ 5w9Iy çW1SWa+ d’’us d’Il’S’’asSwaydWaydWoI1.The theta only occurs with this particular form. Thompsor and Thonçson (1990b) note this is Spuzziin form,perhaps it is a Haqomelein form.2.Ir) is not a N4-e’kepmx phoneme and in this form it is an English loan.16S


Citation Scheme:


Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics



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"
                            async >
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:


Related Items