UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Theoretical issues in Nuu-Chah-Nulth phonology and morphology Kim, Ŭn-suk 2003

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

Item Metadata


831-ubc_2003-859290.pdf [ 10.47MB ]
JSON: 831-1.0091365.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0091365-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0091365-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0091365-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0091365-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0091365-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0091365-source.json
Full Text

Full Text

THEORETICAL ISSUES IN NUU-CHAH-NULTH PHONOLOGY AND MORPHOLOGY by EUN-SOOK KIM  B.A. Korea University, 1992 M.A. Korea University, 1994  A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES (Department of Linguistics)  We accept this thesis as conforming to the required standard.  THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA June 2003  © Eun-Sook Kim, 2003  In presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirements for an advanced degree at the University of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make it freely available for reference and study. 1 further agree that permission for extensive copying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the head of my department or by his or her representatives. It is understood that copying or publication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission.  Department of Linguistics The University of British Columbia Vancouver, Canada  Date: August 25, 2003  Abstract  The goals of the dissertation are documentation and description of the language, and investigation of theoretical issues raised by the language data. Nuu-chah-nulth, which constitutes, along with Ditidaht and Makah, the Southern branch of the Wakashan family, is in immediate danger of extinction.  There are many factors contributing to  endangerment, but above all, there is an enormous generation-gap between people who can speak the language and people who cannot, which may ultimately be too deep and broad to bridge without significant linguistic or educational measures.  The problem is compounded by the fact the there is very  little documentation of the language, hampering both linguistic research and efforts in the realm of education/revitalisation of the language. This work will contribute to documentation of Nuu-chah-nulth, which will ultimately help Nuu-chah-nulth people to develop education materials for their children. Although previous studies describe and analyse Tseshaht and Kyuquot, two of the 12 Nuu-chah-nulth dialects, there is not much comprehensive work where both the Nuu-chah-nulth sound system and related phonological phenomena and its morphology, are both well-described and analysed. Nuu-chah-nulth has unique and interesting dialect variation as well as linguistic phenomena which require organisation and generalisation.  This thesis focuses on the description of the Ahousaht dialect.  The documentation, in  conjunction with previous work, will help us understand Nuu-chah-nulth better in terms of the different evolution between dialects as well as both linguistic and typological characteristics of the language. It is important to investigate the phonology and morphology of Nuu-chah-nulth from the perspective of linguistic theory. Many phonological and morphological processes in Nuu-chah-nulth raise interesting questions in terms of universality, markedness, learnability, variability, and typological issues. Theoretical treatments of linguistic phenomena will help us understand the language itself better, and general characteristics of human language as well. I discuss the segmental phonology of the language in Chapter 3, including the treatment of pervasive phonological processes such as glottalisation, lenition, (de)labialisation, vowel lengthening, vowel shortening, and vowel alternation due to variable vowels; I treat prosodic phonology in Chapter 4, the morphological structure of words in Chapter 2, and morphological processes such as reduplication and allomorphy in Chapter 5.  I treat these phenomena  within Optimality Theory, due to its direct encoding of claims concerning universality, language variation, and typology.  ii  Table of contents  Abstract  ii  Table of contents  iii  Acknowledgments  v  1 Introduction  1  1.1 Goals of the dissertation  1  1.1.1 Documentation of the language  1  1.1.2 Description of the language  2  1.1.3 Theoretical implications  3  1.2 Theoretical background  3  1.2.1 Optimality Theory  3  1.2.2 "Richeness ofthe Base"  3  1.2.3 Faithfulness, markedness, and grounded phonology  4  1.2.4 Correspondence  5  1.3 A n outline for the dissertation  5  2 Overview of Nuu-chah-nulth morphology  6  2.1 Roots  7  2.2 Suffixes  10  3 Segmental phonology  16  3.1 Phonemic inventory  16  3.1.1 Consonants  15  3.1.2 Vowels  23  3.2 Phonological processes  27  3.2.1 Glottalisation  27  3.2.2 Lenition  93  3.2.3 Labialisation  121  3.2.4 Delabialisation  123  3.2.5 Vowel alternation  137  4 Prosodic phonology  161  4.1 Syllable structure  161  4.2 Prosodic constituents  162  4.3 Consonant clusters  163  4.4 Vowel hiatus  166  5 Morphology  174  5.1 Reduplication  175 iii  5.2 Allomorphy  225  6 Conclusion Bibliography Appendix  , :  237 240 253  Acknowledgments  First and foremost I must thank my language consultants Mary Jane Dick, Katherine Fraser, and Sarah Webster for sharing their language with me and for their enthusiasm and patience.  '"Tatiqsifanahsas  ?uuk iF Mary Jane Dick, Sarah Webster, Mtfiis Katherine Fraser, ?en huupii?anitsa?aF q aq ayiis" w  w  w  Especially, Mary Jane has helped me a lot to get through this long-term project as a good friend as well as an excellent consultant. I was very lucky to have had great guidance from the best possible supervisor Doug Pulleyblank. He has always presented challenges to me, encouraging me to think about all linguistic issues from every possible perspective.  He never failed to awaken my lazy mind so I can reach the point. Not only as a  teacher and researcher, but also as a human being, he has been an excellent model and inspiration to me. My two other committee members, Pat Shaw and Joe Stemberger, have made the UBC Linguistics department the best environment for me to study in.  Pat is the best teacher and someone who always  encourages me to look at the problems carefully. She always gives me a big smile and encouragement so I can feel refreshed from all the troubles. Her advice, suggestions and corrections have been invaluable to the completion of this dissertation.  I am always impressed by the way Joe treats linguistic issues.  Discussions with him on all aspects of the problems help me avoid staying in only one place and feeling satisfied about it. He always makes me realise how interesting linguistics is. I am grateful to my teachers in Korea University, Yong-Jae Lee, Ki-Ho Kim, and Kyoung-Ja Park. TTiey are the ones who introduced me to linguistics and convinced me why I should study linguistics. I have always believed that it was an excellent choice that I decided to study at UBC. these great people here in Vancouver.  I have met all  I will miss them wherever I am. In myfirstyear, I had the best  classmates in my life: Tanya Bob, Marion Caldecott, Suzanne Gessner, Ikuyo Kaneko, Yumiko Nakamura, Sunyoung Oh, and Uri Strauss. We spent all our time together always, helping each other to get through all the troubles. I enjoyed very much walking with Marion, discussing Buddhism as well as linguistics.  Suzanne was always there for me whenever I had problems. Thank you guys all your  encouragement and helps! I am also very grateful to all the faculty members at UBC'Guy Carden, RoseMarie Dechaine, Bryan Gick, Michael Rochemont, and Martina Wiltschko. how to be an excellent linguist in their own way.  Each of them showed me  I have had great friends at the department: Oladiipo  Ajiboye, Leora Bar-el, Carrie Gillon, Add Ruangjaroon, Gessiane Picanco, Scott Shank, Kayono Shiobara, Linda Watts, Ian Wilson, and Rachel Wojdak. I have learned good things from each of them so I can be a better human being as well as a linguist.  I specially thank Rachel for all the great  discussions we have had and all the fieldwork trips together.  Strang Burton, Laura Downing, Darin  Howe, Felicia Lee, and Kimary Shahin are not all here in the department any more, but they gave me ideas of how to be a great researcher.  I specially thank Darin Howe for introducing me to Nuu-chah-  v  nulth, and Strang Burton for teaching me how to produce glottalised consonants. Nobody can imagine how happy I was on the first day I made those sounds! I would like to thank Henry Davis and John Stonham, who are my external examiners. Henry always helped me remember that there are many other interesting things in linguistics not only phonology. John's comments about linguistic issues as well as the language itself contribute to improving the dissertation much. Above all, his profound knowledge of the language gave me good guides in many respects. I am also grateful to my outside-linguistics friends, Michelle and Tanobie, for always giving me much energy and happiness by which I can survive in this tough world. Both are far away but their souls are always with me! Most of all, I thank my parents and brother for their endless encouragement and support. What would I be without them! Finally, I gratefully acknowledge the financial support I received for my studies at UBC: two UBC Graduate Fellowships (1997-.1998, 1999-2000). I was also partially supported by FEL Grant (20022003) from Foundation for Endangered Languages, Jacobs Research Fund (2000-2001, 2001-2002) from Whatcom Museum, and Phillips Fund for Native American Research (2000-2001, 2001-2002) from American Philosophical Society for fieldwork. TThis research was also supported by a SSHRC grant (#410-97-1369) awarded to Doug Pulleyblank and Hampton Research Grant awarded to Henry Davis. With much love and gratitude, I dedicate this dissertation to my mother, my spiritual guide.  vi  Chapter 1 I N T R O D U C T I O N  1.1 Goals o f the dissertation  This dissertation is about the phonological and morphological processes o f Nuu-chah-nulth (formerly known as Nootka)^ i n particular the Ahousaht dialect, and their typological and theoretical implications. The thesis has the following goals.  1.1.1 Documentation o f the language  The language o f the thesis is Nuu-chah-nulth, which constitutes, along with Ditidaht and M a k a h , the Southern branch o f the Wakashan family (Swadesh 1933, Sapir & Swadesh 1939).  It is spoken along the  West Coast o f Vancouver Island from Barkley Sound north to Quatsino Sound i n British Columbia, Canada.  The Nuu-chah-nulth Tribal C o u n c i l considers themselves to represent 19 groups (Hoover  2002), but the following 12 major dialects (Howe 2000: p6) seem to be spoken: Ahousaht ([Taahuus?ath]), Ehattesaht ([?iihatis?ath]), Hesquiat ([hisk ii?ath]), Kyuquot ([qaayuukath]), Mowachaht ([muwacath]), w  Nuchatlaht ([nucaa+?ath]), Ohiaht ([huu?ii?ath]),  Tseshaht ([cisaa?ath]), Clayoquot  ([ka?uuk i?ath]), w  Toquaht ([t'ulc aa?ath]), Uchuklesaht ([huucuq?eis?ath]), and Ucluelet ([yuu-hi?i+?ath]). O f these dialects, w  I document Ahousaht, which is spoken on Flores Island located near the middle o f the west coast o f Vancouver Island. Nuu-chah-nulth, as a language i n immediate danger o f extinction, urgently needs to be documented. There are many factors contributing to its endangerment, but above all, there is an enormous generation gap between people who can speak the language and people who cannot, which may ultimately be too deep and broad to bridge without any linguistic or educational measures. O n l y a few people o f the older generation can speak their native tongue, while the younger generation cannot speak it at all or is familiar with only a few expressions.  Nuu-chah-nulth is estimated to be spoken b y between 50 speakers (Howe  2000) and 600 (Kinkade 1991).  According to m y language consultants, o f the 800 people on the  Ahousaht reserve only less than 30 people over the age o f 60 speak the language.  A l s o , when I visited  Flores Island i n the summer o f 2002, this number was confirmed b y one o f the elders.  G i v e n this  estimation and that Flores Island is one o f the biggest native communities, I estimate that there may be 150-200 speakers left among the 12 dialects.  1  M y consultants, 77 and 57 years old respectively, each  lead a big family, but they are the only ones that can speak their language fluently.  Unless the younger  generation tries to leam their language, it w i l l disappear i n the near future.  1  F r o m m y fieldwork with speakers from different dialects such as Ucleulet, Clayoquot, and K y u q u o t , I estimate that  there are 10-15 speakers o f each o f these dialects.  1  The problem is compounded by the fact that there is very little documentation of the language, hampering both linguistic research and efforts in the realm of education.  Franz Boas (1910, 1911, 1928,  1932, 1947) treated many linguistic phenomena of Kwakwala, one of the Northern Wakashan languages. Very recently, much of Oowekyala, another language of the Northern Wakashan branch, has been documented by Howe (2000).  The other two Southern Wakashan languages, Ditidaht and Makah, have  been investigated by Terry Klokeid and William Jacobsen, Jr., respectively, greatly increasing the available written resources (see Klokeid 1969, 1977a, b, 1978a, b, c; Jacobsen 1969, 1979a, b, c, 1986, 1999).  Nuu-chah-nulth, on the other hand, has not been studied as much.  Nuu-chah-nulth began to  attract linguists' interest when Edward Sapir's collected texts, mainly from Tseshaht (one of the 12 dialects of Nuu-chah-nulth), were published in Sapir & Swadesh (1939).  Recently, a comprehensive  description of Kyuquot, another dialect of Nuu-chah-nulth, was done by Rose (1981).  In addition, Rose  (1976) and Stonham (1994, 1999) provide systematic organization and description of Tseshaht phonology based on Sapir's work. documented.  Ahousaht and the other Nuu-chah-nulth dialects, however, have not been well-  Although Rose (1976) discusses glottalisation and lenition with some Ahousaht data, and  Nakayama (1997a,b)  discusses morphological and syntactic aspects of Ahousaht, there is no  documentation that has more thoroughly established Ahousaht phonology. Tnis work will contribute to documentation of Nuu-chah-nulth, in particular the Ahousaht dialect, which provides research subjects for linguists and will ultimately help Nuu-chah-nulth people to develop education materials for their children. In addition, by adding a comprehensive documentation of another dialect, we will be able to understand Nuu-chah-nulth better in terms of dialectal similarities and differences.  1.1.2 Description of the language  The second goal of the dissertation is to provide a well-defined description of Ahousaht Nuu-chah-nulth in terms of phonological and morphological phenomena.  Although previous studies describe and  analyze Tseshaht and Kyuquot, two of the 12 Nuu-chah-nulth dialects, there is no comprehensive work where both the Ahousaht Nuu-chah-nulth sound system and related phonological phenomena, and its morphology are both well-described and analyzed.  Nuu-chah-nulth has unique and interesting dialect  variation as well as linguistic phenomena which require organisation and generalization. goal of the dissertation is closely related to the first.  The second  Trie documentation, in conjunction with previous  work, will help us understand Nuu-chah-nulth better in terms of the different evolution between dialects as well as both linguistic and typological characteristics of the language.  2  1.1.3 Theoretical implications  The third goal of the dissertation is to investigate the phonology and morphology of Nuu-chah-nulth within the perspective of linguistic theory.  Many phonological and morphological processes in Nuu-  chah-nulth raise interesting questions in terms of universality, markedness, learnability, variability, and typological issues.  Importantly, the phenomena examined are rarely found cross-linguistically, which  raises many linguistically important questions, in particular, how to define 'marked' or 'unmarked' properties of linguistic elements. In the thesis, I examine what constitute (un)marked characteristics of human language as well as of Nuu-chah-nulth.  In addition, all the processes I investigate are triggered  by morphological factors, leading to the question of how to treat phonological and morphological aspects together under a single grammar, an interface that has raised various controversial questions among linguists. Theoretical treatments of the linguistic phenomena will help us understand the language itself better, and general characteristics of human language as well. I briefly introduce the theories I adopt or adapt in the following section.  1. 2 Theoretical background  I adopt Optimality Theory (henceforth OT; Prince & Smolensky 1993, McCarthy & Prince 1993 et seq.) as a basic mechanism in the thesis.  A full discussion of OT is not necessary; I will summarise the  fundamental ideas and concepts of OT and some aspects of the theory which are relevant to my analysis.  1.2.1 Optimality Theory  OT (Prince & Smolensky 1993, McCarthy & Prince 1993) conceives of a grammar as a hierarchy of universal well-formedness constraints, which are ranked and violable.  Gen and Eval, two major  constituents of the grammar, create a set of candidate outputs for a given input, and choose the best of the candidates against a language-particular ranking of the constraints, respectively. The candidate output that best satisfies the ranking by violating the fewest lowest-ranked constraints, is selected as the actual surface form.  Throughout the dissertation, I will discuss the consequences of key principles of OT for  Nuu-chah-nulth phonology and morphology. For overall discussions of OT, refer to McCarthy & Prince (1993), Archangeli & Langendoen (1997), Kager (1999) and McCarthy (2002)..  1.2.2 "Richness of the Base"  Features as phonological primitives can be combined freely.  This is a fundamental principle of OT,  Richness of the Base (Prince & Smolensky 1993, Smolensky 1996). 3  Under this principle, there is no  restriction on input forms, and thus a set of inputs to the grammar is possible (Smolensky 1996). Constraints operate only on output representations.  Certain well-formed feature combinations from a  rich set of feature combinations surface as an output form according to context.  In cases where certain  segment types exhibit variable behavior, this raises the possibility that their behavioral differences are due to the selection of different input representations for the same surface forms (Archangeli & Pulleyblank 1994).  This principle provides conceptual consequences for linguistic phenomena where for a single  surface segment, there are more than one input and it leads to surface alternations in some contexts. This principle is also supported by empirical consequences from real languages (see Rosen 2001).  Some  consequences of 'Richness of the Base' for Nuu-chah-nulth phonology will be discussed in Chapter 3, illustrating more empirical adequacy of the principle.  1.2.3 Faithfulness, markedness and grounded phonology  Since Jakobson (1941), Halle (1959) and Chomsky & Halle (1968), much theoretical attention has been given to Markedness (see also Archangeli 1984, 1988; Kiparsky 1981, 1985, 1988; Ito & Mester 1986, Archangeli & Pulleyblank 1994, Steriade 1995 among others). individual feature values are evaluated as unmarked or marked.  Feature combinations as well as Within OT, cross-linguistic or  intralinguistic markedness is represented by constraints and their language-specific ranking, rather than regulating the lexicon.  Markedness constraints force the presence of the least-marked structures on the  surface, while Faithfulness constraints require minimal differences between input and output forms. If a language maintains cross-linguistically marked features or feature combinations, then the relevant constraints will be relatively lower-ranked with respect to Faithfulness constraints in the language in question.  On the other hand, if a language does not allow marked phonological elements, then the  constraints will be relatively highly ranked. The question is how to evaluate whether features or feature combinations are marked. We need a principle which provides restrictions on well-formed combinations of features and accounts for a variety of patterns attested cross-linguistically.  For this issue, I adopt  Archangeli & Pulleyblank (1994), which claims that linguistic models should make use only of implicational relations that are grounded in their articulatory or acoustic correlates.  Also, Bernhardt &  Stemberger (1998) draw our attention to cognitive grounding of constraints to understand human language.  In this thesis, phonological processes are discussed under both these lines, showing that  surface forms are derived as a result of the interaction between Faithfulness and Markedness and that the concept of Markedness is phonetically and cognitively grounded.  4  1.2.4 Correspondence  Faithfulness in OT is instantiated as a set of constraints on corresponding elements (McCarthy & Prince 1993, 1994a,b, 1995).  Correspondence theory has evolved with significant work such as Urbanczyk  (1995, 1996, 1999), Spaelti (1997), Struijke (1998, 2000), Gafos (1998), Pulleyblank (to appear) among others, in particular in terms of the treatment of reduplication.  Although some of their detailed  arguments are different, they are basically in the same line in that they use correspondence relations between two related strings, the input-output relation and/or the base-reduplicant relation, to deal with the phonological identity of the reduplicant.  I develop correspondence between Base and Reduplicant as  well as one between Input and Output (cf. Pulleyblank to appear).  Both conceptual and empirical  consequences of correspondence theory for Nuu-chah-nulth phonology, in particular reduplication, will be discussed in chapter 5.1. In addition, I introduce MAX and DEP only, against the implementation of IDENT (for a detailed discussion, see Shaw 1994, Lombardi 1997, 1998; Zhang 2000).  1.3 An outline for the dissertation  The remainder of chapter 1 presents an outline for the rest of the dissertation. Chapter 2 provides an overview of Nuu-chah-nulth morphology, describing the morphological structure of words and the properties of each morphological category such as root, and suffix. Morphological information is important in understanding Nuu-chah-nulth phonological phenomena, as we will see in the following chapters. Chapter 3 discusses the segmental phonology of the language, including the treatment of pervasive phonological processes such as glottalisation, lenition, delabialisation, vowel lengthening, vowel shortening, and vowel alternation due to variable vowels. Chapters 4 and 5 treat prosodic phonology and morphological processes such as reduplication and allomorphy, respectively. Finally, chapter 6 provides a summary and conclusion with implications for further research.  5  Chapter 2 O V E R V I E W OF N U U - C H A H - N U L T H M O R P H O L O G Y  In chapter 2,1 show the internal structure of Nuu-chah-nulth words and the morphological properties that are related to phonological phenomena.  It is important to understand both the characteristics of  morphemes (lexical items) themselves and the relationship between morphemes in order to find out how and/or to what extent morphology is involved in phonological alternations. However, I will only provide basic morphological information which is essential for phonological issues. (See Sapir & Swadesh 1939, Swadesh 1939, 1948, Haas 1969, Rose 1981, Nakayama 1997, Stonham 1994, 1999, Stonham & Y i u 2000, Davis & Sawai 2001, and Wojdak 2002 for more detailed discussion.) Nuu-chah-nulth is what is called a '(poly)synthetic' language where ideas are in general delivered by morphologically complex, long word-forms by affixation, primarily suffixation. The following statement from Swadesh (1939:78) about the morpho-syntactic properties of the language will help us understand its structural property.  The expression " [Nootka] internal syntax"... is based on the recognition ofthe fact that the combination of morphemes into a single word in a synthetic language has the same function as the juxtaposition of independent words in an analytic language. This function is the putting together of semantic units or "lexemes" into semantic complexes expressing communications or parts of communications... we may apply the term syntax to the process in general, and designate the semantic theory of unitword combination as internal syntax....  The schematic internal structure of the Nuu-chah-nulth word is as follows:  (1) The internal structure ofthe word in Nuu-chah-nulth  [Prefix(Reduplicant)-Root-Lexical suffixes-Grammatical suffixes] ord W  Each word includes a root morpheme as a core, which may be followed by lexical and/or grammatical suffixes.  The language does not have prefixes except for adding some part o f a root morpheme  by the process o f reduplication.  That is, a prefix can be attached by copying the first syllable of the  root morpheme in; in some cases, the coda of the first syllable is not be copied; the process can be performed without a trigger or by attaching certain suffixes.  In Ahousaht Nuu-chah-nulth, double  reduplication is not observed (cf. Sapir & Swadesh 1939, Stonham 1999, 2003: These studies provide examples of double reduplication in Tseshaht Nuu-chah-nulth).  6  For the internal structure, there have been controversial issues with respect to how each predicative lexical suffix is combined with the root: morphological treatments (see Sapir & Swadesh 1939, Swadesh 1939, Rose 1981, Davidson 2002), syntactic treatments (see Stonham 1994, 1999, Yiu & Stonham 2000, Stonham & Yiu 2000, Davis & Sawai 2001) and a post-syntactic treatment (see Wojdak 2002).  Since  this issue is beyond the scope of the thesis, I do not support or argue for any one of these arguments, but will simply use a morphological treatment, where morphemes are simply linearly combined.  2.1 Roots  Typically, a polymorphemic word contains a central morpheme, which contributes the basic meaning of a word and sometimes cannot stand by itself (see Spencer 1991). This kind of morpheme has been called 'root'.  In Nuu-chah-nulth, the root is a morpheme which cannot stand by itself and needs at least one  lexical or grammatical suffix to be attached in order to function as an independent word in sentences. However, as shown in (2), roots do not always provide the lexical meaning for a whole word and instead, lexical suffixes often play such a role. This property leads to controversy: whether some Nuu-chah-nulth roots are really roots, (see Davis & Sawai 2001).  (2) a. ?u?iic ?u-?iic it-to eat 'to eat'  b. ?uk ii+ w  ?u-k iHw  it-to make 'to make'  In this thesis, I simply consider a morpheme which stands at the left edge of the non-reduplicated word as the root, whether it has a lexical meaning or not, without taking a position on this issues. Nuu-chah-nulth roots mostly consist of one syllable. According to Rose (1981:29), almost 60 percent of Kyuquot Nuu-chah-nulth root morphemes consist only of one syllable; in particular, verb roots are remarkably monosyllabic (85%). (See also Haas 1969 for Tseshaht).  I would suppose that Ahousaht  exhibits similar ratios, given the fact that the dialects share almost the same lexicon. A root begins with one and only one consonant, which is derived by constraints on syllable structure. (This issue will be discussed in detail in chapter 4.)  There has been controversy over Nuu-chah-nulth  roots/words with respect to word classes such as noun, verb, etc.  7  While Swadesh (1939), Jacobsen  (1979), and Nakayama (1997) treat Nuu-chah-nulth as a category-neutral language, Wojdak (2001) claims that Nuu-chah-nulth words should be distinguished according to syntactic categories, by demonstrating that there are modification constructions in the language which are sensitive to a [+/-N] categorical restriction (see Wojdak 2001 for detailed discussion).  The following examples are presented  according to syntactic categories such as noun, verb, and adjective/adverb, following Wojdak (2001).  1  I. Noun root  (3) Monosyllabic root a. k is-  'snow'  b. cih-  'spirit'  w  c. nuuk - 'song' w  d. 9eaaq-  'whale blubber'  e. capx-  'man'  f. sikt-  'eggs of head lice'  g. she-  'maggot'  h. hiix-  'small purple sea urchin'  i. niis-  'liquid'  j. cis-  'rope'  k. cisq-  'meat'  1. ?uus-  'something'  m. M l -  'it'  2  (4) Bisyllabic root a. hiyi-  'snake'  b. kaa?in- 'crow' c. ca?ak- 'river' d. taaca- 'belly' e. camas- 's.t. sweet' 1  What I mean by 'syntactic' is that each root morpheme can play a syntactic role as a noun, verb, adjective, or  adverb in a sentence. Most root morphemes have lexical meaning; the usages of 'lexical' should not be considered as the same as 'lexical' as a counter term against 'syntactic'. Many of these root morphemes, specially nouns, can appear without suffixes: e.g. k is, nuuk* etc. w  2  Very frequently, this root does not provide any semantic information but plays only as a place holder: in such a  context, a lexical verbal suffix semantically plays a central role. Davis & Sawai (2001) claim that in addition to this, incorporated objects into a set of morphologically dependent verbs are in fact not roots. 8  f. ?aqi-  'what'  II. Verb root  (5) Monosyllabic root a. tux -  'to jump'  b. cix -  'to fry'  c. 9cih-  to drive'  d. rhaa-  'to bite'  e. waa-  'to speak'  f. ca-  'to flow'  g. citk-  'to twist'  h.yac-  'to walk  i. yaqk-  'to dislike'  j. cuc-  'to scratch'  k. mitx-  'to spin'  1. &ix -  'to smile/laugh'  w  w  w  (6) Bisyllabic root a. wa?ic-  'to sleep'  b. tamis-  'to drift'  c. wasaq  'to cough'  d. ?usum- 'to need/want' e. kaa?af. c'uhii-  'to give (here)' 'to be extinguished'  III. Adjective/adverb root  (7) Monosyllabic root a. cim- 'properly' b. rha-i-- 'cold' c. &up- 'hot/warm' d. c'us-  'new'  e. ?iih-  'big'  f. ?cah-  'now'  g. tort- 'nice'  h. cisx-  'dirty'  i. hacx - 'deep' w  j. &ttx-  'flat'  k. kaac-  'short (time)'  1. wis-  'dim'  (8) Bisyllabic root a. kuuma-  'barely, few'  b. ?uhaah-  'small'  c. ta?rt-  'sick'  d. carmis-  'raw'  e. hiitkin-  'different (from standard)'  2.2 Suffixes  Nuu-chah-nulth suffixes must be classified into lexical or grammatical morphemes.  Their distinction  provides important clues for understanding phonological processes treated in the thesis.  Many  phonological processes, triggered by suffixes, exhibit different aspects depending on morphological categories. Sapir & Swadesh 1939, and Swadesh 1948 call lexical and grammatical suffixes 'formative' and 'incremental,' respectively, and Swadesh 1939 calls them 'stem suffixes' respectively, following the theoretical distinction made by Boas (1911).  and 'word suffixes,'  In addition, Rose (1981)  identifies the relevant classes of suffixes as non-inflectional (derivational) and inflectional.  I follow  Rose (1976), using the terms lexical and grammatical without any argument for their usage. Rose (1976) and Stonham' (1-999) provide the following distinction between these two kinds of suffixes.  Lexical suffixes provide an independent part of the word's meaning or a dependent meaning  which is completed only in conjunction with the total meaning of the root-suffix combination. Linearly, they are ordered between a root and any grammatical suffixes.  On the other hand, grammatical suffixes  consist of elements which indicate aspect such as durative, momentaneous, causative, inceptive, iterative, repetitive, and graduative; voice such as active, and passive; tense such as present, past, and future; modality such as absolutive, quotative, indicative, interrogative, purposive, dubitative, inferential, conditional, subordinate, relative and imperative; person information on the predicate; possessive and definite on the noun.  3  The grammatical functions of lexical and grammatical suffixes do not seem to be  exactly the same as those of derivational and inflectional suffixes, respectively, from well-known  3  The terms are taken from Sapir & Swadesh (1939).  10  languages such as English, French, and* so on (cf. Spencer 1991).  4  Therefore, I make use of the  terms 'lexical' versus 'grammatical' in the thesis. (9) and (10) illustrate lexical and grammatical suffixes, respectively.  (9) Lexical Suffixes' a. -aa?a  'on the rock'  b. -kumF  'round'  c. -q?ich  'for ... year(s)'  d. -ft  'inside, on the floor, in the house'  e. -wit'as  'be about to'  f. -qaq  'very much'  g. -ya  'continuously'  h. -s  'continually'  i. -matak  'probably'  j. -kuk  'to resemble'  k. -(a)ap  'to buy'  1. -kFaa  'to be called'  m. -k ap  'to love'  n. -qs  'vessel'  o. -yak  'instrument'  p. -hta  'foot'  w  (10) Grammatical Suffixes  4  5  a. -ap  'Causative'  b. -sifo  'Momentaneous'  c. -aa  'Durative'  d. -at  'Passive'  e. -mit  'Past'  f. -?aqfc  'Future'  g- -wa  'Quotative'  h. -?is  ' 3person singular'  i. -uk/ak  'Possessive'  See Davidson (2002) for a detailed discussion. 1 do not divide the data by the number of syllables as with roots, because as we will see in the following chapters,  while the number of syllables within the root is important for some phonological alternations, the number of syllables within the  suffix  does not affect aspects of alternations.  11  j. -i  'Definite'  The following three morphemes, which are called enclitics in Sapir & Swadesh (1939), can be attached as a final element on the predicate, which consists of a verb, adjective, or adverb root followed by lexical or grammatical suffixes.  (11) -ka  'again, also'  yacyacmfbPafcPisfca RED-yac-mff-?a&-?is-ka RED-to walk-on the floor-SEQ-3sg/IND-again 'S/he is walking around again now.'  (12) -?aaF 'always'  taaksi?aqfc?is?aa+  kaapap  taak-si&-?aq&-?is-?aaF  kaapap  Mary John.  all the time-MOM-Futoe-3sg/IND-always to love 'Mary will always love John.'  (13) -?aF  'plural'  yaa?akap?is?aF  k akuucukqs  yaa?ak-?ap-?is-?aF  k akuuc-uk-qs  ?uuk iF Eun-Sook. w  w  ?uuk ii  w  w  to like-CAUS-3sg/IND-PL grandchildren-POSS-lsg/POSS for/to 'My grandchildren like Eun-Sook.'  The above examples, especially (11) and (12), seem to have independent lexical meaning like lexical suffixes, although their semantic properties can be interpreted as grammatical: for example, 'repetitive' and 'durative' respectively.  The plural suffix in (13) is mainly used with the 3rd person singular markers  such as -?is 'indicative', and -h 'interrogative', creating the 3 person plural marker -?is?aF, and -h?aF. It always indicates plurality of the subject.  This grammatical function can be a property of grammatical  suffixes. These suffixes are attached after all the grammatical suffixes, but it seems unclear if all of them should be treated as grammatical suffixes.  For example, -?ca triggers reduplication and only lexical  suffixes can cause such a morphological process in Nuu-chah-nulth.  12  Although their morphological  identity is not yet clear, it does not affect my treatment of the phonological alternations discussed in the thesis.  I leave this issue for further research.  The examples in (14-16) illustrate how each morpheme type combines to deliver ideas.  Note that  morpheme order is strict between the same set of suffixes as well as between different sets of suffixes. The sentence is ungrammatical if the positions of each suffix are switched between the same set of suffixes.  Switching orders between grammatical suffixes, -?at 'PASSIVE' and -mit 'PAST' in  (14b), and -§ifc 'MOMENTANEOUS' and -mit 'PAST' in (15b), causes the sentences to be ungrammatical. Also, (16b) shows that lexical suffixes cannot switch their positions with respect to each other with the same meaning. As shown in (16c), if a grammatical suffix stays between lexical suffixes, the sentence is ungrammatical.  (14) a. kaapapsi?anit?is?a-i-  John.  kaapap-si(fo)-?at-mit-?is-?a-ito love-MOM-PASS-PAST-lND-3 -PL rd  'John was loved (by some people)/(some people) loved John.'  b. *kaapapapsitot'at?is?a+  John.  kaapap-slfo-mit-?at-?is-?ai to love-MOM-PAST-PASS-rND-3 -PL rd  (15) a. naatsiici?citwa?is  Eun-Sook ?uushyumsuk?i.  naatsii-cito(m)it-wa-?is  7uushyums-uk-?i  to see-MOM-PAST-Quo-3sg.  Friend-POSS-3sg/Poss  'It is said that Eun-Sook saw her friend.'  b. *naatsiimitcf?ewa?is  Eun-Sook ?uushyumsuk?i.  naatsii-mit-cik-wa-7is  ?uushyums-uk-?i  to see-PAST-MOM-Quo-3sg  friend-POSS-3sg/POSS  (16) a. ?ayanakckinit?is ?aya-nak-ckin-(m)it-?is  ?uh. ?uh  many-to have-a little bit more-PAST-3sg/IND it 'S/he had a little bit more (i.e. money than me).'  13  b. *?ayackinnakit?is  ?uh.  ?aya-ckin-nak-(m)it-?is)  ?uh  many-a little bit more-to have-PAST-3sg  it.  c. *?ayanakitckin?is  ?uh.  ?aya-nak-(m)it-ckin-?is)  ?uh  many-to have-PAST-a little bit more-3sg/TND it  While ordering requirements between lexical and grammatical suffixes in Nuu-chah-nulth are also common morphological properties cross-linguistically, I have not found any clues to what constraints govern the order of morphemes between lexical suffixes.  K i m (2000b: 252 (19)) provides morpheme  orders between grammatical suffixes as shown in (17).  (17) Stem-  Transitive - Aspect - Voice - Tense - Mood - Agreement Causative  Sequential Active  Present  Indicative  Durative  Past  Interogative 2sg/pl  :  Passive  Future  :  lsg/pl  3sg/pl  The morphological properties we have looked at so far will provide important clues in order to understand the Nuu-chah-nulth phonological phenomena to be discussed in the following chapters.  14  Chapter 3 SEGMENTAL PHONOLOGY  3.1 Phonemic inventory  This section treats the phonemic distribution of Nuu-chah-nulth sounds.  As is standard practice for  research in this language, I mostly follow the transcription of Sapir & Swadesh (1939) except for vowel length, and provide IPA counterparts for symbols which may cause confusion for people unfamiliar with the transcription system.  3.1.1 Consonants  Consonants show extensive contrasts in place of articulation in Nuu-chah-nulth, which is one of the typical phonological properties of indigenous languages spoken on the northwest coast of North America (Sapir 1938, Maddieson 1984).  Consider the following consonant chart:  (1) The phonemic consonant inventory of Nuu-chah-nulth Place Labial  Alveolar  Stops  P  t  Glottalised  P  t  AlveoPalatal  Velar  LabioVelar  LabioUvular  Uvular  Laryngeal Pharyngeal  Manner  5  k  k  w  k  k  w  X  X  w  q  q  w  ?  c[ts]  Affricates Lateral  fc[tt]  Glottalised  c[ts'] * [tl'] s  Lateral Fricatives  Sonorants  m  +M n  Glottalised  m  n  Lateral  >  c[tn c[tf]  s[f] yD]  W  yB']  w  x bc ] w  w  h  As shown in the chart, i) Nuu-chah-nulth does not have voiced obstruents: sonorants are the only voiced  1  A pharyngeal stop 111 behaves in the same way as glottalised consonants in that it cannot occupy the coda position  of the syllable as motivated in chapter 4.  Also, as exemplified in this chapter, in the glottalisation context, it  appears as the glottalised counterpart of uvular and labio-uvular stops, /q, q*7. I, therefore, put it in the 'glottalised' row, indicating its phonological status as one of the glottalised consonants.  However, it differs from other  glottalised consonants in that it is voiced intervocalically, which leads to a controversial issue as to whether it is a sonorant or an obstruent (see Shank & Wilson 2000 for more detail). 15  consonants, ii) each stop (except for the uvular and the labio-uvular stops), affricate, and sonorant has a glottalised counterpart, whereas a fricative does not, and iii) velar and uvular obstruents exhibit a labial contrast.  While the absence of glottalised fricatives is not surprising, given the fact that they are cross-  linguistically marked (Maddieson 1984, Ladefoged & Maddieson 1996), the lack of glottalised uvular and labio-uvular stops /q, q / requires a diachronic account. w  Proto-Nuu-chah-nulth (and Ditidaht) glottalised  uvular and labio-uvular stops * q and *q were merged into a pharyngeal stop /?/, an independent w  phoneme, although Makah, the other Southern Wakashan language, preserves these two sounds (Haas 1969). Jacobsen (1969) provides Southern Wakashan correspondences involving pharyngeal (both stop and fricative) phonemes.  I cite examples of pharyngeal stops in (2) (See Jacobsen (1969:129-132) for a  more comprehensive set of data):  (2) Correspondences in pharyngeal stops in Southern Wakashan  Proto-Nootkan (Proto-Southern Wakashan)  *q  Nitinat  Nootka (Nuu-chah-nulth)  ?ak 'to cut with a knife' /W  *q  w  (Ditidaht) /<T/  /q/  ?ak -  qak -  w  w  Makah  'to cut with a knife' 111  Tacaq  "Tacaqk  'white and wrinkled of body from soaking in water'  'fresh fish'  w  'to cut sideways with a knife' /q / w  q acaq w  'soft or partly dried fish'  Trie examples in (3-12) illustrate morphemes including each phoneme from Ahousaht Nuu-chah-nulth, in particular, exhibiting the contrast between a plain consonant and its glottalised counterpart.  (3) Labials a. Ipl: [p]iis[p]is 'cat' b. Ipl: [p]isaq 'bad, immoral' c. Im/: [m]aa 'here' d. /rh/: [m]aa 'to bite  (4) Alveolars a. Itl: [fjaana 'money'b. Ill: [t]ana 'child' c. Id: [c]ix - 'to fry' w  16  d. Icl: [c]ix atin 'eagle' w  e. Isi: [s]apnii 'bread' f. Inl: taa[n]a 'money' g. /n/:ta[n]a 'child' h. M: |9t]ih- to drive' i. /£/: pS]ih 'red' j. /+/: [-tjuucma 'woman'  (5) Alveo-palatals a. Icl: [c]icici 'teeth' b. Icl: [c]i 'to cut' c. /s7: [s]uuwis 'shoes' d. /y/:?u[y]i 'later' e. lyl: S!u[y]i 'medicine'  (6) Velars a. Ik/: [k]aa?a 'Give!' b. Ikl: [k]aa?in ' crow c. Ixl: [xjuucaa 'tipsy'  (7) Labio-velars a. /k /: [k ]api 'coffee' w  w  b. /k /: [k ]apii 'broken back' w  w  c. /x /: [x ]akak 'swollen w  w  d. Iwl: suuh[w]a-t 'doing s.t. with hands' e. Iwl: su[w]a 'you'  (8) Uvulars a. Iql: [q]ahak 'dead b. Ix/: [x]utaayu 'paring knife'  (9) Labio-uvulars a. /q /: [q ]ayaciik 'wolf w  w  b. /x /: su[x ]ak 'rusty' w  w  (10) Pharyngeals a. /?/: [?]arhiit 'spoon' b. /h/: [h]aa 'there!'  (11) Laryngeals a. RI: [?]ahkuu 'here' b. Ihl: [h]upaF 'moon/sun'  The distribution of Nuu-chah-nulth consonants raises many interesting questions.  In particular,  the phonemic status of glottalised consonants requires a detailed discussion. (I will discuss other issues in § 3.2, where the unique properties of Nuu-chah-nulth consonants can be understood better with the discussion of phonological processes.)  The plain/glottalised pairs show that in Nuu-chah-  nulth glottalic constriction plays a phonologically significant role.  One might ask, therefore, what  the evidence is that the relevant part of each word including a glottalised consonant in (3-7) is a single consonant, not a sequence of a plain consonant and a glottal stop: e.g. /-p?-/. The first evidence for a distinction between glottalised consonants and clusters is from the examples in (12). We find a contrast between glottalised consonants and clusters with a glottal stop in the same phonological context. It is important to note that perceptually, the glottalised consonants and clusters sound very different. For obstruents, while a plain (preceding a glottal stop) obstruent sounds soft (without any strong aspiration in general unlike their counterparts of, e.g., English) and is followed by a relatively long pause (which is a perceptual impression of a glottal stop), a glottalised obstruent sounds very strong and a shorter pause follows. results, as will be seen below.  This exactly corresponds to acoustic  For sonorahts, a plain sonorant (preceding a glottal stop) sounds the  same as its counterpart from familiar languages such as English followed by a relatively long pause, while a glottalised sonorant sounds like an abrupt silence preceding a normal production for a plain sonorant. stop.  As a result, a glottalised sonorant sounds shorter than a plain sonorant preceding a glottal  Note that in Nuu-chah-nulth, there is no glottal stop followed by a plain consonant, which  will be discussed in detail in chapter 3.2 and chapter 4.  18  (12) a. /a/  /u/  Glottalised consonants  Clusters with RI  ta[t']uus  pisa[t?]ukt 'running around'  1  'star'  (< pisat-rukt) b. IvJ  lal  ?uu[c]ak 'to belong to'  ruu[c?]aqk 'belong to (Future)'  (<?uuc-?a?e) c. lal  lal  ca[k]as  (<?uuc-?aq?c;)  'to fall down'  ma[k?]atu 'to sell'  (<cak-?as) d. 7u/  lal  (<mak-?atu)  ?Ai[m]aaq9c 'to be able to do s.t.'  ?oo[m?]a  'mom!'  Further support that Nuu-chah-nulth has underlying glottalised consonants comes from acoustic evidence.  A plain obstruent (preceding a glottal stop) shows more tensed acoustic energy  (aspiration) than its glottalised counterpart, as seen in (13).  In addition, the duration of silence  (between the release of a stop and the onset of a following vowel), one acoustic property of both glottalised consonants and a glottal stop, is longer for a glottal stop than the portion of silence for a glottalised consonant as in (15).  To measure silence duration, I recorded the same token for each  case ten times and took an average.  The results provide evidence that there is a clear distinction  between a glottalised consonant and a sequence of a plain consonant and a glottal stop.  Also, a  glottalised sonorant exhibits shorter duration of voicing than its plain counterpart (preceding a glottal stop).  This is due to the initial glottalic constriction during its production, as shown in (14) and  (16).  3  2  3  There seems to be no morpheme-internal sequence of ICil in Nuu-chah-nulth. I have not found any cases yet. In Nuu-chah-nulth, glottalised obstruents, ejectives, are post-glottalised, while glottalised sonorants are  glottalised as shown in the spectrograms below. See Kim 2001c for the detailed discussion.  19  (13) a. Spectrogram of [cakas]  b. Spectrogram of [makPatu]  .500  1000  1500  2000  2500  3000  3500  20  4000  4500  5000  iifc  ^  iioTi  7000  7500  (14) a. Spectrogram of [qumic?i]  12896]  12  j kl» *#*. S 3 <mm 9  100  200  300  500 ms  Mm*.*-  5512.5)1m  1|  6.0 •fC  5nm  55P0  6000  7500  b. Spectrogram of [haarAirrmfc]  haa?um?itM 378 174 •ft  m  ——•>— & fr.  ! haa?um?itl1  i  378 ! 174  am  i1 2 1S 3h J«6  400  haa?um?itl1 378 174 HC|4-*|—I  378 ? 174 \  12  Iff ft •fe :w  M'MJlPljIWl  lhaa?um?itl1 a  I JIT hflflfl  500  1000  1500  2000  2500  3000  3500  21  4000  4500  5000  5500  6000  6500  7000  7500  (15) Duration of silence for a glottalised stop and a glottal stop Token  cakas  makPatu  #1  85.90 ms  112.34 ms  #2  66.08  181.32  #3  82.81  163.13  #4  87.53  126.30  #5  80.54  157.87  #6  68.84  112.52  #7  44.26  107.71  #8  98.82  149.71  #9  87.21  128.93  #10  88.16  143.90  79.01 ms  138.37 ms  Average  6) Duration of voicing for a plain and a glottalised nasal Token  qumic?i  haaPum?i7e  #1  12.70 ms  137.01 ms  #2  43.63  137.60  #3  22.54  149.75  #4  39.14  148.44  #5  21.59  140.32  #6  20.23  125.49  #7  36.46  148.39  #8 .  21.59  149.75  #9  29.71  137.64  #10  33.74  148.39  Average  28.13 ms  142.27  The third piece of evidence comes from Nuu-chah-nulth syllable structure.  (I will just give a  brief overview of the structures here, but return to a more detailed discussion of prosodic structures in ch. 4.) In Nuu-chah-nulth, only one consonant can occupy the onset position in the syllable, as seen in the schematic syllable structure in (17) (see also Haas 1969, Stonham 1994).  22  (17) The Nuu-chah-nulth syllable  4  a Onset |  I C  Rhyme  Nucleus  A  (Coda)  / T \ -  V (V)  C (C) (C)  If a glottalised consonant were underlyingly a sequence of two consonants, this would violate the otherwise well-founded constraint that onsets are limited to a single consonant. expect no stem to start with a glottalised consonant.  Therefore, we would  The examples in (3)-(7) show, however, that every  glottalised consonant can occupy a root-initial, and thus onset, position.  Given the requirement that  an onset is limited to a single consonant in Nuu-chah-nulth, a glottalised consonant must be considered a single consonant with a glottal constriction, not a consonant cluster. One might suggest that the only possible onset clusters word-initially can be ICil as observed in other languages (e.g. in English some consonant clusters allow only a sonorant as a final element: st[r]ing, c[l]ing, t[w]in etc.).  As seen above, however, the acoustic evidence does not support this possibility.  Consequently, the contrast shown in (12) is never found in word-initial positions. In sum, both phonetic and phonological aspects provide the evidence supporting the fact that a glottalised consonant is independently phonemic in Nuu-chah-nulth.  3.1.2 Vowels  Unlike the consonant system, the Nuu-chah-nulth vowel system is very simple, with only three vowel phonemes, Ii, u, a/, cross-cut by a length contrast, as shown in (18).  (19)-(21) illustrate near minimal  pairs, where differences in vowel length lead to lexical distinctions.  4  This is a word-initial constraint, in particular on onset, but there seems to be no clear requirements on onset  clusters morpheme/word internally. In addition, as we will see in ch. 4, the Sonority Sequence Principle does not seem to provide a clue regarding syllable structure.  In that case, as is conventional, the word-initial constraint  seems to apply, although it is not always the case as seen in English (an initial /srr/ sequence vs. an internal /str/, for example.  (See Clements 1991 for relevant discussion.)  such as the form of a glottalising suffix: see § 3.2. 23  Moreover, (17) supports my treatments of some issues  (18) The phonemic vowel inventory Front High  \  Mid  Back  Central  u, u:  i, i:  (o, o:)  \ (e, e:)  Low  (19) a. haw[i]k  \  a, a:  's.o. who always has a big appetite'  b. haw[ii]qfc 'hungry'  (20) a. p[u]?is 'tide water fish trap' b. p[uu]?i 'halibut'  (21) a. ?[a]tiq 'to thank someone' b. ?[aa]tx ik 'curly hair' w  Mid vowels phonemically appear on the surface only in some loan words, as in (22), vocatives, as in (23), and speech-act relevant expressions, as in (24).  (22) Loan words a. c[e]sno Trotestant' b. ?[ee]pinis 'apple' c. p[o]stin?ath (postin 'Boston'+ ?ath 'people from... residing at...') 'people from Boston/America' d. t[o]stiiFyik (tostiiF'to toast'+yik 'instrument')'toaster'  (23) Vocatives  5  a. ?[oo]m?a  'Mom!'  (<?Aim?iiqsu)  b. h[oo]wa  'Dad!'  (<huwiiqsu)  c. m[ee]ma  'Older brother!' (<maarhiiqsu)  d. F[oo]cm[o]p  6  5  'Sister!'  (<Fuucmuup)  1 am not sure yet if the use of mid vowels in vocatives is restricted to close relatives or applying to vocatives in  general.  24  e. h[ee]c[e]ms[e]  'Brother!'  f. n[ee]n  'Grandpa/-ma!' (naniiqsu)  g. teena  'Child!'  (<t'aana)  h. n[ee]?a  'Aunt!'  (<na?iiqsu)  i. w[ee]?[o]  ' nephew!'  (<wii?uu)  7  (< hacumsiqsu)  Vocatives seem to follow a certain partem. First, the initial syllable of the vocative word is long and the other syllables are short. property.  I suppose that this phonological property might be related to a templatic  In Nuu-chah-nulth, the stress system, vowel alternation, and reduplication are subject to  metrical templates, which will be discussed in detail later in this chapter and chapter 5. Vocatives seem to require a trochaic foot structure, lengthening the first syllable.  Second, there is a predictable alternation  between vocatives and non-vocatives in terms of vowels: /a/ in non-vocatives becomes (is raised to) Id in vocatives; lul in non-vocatives becomes (is lowered to) lol in vocatives; lil in non-vocatives becomes (is lowered to) Id.  Backness of vowels, except for /a/, are maintained; only height is changed: from  [+High], lil, lul, to [-High] Id, lol, respectively.  (24) Expressions for speech-act a. 7V[ee]k[oo] 'Thanks!' b. ?[e]n 'that...' c. x[ee]ms 'End of story (usually 4 times repeated) d. hisukc[ee] 'All' e. maka?[ee]k 'Expression when something unusual happens'  The use of mid vowels observed in (22) is for the purpose of adjustments to loan words which include sounds Nuu-chah-nulth does not have, while (23-24) are lexically idiosyncratic. On the other hand, phonetically, non-low vowels, Ii, u/, are 'lowered' before/after a uvular or pharyngeal consonant as shown in (25). That is, unlike (23-24), this kind of lowering has a phonological motivation.  (25) a. cim-y/ii/q/u/+  +  proper-sense/feeling  cimy[ie]q[9]'F 'someone who is sober'  6  This is a kinship term used by brothers, but not by sisters.  7  This is used by sisters, but not by brothers.  8  This can be used only by parents when they call their child. 25  cisx[99]-r-  b. cisx-/ii/-t  'the house is dirty inside'  dirty-inside  c. c/i/-S /i/k (ciq-?ik) * to talk-Habitual  'one who talks a lot'  d. £/i/h-/u/k  7^[ie]h[9]k  red-DUR  e. 9e/u/h/ii/c-mas  c[ie]<i|>]k  'red'  ^  to bounce-surface  7^[uo]h[39]cmas 'to bounce s.t. on the ground'  Wilson (2003) found that a high vowel preceding uvular or pharyngeal consonants acoustically shows a formant transition from [i] to [e] and [u] to [o], and one following them a schwa-like vowel, [a], with a single target. This is an argument that lowered vowels are phonetically not the same as the mid vowels of (21-23). (See Wilson (2003) for the detailed discussion).  26  3.2 Phonological Processes  Many phonological processes in Nuu-chah-nulth raise interesting questions in terms of universals, markedness, and typological issues.  Moreover, most phonological alternations in the language are  triggered by suffixes, leading to the issue of how to treat phonological and morphological aspects together under a single grammar.  In this section, I will discuss some pervasive phenomena: glottalisation in §  3.2.1, lenition in § 3.2.2, labialisation in § 3.2.3, delabialisation in § 3.2.4, and vowel alternation including vowel lengthening, shortening and variable vowels in § 3.2.5.  3.2.1 Glottalisation  One of the largest geographical regions in which glottalised sounds are found is the Pacific coast area from California to Alaska (see Maddieson 1984 for the distribution of glottalised sounds).  In Nuu-chah-  nulth, as in other Wakashan languages, each plain consonant except fricative sounds has a glottalised counterpart.  The language exhibits a unique glottalisation process, traditionally called "hardening",  where a plain consonant becomes its glottalised counterpart when preceding certain suffixes: e.g. /p/ [p] (Sapir 1933, 1938).  Phonetically, a glottalised sound involves a constriction of the glottis, the  aperture between the vocal folds. glottalised consonants.)  (See section 3.1 for detailed phonetic properties of Nuu-chah-nulth  The triggering factor for this morpho-phonological process in Nuu-chah-nulth.  has been considered to be an adjacent glottal stop RI (Sapir 1938, Rose 1976).  9  The patterns observed in Nuu-chah-nulth are significant because glottalisation is relatively rare in the world's languages, and because the particular patterns of glottalisation in this language exhibit unique properties. (See Maddieson 1984, Kingston 1985, 1990, Steriade 1997, Plauche et al 1998, Caldecott 1999, among others, for the patterns of glottalised consonants in other languages). First, Nuu-chah-nulth glottalisation is only triggered by specific suffixes, and those suffixes drive different patterns depending on morphological categories: whether lexical or grammatical. This raises questions of how to distinguish the glottal element of a glottalising suffix from that of a non-glottalising suffix, and how to phonologically define the morphological scope where glottalisation occurs.  Second, the target  consonants are affected in different ways, exhibiting an asymmetry between them: stops/affricates are consistently glottalised, creating an ejective, as in (26a-b), fricatives are sometimes glottalised, surfacing as a glottalised glide, as in (26c), but sometimes not, surfacing as a plain fricative followed by a glottal  9  See also Gamble 1977, Howe & Pulleyblank 2001, which deal with some properties of glottalisation in Nuu-chah-  nulth.  27  stop, as in (26d), and sonorants are rarely affected, surfacing as a plain sonorant followed by a glottal stop, as in (26e):  10  (26) a. tup/k/-?aqfc  tup[k]aqfc  black-inside '(something) black inside' b. ma/fc/-?aa?a ma[&]aa?a  tied-on the rock  'being tied to the rock'  c. tu/h/-?aqk head-inside/consuming  t'u[w]aq?c d. £i/h/-?aq7c-yak  +  driving-inside-instrument  e. ha?u/m/-?aq?V food-inside  'eating (fish) head' &[h]?aq9eyak 'shirt'  •>  ha?u[rnj?aqfc 'food inside (of something)  As shown above, stops/affricates, fricatives, and sonorants each exhibit different behaviour with respect to glottalisation, and thus we need to identify the phonetic properties of each consonant group and develop a mechanism by which the phonetic characteristics are phonologically interpreted.  11  I will  discuss these issues in terms of two pervasive phonological principles: Markedness (Archangeli & Pulleyblank 1994), for the question of why some consonants are more easily affected by a trigger depending upon its phonetic/phonological properties; and 'Richness of the Base' (Prince & Smolensky 1993, Smolensky 1996), for the question of how to interpret patterns where different instances of the same surface segments exhibit different behaviour depending on the morpheme in which they are found, as in the dual aspects of fricatives. Another major issue dealt with in this section is the relationship between fricatives and glides. When a fricative is affected by a trigger, the resulting form is a glottalised glide as in (25c), not a glottalised fricative (*t'uh'aq7V). The absence of glottalised fricatives, whether underlying or derived, can be dealt 10  For the form of the glottalising suffix, I show /?/ as its initial element until I establish its proper form as discussion  goes by. 11  Adopting Clements (1985, 1987, 1999), Steriade (1989), Shaw (1992), LaCharite (1993), I assume that affricates  are a kind of stop, and they are distinguished from plain stops by features such as stridency and laterality, not by the status of contour segments (cf. Sagey 1986). Therefore, I treat stops and affricates as a single class in terms of glottalisation. 28  with under Markedness, because cross-linguistically glottalised fricatives are rare. Then, the question arises how a glottalised glide can be a glottalised counterpart of a plain fricative in Nuu-chah-nulth. This question will be explained in terms of the interaction between Faithfulness and Markedness under OT. Description  In morphologically complex Nuu-chah-nulth words, some suffixes trigger glottalisation of an immediately preceding consonant.  (27) exemplifies lexical glottalising and non-glottalising suffixes -  Paqk 'inside' and -Patu 'to sink', respectively, and (28) grammatical glottalising and non-glottalising suffixes -Pap 'CAUSATIVE' and - / ^ ' F U T U R E ' , respectively.  (27) Lexical a. Glottalising suffix tup/k/-?aq7V  ^  black-inside  tup[k]aq7c 'There is s.t. black inside (of the container).'  b. Non-glottalising suffix 7Vas/k/-?atu  &as[k]?atu  To slip-to sink into  'to slip into water'  (28) Grammatical a. Glottalising suffix yaa?a/k/-?a/p/  yaa?a[£]ap  care-CAUS-3sg/TND  'to like'  b. Non-glottalising suffix pusaa/k/-?aq9e-sis  pusaa[k]?aq7csis  tired-FUT-1 sg/IND  ' I will be tired.'  When a glottalising suffix attaches to a stem, an immediately preceding plain consonant becomes glottalised.  However, the triggering behaviours of a glottalising suffix vary according to morphological  category: i.e. lexical vs. grammatical.  12  12  Lexical suffixes provide an independent part of the word's  Joe Stemberger (p.c.) points out that lexical phonology uses the ordering of different classes of affixes such as  lexical and grammatical into different strata. Phonological rules can be different at different strata. However, this kind of ordering mechanism does not work for the Nuu-chah-nulth case, because affixes of both types can trigger or fail to trigger glottalisation.  29  meaning or a dependent meaning which is completed only in conjunction with the total meaning of the root-suffix combination (Rose 1976). suffixes.  On the other hand, grammatical suffixes consist of elements which provide Tense, Mode,  Modal, and Person information. 3.5.)  Linearly, they are ordered between a root and any grammatical  (I will discuss the internal structure of word in more detail in section  While glottalising suffixes, whether lexical or grammatical, consistently glottalise a stop/affricate,  only lexical glottalising suffixes affect a preceding fricative.  Phonetic factors also play a role in Nuu-  chah-nulth glottalisation: not every preceding consonant is affected.  In the following sections, data are  given to motivate these morphological and phonetic categories. Glottalisation triggered by a lexical suffix  Stops/affricates In Nuu-chah-nulth, the glottal element of a lexical glottalising suffix always causes a preceding stop/affricate, whether it is root-final or stem-final, to be glottalised as follows: voiceless stops /p, t, k, k , q, q / become their glottalised counterparts /p, t, k, k , w  w  w  affricates Ik, c, cl become glottalised into  V, as shown in (29a-f), and voiceless  c, cl, as shown in (29g-i).  13  Note that each consonant of  interest in a different morphological environment surfaces without change.  (29) a. wik-stu/p/-?aq?c not-thing-inside  wikstu[p]aq9c 'nothing inside'  cf. wik-stu/p/  wikstu[p]  not-thing  'nothing'  hap[t]aa?a  b. hap/t/-?aa?a to hide-on the rock  'hiding (among) the rocks'  hap[t]si7V  cf. hap/t/-si&  'to hide'  to hide-MOM  c. tup/k/-?aqfc black-inside  13  tiip[k]aqfc '(something) black inside'  A uvular and a labio-uvular stop, Id and /q /, become a pharyngeal stop IV when preceding a glottalising suffix. w  As mentioned above, Nuu-chah-nulth does not have glottalised uvular or labio-uvular stops and a pharyngeal stop behaves as the glottalised counterpart of a plain uvular and labio-uvular stop. 30  cf. tup/k/-ak-?is  tup[k]ak?is  black-DUR-3sg/IND  d. ha?u/k /-?as  'it is black'  ha?u[k ]as  w  w  to eat-to go s.w. to do. s.t.  'going s.w. to eat s.t.'  cf. ha?u/k /-(m)it  ha?u[k ]it 'ate'  w  w  to eat-PAST  e. kamat/q/-?as  'ate'  +  to run-to go s.w. to do. s.t.  kamat[Y|as 'going s.w. to run'  kamat[q]si7V  cf. kamat/q/-si?e  'to run'  to run-MOM  -">  f. ti/q /-?aa?a w  ti[i]aa?a ' sitting on the rock'  to sit-on the rock  cf. ti/q /-aas  ti[q ]aas  w  w  to sit-on the surface  'sitting'  ma[9c]aa?a  g. ma/fc/-?aa?a  'beingtiedto the rock'  tied-on the rock  cf. ma/fc/-si7V  ma[fc]sifc 'to be tied'  tied-MOM  h. cii/c/-?as  -~>  cii[c]as  tofish-togo s.w. to do s.t. 'going s.w. to fish'  cf. cii/c/ 'to fish'  i. wa?i/c/-?as  ^  to sleep-to go s.w. to do. s.t.  wa?i[c*]as 'going s.w. to sleep'  31  cf. wa?i/c7-u?e  ^  to sleep-DUR  wa?i[c]ufo 'sleeping'  Fricatives and sonorants (nasals) While stops/affricates never fail to be glottalised when immediately preceding a lexical glottalising suffix, fricatives and nasals exhibit different patterns of glottalisation: fricatives show an alternation, while nasals are rarely affected by a glottalising suffix.  14  When a fricative precedes a lexical glottalising suffix,  it is sometimes affected, surfacing as a glottalised glide, and sometimes not, surfacing as a fricative followed by a glottal stop. Nasals surface as plain nasals followed by a glottal stop in most cases when it precedes a glottalising suffix. Given that fricatives and nasals exhibit variation with respect to glottalisation, it is useful to investigate the extent of variation by examining frequency of glottalisation in order to understand the phenomenon completely. (I did not examine the frequency for glottalisation of stops/affricates, since the distribution of glottalised stops/affricates is consistent: there are no exceptional cases.)  Frequency of glottalisation in fricatives and sonorants For this test, I collected 251 stem morphemes (189 ending with a fricative and 62 ending with a nasal), and asked two Ahousaht speakers to attach each glottalising suffix to a stem (19 suffixes as shown in (30)).  The total number of tested words (combinations of a stem and a glottalising suffix) is 4,769 (251  stems X 19 suffixes). When the speakers feel more comfortable with the combination within a sentence rather than a word, the data tested are sentences which include the combination of interest.  That is, I  limited the experiment to words/sentences that can be used in natural speech acts. The actual stems from which I collected statistics are 175 out of 251, with a total of 3,325 combinations (175 stems X 19 suffixes: 118 for fricatives and 57 for nasals).  76 words, with a total of  1,444 combinations, are not available for the test for either morphological (due to an insertion of another  14  Nuu-chah-nulth has plain glides and their glottalised counterparts in the phonemic inventory. However, there is  no morpheme, either a root or suffix, that ends with a glide, and thus it is not possible to test glides for glottalisation. Given Richness of the Base, we would expect morphemes ending with a glide in the input. In order to prevent such a morpheme from surfacing in Nuu-chah-nulth, we would need a constraint which disallows [-Cons, +Cont] morpheme-finally in the output, which outranks the relevant faithfulness constraint. In addition, we would need another constraint which prevents a glide from appearing in the coda.  Recall that glides, whether plain or  glottalised, are frequently found in the onset in Nuu-chah-nulth, while they are not in the coda, even morphemeinternally. The reason we need these two constraints is that if we have only the coda-condition constraint, then it would be possible to have a glide-final morpheme in Nuu-chah-nulth and glottalisation of a glide preceding a glottalising suffix. For the glide would surface as an onset: as we will see below, the trigger of glottalising suffixes, [+C.G.], is followed by a vowel. 32  morpheme between a stem and a suffix) or semantic (due to unnaturalness of the meaning in the derived word) factors.  For fricative-final stems, a total of 2,242 combinations (118 stems X 19 suffixes) are  possible in principle, but only 364 combinations were available for the test for morphological and semantic reasons mentioned above. For nasal-final stems, a total of 1,083 combinations (57 stems X 19 suffixes) are possible in principle, but only 114 combinations were available for the test for the same reasons.  (30) List of Ahousaht lexical glottalising suffixes  SUFFIX  SUFFIX  GLOSS  GLOSS  -?aa?a -  On the rock  -?ahs  Vessel/constainer  -?(a)ap  To buy  -?ihta  At the end  -?ak?d  At the rear  -?iic  To eat  -?a-hik  To look after  -?iih  To hunt/fish  -?aqa  Happening/result  -?iik  Someone who always.. On the ground  -?aq7c  Inside  -?aq?eas  In a house/forest  -Pas  On the ground (status)  -?iifc  To take/get  -?in+  do something  -?ahi  Thing  To serve Vehicles like canoes  To go somewhere to -?as  (process)  -?uup  33  and cars  The following chart illustrates the number of stems tested according to segments, fricative and nasal:  (31) The distribution of fricatives and nasals in the tested stems  Stem-final fricative  Number of stems  Stem-final nasal  Number of stems  s  30  m  26  s  14  n  31  +  35  X  3  x  8  TOTAL  57  w  X  3  x  1  w  h  TOTAL  24  118  Stem-final fricatives in 53 of 118 morphemes (45 %) consistently become glottalised glides no matter what glottalising suffix is attached, whereas they are never glottalised in 57 morphemes (48 %). Also, there are 8 cases where a stem-final fricative becomes a glottalised glide only with some glottalising suffixes.  That is, stem-final fricatives with certain lexical glottalising suffixes are always glottalised, but  not with others. On the other hand, glottalisation rarely affects a nasal, with 94.7 % exhibiting no glottalisation (54 out of 57 stems) and 5.3 % showing glottalisation (3 cases). In addition, unlike fricatives there is no suffixdependent case in glottalisation of nasals. The table in (32) shows the proportion of glottalisation in fricatives and nasals in Nuu-chah-nulth.  34  (32) Glottalisation of fricatives and nasals in Nuu-chah-nulth (Ahousaht) Nasals  Fricatives Aspects of glottalisation Stems  %  Stems  %  53  45  3  5.3  8  7  0  0  57  48  54  94.7  118  100  57  100  Consistent glottalisation Suffix-dependent glottalisation No glottalisation TOTAL  The following sections illustrate each of these types of cases involving fricatives and nasals.  Fricatives Unlike stops/affricates, fricatives are only glottalised in certain lexical items as seen in (33) and (34). In fact, when affected, they become glottalised glides: a coronal fricative becomes a coronal glottalised glide lyl as in (33a), and a non-coronal fricative a labio-velar glottalised glide /w/ as in (33b).  On the other  hand, when a stem-final fricative is not affected by a glottalising suffix, the surface form is a sequence of a fricative and a glottal stop as in (34a and b). (33) a. k i/s/-?ic  *  w  k i[y]ic w  'eating snow'  snow-eating  k i[s]aa  cf. k i/s/-aa  w  w  snow-DUR  b. tu/h/-?aqfc  •">  head-inside/consuming  'snowing'  tu[w]aqfc 'eating (fish) head'  cf. t'u/h/-citi  t'u[h]citi  head-?  'head'  (34) a. £i/h/-?aqfc-yak  &[h]?aq?Vyak  to drive-inside-instrument 'shirt' 35  ^  cf. &/h/-si7t to drive/move-MOM  b. ciyapux/s/-?ic  +  7^i[h]si7V 'to start to move'  ciyapux[s]?ic  hat-eating  'biting a hat'  cf. ciyapux/s/-?i  ciyapux[s]?i  hat-DEF  'the hat'  Also, when a fricative precedes a lexical glottalising suffix, its behaviour is in most cases consistent with respect to glottalisation. (32).  The examples in (35-37) illustrate examples of each case shown in the chart  In (35), the stem-final fricative /+/ changes consistently into a glottalised glide lyl whatever  glottalising suffix is attached:  (35) Consistent glottalisation: hrf- 'Locative' (cf. hippjaas 'there is something on the surface') a. hi/T/-?aa?a  ^  LOC-on the rock  'inside'  -inside  ^  -vessel  hi[y]akki  -rear  ,  -in a house  f. hi/+/-?ihta -at the end  hi[y]ahs 'in a boat/car/bowl'  d. hi/+/-?akfci  e. hi/t/-?ak3eas  'on the rock'  hi[y]aq7c  b. hi/t/-?aqfc  c. hi/-f-/-?ahs  hi[y]aa?a  'at the rear (of a boat/car)'  -i>  hi[y]ak9cas 'in a house'  hi[y]ihta 'located at the end'  In (36), the stem-final fricative /+/ changes into lyl only with some glottalising suffixes:  36  (36) Suffix-dependent glottalisation: caawumi- 'one left' a. caawum/-i-/-?aa?a + one left-on the rock  b. caawurn/'t/-?alc5ci T> -rear  caawum[y]a?a 'One (person) left on the rock'  caawum[-FJ?akfci 'One left at the rear (of a boat)'  c. caawum/-t/-?ihta  caawum[y]ihta  -at the end  'One person left at the end (of a wharf)'  In (37), the stem-final fricative /+/ is consistently not affected by any glottalising suffixes:  (37) No-glottalisation: kwt 'nice' a. kuW-?aqk  9cu[-b]?aq?c  nice-inside  b.  'clean inside (e.g. oven)  fcu/+/-?ahs  fcu[-t]?ahs  -vessel  c.  ' clean inside (of a boat/bowl)  fcu/+/-?ihta  fcu[+]?ihta  -at the end  d.  '(s.t.) clean at the end'  fcu/+/-?as -on the ground  e. ku/-t/-?iic -eating  f. 9cu/+/-?aap -buying  ^  ku[+]?as 'clean yard'  ku[-b]?iic 'eating (s.t.) good'  fcu[-b|?aap 'buying (s.t.) good'  Nasals As the chart (32) above and the examples in (38) show, nasals are rarely affected by a glottalising suffix. When a stem-final nasal precedes a lexical glottalising suffix, the surface form is a sequence of a nasal and a glottal stop.  (39) takes (38d) and examines it with different glottalising suffixes. 37  A nasal is  consistently not glottalised, no matter what glottalising suffix is attached.  That is, there is no suffix-  dependent glottalisation, unlike the pattern observed with fricatives.  (38) a. ha?u/m/-?aq7c  ha?u[m]?aq7c  food-inside  'food inside (of something)  b. siicmi/n/-?aq7c  siicmi[n]?aq7c  maggot-inside  c. huqsu/m/-?aa?a  'maggot inside (of something)  ^  goose-on the rock  d. hici/n/-?aa?a  huqsu[m]?aa?a 'geese on the rock'  -i>  hici[n]?aa?a  little-neck clam-on the rock 'little-neck clams on the rock'  (39) hicin 'little neck clam'  a. hici/n/-?aa?a  ^  1. n. clam-on the rock b. hici/n/-?ahs  'little neck clams on the rock' hici[n]?ahs  l.n. clam -vessel  'little neck clams in a boat/bowl'  c. hici/n/-?ic  hici[n]?ic  -eating  d. hici/n/-?ap  hici[n]?aa?a  'eating little neck clams'  +  -buying  hici[n]?ap 'buying little neck clams'  There are, however, three cases of glottalisation as in (40), where a nasal becomes its glottalised counterpart:  (40) a. taa/n/ii_-?aa?a stacked-on the rock  t'aa[n]aa?a 'stacked (s.t.) on the rock'  38  b. cVrn/-?aq7V-um ^  ca[rh]aq7\;um  ?- inside-instrument  'oven/bread pan'  c. ?a/m/-?akfci  ?a[m]akfci  ?- rear  'buttock'  One potential explanation for these exceptional cases is that while most affixation in Nuu-chah-nulth is morphologically or semantically compositional, these three cases are not.  That is, in (40) each word  seems to be lexicalised as a single morpheme. In (40a) the suffix -?aa?a 'on the rock' is attached to the stem morpheme taaniii-'stacked', where part of the morpheme, iii; is truncated.  15  may have led to the emergence of a glottalised nasal.  16  For some reason, it  In (40b-c), although each suffix can be identified,  the two Nuu-chah-nulth speakers do not identify each morpheme, cam and ?am, and in fact, they are not sure about the underlying form of the nasal.  I assume that there must be a diachronic restructuring,  which might have caused current native speakers to consider each example in (40b-c), c'amaqk, and Pamakfci, as one meaningful unit rather than a combination of two morphemes.  This still needs further  research. Glottalisation triggered by a grammatical suffix  A grammatical glottalising suffix causes a plain stop/affricate to be glottalised as shown in (41), while it never affects a fricative and a nasal as shown in (42) and (43).  (41) Stops/affricates a. kuupu/p/-?a7V hanging-SEQ  15  kuupu[p]a7V 'to hang (something)'  There is a morpheme -it 'on the floor, inside', but it is not clear if the part 'it' in (40a) is the same morpheme, for  semantically their combination does not make sense, floor/inside+on the rock,: in Nuu-chah-nulth there are semantic restrictions for usage of morphemes with apparently the same meaning. For example, nawaas- 'to sit' must be used in the context where the activity of sitting is performed only indoors. consist of two morphemes.  Therefore, taani-f does not transparently  Interestingly, when a grammatical glottalising suffix is added, the -ii part is not  deleted: taaniWafcPis <taani4--?afc-?is 'It is already stacked',  (*t'aana7c?is), and taanrFPapi < taani4'-?ap-?i 'Stack  them up!' (*taanapi). One ofthe consultants said that it seems impossible to use taani-F with any lexical suffixes whether glottalising or not, although she identifies it as a single morpheme. See also Aronoff (1976) for discussion of truncation occurring within a morpheme. 16  In Nuu-chah-nulth, it is not rare that part of a morpheme is truncated when a suffix is attached to it (see Aronoff  1976). Therefore, the deletion of j'tfis not surprising, although why the nasal is glottalised in (40a) still is not clear. 39  cf. kuupuQo] 'to hang'  b. ?uu/c/-?ak belonging to-SEQ  ?uu[c]a7c 'to belong to (someone)'  cf. ?uu[c] to belong'  (42) Fricatives a. k i/s/-?a7e-uk-?ick w  snow-SEQ-POSS-2sg  b. wik-pa/-17-?a7« NEG-around-SEQ  k i[s]?a7cuk?ick w  17  'You have snow.'  wikpa[F]?ai\; 'None around now'  (43) Nasals a. waa-cu/m/-?a7e-sa say-would-SEQ-1 sg/NEU  b. hini/n/-?a7c-?is arrive-SEQ-3sg/IND  waacu[m]?a7Vsa  T would say...'  hini[n]?a7V?is  'S/he arrived finally.' Analysis  We  have seen so far that glottalisation in Nuu-chah-nulth exhibits complex properties both  phonologically and morphologically. I summarise the questions these data raise as follows:  1.  How do we distinguish the glottal element of a glottalising suffix from that of a non-glottalising suffix? That is, why do only some suffixes with a glottal element trigger glottalisation?  2. How is the form of a glottalising suffix explained?  All glottalising suffixes consist of an  initial glottal element followed by a vowel, but not by a consonant.  3. How do we account for the difference in triggering power between a lexical glottalising suffix and a grammatical one?  17  -/faHn (42a) and -/fo'in (43b) are non-glottalising suffixes. 40  4. How do we explain the consistent glottalisation of stops/affricates, the variable glottalisation of fricatives, and the rare glottalisation of nasals?  5. How do we explain the emergence of a glottalised glide, or the suppression of a glottalised fricative, when an underlying fricative is affected by a glottalising suffix?  In this section, I discuss the issues raised.  Sections and treat the morphological  aspects of glottalisation, discussing the first three issues; sections discuss Richness ofthe Base, which provides the answers to the remaining questions. A floating feature [+Constricted Glottis]  The first issue, how to distinguish a glottalising suffix and a non-glottalising suffix, can be treated by a phonological implementation of a floating [+Constricted Glottis] (henceforth [+C.G.]) feature (Cf. Shaw 1989, Howe 1996, Zoll 1996). In Nuu-chah-nulth, boundaries.  18  glottalisation is morphologically triggered,  occurring only at morpheme  However, as shown in (44-45), repeated from (26-27), only some suffixes with a glottal  stop trigger glottalisation:  (44) Lexical a. Glottalising suffix tup/k/-?aqk  tiip[k]aqfc  black-inside  'There is s.t. black inside (of the container).'  b. Non-glottalising suffix ?eas/k/-?atu  &as[k]?atu  To slip-to sink into  'to slip into water'  (45) Grammatical a. Glottalising suffix  18  yaa?a/k/-?ap  yaa?a[k]ap  care-CAUS-3sg/TND  'to like'  We are concerned with derived glottalisation here; (underlying) glottalised consonants can be found within  morphemes.  41  b. Non-glottalising suffix pusaa/k/-?aq7c-sis  pussa[k]?aq7csis  tired-FUT-lsg/TND  Twill be tired.'  A stem-final plain stop Ikl becomes glottalised to /kV before the lexical suffix -Paq% and the grammatical suffix -Pap, as seen in (44a) and (45a), while another stem-final stop Ikl is not affected by the lexical suffix -Patu and the grammatical suffix -Paqfc, as seen in (44b) and (45b).  A distinction between  glottalising and non-glottalising suffixes, therefore, is not possible just by implementing morphological categories such as lexical and grammatical suffixes as in Lexical Phonology (Kiparsky 1982, 1985, Booij & Rubach 1987, Borowsky 1992, among others).  Only some lexical and grammatical suffixes drive  glottalisation. One possible way of distinguishing these two kinds of suffixes, i.e. glottalising vs. non-glottalising, is to specify a morphological index of glottalisation for a suffix which triggers glottalisation.  One way of  doing it can be as follows:  (46) a. -Pap [GLOTTALISATION]  b. -?is [Non-GLOTTALISATION]  However, this approach has problems both phonologically and morphologically.  First, there is no  phonological reason why one kind of glottal stop causes a preceding consonant to become glottalised but another doesn't.  Second, this indexing approach makes no distinction between lexical and grammatical  glottalising suffixes in terms of triggering effects. Recall that a fricative is not affected when preceding a grammatical glottalising suffix, although it sometimes is when preceding a lexical glottalising suffix.  I  will discuss in section how my analysis, a featural approach, is combined with lexical strata to deal with this problem. The alternative is to assign a different phonological structure to each kind of suffix.  I propose that  for a glottalising suffix, the trigger is not the glottal stop /?/ itself, but rather a floating feature [+C.G.]. A non-glottalising suffix, on the other hand, has a glottal stop (cf. Shaw 1989, Howe 1996, Zoll 1996). Consider the structural differences between the two kinds of suffixes, represented as in (47).  (Here, RT  represents a root node, V represents any vowel, and X indicates a variable: either a consonant or a vowel). (48) is an example where both a glottalising and a non-glottalising suffix appear.  42  b. Non-glottalising Suffix: ? V X  (47) a. Glottalising Suffix: [+C.G.]VX  [  RT- • •JGlot.suf.  [+C.G.]  RT  RT . . .]Non-glot.suf.  [+C.G.] V  V (48) yaa?ak-[+C.G.]ap-?is John like-CAUS-3sg  +  yaa?akap?is John 'S/he likes John.'  In (47a), the floating feature of a glottalising suffix needs a root node in order to appear on the surface: as glottalisation on a preceding segment or as a full glottal stop, depending on the phonological context.  19  On the other hand, a feature already linked to a root node, as shown in (48b), does not have to link to another root node, which is why a glottal stop of a non-glottalising suffix does not affect a preceding sound.  This representational difference between initial elements of suffixes provides a clue to the  question of why only some suffixes cause glottalisation in Nuu-chah-nulth, as compared to an analysis which assumes that both a glottalising and non-glottalising suffix have a glottal stop and thus which cannot encode the difference (cf. Sapir 1938, Rose 1976). hi addition, Rose (1976) uses another rule, a deletion rule, since whenever a preceding consonant is glottalised, a glottal stop does not appear on the surface. There is no clear phonological reason for the deletion of a glottal stop. One could suggest that either the OCP (outranking relevant faithfulness constraints) or a phonotactic constraint causes the deletion, but then how can we explain the absence of /-k?-/ as a surface form in the context of glottalisation?  TTiis form also satisfies the OCP; in fact, it is an optimal output candidate from the  perspective of OT. (49) is a portion of the constraints to treat this issue:  (49) Constraints (see McCarthy & Prince 1995, Pulleyblank 1996, 1997) a. OCP[+C.G.]: Adjacent [+C.G.] features on the melodic tier are banned.  b.  MAXPATH  [+C.G.]: Any input path between [+C.G.] and an anchor must have a correspondent  path in the output; that is, association lines may not be deleted.  19  Zoll (1996) distinguishes floating features from latent (or ghost) segments, although their underlying  representations have a common property, no root-node link. The former can surface only by linking to an existing root node, while the latter can surface as independent segments by inserting a root node in certain phonological contexts. It seems that whether Nuu-chah-nulth [+C.G.] is a conventional floating feature or a latent segment does not raise a crucial issue here, now that their representations are the same. Or it might be that their distinction is not necessary and the availability of insertion of a root node is simply a language-specific or morpheme-specific property. I leave this issue for further research. 43  c. DEPPATH[+C.G.]: Any output path between [+C.G.] and an anchor must have a correspondent path in the input; that is, association lines may not be inserted.  d. DEPRootNode: Any root node in the output must have a correspondent in the input.  e. LINK[F]: A feature must be associated to a consonant or a vowel. (See Pulleyblank 1997 for detailed discussion for the L I N K family of constraints.)  If a glottalising suffix underlyingly HAS a glottal stop, as shown in (50), no constraint penalises the presence of Ik? I as an optimal output form.  Because cases of a stop followed by a glottal RI are  frequently observed in Nuu-chah-nulth, and the OCP does not rule out the sequence Ik?I, the OCP and other phonotactic constraints cannot account for the deletion of a glottal stop.  On the other hand, i f a  glottalising suffix has a floating [+C.G.], as represented in (47a), then as tableau (51) shows, we could obtain the right surface form in the glottalisation context.  (50) If a glottalising suffix has an initial glottal stop, following a stop, e.g. Ikl: lk-11  LINK[F]  OCP  MAXPATH  DEPPATH  [+C.G.]  [+C.G.]  [+C.G.]  r+c.G.i a.k ? 1 1 r+c.G.ir+c.G.i b.k?  *  *!  r+c.G.i c. lc *!  r+c.G.i d.k ?  *!  [+C.G.]  e.k [+C.G.]  *  *  *!  44  DEPRoot Node  (51) If a glottalising suffix has a floating [+C.G.]. /k-  /  LINK[F]  r+c.G.i a.k  OCP [+C.G.]  MAXPATH  DEPPATH  [+C.G.]  [+C.G.]  ?  *!  r+c.G.ir+c.G.i b.k? 1 r+c.G.i c. lc  **  *  *  *!  *  r+c.G.i d.k'  DEPRoot Node  ?  *  [+C.G.] e.k [+C.G.]  *!  To conclude, the implementation of a structural difference between a glottalising suffix and a nonglottalising suffix contributes to a comprehensive account of glottalising vs. non-glottalising suffixes. Furthermore, it encodes the surface alternations in a reasonable way: [+C.G.] on a preceding consonant and [+C.G.] in an independent segment.  A floating feature can attach to different root nodes in the  output, since it is not associated to any anchor in the input, exhibiting alternation.  However, a glottal  stop, given full representation in the input, does not exhibit such an alternation, but is consistent in all forms. The second issue with respect to the form of a glottalising suffix is that a glottalising suffix begins always with a vowel (plus the floating [+C.G.] feature).  Nuu-chah-nulth suffixes do not have any  conditions on their first two segments. Abstracting away from cases where the first segment is a glottal stop or glottalised consonant, a suffix can either begin with a sequence of a consonant and a vowel as in (52a-c) or a consonant cluster as in (52d-k):  (52) a. -mit  'past'  b. -na:k  'to have'  c. -ka  'again, also'  d. -q?ich 'for years' e. 4itin  'made of  f. -qs  'vessel, container'  g. -st'aF  'each other'.  h. -ck ii  'must have been'  i. -chi  'to marry'  w  45  j. -hs  'lsg/Interogative'  k. -qcs  'at a vehicle'  However, a glottalising suffix never starts with a consonant.  The restriction on the morphological shape  of a glottalising suffix is associated with phonological constraints on the internal structure of the Nuuchah-nulth syllable. Nuu-chah-nulth allows one and only one consonant in the onset position and a maximum of three consonants in the coda position, with codaless syllables available (Stonham 1994). While any consonant can be an onset, none of the glottal consonants can appear in the coda position: glottalised obstruents /p, t, glottalised sonorants /m, h, y, w/, glottal consonants /?, h/, and a pharyngeal stop /V are all  k, k , c, c, w  impermissible as codas.  Nuu-chah-nulth has only three vowel phonemes cross-cut by a length contrast  and their distribution is not restricted.  The properties of the syllable structure in Nuu-chah-nulth can  be schematised as in (53), with some examples, in (54): here '.' refers to a syllable boundary.  20  (53) Nuu-chah-nulth syllable structure (cf. (16))  Onset  Rhyme  |  Nucleus  I  A  C  V(V)  (Coda) C(C) (C) ""Laryngeal  21  (54) Examples a. CV  'food'  b. CVC  -»  ha.?um  'food'  c. CVCC  •>  muks . ?i  'the rocks'  d. CVCCC  cu . cumih . ta 'to wash feet'  e. CVV  rhaa  'to bite'  wiiq.sri-  'stormy'  yaack  'to kick'  f. CVVC g. CVVCC  20  ha.?um  *  The schema in (53) just describes numbers of possible segments and distributional restrictions in the syllable in  Nuu-chah-nulth, without any intension of an argument for a specific syllable theory. 21  ""Laryngeal is a constraint which simply disallows a consonant with LAR specification in the coda, without  considering the effects of any theories of underspecification. 46  h. CVYCCC  yaaqfcs . ?is  'S/he despises (someone).'  The fact that a glottalising suffix begins always with a vowel results from restrictions on Nuu-chahnulth syllable structures as shown in (53).  Note, again, that the onset allows only one consonant and the  coda allows no glottal consonant. If there were a glottalising suffix with an initial consonant as in (55) in Nuu-chah-nulth, and if the suffix were to be attached to a stem ending with a consonant, e.g. IM, then we would expect an output form like (56).  Such a form might be syllabified in two ways: either as a coda as in (57a) or as an onset  as in (57b). (55)  [+C.G.]. [ CX  (56) [... Yt]  ]Glot.suf.  Stem  +[  [+C.G.] CX  (57) a. . . . X t ' . C . . .  Or  ]su  ffix  ...Yt'CX  b. . . . X . t ' C . . .  However, it is ill-formed in Nuu-chah-nulth to have a glottalised consonant in coda position, ruling out (57a), and ill-formed to have an onset cluster, ruling out (57b).  Hence, it is not possible in Nuu-chah-  nulth to have a glottalising suffix that starts with [+C.G.] followed by a consonant. If such a morpheme were posited, the [+C.G.] feature would not surface. On the other hand, if a suffix of the type in (55) attaches to a vowel-final stem, then an output like (58) might be expected, since there are no glottalised vowels in Nuu-chah-nulth.  (58)  [+C.G] [...YV]  Stem  +[  CX  ]  S u f f i x  *  ...YVC'X  This leads to a well-formed syllable structure, if 'X' is a vowel, as follows.  (59) YV. C V . This is possible only if the floating [+C.G.] is allowed to link to the suffix itself, and also the same effect would happen to consonant-final stems.  It would lead to the following output form, which is well-  formed as well in Nuu-chah-nulth (cf. (56)). (60) [...YC]Stem+[  [+C.G.] CV ]Suffix  ...YCC'V (YC.C'V.) 47  The principle .'Richness of the Base', which I will discuss in detail in the following section, would allow such suffixes in some languages.  A possibility with the Nuu-chah-nulth case is that such suffixes might  be indistinguishable from suffixes starting with a glottalised consonant. any stipulation to rule out such input morphemes.  Consequently, we do not need  In Nuu-chah-nulth the floating [+C.G.] feature can  only link to a stem-final consonant, when there is an available anchor, which will be discussed in detail in the next section.' To conclude, a glottalising suffix has a consistent initial part, i.e., a floating feature [+C.G.]+ an initial vowel, in Nuu-chah-nulth. Obstruents in glottalisation  The data we have seen show that there are asymmetries between obstruents with respect to the phonemic inventory and glottalisation.  Stops/affricates have plain-glottalised pairs, and plain stops/affricates never  fail to be glottalised when preceding a glottalising suffix.  On the other hand, fricatives do not have  glottalised counterparts and there is variation between fricatives in terms of glottalisation: i) only some stem-final fricatives are affected when preceding a lexical glottalising suffix, and ii) no fricative is affected by a grammatical glottalising suffix. In this section, I will discuss the behaviour of obstruents regarding glottalisation, and how to treat these phonological and morphological asymmetries, implementing features and their combination. As a basic model of the feature geometry, I adopt Sagey (1986) and Halle (1995); (61) is its simplified version showing only features relevant to my discussion, assuming a binary feature system for terminal (non-class node) features:  (61) A model of the feature hierarchy RT  [±Voiced]-- ^L  PL  ;  Coronal  Labial  [+Cons] [±Son] [+Cont]  Dorsal  Soft Palate  [+Nasal]  [+Back] [±High] [+Low]  Because detailed discussion about the adequacy of this feature geometry is beyond the scope of the issue under discussion, I will summarise the implementation of the features here. First, I assume a Root node as an anchor for a set of features, which enables us to distinguish feature(s) linked to an anchor from unlinked floating features.  Distinguishing between different suffixes as in (47) is one case where a Root  48  node is crucial, as we saw above.  Another major difference from Halle (1995) lies in the treatment of  pharyngeals /?, hi in terms of Place features.  Halle, adopting McCarthy (1994), claims that the two  pharyngeals are [-Cons] segments, assigning them under the Tongue Root articulator, not under Place node.  22  He introduces the Guttural node grouping the Larynx, which includes R, hi, and Tongue Root  articulators into a single constituent. However, Nuu-chah-nulth pharyngeals very often group with Dorsal segments rather than with glottals R, hi. For example, as we will see below, pharyngeals, especially Ihl, make a natural class with velars and uvulars in glottalisation.  In addition, pharyngeals behave as a  Dorsal consonant in the process of vowel lowering, whose triggers are made up of uvulars and pharyngeals (Rose 1976, Stonham 1999, Wilson 2003).  Halle (1995) specifies vowel features under the  Dorsal node. If velars, uvulars and pharyngeals are grouped under the Dorsal node and only uvulars and phayngeals are specified for [-High], then both glottalisation and vowel lowering may be explained straightforwardly. That is, all Dorsal fricatives have a common surface form in the glottalisation context, which is /w/, and only [-High] Dorsal consonants (uvulars and pharyngeals) affect an adjacent vowel, also specified for Dorsal, in assimilations such as lowering. Although this treatment requires cross-linguistic examination, I group pharyngeals with velars and uvulars under the Dorsal node in Nuu-chah-nulth: the phonological distinction between these three subgroups is created via combination of the dependent features as follows (SPE 1968).  (62) Dorsal consonants Velars Back  +  High  +  Low  -  Uvulars  Pharyngeals  +  +  -  +  Now, I will discuss how stops/affricates are treated in a glottalisation context and then move onto fricatives. Stops/affricates  Noted as early as Sapir (1938), a very large number of North American indigenous languages have glottalised stops/affricates (ejectives), whereas glottalised fricatives are very rare (also, see Wang 1968,  Halle suggests a restriction on the choice of designated articulator for [+consonantal]: "The designated articulator for [+consonantal] phonemes must be one of three Place articulators, Labial, Dorsal, or Coronal" (Halle 1995: 7 (6))  Greenberg 1970, Lindau 1984, Vaux 1998).  In addition, glottalisation of a plain stop/affricate  23  triggered by a glottalising suffix is a common phenomenon in this area (Steriade 1997, Caldecott 1999, Howe & Pulleyblank 2001).  In this section, I will discuss characteristics of Nuu-chah-nulth glottalised  stops/affricates and describe how a plain stop/affricate behaves in a glottalisation context. In Nuu-chah-nulth, plain stop/affricates have glottalised counterparts. Plain stops/affricates never fail to be glottalised when preceding a glottalising suffix.  First of all, an underlying glottalised stop/affricate  always maintains its property of glottalic constriction on the surface.  The presence of glottalised  stops/affricates in Nuu-chah-nulth is guaranteed by ranking Faithfulness constraints MAX[+C.G.], (63a), and DEPRootNode, (63b), over a Markedness constraint *[-Son -Cont +C.G.], (64).  24  class feature that includes both stops and affricates.  [-Cons] is a major  To distinguish them from other [-Son] consonants  such as fricatives, we need [-Cont]. In addition, we need DEPPATH[+C.G.], which does not allow/the insertion of association lines. ranked constraints.  As we will see below, this constraint must be violated to observe higher-  (65) indicates the ranking between the Faithfulness and Markedness constraints,  where -0- symbolises the ranking between constraints: constraints on the upper side are ranked higher than constraints on the under side.  (63) a. MAX[+C.G.]: [+C.G.] in the input must have a correspondent in the output.  b. DEPRootNode: Any root node in the output must have a correspondent in the input.  c. DEPPATH[+C.G.]: Any output path between [C.G.] and an anchor must have a correspondent path in the input.  (64) *[+Cons -Cont +C.G.]: [+Cons], [-Cont], and [+C.G.] cannot cooccur under the same root node.  (65) Ranking:  MAX[+C.G.]  DEPRootNode  DEPPATH[+C.G.], *[+Cons -Cont+C.G.] 2 3  Dakota (Shaw 1989) has glottalised fricatives /s', s', x' /, and Mazahua (Sports 1953) and Huautla Mazatec  (Golston & Kehrein 1997) have a glottalisedfricative/s7, which are marked cases cross-linguistically. 24  MAXPATH[+C.G.] has the same effect as DEPRootNode does, but the former is not relevant when a [+C.G.]  feature is not associated in the input. unassociated [+C.G.] features.  Therefore, I implement DEPRootNode to treat both associated and  Also, DEPRootNode is lower-ranked than MAX[+C.G.], for as we will see in  section, with a vowel-final stem, the input [+C.G.] always surfaces as a glottal stop. 50  (66) provides the relevant example and a tableau illustrating the implementation of this ranking:  (66) a. [p]usaak 'tired'  b. Tableau pusaak  MAX[+CG]  DEPRootNode  DEPPATH[+CG.]  *[+Cons -Cont +C.G.]  r+c.G.i a. pusaak *  r+c.G.i b. pusaak  *! c. p?usaak ' *  *!  '.  r+c.G.i As shown in the tableau above, the higher-ranked constraints MAX[+C.G.] and DEPRootNode disallow a deletion of the underlying [+C.G.] feature and the insertion of a root node respectively.  As a result, a  glottalised stop appears on the surface. Now, consider a derived glottalised stop/affricate. When a plain stop/affricate precedes a glottalising suffix, it always becomes glottalised.  As discussed above, a glottalising suffix has a floating feature  [+C.G.] in its initial position. The floating [+C.G.] feature never fails to appear on the surface; however, it is realised differently depending on the phonological context: either as glottalisation on an immediately preceding consonant, or as a full glottal stop.  With an immediately preceding stop/affricate, [+C.G.]  appears as glottalisation on the stop/affricate on the surface, not as a glottal stop.  The fact that a  stop/affricate never fails to be glottalised before a glottalising suffix can be accounted for by the same ranking status of the constraints introduced in (63) and (64). tableau in (67b).  51  (67a) is the relevant example with the  (67) a. wik-stu/p/-[+C.G.]aq7c  +  not-thing-inside  wikstu[p]aq7c 'nothing inside'  b. Tableau wikstup-[+C.G.]aq?c  MAX[+CG.]  DEPRoot Node  DEPPATH  [+C.G.]  *  *  a. wikstupaqfc  *  *!  b. wikstup?aq7V  c. wikstupaqfc  *[+Cons -Cont +C.G.]  *!  As shown in the tableau, DEPPATH[+C.G.] must be violated when the [+C.G.] feature appears on the surface, in order to obey the higher-ranked constraint MAX[+C.G.].  However, maintaining the feature  by inserting a root node leads to a fatal violation. Therefore, when a stop/affricate precedes a glottalising suffix, its glottalised counterpart always surfaces. The ranking in (65) shows that key Faithfulness constraints, MAX[+C.G.] and DEPRootNode, are higher-ranked than the Markedness constraint, [+Cons -Cont +C.G.], and within Faithfulness, DEPPATH[+C.G.] is outranked by MAX[+C.G.] and DEPRootNode.  This implies the following general  ranking schema.  (68) Faithfulness Markedness  On the other hand, if a language does not allow a floating [+C.G.] feature to link to a stop/ affricate on the surface, but instead requires a full glottal stop, then the ranking would be reversed  as in (69) and the general ranking schema.  25  2 5  Whether a glottal stop is [+Consonantal] is an unsolved issue, but I simply assume that a glottal stop does not  violate the markedness constraint *[+Cons][+C.G.] (cf. Chomsky & Halle 1968). distinguish between a glottal stop and other obstruents, if it is specified for [+Cons].  52  We may need a feature to This needs further study.  (69) a. MAX[+C.G.] *[+Cons -Cont +C.G.] DEPRootNode, D E P P A T H [ + C G . ]  (70) Markedness Faithfulness  Yowlumne (Steriade 1997) and Coeur d'Alene (Cole 1991) may be relevant cases. In these languages a glottalising suffix only causes a sonorant to become glottalised, but a stop/affricate is not affected, which is the opposite of Nuu-chah-nulth in terms of morphologically-driven glottalisation (see section for detailed discussion). Our final issue, with respect to glottalisation of stops/affricates, is the anchor of the floating [+C.G.] feature. The [+C.G.] feature in a glottalising suffix always links to a stem-final consonant.  We need the  alignment constraint as defined in (71), in order to obtain this effect, adapting Akinlabi (1996).  26  This  constraint is also highly ranked to restrict the anchor to which the floating feature links.  (71) ALIGN-Glo. (Align (Glo. L , Stem, R)): The left edge o f a glottalising morpheme must be aligned with the right edge of the stem. A glottalising morpheme is a suffix in stem.  (72) is the ranking of the constraints including (71). The grammar drives an input [+C.G.] to link to an adjacent anchor by the high-ranked MAX[+C.G.] and ALIGN-Glo.  Also, DEPRootNode, outranking  both DEPPATH[+C.G.] and *[+Cons, +C.G.], leads to glottalisation of an input plain consonant, in particular a stop/affricate, rather than the emergence of a glottal stop.  This exactly reflects the case of  stops/affricates in the context of glottalisation in Nuu-chah-nulth.  (72) A partial Nuu-chah-nulth grammar MAX[+C.G.], ALIGN-Glo. DEPRootNode DEPPATH[+C.G.],  26  *[+Cons -Cont +C.G.]  See Akinlabi (1996) for detailed discussion on affixation of a featural morpheme; also see Kim (2001) for an  anchoring restriction of a floating [+C.G.]: it cannot link to a suffix itself which it belongs to. 53  The following tableaux show how all these constraints interact with each other, causing a plain stop to surface as a glottalised stop: ST stands for stem and WD word. From now on I include morphological structures both in the input and output forms, because as we will see, especially in section, the morphological distinction between glottalising suffixes is crucial. potential candidates in tableaux.  However, I do not include two  One is a candidate which violates a phonotactic constraint which  disallows a glottalised consonant in the coda; the other is a candidate where the input floating feature [+C.G.] is still unlinked in the output.  The latter case apparently violates no constraints assumed in the  tableau, which might lead it to be an output form.  To prevent this unwanted result, I would use LINK,  which requires all features to be linked to an anchor (cf. 49-51).  I will take this for granted in further  analyses and not consider such candidates.  (73) a. tup/k/-[-+C.G.]aqfc  tup[k]aqk  black-inside/consuming b. Tableau [[tupk-[+C.G.]aqfc]  ST  MAX[+C.G.]  '(something) black inside'  ALIGN-Glo  ]\VD  DEPRoot Node  DEPPATH  [+C.G.]  *[+Cons -Cont  +C.G.1  *  ®"a. [[tupkaqk]s ]wD T  ST  c. [[tupkaqfc] ]wD ST  d. [[t'upkaqk] ]wD ST  *  *!  b.[[tupk?aqk] ]wD  *!  ...  *  *!  In Tableau (73), where a lexical glottalising suffix is attached to a stop, candidate c violates the highlyranked constraint MAX[+C.G.], which prevents the input feature [+C.G.] from being deleted in the output. Candidate d is ruled out by the violation of ALIGN-Glo.  The glottalising suffix is aligned with  the left, not right, edge of the stem. The DEPRootNode constraint determines candidate a as an optimal output.  Candidate b violates the constraint by inserting a root node.  Any candidate must violate  DEPPATH[+C.G.], if it is to avoid violating the higher-ranked constraint MAX[+C.G.], since the feature [+C.G.] is not linked to any root node in the input.  For candidate a, it does not violate ALIGN-Glo.,  since the stem-final Ikl, which is the right edge of the stem, is aligned with the left edge of the suffix, which is the [+C.G.] feature.  54  Tableau (74) shows that when a stop precedes a grammatical glottalising suffix, it becomes a glottalised stop as well.  The morphological domain of glottalisation is extended simply from STEM to  WORD by attaching a grammatical suffix.  27  (74) a. kuupu/p/-[+C.G.]a^  kuupu[p]a7c  hanging-SEQ  'to hang (something)'  b. Tableau MAX[+C.G] [kuupup- [+C. G.] afc] WD  ALIGNGlo.  DEPRoot Node  *°a. [kuupupa^]wD  *!  b. [kuupup?a7c]wD  e. [kuupupa7c]wD  *[+Cons -Cont +C.G.1  *  *  * *  *!  d. [kuupupa7c]wD  DEPPATH [+C.G.]  *  *!  In sum, Nuu-chah-nulth grammar requires that when the target consonant in the glottalisation process is a stop or an affricate, it must be glottalised. Fricatives  Nuu-chah-nulth has a relatively large set of contrasting fricatives with extensive places of articulation: from alveolar to glottal (see the consonant chart (2) in section 3.1). glottalised counterparts in this language.  Fricatives are the only set without  When a plain fricative precedes a glottalising suffix, it is not  glottalised; instead, it surfaces either as a plain fricative followed by a glottal stop or as a glottalised glide, depending upon phonological and morphological contexts. First, the absence of glottalised fricatives in Nuu-chah-nulth may be due to articulatory mechanisms of sound production, and treated in terms of a phonological constraint, integrating phonetic aspects into phonology.  When a fricative is produced, an air tunnel is formed, by which frication of air energy is  See section for the detailed discussion. In the case of stops/affricates, this morphological distinction is not crucial.  I, therefore, will postpone the discussion of the morphological aspects in terms of Nuu-chah-nulth  glottalisation to section, in which I discuss the internal structure of the word, and how the surface form of a fricative preceding a glottalising suffix is morphologically determined.  55  made.  On the other hand, a glottalic consonant is produced by a combination of constriction and rapid  vertical movement ofthe glottis and air compression in a small chamber in the mouth. Consequently, if a fricative is produced accompanied with the constriction ofthe glottis, there is a lack of enough continuous airfricationfor a fricative, which makes it difficult to make a glottalised fricative (Wang 1968, Greenberg 1970, Lindau 1984, and Vaux 1998, Gick p.c).  This articulatory difficulty in the production of  glottalised fricatives may lead to the fact that glottalised fricatives are very rare cross-linguistically (Maddieson 1984). The following markedness constraint, which is highly-ranked in Nuu-chah-nulth as well as crosslinguistically in general, disallows a glottalised fricative to surface.  28  (75) *[+Cons +Cont +C.G.]: [+Cons], [+Cont], and [+C.G.] cannot cooccur under the same root node.  Another unique aspect of Nuu-chah-nulth fricatives with respect to glottalisation is that only some stem-final fricatives are affected by a glottalising suffix; they become a glottalised glide when preceding a lexical glottalising suffix. For convenience, I repeat part ofthe relevant data in (76), from (33):  (76) a. tu/h/-[+C.G.]aqfc head-inside/consuming  b. £i7h/-[+C.G.]aqk-yak driving-inside-instrument  tu[w]aqfc 'eating (fish) head'  &[h]?aqfcyak 'shirt'  In (76a) the stem-final fricative becomes a glottalised glide, while the phonetically identical sound in (76b) does not change even though it precedes the same suffix.  Therefore, it can be said that this  alternation is not determined solely by phonological factors, because a fricative which occupies the final position of only some morphemes is affected. Two problems present themselves: i) how are two classes of superficially identical fricatives to be distinguished, and ii) how is the fricative/glide alternation to be formally accounted for.  I suggest that  the alternation between the same sets of fricatives and the phonologically close relationship between fricatives and glides can be accounted for by the principle that features as phonological primitives can be combined freely: i.e. Richness ofthe Base (Prince & Smolensky 1993, Smolensky 1996, Archangeli & Pulleyblank 1994, Kim & Pulleyblank 2003). however.  28  Not all feature combinations are realised on the surface,  They are subject to the Grounding Conditions (Archangeli & Pulleyblank 1994). According  Languages with glottalised fricatives such as Dakota, Mazahua, and Huautla Mazatec may have this markedness  constraint lower-ranked in their grammar. 56  to these two principles, certain well-formed feature combinations from a rich set of feature combinations surface as an output form according to the context. I will discuss the first problem in this section and the second in the next section. Before explaining the alternation between the same surface fricatives, we need to identify distinctive features which are responsible for the realisation of surface fricatives.  The distinctive feature that  distinguishes between stops/affricates and fricatives is [+Cont]. [+Cont] is a crucial identifying factor for fricatives; stops/affricates are [-Cont].  Second, we need a feature to distinguish fricatives and glides,  which is [+Cons(onantal)], since glides are also specified for [+Cont].  29  Consequently, primary features  used to identify fricatives are [+Cons] and [+Cont] and under Richness of the Base, these features can be combined as follows, creating nine possible combinations ofthe features:  (77) Feature combinations of [+Cons] and [+Cont] a  b  0  -cont  c +cont  d  e  -cons  f +cons  g  h  i  -cont  -cont  +cont +cont  -cons  +cons  -cons +cons  Each combination realises a sound on the surface, which can be a fricative or some other sound. The presence of both features [+Cons] and [+Cont] is essential for a fricative on the surface. If both features are already combined in the input as in (77i), africativewill surface straightforwardly. In order to realise a fricative from the other combinations, however, we need a phonological mechanism by which either [+Cons] or [+Cont] or both are added to an input feature combination.  This process can be done by  Have[a] constraints (a is a variable of any feature), which I would call a Construction constraint (See Padgett 2001 for the use of such a constraint).  (78) Have[ct]: The feature a must appear in the output.  2 9  Clements (1990) uses the feature 'Approximant' to single out liquids and glidesfromother consonant groups,  obstruents and nasals. "[+Approximant] refers to any sound produced with an oral tract stricture open enough so that airflow through it is turbulent only if it is voiceless." Although he agrees with Halle & Clements (1983) on the claim that laterals are [-Cont], he does not specify if glides should be [-Cont] as well. His analysis concentrates on the investigation of sonority theory with an ability to predict valid cross-linguistic generalization; thus, he examines obstruents, nasals, liquids, glides and vowels using only 4 major class features, [Syllabic], [Vocoid], [Approximant], and [Sonorant]. Therefore, we would need more features and finer versions of the sonority scale to accommodate languages which requires further subdivisions.  For the problems under discussion in the thesis, we need more  features to treat the behaviours of fricatives and glides in the glottalisation context. appears, I consider glides [+Cont]. 57  Unless counterevidence  These constraints take effect depending on cross-linguistic or language-specific markedness status of the feature of interest. In this respect, a Construction constraint may be part of Markedness constraints. If a faithfulness constraint like DEP[a] is higher-ranked than Have[a], then the phonological element a cannot surface as shown in (79) (for relevant discussion, see Keating 1988, which argues that underspecified segments remain underspecified even in surface representations: e.g. intervocalic /hi in English, Farsi, and Swedish). If the opposite occurs, however, the feature will never fail to appear on the surface, as shown in (80). (79) Faithfulness » 0  ^a b.  Construction (Markedness) DEP[a]  *  0  a  *!  (80) Construction (Markedness) » 0  ^ a. b.  Have [a]  Have [a]  DEP[al *  a 0  Faithfulness  *!  The markedness status of the features [+Cons] and [+Cont] in Nuu-chah-nulth determine which input representations in (79) are realised as a surface fricative. For [Cons], frequency in the Nuu-chah-nulth lexicon and restrictions on syllable structure lead [+Cons] to be a consonantal default.  30  In Nuu-chah-  nulth there are many morphemes that consist only of consonants, while there are no morphemes with only vowels. Also, glides, whether plain or glottalised, have a restriction on their distribution in the lexicon: they do not occur in stem-final or syllable-final position. This means that [+Cons] is unmarked in Nuu-chah-nulth; therefore, Have[+Cons] is higher ranked than DEP[+Cons] as shown in (80).  31  Compared to Have[+Cons], Have[+Cont] is lower ranked. In terms of frequency cross-linguistically, unmarked [+Cons] consonants are stops/affricates, which are [-Cont] (SPE 1968, Maddieson 1984). In addition, there is no evidence that [+Cont] for obstruents is language-specifically unmarked in Nuu-chahnulth.  Frequency is one o f the criteria when to determine default segments cross-linguistically. 3 1  In principle, we must have Have[-Cons] as well, but I do not discuss H a v e [ - F ] constraints including it, unless they  are o f interest to the issue under discussion, to simplify the exposition.  58  Consequently, when a specific value for the features [Cons] and [Cont] is not specified in the input as in (77a-e), (81) provides relevant features and their value on the surface:  (81) (MAX[+Cons]/[+ConfJ) Have[+Cons]  DEP[+Cons]/[+Cont]  Have[+Cont]  The constraints and their ranking require that a segment on the surface must be specified for the feature [+Cons] but not always for [+ConfJ. Of the possibilities of feature combinations in (77), only (c) and (i) lead to the realisation of a plain fricative; the other feature combinations lead to a stop/affricate or a glide.  (See Archangeli &  Pulleyblank 1994 for relevant discussion). (82) represents the Nuu-chah-nulth input fricatives.  (82) Nuu-chah-nulth input fricatives: a.=(77c)  /s/  b.=(77i)  F +Cons 1 L +Cont J  /S/  r 1 L+Cont J  A plain fricative is derived from both possible input types by the Nuu-chah-nulth grammar in the absence of any affecting factors. Recall that glides are represented as [-Cons, +Cont] and that [+Cont] has no separate phonetic interpretation. (83) is a Nuu-chah-nulth output fricative: it is derivedfromeither (82a), which obeys MAX, Have and DEP constraints, or from (82b) by the insertion of [+Cons] which is due to (81).  (84) illustrates this  process by tableaux.  (83) Nuu-chah-nulth output fricatives (e.g. a voiceless alveolar fricative) in a simple case:  Is/ T +Cons L +Cont  ] J  59  (84) a. Tableau (with the input 81a)  Isl 1 r+Consl  MAX [+Cons]  L+Cont J a. Isl  Have [+Cons]  MAX [+Cont]  DEP [+Cons]  DEP [+Cont]  Have [+Cont]  1 r+Cons] L+Cont J  b./t/  *  *! [+Cons] c./y/  *  *! [+Cont] b. Tableau (with the input 81b) MAX [+Cons]  ISI  MAX [+Cont]  Have [+Cons]  [+Contl a. Isl  DEP [+Cons]  DEP [+Confj  Have [+Cont]  *  1 r+Consl  L+Cont J b./t/  *  *!  *  [+Cons] c./y/  *! [+Cont] We started this section by raising the question of how to phonologically distinguish a fricative that is affected by a glottalising suffix, as in (86a), from one that is not, as in (85b):  (85) a. t'u/h/-[+C.G.]aq?fe head-inside/consuming  b. £i/h/-[+C.G.]aqfc-yak * driving-inside-instrument  -»  tu[w]aqfc  'eating (fish) head'  &[h]?aqfcyak ' shirt'  The two possible input representations for a surface fricative in (82) solve this problem.  That is, the  input representation of the stem-final fricative in (85a) corresponds to (82b) and that in (85b) to (82a). Detailed discussion of this issue will be presented in section  60  For glottalised fricatives, [+C.G.] is added to the combinations of [+Cons] and [+Cont].  A set of  features which include [+Cons], [+Cont], and [+C.G.] would realise a glottalised fricative as shown in (86).  (86) Glottalised fricatives (e.g. alveolar glottalised fricative) /s7  T+Cons 1 l+C.G. |  L+Cont J However, in Nuu-chah-nulth, the highly-ranked constraint  *[+Cons +Cont +C.G.] disallows the  combination of these features.  (87) a.. k i/s/-[+C.G.]ic w  snow-eating  b. ciyapux/s/-[+C.G.]ic hat-eating  k i[y]ic  (*k is'ic)  w  w  'eating snow'  ciyapux[s]?ic  (*ciyapuxs'ic)  'biting a hat'  As seen in tableaux (88-89), the absence of glottalised fricatives is achieved by ranking *[+Cons +Cont +C.G.] above the Faithfulness constraints DEPPATH[+C.G.] and DEP[R-Node].  (88) is the case  where the input representation for a fricative has both [+Cons] and [+Cont], and (89) is the case where only [+Cont] is specified in the input.  Whether [+Cons] is underlyingly present or not, a plain fricative  never becomes a glottalised fricative when preceding a glottalising suffix, as shown in (84b) and (86b). Note that in (88), each candidate is added [+Cons] by the Nuu-chah-nulth grammar (81); hence, the lack of specification of [+Cons] for a fricative in the input does not guarantee avoiding the violation of the Markedness constraint *[+Cons +Cont +C.G.], because the constraint evaluates output forms, not the input.  61  (88) Tableau: a voiceless alveolar fricative specified for [+Cons] /s/ r+Consl [+C.G.] L+ContJ  MAX [+C.G.]  Have [+Cons]  a. s ?  *[+Cons] [+Cont] r+c.G.i  DEPPATH  [+C.G.]  DEPRoot Node  fei£ii' : ^!' . '''^^iii3 :, r  r+Consl [+C.G.] L+ContJ  Tl l  b.s' 1 r+Consl |+Cont | L+C.G.J  *  *!  c. s  r+Consl  *!  L+Cont J (89) Tableau: a voiceless alveolar fricative unspecified /s/ • [+Cont] [+C.G.]  MAX [+C.G]  a. s ?  Have [+Cons]  *[+Cons] [+Cont] r+c.G.i  r+Consl [+C.G.] L+ContJ  DEPPATH [+C.G.]  DEPRoot Node  *  *  b.s'  •1  *!  r+Consl |+Cont | L+C.G.J  c. s 1  *  *!  r+Consl L+ContJ  So far I have discussed how two classes of superficially identical fricatives are formally distinguished, and why a glottalised fricative is not observed in Nuu-chah-nulth.  Free combination of features  according to Richness of the Base allows the same set of surface segments to be able to have more than one input representations.  Also, the Markedness constraint *[+Cons][+Cont][+C.G.] disallows the  presence of a glottalised fricative in Nuu-chah-nulth.  As seen in (83a) and (85a), however, a plain  fricative in a glottalisation context sometimes surfaces as a glottalised glide.  In the next section I will  discuss the second issue: how the fricative/glide alternation is formally accounted for.  62 Glides  Nuu-chah-nulth has four glides: lyl and Iwl, and their glottalised counterparts lyl and Iwl. Plain glides are not available for testing before a glottalising suffix, because Nuu-chah-nulth does not have morphemefinal glides, and glottalisation occurs only between morphemes.  32  However, the phonological differences  between plain and glottalised glides need to be discussed since glides interact with fricatives in glottalisation.  When some stem-final plain fricatives precede a glottalising suffix, they become  glottalised glides. In this section, I provide feature combinations for a plain and glottalised glide, which can help reveal how a fricative and a glide can be phonologically related to each other. For plain glides, I provide the combinations of realised as a plain glide on the surface.  [+Son] and [+Cont], whose specific values are  [+Cont] is a feature common in fricatives and glides, while  different values of [Son] distinguish them.  (90) Feature combinations of [+Cont] and [+Son] a  b  0  -cont  c +cont  d -son  e +son  f  g  h  -cont  -cont  -son  +son  i  +cont +cont -son  +son  The presence of both [+Son] and [+Cont] is essential for a glide on the surface.  If both features are  already combined in the input as in (90i), a glide will surface straightforwardly. As discussed above, the Have[ct] constraint is involved in realising glides on the surface from the other combinations. When a specific value for the features [Son] or [Cont] is not specified in the input as in (90a-e), the introduction ofthe two construction constraints Have[+Son] and Have[+Cont] and their language-specific ranking will be necessary so that a glide can surface. When a feature value for either [+Son] or [+Cont], or for both, is not specified, the Have constraints may drive these features to surface.  However, given that the  constraint Have [+Cons] is high-ranked in Nuu-chah-nulth (recall the unmarkedness of [+Cons] in Nuuchah-nulth, which is discussed above), the presence of both the Have[+Cons] and Have [+Son] constraints will cause conflict with the Markedness constraint *[+Son, +Cons].  The conflict between  these constraints can be resolved by ranking them. Cross-linguistically, obstruents like stops, affricates and fricatives are more unmarked than sonorants (Jakobson 1943, SPE 1968, Maddison 1984). leads to ranking Have[+Cons] above Have[+Son].  This  If, therefore, there is no specification for both  [+Cons] and [+Son], then [+Cons] surfaces, obeying both constraints Have[+Cons] and *[+Son, +Cons]. That is, when Have[+Cons] and Have[+Son] are in conflict, the former wins in terms of universal  32  Of course, wefindmorpheme-final glides on the surface. These are derived by glottalisation so they are always  glottalised. That is, Nuu-chah-nulth does not have any underlying morpheme-final plain or glottalised glides. 63  markedness principles.  The emergence of [+Son] on the surface is suppressed, unless the feature is  already specified in the input (whose presence in the output is guaranteed by a higher-ranked faithfulness constraint MAX[+Son]). Of [+Cons] consonants, unmarked ones are stops/affricates cross-linguistically; in addition, there is no evidence that [+Cont] for obstruents is language-specifically unmarked in Nuu-chah-nulth (SPE 1968, Maddieson 1984). This leads to ranking Have[+Cont] relatively low. All these phonological properties language-specifically as well as cross-linguistically are involved not only in deriving the Nuu-chah-nulth phonemic inventory but also in the patterns of glottalisation. Especially, the relation between a fricative and glide in a glottalisation context will be illustrated below. (91) is the ranking of the relevant constraints:  (91) A partial Nuu-chah-nulth grammar: MAX[+Son], MAX[+Cons], MAX[+Cont]  HAVE[+Cons]  *[+Cons+Son], [+Cons+Cont]. DEP[+Cons], DEP[+Son], DEP[+Cont] HAVE[+Son], HAVE[+Cont]  Consequently, of the possibilities of feature combinations for a plain glide in (90), only (i) will lead to a glide on the surface. (90a, b, d, and f) will realise a stop, (90c and h) a stop/ affricate, and (90e and g) a nasal. (92) provides an output feature combination for a plain glide.  (92) Nuu-chah-nulth output glides (e.g. a palatal glide): lyl  T+Son ] L+Cont J For a glottalised glide, [+C.G.] is added to the combinations of [+Son] and [+Confj. (93) is an output feature combination for a glottalised glide:  64  (93) Nuu-chah-nulth glottalised glides (e.g. a palatal glottalised glide) lyl r+Son l+C.G.  ] |  L+Cont J Fricatives in glottalisation  When a fricative precedes a glottalising suffix, it surfaces either as a plain fricative followed by a glottal stop or as a glottalised glide. I suggested above that the alternation between the same set of fricatives in a gottalisation context is due to the two input representations for a single output fricative. In this section, I will discuss in detail how the phonological representations of a single fricative are affected in the context of glottalisation, in terms of the interactions of some relevant Faithfulness and Markedness constraints. Before going on to this major issue, we need to consider another aspect regarding the surface form of an input fricative.  When an input fricative surfaces as a glottalised glide, the input Place feature is  maintained in the output.  Nuu-chah-nulth has two glottalised glides, lyl and /w/.  If a fricative has a  Coronal feature, e.g., Is, F, si, then glottalisation causes the glottalised coronal glide lyl to surface (with automatic adjustments of [Strident] and [Anterior] as seen in (94)).  If a fricative has a Dorsal feature,  e.g., Ix, x , x, x , hi, then the glottalised dorsal glide /w/ surfaces as seen in (95). w  w  In Nuu-chah-nulth,  Dorsal fricatives, except lb/, are very rare: I have found 3 morphemes ending with Ix/, 8 ending with /x /, w  3 ending with Ix/, and 1 ending with /x / (see the chart (10)). w  I have not found any cases where velar,  uvular and labio-uvulars become glottalised glides when preceding a glottalising suffix.  Because of the  lack of enough data, however, I cannot determine if these segment groups are consistently not affected. The examples in (95), therefore, do not include these sound groups.  (94) Coronals a. k i/s/-[+C.G.]ic w  snow-eating b. hi/s/-[+C.G.]ic all-eating c. hi/F/-[+C.G.]aa?a LOC-on the rock  k i[y]ic w  'eating snow' hi[y]ic 'eating all' hi[y]aa?a 'on the rock'  65  (95) Dorsals a. tu/x /-[+C.G.]aa?a  tu[w]aa?a  w  to jump-on the rock  'jumping on the rock'  tu[w]aqfc  b. tu/h/-[+C.G.]aqfc  'eating (fish) head'  head-inside/consuming  These patterns are achieved by a high-ranked Faithfulness constraint, MAXPlace, as defined in (96).  (96) MAXPlace: A Place feature, Coronal, Labial, or Dorsal, in the input must have a correspondent in the output. (Lombardi 1997)  Now, consider the following examples:  k i[y]ic  (97) a. k i/s/-[+C.G.]ic  w  w  'eating snow'  snow-eating  k i[s]?i  b. k i/s/-?i  w  w  'the snow'  snow-DEF  ciyapux[s]?ic  (98) a. ciyapux/s/-[+C.G.]ic hat-eating  'biting a hat'  b. ciyapux/s/-?i  ciyapux[s]?i 'the hat'  hat-DEF  In (97), the root-final fricative /s/ in Jc j's- surfaces as a glottalised glide when preceding a glottalising w  suffix, as in (96a), and as a plain fricative before a non-glottalising suffix, as in (97b). On the other hand, the root-final fricative Isl in ciyapuxs- consistently surfaces as a plain fricative. I propose that the fricative in (97) can be represented as (99b) and one in (98) as (99a).  (99) Nuu-chah-nulth input fricatives: a.  Isl  r +Cons 1 L +Cont J  b. ISI  r  1 L+Cont J  66  That is, the fricative /s/ in (97) underlyingly has only [+Cont] specified, and the is/ in (98) has both underlying [+Cons] and [+Cont]. (98).  This representational difference causes alternation in (97) but not in  Note that whether the feature [+Cons] is specified or not for an input fricative is an important  factor leading to the presence/absence of alternation. If [+Cons] is specified in the input, it never fails to appear on the surface, whether it is in a glottalisation or non-glottalisation context.  The highly-ranked  constraint MAX[+Cons], as defined in (100), in the Nuu-chah-nulth grammar guarantees the consistent presence of [+Cons] in the output,  (100) MAX[+Cons]: [+Cons] in the input must have a correspondent in the output.  On the other hand, when a fricative is not specified for [+Cons], MAX[+Cons] is not relevant.  In a  non-glottalisation context, a plain fricative surfaces, which is driven by another high-ranked constraint Have[+Cons].  In a glottalisation context, deriving a glottalised glide is the best realisation of an input  fricative, which leads to least violation of constraints.  (101) shows a partial Nuu-chah-nulth grammar  including (100):  (101) A partial Nuu-chah-nulth grammar (revised)  33  MAX[+C.G.] (63a), MAX[+Cons] (100), ALIGN-Glo. (71), *[+Cons][+Cont][+C.G.] (64)  DEPRootNode (63b) Or  Have[+Cons] (78), MAXPlace (96)  DEPPATH[+C.G.] (63C)  As seen in tableaux (102-104), the pattern of glottalisation in fricatives is achieved by the grammar (101). In Tableaux (102-103), where each stem-final fricative Ihl and Isl is unspecified for [+Cons], every candidate obeys MAX[+Cons] vacuously, since [+Cons] is not relevant here.  Each candidate e violates  the highly-ranked constraint MAX[+C.G.], which requires the [+C.G.] to appear on the output.  In  candidate d, the features [+Cons], [+Cont], and [+C.G.] are linked under the same root node, violating *[+Cons][+Cont][+C.G.]. Candidate c violates the constraint ALIGN-Glo., since the [+C.G.] feature, the initial element of the suffix, is not aligned with the right edge of the stem. DEPRootNode by inserting a Root node.  Candidate b violates  MAXPlace determines candidate a as an optimal output;  Due to space, I include some constraints crucial for my discussion in the tableaux below.  67  candidate f deletes its input Place value, Dorsal in (102) and Coronal in (103), violating the faithfulness constraint.  (102) tu/h/-[+C.G.]aqfc  +  tu[w]aqfc  head-inside/consuming  'eating (fish) head'  Tableau fftuh+[+C.G.]aqfc] ] OT  1  WD  MAX [+Cons]  MAX [+C.G.]  ALIGNGlo.  f+Contl  *[+Cons] [+Cont] [+C.G.]  DEPRoot Node  Have [+Cons]  MAX Place  DEP PATH [+C.G.]  *  «°a. [[tuwaq9c] ]wD ST  1  [+Cont]  b. [[tuh?aq9c] ]wD  *  *!  ST  1 r+Consl L+ContJ  c. [[t'u'haq9c]s]wD  *  *!  T  1 r+Consl L+Cont J  d. [[tuh'aqk]s ]wD  *  *!  T  1 L+Consl L+ContJ  e. [[tuhaq^] ]wD ST  *!  1 ["+Consl L+ContJ  *  f. [[t'uyaqk]sT]wD [+Cont]  68  *!  *  (103)k' i/s/-[+C.G.]ic  k i[y]ic  w  v  snow-eating  'eating snow'  Tableau [fk is+[+C.G.]ic]s ]wD ,w  T  MAX [+Cons]  MAX [+C.G.]  ALIGN -Glo.  r+Contl  *[+Cons] [+Cont] [+C.G.]  DEPRoot Node  Have  MAX  DEP  [+Cons]  Place  PATH  [+C.G.]  *  a. [ri iyic] ]wD 1 w  ST  *  [+Cont]]  b. rjjc is?ic] ]wD ST  \  *  *!  w  r+Consl L+ContJ *  *!  C. [[k i'sic]s ]wD \ r+Consl L+ContJ w  T  w  ST  e. [rjc isic] ]wD Xf+Consl L+ContJ w  ST  *!  *  f. [[k iwic] ] D v  ST  *  *!  d. [[K is'ic] ]wD \ r+Consl L+ContJ  W  *!  *  1  [+Cont]  The following example is one in which a fricative is specified for [+Cons], and which results in the absence of glottalisation: a sequence of a fricative and a full glottal stop appears on the surface.  69  (104)&/lV-[+C.G.]aqk-yak  fcfo]?aqfcyak  driving-inside/consuming-instmrnent  ' shirt'  Tableau  [[£ih [+C.G.]aqk]s ]wD 1 +  T  MAX [+Cons]  MAX  ALIGN-  [+C.G.]  Glo.  r+Consl  *[+C.G.] [+Cons] [+Cont]  DEP Root Node  Have [+Cons]  MAX Place  DEP PATH [+C.G.]  L+ContJ  a. [PciwaqfclsTjwD  *  *!  *  1  [+Cont]  ^ b. [[&h?aqfc] ]wD ST  *  1  *  r+Cons] L+ContJ  *  *!  c. [[&'haqk]s"r]wD  1  r+Consl L+ContJ  *  *!  d. [[&h'aq7c] ]wD ST  1 r+Consl L+ContJ  *!  e. [[fthaqfr] ] ST  WD  1 r+Consl L+ContJ  f. [[&yaqk] ] ST  1  WD  *  *!  *  *  [+Cont]  In Tableau (104), candidates a and f violate MAX[+Cons] by deleting the input [+Cons] feature.  The  violation ofthe M A X constraint is fatal. This is the decisive factor in determining why an input fricative specified for [+Cons] cannot surface as a glide, unlike an unspecified one.  Candidate c violates ALIGN-  Glo.  Candidate e does not obey  Candidate d violates the constraint *[+Cons +Cont +C.G.].  MAX[+C.G.] because it deletes the input [+C.G.] feature. optimal output.  Consequently, candidate b is selected as an  Note that DEPRootNode does not play a significant role, unlike in tableaux (102) and  (103): now that candidate a obeys all the high-ranked constraints, the violation of this constraint is not a barrier in it being selected as the optimal output. In sum, the Nuu-chah-nulth grammar determines whether or not glottalisation occurs in the case of fricatives, depending on the input value of a fricative in terms of [+Cons].  70  Significantly, the Nuu-chah-  nulth alternation is a consequence of the Richness of the Base, as shown by the fact that identical surface fricatives exhibit alternations, which can only be explained by phonological dynamics. Sonorants (nasals) in glottalisation  Glottalisation varies across languages with glottalised consonants.  Some Salish languages such as  Shuswap, Lushootseed, Saanich, and Spokane have both glottalised obstruents and sonorants, and glottalisation affects both plain stops/affricates and sonorants (Caldecott 1999).  34  On the other  hand, Yowlumne (Steriade 1997), Coeur d' Alene (Cole 1991), and Musqueam (Shaw p.c.) also have both glottalised stops/affricates and sonorants, but only a sonorant is glottalised before a glottalising suffix. In the case of Nuu-chah-nulth, even though both plain obstruents and sonorants have  glottalised  counterparts, the process of glottalisation rarely affects sonorants, while a stop/affricate is completely affected by a glottalising suffix.  35  (106) summarises this observation:  (105) Comparison between three language groups in glottalisation of consonants  Languages  Glottalised. stops/affricates in inventory  Glottalised Sonorants in inventory  MorphologicallyInduced glottalisation of obstruents  Morphologicallyinduced glottalisation of sonorants  Shuswap, Lushootseed, Saanich, and Spokane None  Yowlumne, Coeur d' Alene, Musqueam  Very rare; but glottalised glides are the frequent result when the base ends in a fricative.  Nuu-chahnulth  3 4  Pat Shaw (p.c.) pointed out that not all suffixes affect both stem-final obstruents and sonorants. For example, an  affixational process like diminutive targets only sonorants, but not obstruents, for glottalisation in some Salish languages such as Musqueam. 35  As mentioned above, Nuu-chah-nulth does not have morphemes that end with a glide. This makes it impossible  to test how the glottalisation affects a plain glide.  71  This chart shows that typologically there are three groups with respect to morphologically induced glottalisation of consonants: i) languages with across-the-board glottalisation, such as some Salish languages, ii) languages where glottalisation targets only sonorants, such as Yowlumne and Coeur d' Alene, and iii) languages where glottalisation targets only obstruents, such as Nuu-chah-nulth and the other Southern Wakashan languages (See Jacobsen 1996 for Makah, K i m 2001 for Ditidaht). Within Optimality Theory (McCarthy & Prince 1993, Prince & Smolensky 1993), all constraints are universal and language variation results from different rankings of universal constraints. This means that the variation between the languages in (105) can be accounted for by a portion of universal constraints and their language-specific ranking.  I propose that the variation between these three language groups  with respect to glottalisation can be explained by the interaction between the Markedness constraints *[+Son +C.G], (106a), and *[-Son +C.G.], (106b), and the Faithfulness constraints MAX[+C.G.], DEPRootNode, and  DEPPATH,  and the interaction between the Markedness constraints themselves.  (106) Markedness constraints: a. *[+Son +C.G.]: [+Cons], [+Son] and [+C.G.] cannot cooccur under the same root node. b. *[-Son +C.G.]: [-Son] and [+C.G.] cannot cooccur under the same root node.  A set of possible rankings of these constraints must be able to derive any attested languages. I will discuss the three language groups, i.e. languages with morphologically-driven glottalisation. If a language, such as some Salish languages, allows both a stop/affricate and a sonorant to be glottalised, then the language would have the following grammar (R refers to any sonorant; T any stop/affricate, and [+C.G.] is a glottalisation-trigger):  (107) a. MAX[+C.G.],DEPRootNode * [-Son] [+C.G.] ,* [+Son] [+C.G.] DEPPATH[+C.G.]  b. Faithfulness MarkednesSjj  Faithfulness  72  36  c. Tableau: R-[+C.G.] MAX[+C.G.]  DEPRootNode  *[-Son, +C.G.]  *  <^a. R' b.R  *  *! *  *!  c. R? T-I+C.G.]  *  «"a. T' b.T  *[+Son, +C.G.] DEPPATH[+C.G.]  *  *! *  *!  c. T?  In this group of languages, violation of Markedness constraints, by which glottalisation affects both stops/affricates and sonorants, are not crucial,.  As seen in the tableau above, this pattern is achieved by  ranking both Markedness constraints, *[-Son +C.G.] and *[+Son +C.G.], below the Faithfulness constraints MAX[+C.G.] and DEPRootNode. If a language, such as Yowlumne, allows glottalisation of a sonorant, but not of a stop/affricate, then the language would have the following grammar:  (108) a.*[-Son+C.G.] MAX[+C.G.],DEPRootNode  *[+Son+C.G.] DEPPATH[+C.G.]  37  b. MarkednesSi Faithfulness  MarkednesSj Faithfulness  37  I concentrate on derived glottalised consonants, providing relevant constraints only. However, Yowlumne allows an underlying glottalised obstruent; therefore, we would need another constraint  MAXPATH[+C.G.], which outranks the markedness constraint *[-Son +C.G.].  This faithfulness constraint also  plays a crucial role in treating the distribution of glottalised sonorants for some languages which underlyingly have glottalised sonorants, but no derived glottalised ones, as with Nuu-chah-nulth. 7  3  c. Tableau R-[+C.G.] *[-Son +C.G.1 «-a. R ' b.R  MAX[+C.G.]  DEPRootNode  *[+Son +C.G.] *  DEPPATH[+C.G.] *  *!  c.R?  *  *!  T-[+C.G.] a. T'  *  *!  ^b.T  *  <*-c. T?  *  *  In this group of languages, to violate the Markedness constraint *[-Son +C.G.] is fatal, while to violate another Markedness constraint *[+Son +C.G.] is not. Hence, sonorants are allowed to be glottalised, but stops/affricates are not. When it comes to the surface form of a stop/affricate in a glottalisation context, language-specific ranking of the relevant Faithfulness constraints will determine an optimal output form: if MAX[+C.G.] is higher-ranked than DEPRootNode, then a stop/affricate followed by a glottal stop will surface as in candidate c; i f vice versa, then a plain stop/affricate will surface as in candidate b, deleting the input [+C.G.]. Finally, i f a language, such as Nuu-chah-nulth, allows glottalisation of a stop/affricate, but not of a sonorant, the language would have the following grammar:  (109) a. *[+Son+C.G.] MAX[+C.G.], DEPRootNode  *[-Son,+C.G.] DEPPATH[+C.G.]  b. MarkednesSj  Faithfulness MarkednesSj  Faithfulness  74  c. Tableau JR-i+C.G.]  *[+Son,+C.G.]  MAX[+C.G.]  DEPRoot Node  *[-Son +C.G.1  *!  a. R'  DEPPATH[+C.G.]  *  *  ^b.R  *  «-c. R?  *  T-[+C.G.]  r  «"a.  *  b.T  *  *!  c.T?  *  *!  In this group of languages, violating the Markedness constraint *[+Son +C.G.] is fatal, while violating another Markedness constraint *[-Son +C.G.] is not.  Therefore, when a sonorant is in a glottalisation  context, a glottalised sonorant as shown in candidate a is disallowed. On the other hand, a stop/affricate is glottalised, obeying the two Faithfulness constraints MAX[+C.G.] and DEPRootNode. For the surface form of a sonorant when preceding a glottalising suffix, an optimal output form will be selected depending upon the relative ranking status of the Faithfulness constraints.  This case is exactly opposite  to (108). Now,  consider real cases from Nuu-chah-nulth glottalised sonorants and glottalisation of sonorants.  Nuu-chah-nulth has underlying glottalised sonorants, while a plain sonorant is rarely glottalised in a glottalisation context.  These properties can be accounted for by the interaction between the Markedness  constraint *[+Son, +C.G.] and the Faithfulness constraint M A X P A T H [ + C . G . ] with the ranking in (110).  (110)  a. M A X P A T H [ + C . G . ]  *[+Son +C.G.]  b. Faithfulness Or  Markedness  The Markedness constraint *[+Son +C.G.] disallows a glottalised sonorant to surface.  On the other  hand, M A X P A T H [ + C . G . ] does not allow a [+C.G.] feature linked to an underlying glottalised sonorant to change its anchor to another or to be deleted (by which the input path also disappears in the output). The conflict between these two constraints is settled by a portion of Nuu-chah-nulth grammar, (109), ranking MAXPATH[+C.G.]  above *[+Son +C.G.].  This renders trivial the violation of *[+Son +C.G.] to obey  75  MAXPATH[+C.G.],  which enables an underlying glottalised sonorant to surface.  As seen in tableau  (111), this process is achieved by the ranking in (110).  (Ill) maa 'to bite'  Tableau maa 1 r+c.G.i a. maa 1 r+Cons 1  MAXPATH [+C.G.]  *[ +Son +C.G.]  MAX[+C.G.]  DEPRoot Node  DEPPATH  [+C.G.]  *  |+Son |  L+C.G. J b. m ? aa 1 1 r+Consl [+C.G.] L+Son J  *!  c. maa 1 r+Consl L+Son J  *!  *  *  *  Candidate a obeys the higher-ranked constraint MAXPATH[+C.G.], although violating *[+Son +C.G.], whereas candidates b and c violate this Faithfulness constraint. an optimal output.  This leads candidate a to be selected as  As a result, underlying glottalised nasals in Nuu-chah-nulth never fail to surface as  such. While the ranking Faithfulness »  Markedness in Nuu-chah-nulth allows glottalised nasals on the  surface, if a language disallows glottalised nasals, then the ranking will be reversed: Markedness » Faithfulness, which is cross-linguistically frequently observed. Another issue with respect to glottalisation in sonorants is that a plain sonorant rarely becomes glottalised when preceding a glottalising suffix, whether lexical, as in (112), or grammatical, as in (113).  (112) ha?u/m/-[+C.G.]aqfc  -»  food-inside  ha?u[m]?aqfc 'food inside (of something)  (113) waa-cu/m/-[+C.G.]a9c-sa say-would-SEQ-lsg/NEU  ^  waacu[m]?afcsa 'I would say...'  The general absence of derived glottalised sonorants is due to a relatively high-ranked Markedness constraint *[+Son, +C.G.].  Tableaux (114) and (115) show the interaction of *[+Son, +C.G.] with other  76  constraints, leading to no glottalisation in a nasal (here MAXPATH[+C.G.] is not relevant since the input [+C.G.] does not link to any anchor):  (114) Tableau for (112) MAX [[ha?um+[+C.G.]aq7t]s ]wD PATH T  *[+Son +C.G.]  ALIGNMAX [+C.G.] Glo.  DEPRoot Node  DEPPATH  *  *  [+C.G]  r+c.G.i ^ a. [[ha?um?aq7c] ]wD ST  *  *!  b. Qha?umaq7c] ]wD ST  *!  c. [ [ h a ? u m a q 7 c ] s ] w D T  *  *!  d. [[ha?u'maq7c]s ]wD T  (115) Tableau for (113)  [cum+[+C.G.]]wD  MAX PATH  *[+Son +C.G.]  ALIGNGlo.  MAX [+C.G]  DEPRoot Node  DEPPATH  *  *  [+C.G]  [+C.G.1 a. [cum?a7c]wD b. [cuma7V]wD  *  *! *!  c. [cuma7c]wD  *!  d. [cu'ma7c]wD  *  As seen in the tableaux above, the process of glottalisation does not affect the stem-final nasal Iml in haPum'm. (114) and cumin (115), creating a sequence of a plain nasal and a glottal stop on the surface. Candidate b violates the highly-ranked constraint *[+Cons, +Son, +C.G.]. Candidate c is ruled out by violating another highly ranked constraint MAX[+C.G.].  Candidate d violates ALIGN-Glo. by linking  [+C.G.] to a segment preceding the stem-final consonant Iml. optimal output form.  As a result, candidate a is selected as an  Even though the optimal output violates the two low-ranked constraints  DEPRootNode and DEPPATH[+CG.], their violations are not crucial now that it obeys all the highly ranked constraints. In sum, the lack of derived glottalised sonorants (nasals) in Nuu-chah-nulth, despite the presence of phonemic glottalised ones, is mainly due to the relatively high-ranked Markedness constraint, [+Cons,  77  +Son, +C.G.]. The constraint affects part of Nuu-chah-nulth phonology rather than its whole phonology, creating the effect of emergence of the unmarked with respect to glottalisation. Stops/affricates and sonorants in Richness of the Base  In previous sections, I discussed how the alternation between the same set of fricatives in glottalisation is treated in terms of the principle of Richness of the Base. According to Richness of the Base, features as phonological primitives can be combined freely: there is no constraint on the form of the input. In the case of fricatives, two combinations of the features [+Cons] and [+Cont] can be realised as a fricative. These two different input representations of a single surface fricative lead to two different output forms in a glottalisation context, while they consistently surface as a plain fricative in a simple context. One might ask how the principle works with stops/affricates and sonorants. Isn't it the case that there can be alternation between the same set of stops/affricates or between the same set of sonorants as in fricatives, if features can be combined freely?  On first thought, it seems to be possible, but the  interaction between Markedness and Faithfulness constraints in Nuu-chah-nulth grammar shows that it is not the case.  The following subsections discuss feature combinations for stops/affricates and for  sonorants, with their behaviours in a glottalisation context, in sections and, respectively. Stops/affricates  Combinations of possible values for a single feature [Cons] are needed in order to derive a surface stop/affricate. There are three possible representations of this feature in the input as in (116).  (116)  a 0  b +Cons  c -Cons  When a feature is not specified in the input, as in (116a), language-specific or cross-linguistic markedness with respect to the feature of interest determines the feature value.  In Nuu-chah-nulth,  [+Cons] is an unmarked feature as discussed in section 2.4, and thus a portion of relevant constraints with the following ranking, (117), assigns [+Cons] to the representation in (116a):  (117) Have[+Cons] DEP[+Cons], DEP[+Cont] Have[+Cont] 78  In sum, there are two possible ways to derive a surface stop/affricate, (116a) and (b). The question is how these two different input representations for a single stop/affricate are realised on the surface when the stop/affricate precedes a glottalising suffix.  As seen in the following two tableaux, when an input  stop/affricate precedes a glottalising suffix, it always surfaces as a glottalised stop/affricate, whether [+Cons] is specified or not, unlike fricatives. As is the case of fricatives, this results from the interaction between Faithfulness and Markedness constraints.  Also, note that when [+Cons] is underlyingly  specified, MAX[+Cons] prevents a glottalised glide from appearing on surface as in fricatives; when it is not specified, Have[+Cons] disallows a glottalised glide to surface. (In fact, the Faithfulness constraint DEP[+Cont] will also prevent a glottalised glide from appearing on the surface).  Recall that in the case  of fricatives, it is not crucial to violate Have[+Cons] (cf. (102-104)).  (118) tup/k/-[+C.G.]aqfc  tuppc.]aqfc  black-inside/consuming  '(something) black inside'  Tableau A: [Cons] specified (fkf) [[tupk[+C.G.]aqfr] ]wD ST  1  MAX MAX ALIGN[+Cons] [+C.G.] Glo.  [+Consl  DEP Root Node  HAVE DEPPATH [+Cons] [+C.G.]  «• a. [[tupkaqfc]s ]wD T  *  *[+Cons] [+C.G]  *  [+Consl b. [[tupk?aqfc] ]wD ST  *  *!  [+Cons] c. [[mpkaqk] ]wD ST  *  *!  1 [+Consl d. [[tupkaqk] ]wD ST  *!  [+Consl e. [[tupwaq?\:] ]wD ST  *  *!  79  *  Tableau B: [+Cons] unspecified (/Kf) [[tupK[+C.G.]aqfc] ] ST  WD  MAX MAX [+Cons] [+C.G.]  ALIGNGlo.  DEP Root Node  HAVE [+Cons]  <*- a. [[tupkaqk] ] D 1 ST  W  r+Consl b. [[tupk?aqiV] ]wD ST  [+C.G.]  *[+Cons] [+C.G.]  *  *  DEPPATH  *  *! [+Consl c. [[tupkaq7c]s ]wD T  *  *!  *  r+Consl d. [[tupkaq^] ]wD ST  *!  r+Consl  *!  e. [[tupwaq7c] ] ST  WD Nasals  Nuu-chah-nulth has both glides and nasals, each of which has plain and glottalised pairs.  I will discuss  nasals in this section (see section for glides). For a plain nasal to surface, both [+Cons] and [+Son] will be needed.  The possible combinations of  both values of the features are as follows:  (119) Feature combinations of [+Cons] and [+Son] a  b  0  -cons  c +cons  d  e -son  f +son  g  h  i  -cons  -cons  +cons  +cons  -son  +son  -son  +son  If the two features are already combined in the input as in (119i), a nasal will surface straightforwardly. As discussed above, Nuu-chah-nulth grammar implementing Have[ct] constraints is involved to realise a nasal from the other combinations.  When a specific value for the features [Cons] and [Son] is not  specified in the input as in (119a-e), a portion of Nuu-chah-nulth grammar, (120) (repeated from (91), determines the value of the unfilled feature(s)).  80  (120)  MAX[+Son], M A X [ + C o n s ] , MAX[+Cont]  HAVE[+Cons]  *[+Cons +Son], [+Cons +Cont]  DEP[+Cons], DEP[+Son], DEP[+Cont]  HAVE[+Son], HAVE[+Cont]  First of all, if [+Son] is filled in (119c), where [+Cons] is underlyingly specified, then it violates the Markedness constraint *[+Son, +Cons], although it satisfies the lower-ranked Construction constraint Have[+Son].  On the other hand, if [-Son] is filled in (119c), then it itself derives a stop/affricate,  without violating *[+Son, +Cons]. (119c), therefore, is an input representation which is realised not as a nasal but as a stop/affricate.  This is compatible with cross-linguistic markedness, where a stop/affricate  is less marked than a nasal.  For (119e), [+Cons] can be filled by obeying the higher-ranked constraint  Have[+Cons], although violating *[+Son, +Cons].  This enables (119e) to surface as a nasal.  Finally,  (119a) will surface as a stop or affricate, since the high-ranked constraint Have[+Cons] will lead to the presence of the feature on the surface, whereas *[>Son, +Cons] will suppress the addition of [+Son]. As a result, only (119e) and (119i) can be realised as a nasal on the surface. The question arises again how these two different input representations for a single nasal are realised on the surface, when the nasal precedes a glottalising suffix.  We see in the following two tableaux that  an input nasal in a glottalising context, whether [+Cons] is specified or not, does not become glottalised: it surfaces as a plain nasal followed by a glottal stop. Note that when [+Cons] is underlyingly specified, MAX[+Cons] (and DEP[+Cont]) prevents a glottalised glide from appearing on the surface as in stops/affricates andfricatives;when it is not specified, DEP[+Cont] prevents a glottalised glide from appearing on the surface.  (121)ha?u/m/-[+C.G.]aqk food-inside  +  ha?u[m]?aq?V 'food inside (of something)  81  Tableau A: [+Cons] specified (/m/) [[ha?um+[+C.G.]aq?c]sT]wD [+ConsJ a. [[ha?um?aq^] ]  *[+Son +C.G.]  MAX  MAX  ALIGN-  DEP  DEPRoot  [+Cons]  [+C.G.]  Glo.  [+Cont]  Node  ST WD  *  DEPPATH [+C.G.]  *  [+Cons] b. [[ha?umaqk] ] ST  WD  *! [+Cons] c. [[ha?umaqk] ]WD ST  *! [+Cons] d. [[ha?u'maq^] ]wD ST  *  *!  [+Cons]  *  *!  e. [[ha?uwaqk] ]wD ST  *  Tableau B : [+Cons] unspecified (/MJ) [[ha?um+[+C.G.]aqfc] ]wD ST  *[+Son  MAX  MAX  +C.G.]  [+Cons]  [+C.G.]  ALIGNGlo.  DEP [+Cont]  a. [[ha?um?aqfc] ]  ST WD  DEP[RNode]  DEPPATH [+C.G.]  *  [+Cons] b. [[ha?umaqk] ] ST  WD  *  *! [+Cons] c. [[ha?umaq&] ]wD ST  *!  [+Cons] d. [[ha?u'maq^] ]wD ST  *  *!  [+Cons]  *!  e. [[ha?uwaq^] ]wD ST  82  * Morphological variation: lexical vs. grammatical  The Nuu-chah-nulth suffixes must be classified into lexical or grammatical morphemes.  Rose (1976)  and Stonham (1999) provide the following distinction between these two kinds of suffixes.  Lexical  suffixes provide an independent part of the word's meaning or a dependent meaning which is completed only in conjunction with the total meaning of the root-suffix combination. Linearly, they are ordered between a root and any grammatical suffixes.  On the other hand, grammatical suffixes consist of  elements which provide Tense, Mode, Modal, and Person information.  A schematic sequence of  morphemes in Nuu-chah-nulth word is as follows.  (122) Internal structure of Nuu-chah-nulth word  [Prefix(Red)-Root - Lexical suffixes - Grammatical suffixes] rd Wo  This morphological distinction needs to be considered, for a single fricative exhibits alternation on the surface depending upon the suffixes attached to the fricative-final stem. When a fricative precedes a lexical glottalising suffix, it surfaces as either a glottalised glide or a plain fricative followed by a glottal stop, depending upon the lexical item. I dealt with this kind of alternation by providing a phonological distinction in the input for the same set of fricatives. Interestingly, this kind of alternation does not occur with a fricative followed by a grammatical glottalising suffix: when a fricative precedes a grammatical glottalising suffix, it is never affected.  That is, glottalisation in Nuu-  chah-nulth exhibits different results in the case of fricatives depending upon the morphological category of a glottalising suffix, whether lexical or grammatical. are always glottalised before any glottalising suffix.  Recall that in the case of stops/affricates, they The following data exemplify each case, with a  lexical glottalising suffix as in (123), and with a grammatical suffix as in (124).  k i[y]ic  (123)k i/s/-[+C.G.]ic  w  w  'eating snow'  snow-eating  kM[s]?afcuk?ick  (124)k i/s/-[+C.G.]a^-uk-?ick w  ' Y o u have snow.  snow-SEQ-POSS-2sg  In (123) the stem-final Isl in k is- 'snow' becomes a glottalised glide when preceding the lexical w  glottalising suffix '-[+C.G.]ic\  On the other hand, i f the same fricative precedes the grammatical  glottalising suffix '-[+C.G.]a&', then it is not affected, surfacing as a plain fricative followed by a glottal stop as in (124). 83  These data raise a question: how do we account for the difference in triggering power between a lexical glottalising suffix and a grammatical one? I suggest that this morphological variation between the same segments with respect to glottalisation should be treated by distinguishing the morphological domains where a constraint takes effect.  The constraint DEPRootNode prevents a root node from being  inserted, and it plays a role in determining an optimal output form, as we saw above. I propose that this faithfulness constraint should be divided into two subconstraints according to morphological domains: DEPRootNode]STEM and DEPRootNode] RD. WO  (125) a. DEPRootNode]STEM: Any root node within a stem domain in the output must have a correspondent in the input.  b. DEPRootNode]woRr> Any root node within a word domain in the output must have a correspondent in the input.  It is controversial whether grammatical suffixes in Nuu-chah-nulth are really suffixes or clitics (see Sapir & Swadesh 1939, Swadesh 1939, Haas 1969, Davis & Sawai 2001, Davidson 2002 for detailed discussion). language.  Also, it has not yet been conclusively determined what a stem is and what a word is in this For the purpose of assigning a domain where glottalisation occurs, I assume that STEM is a  morphological unit which is created by attaching lexical suffixes, while WORD is a morphological unit which is created by attaching grammatical suffixes as shown in (126) (cf. Selkirk 1986, where depending upon classes of attaching affixes, lexical items are classified into root or word).  (126) A schematic internal structure of word WORD STEM Root  Suf. (Grammatical.)  Suf. (Lexical.)  Nuu-chah-nulth allows multiple lexical and grammatical affixation.  The schematic structure (126) does  not reflect this characteristic, focusing on the morphological categories projected by suffixation, which is relevant to my discussion. . Whenever any lexical suffix attaches to a root or stem, it projects STEM, and whenever any grammatical suffix attaches to a stem, it projects WORD. suffix can attach to a word, projecting WORD.  84  In addition, only a grammatical  The two subsets of the DEP[RootNode] constraint have the following ranking, (127), with respect to the Markedness constraint *[+Son, +Cont, +C.G.], which prevents a glottalised glide from appearing on the surface.  (127)  38  DEP[RootNode]STEM  *[+Son, +Cont, +C.G.]  DEP [RootNode] W O R D  The interaction of the Faithfulness and Markedness constraints determines the output forms of both a target consonant and the trigger, as we will see in tableaux below. (128) is the final version of the portion of the Nuu-chah-nulth grammar relevant for the particular processes under discussion here:  (128) A partial Nuu-chah-nulth grammar (the final version) *[+Cons +Cont +C.G.]  39  MAXPATH[+C.G.]  *[+Son-Cont +C.G.] MAX[+C.G.], MAX[+Cons], CONTIGUITY DEPRootNode] S T E M *[+Son +Cont +C.G.], MAXPlace DEPRootNode]woRD D E P P A T H [ C . G . ] , *[+Cons -Cont +C.G.]  38  This is not the only possible approach within OT (cf. Bermudez-Otero (2003), Kiparsky (2003), Stonham (2003):  these studies argue for a multi-stratal approach within OT, allowing more than one grammar in a single language). However, I do not discuss which approach works better, since it is beyond the scope of my thesis. 39  1 ranked this constraint the same as MAX[+C.G.] in section  Given that a glottalised fricative is more  marked than a glottalised sonorant cross-linguistically, and that *[+Son +C.G.] is higher-ranked than MAX[+C.G.], I rank *[+Cons +Cont +C.G.] higher than this faithfulness constraint. Moreover, given that there is no glottalised fricative, whether underlyingly or in derived contexts, unlike with nasals, I rank *[+Cons +Cont +C.G.] higher than all faithfulness constraints inclduing MAXPATH[+C.G.]. 85  Note that the relative ranking of the four markedness constraints is *[+Cons +Cont, +C.G.] » *[+Son -Cont +C.G.] »  *[+Son, +Cont, +C.G.] »  *[+Cons -Cont +C.G.].  markedness cross-linguistically (Sapir 1938, Maddieson 1984).  This reflects their degrees of  That is, glottalised stops/affricates  (ejectives) are less marked than glottalised sonorants, which are less marked than glottalised fricatives. Within sonorants, I haven't found any evidence yet whether glottalised glides are less marked than glottalised nasals crosslinguistically, although the Nuu-chah-nulth grammar in (128) tells us that glottalised nasals are more marked than glottalised glides in the language. The morphological variation in glottalisation of fricatives is treated as follows.  First, (129) is a case  where a stem-final fricative precedes a grammatical suffix (note that the stem-final /s/ in (129) is not specified for [+Cons]; hence, MAX[+Cons] is not relevant here: cf. (103)).  (129) a. k i/s/-[+C.G.]afr-uk-?ick  k i[s]?a7Vuk?ick  w  w  snow-SEQ-POSS-2sg  'You have snow.  b. Tableau: A fricative preceding a grammatical suffix [[k is] w  -[+C.G.]a7V]  ST  T+Contl  WD  *[+Cons M A X ALIGN +Cont [+C.G.] -Glo. +C.G.]  DEPRoot Node STEM  *[+Son +Cont +C.G.]  w  D  c. IJjH'sJsT ak]  *  WD  *!  d. [[k is] afc]wD v  ST  e.[[k is'] a^]w w  ST  D  *  *  *!  WD  DEP PATH [+C.G.]  *  w  ST  DEPRoot Node WORD  *!  a. [|lf iy]sT afc]w  b.[[k is] ?ak]  MAX Place  *  *!  *!  f. [[k-iwJsT a7*]  WD  *  *  In tableau (129) (I focus only on the issue of relevance), DEPRootNode]STEM is not relevant here since the domain where the root node is inserted is not STEM, but WORD. domain is trivial compared to inserting one in a stem domain.  To insert a root node in a word  Consequently, the Markedness constraint  *[+Son, +Cont, +C.G.] plays a crucial role, selecting candidate b as an optimal output form. Candidate b 86  obeys both MAX[+C.G.] and *[+Son, +Cont, +C.G.] by avoiding linking the three features in the same root node, at the same time realising [+C.G.] on the surface as a full glottal stop. Consider the following example, where a lexical glottalising suffix follows a fricative.  (130) a. k i/s/-[+C.G.]ic  •»  w  k i[y]ic w  snow-eating  'eating snow'  b. Tableau: A fricative preceding a lexical suffix [[k is+[+C.G.]ic] ]wD w  ST  T+Contl  MAX *[+Cons +Cont [+C.G.] +C.G.]  ALIGN -Glo.  *[+Son  MAX  DEPRoot  DEP  Node  +Cont  Place  Node  PATH  STEM  +C.G.]  WORD  [+C.G.]  DEPRoot  w  ST  w  ST  w  T  *!  d. [Pc isic] ]wD w  ST  T  *  *  *!  c. [Df i'sic]s ]wD  w  *  *!  b. [[k is?ic] ]wD  e. [Dc is'ic]s ]wD  *  *  o- a. [Pc iyic] ]wD  *  *!  *  f. [Pf iwic]sT]wD w  *!  *  Here, the constraint DEP[R-Node]STEM plays a decisive role in determining the surface form of an input fricative.  Candidate b is ruled out by inserting a root node in a stem domain, and thus fatally violating  DEP [R-Node] S T E M -  The violation of DEP [R-Node] W O R D constraint is not fatal since it is lower-ranked.  In sum, fricatives surface differently depending upon the morphological categories of glottalising suffixes: a fricative, when preceding a lexical suffix, surfaces as a glottalised glide; the same fricative, when preceding a grammatical suffix, surfaces as a plain fricative followed by a glottal stop. On the other hand, stops/affricates are not affected by those morphological factors. following examples.  87  Consider the  (131)a.mp/k/-[+C.G.]aqk  tupfk'laqk  black-inside/consuming  ' (something) black inside'  b. Tableau: A stop preceding a lexical suffix [[tupk-[+C.G.]aqk]s ]wD  MAX  CONTI-  [+C.G.]  GUITY  T  DEPR Node] STEM  *[+Son  MAX  +Cont  Place  +C.G.]  DEPR Node] WORD  DEP  *[-Cons  PATH  -Cont  [+C.G.]  +C.G.]  *  «• a. [[tupkaq^] T]wD S  *  *!  b. [[tupk?aqk] ]wD ST  (132)a.kuupu/p/-[+C.G.]a^  *  *  kuupu[p]ak  hanging-SEQ  'to hang (something)'  b. Tableau: A stop preceding a grammatical suffix MAX  P<uupup-[+C.G.]afc]  CONTI-  [+C.G.] G U I T Y  WD  DEP[R-  *[+Son  MAX  Node] STEM  +Cont  Place  +C.G.1  DEPR Node] WORD  DEP  *[+Cons  PATH  -Cont  r+c.G.i  +C.G.]  *  *°a. [kuupupa^]  WD  *!  b. [kuupup?a^]wD  *  *  Stops/affricates, whether they are in the domain of STEM or WORD, are always glottalised before glottaliseding suffixes.  It is basically possible, since the markedness constraint *[-Son +C.G.] is lower-  ranked than DEPRootNode TEM and S  —WORD-  Note that the crucial difference between stops/affricates and  fricatives: in (129-130), [+Son +Cont +C.G.] plays a crucial role in determining the optimal output form, while in (131-132), it is irrelevant. A vowel-final stem in glottalisation  So far, I have discussed cases of a stem with a final consonant. glottalisation affects stems that end with a vowel.  In this section, I will show how  As seen in (133-4), when a glottalising suffix follows  a vowel-final stem, a glottal stop appears on the surface, whether the suffix is lexical or grammatical. I. With lexical suffixes  88  cixcuu[?]ahs  (133) a. cixcuu-[+C.G.]ahs  's.t. fried in a container (bowl)'  fried-container  maa[?]ihta  b. maa-[+C.G.]ihta  'to bite s.t. at the end'  to bite-at the end  II. With grammatical suffixes  ?uchi[?]a7c?is  (134) a. ?u-chi-[+C.G]a7V-?is  'S/he is now married.'  it-to marry-SEQ-3sg/TND  ?uca[?]ap  b. ?u-ca-[+C.G.]ap  'to bring s.t./s.o. to s.w.'  it-to go-CAUS  Nuu-chah-nulth does not allow a glottalised vowel and furthermore, cross-linguistically glottalised vowels are very rare (Maddieson 1984). This property can be instantiated via the following Markedness constraint, which is highly-ranked in the language.  (135) *[-Cons, +Syllabic, +C.G.]: [-Cons], [+Syllabic], and [+C.G.] cannot cooccur under the same root  Consider the following examples and tableaux, where the process of how a vowel-final stem preceding a lexical glottalising suffix, (136), or a grammatical glottalising suffix, (137), surfaces is shown.  (136) a. cixcuu-[+C.G.]ahs  cixcuu[?]ahs  fried-container  4 0  's.t. fried in a container (bowl)'  Following Clements (1990), I make use of [+Syllabic] to single out vowels from [-Cons] segments: vowels and  glides.  89  b. Tableau: A vowel before a lexical suffix [[cixcuu+[+C.G.]ahs]sT]wD  •[-Cons +Syll. +C.G.]  MAX [+C.G.]  ALIGN-  DEPRoot  DEPRoot  DEPPATH  Glo.  Node  Node  [+C.G.]  STEM  WORD  •  *  «°a. [[cixcuu?ahs] ]wD  *  ST  *!  b. [[cixcuuahs] i]wD S  c. [[cixcuu'ahs]sT]wD  *  *!  *  *!  d. [[cixc'uuahs] ]wD ST  (137)a.?u-ca-[+C.G.]ap  *  ?uca[?]ap  it-to go-CAUS  'to bring s.t./s.o. to s.w.'  b. Tableau: A vowel before a grammatical suffix [?uca+[+C.G.]ap]wD  *[-Cons +Syll. +C.G.]  MAX [+C.G.]  ALIGN-  DEPRoot  DEPRoot  DEPPATH  Glo.  Node STEM  Node WORD  [+C.G.]  *  *  ^a. [?uca?ap]wD  *!  b. [?ucaap]  WD  c. [?uca'ap]wD  *  *!  d. [?ucaap]wD  *!  *  In the tableaux, the high-ranked constraints, MAX[+C.G.], *[-Cons][+Syllabic][+C.G.] and ALIGN-Glo. rule out the candidates b, c, and d, respectively.  Each candidate a violates DEP constraint(s), but the  violation is not crucial since this candidate obeys all the highly-ranked constraints. In sum, in Nuu-chahnulth, a vowel is not glottalised in the context of glottalisation and the trigger [+C.G.] is realised as a glottal stop on the surface.  90 A remaining issue  To understand glottalisation in Nuu-chah-nulth, we need to consider phonetic, phonological, and morphological factors of both the target and the trigger.  As seen above, in particular, the presence or  absence of glottalisation in fricatives is associated with morphological and phonetic/phonological aspects. Also, the general absence of glottalisation in nasals is accounted for by phonological dynamics based on Faithfulness and Markedness.  However, there is a case that appears to be inconsistent to the analysis  provided here. As the table in (32) shows, the ratios of consistent glottalisation and non-glottalisation in fricatives are almost symmetrical.  I provided an analysis of the presence/absence of glottalisation in  fricatives according to their phonetic and phonological properties.  I divided fricatives into two classes,  one subclass specified for the feature [+Cons] and one unspecified.  With these representations for  fricatives, the constraints *[+Cons, +Cont, +C.G.] and MAX[+Cons] play an important role in determining the surface form of an input fricative. However, consider the following examples:  (138) Suffix-dependent glottalisation: caawumF 'one left'  a. caawumjt_-[+C.G.]aa?a ^ one left-on the rock  b. caawumjF_-[+C.G.]ak7ci -rear  c. caawum F -|+C.G.~|ihta -at the end  caawum_y_?a a  'One (person) left on the rock'  caawum F ?ak7ci 'One left at the rear (of a boat)'  caawum_y_ihta 'One person left at the end (of a wharf)'  Suffix-dependent glottalisation in fricatives raises the following question: how can we treat the cases where a stem-final fricative in a lexical item becomes a glottalised glide with some suffixes, but does not with other suffixes? Is a fricative with this kind of alternation specified for [+Cons] or not? One assumption may be that some morphemes have two variants for its final fricative, one specified for the feature [+Cons] and one unspecified.  This leads to the presence of two kinds of output forms for  some morphemes: a fricative unspecified for [+Cons] is realised as a glottalised glide on the surface when preceding a glottalising suffix as in, e.g., (105a and c) and one specified for [+Cons] is not affected by a glottalising suffix and thus a sequence of a fricative and a full glottal stop surfaces as an output form as in, e.g., (136b). This requires further study.  91 Conclusion  The distribution of glottalised consonants and patterns of glottalisation in Nuu-chah-nulth raise many interesting theoretical issues.  In particular, the main goal of this study is how to treat the asymmetry  between obstruents and sonorants, and the alternation between the same sets of fricatives within a unified system. I discussed the problems raised using two principles under Optimality. Theory: Markedness and Richness of the Base.  This approach provides a straightforward answer to the question of why the  process of glottalisation in Nuu-chah-nulth exhibits such unique properties. I summarise the main characteristics of Nuu-chah-nulth glottalisation and key issues as follows: i.  Glottalising suffixes: only some suffixes cause glottalisation and the initial part of a glottalising suffix is regulated, the floating [+C.G.] feature followed by a vowel.  ii.  Morphological variation: a glottalising suffix exhibits different effects with fricatives depending on whether it is lexical or grammatical.  iii.  Richness of the Base: rich combinations of features, along with the interaction between Markedness and Faithfulness constraints, lead to alternation between the same set of surface consonants in terms of glottalisation in Nuu-chah-nulth.  iv.  Nuu-chah-nulth grammar: a simple set of universal constraints and their language-specific ranking, along with phonetic and phonological properties of a consonant, determine the surface form. a. stops/affricates: they never fail to be glottalised; Nuu-chah-nulth has plain-glottalised series in the phonemic inventory. b. fricatives: they never become glottalised; Nuu-chah-nulth does not have glottalised fricatives. c. nasals: they are rarely glottalised; Nuu-chah-nulth has phonemic glottalised nasals.  v.  Suppression of the marked: whenever a fricative is affected by a glottalising suffix, a glottalised glide appears on the surface rather than a glottalised fricative, which is cross-linguistically marked.  vi.  Markedness among glottalised sonorants: Although there is no cross-linguistic evidence that glottalised glides are less marked than glottalised nasals, or vice versa, the patterns and characteristics of Nuu-chah-nulth glottalisation reveal that glottalised nasals are more marked than glottalised glides  vii.  Module interaction: universal constraints occupy one of the key parts in a constraint-based theory like Optimality Theory, and some of them that are introduced in this study are grounded on phonetic and morphological aspects.  Nuu-chah-nulth glottalisation is one of the cases  . where phonetics, phonology and morphology interact with each other. 92  3.2.2 Lenition  We saw, in the previous section, that only some suffixes trigger glottalisation, and that there is variation between the target consonants depending upon phonetic/phonological and morphological contexts. Nuuchah-nulth has another morphologically-driven phonological process, lenition, where some suffixes cause an immediately preceding fricative to become a glide: e.g. I si  [y].  According to Kirchner (1998: 1),  the term 'lenition' is used to refer to phonological phenomena of "some reduction in constriction degree or duration" such as degemination, flapping, spirantization, reduction to approximants, debuccalization and elision.  In Nuu-chah-nulth, lenition only reduces consonants to approximants, i.e. glides.  The process exhibits variation between the target consonants and alternation in the same surface consonants, as observed in glottalisation of fricatives, but the phonological characteristics are significantly different from glottalisation.  In addition, leniting suffixes are all lexical, whereas  glottalising suffixes are either lexical or grammatical.  The following chart summarises the patterns of  lenition.  (139) The patterns of lenition in Nuu-chah-nulth Stops/affricates  Fricatives  Nasals  Lenition  NO  YES/NO  NO  Emergence of lyl  NO  YES/NO  YES Description  As in glottalisation, Nuu-chah-nulth consonants exhibit a consistent asymmetry in the process of lenition, although in a different way. Stops and affricates are not affected by a leniting suffix.  (140) shows that a  stem-final stop, (140a-c), or affricate, (140d-f), is not lenited, nor is there any segment added, when preceding the leniting suffix -is 'at the beach' or -/^'inside (the house), on the floor'.  (140) Stops/affricates: not lenited a. his-?iq-stu/p/-iF-uk-?is  +  hiyiqstu[p]iFuk?is  all-?-thing-inside-POSS-3sg/TND 'S/he has everything inside her/his house' b. hap/t/-iF to hide^inside  * hap[t]iF 'hiding s.t. in a house.'  93  tup[k]is  c. tup/k/-is  '(s.t.) black on the beach'  black-beach  ya[c]iF  d. ya/c/-i+ to step-on the floor  'stepping on the floor' e. ma/?e/-is  ^ mapYJis  tied-beach  'tied at the beach'  f. ?uk/c/-iF along with-inside  ?uk[c]iF '(s.o.) accompanying in a house' On the other hand, fricatives preceding a leniting suffix exhibit an alternation that is related to the pattern they exhibit when they precede a glottalising suffix.  A stem-final fricative in some lexical items  consistently becomes a plain glide, and the same fricative in other lexical items is consistently not affected before a leniting suffix, surfacing as a plain fricative. (141-142) exemplify these cases: note that the fricatives l\l and Isl in (142) are changed into lyl, while the same fricatives in (142) are not affected, surfacing as such. In the latter case, no segment is added. Note that each compared form shows that the underlying morpheme does not include lyl as afinalsegment.  (141) Fricatives I: lenited a. hi/+/-is  hi[y]is  Loc-at the beach  'there is {s.t.} at the beach'  Cf. hiF?is 'there is something...'  b. huu/F/-is  huu[y]is  LOC-at the beach  's.o. over there (far away) at the beach'  Cf. huuF?is?aF 'there are some people over there...' c. Tuyaa/s/-is  ?uyaa[y]is  to move-at the beach  'moving one position to another at the beach'  Cf. Suyaasaa 'moving'  94  d. nawaa/s/-is  ^  to sit-at the beach  nawaa[y]is ' sitting on the beach'  Cf. nawaasaa 'sitting'  hi[y]i+  e. hi/+/-i+  'someone is inside (the building/house).'  LOC-inside  huu[y]iF  f. huu/+/-i+  's.o. is inside (the building) over there (far away) '  LOC-inside  iuyaa[y]i+  g. iuyaa/s/-iF  'moving one position to another inside (the building).  to move-inside  nawaa[y]iF  h. nawaa/s/-iF  'sitting inside'  to sit-inside  (142) Fricatives II: not lenited a. 7«u/F/-is  7cu[F]is 's.t. nice at the beach'  nice-at the beach  b. ma/F/-is cold-at the beach  c. tim/s/-is garbage-at the beach  d. hismi/s/-is blood-at the beach  e. iWF/-iF nice-on the floor  f. ma/+/-iF cold-on the floor  •i>  ma[F]is 'it's cold at the beach'  tim[s]is 'garbage on the beach'  hismi[s]is 'blood on a beach'  7Vu[F]iF 's.t. nice on the floor'  ma[F]iF 'the floor is cold.'  95  g. tim/s/-rt  tim[s]ii'  garbage-inside  'garbage on the floor/inside (the house)'  Msmi[s]i-lr  h. Msim/sAB-  'blood on the floor'  blood-on the floor  On the other hand, when post-alveolar (i.e. alveo-palatal, velar, labio-velar, uvular, labio-uvular, and pharyngeal) fricatives precede a leniting suffix, they are consistently not affected, irrespective of their input form.  Consider the following examples.  cu[s]ii-  (143) a. cu/s/-i+  's.t. new on the floor (e.g. mat, rug, etc.)  new-on the floor  ?oi[s]i+  b. &i/s7-rt  'the floor is dried up.  dry-on the floor  &i[s]is  c. &i/s/-is  40  '(the sand) on the beach is dry.'  dry-at the beach  d. quu/x/-iitofreeze-onthe floor  e. taa/x /-rt w  to spit-on the floor  f. cis7x/-rt dirty-inside  g. cap/x /-i+ w  man-inside  4 0  ^  quu[x]H's.t. frozen on the floor (e.g. water)'  taa[x ]rt w  'spitting on the floor'  cis[x]rt 'dirty inside (the house)'  cap[x ]i-f w  'men in a house'  Rose (1976:15) shows that the Tseshaht counterpart of this is lenited: &i[s]-is ^ &u|y]is 'dried on the beach'.  However, the Ahousaht form is consistently not lenited. This is an interesting dialect variation that requires further research.  96  h. ci/h/-i+  ci[h]iF  s.t. negative-on the floor  's.t. scary on the floor  The following chart summarises the frequency of lenition in fricatives, which are classified into alveolar and post-alveolar: I tested this with the 118 fricative-final stems which I used for the glottalisation test. For semantic reasons, many combinations of the stems with either of the two leniting suffixes are not possible.  I obtained the following results from 57 fricative-final stems.  Of 21 stem-final alveolar  fricatives, 11 are consistently lenited, while 10 are not. There are no inconsistent cases such as found in glottalisation (cf. section 3.2.1 (36)).  (144) Lenition of fricatives  Alveolar fricatives  Stems  %  Post-alveolar fricatives Stems  0  0  No lenition  36  100  TOTAL  36  100  Consistent lenition  11  55  Consistent lenition  No lenition  10  45  21  100  TOTAL  %  Interestingly, a sonorant preceding a leniting suffix generally appears as a plain sonorant followed by a glide lyl, as shown in (145-148).  However, with some stems, a glottal stop appears on the surface  instead of a glide, as in (149-151); or either a glottal stop or a glide appears depending on suffixes, as in (152-153). (Recall that Nuu-chah-nulth does not have any morphemes ending with a glide, so only stemfinal nasals are tested.) I. Presence of lyl  (145) a. hayu/m/-iF Not knowing-inside  b. hayu/m/-is Not knowing-beach  hayu[my]iF 'getting lost in a house'  hayu[my]is 'lost in a beach'  97  &&u[my]i'r'  (146) a. ft#u/m/-i+  'shooting inside the house'  To shoot-inside  b. &?cu/m/-is  r>  &?ai[my]is 'throwing arrows/shooting at the beach'  To shoot-at the beach  siicmi[ny]H  (147) a. siicmi/n/-rt  j  'maggots on the floor'  maggot-on the floor  siicmi[ny]is  b. siicmi/n/-is  'maggots at the beach'  maggot-at the beach  +a-hik i[ny]rt  (148) a. +a-+ak i/n/-fi-  w  w  's/he beseeches s.o. inside the house.'  RED-to beseech-inside  b. +a-+ak i/n/-is  +a+ak i[ny]is  w  w  RED-to beseech-at the beach  's/he beseeches s.o. at the beach.'  II. Presence of RI  (149) a. huupuk anum-i-rw  storage box-on the floor  b. huupuk*ahum-is storage box-at the beach  (150) a. husmin-rt kelp-on the floor  b. husmin-is kelp-at the beach  (151) a. cikimin-i+ iron-on the floor  ^  huupuk ahum[?]ri' (*huupuk anumyi't) w  w  'storage box (basket) on the floor'  huupuk anum[?]is (*huupuk anumyis) w  w  'storage box (basket) on the beach'  husmin|?]H-  (*husminyrt)  'kelp on the floor'  husmin[?]is  (*husminyis)  'kelp at the beach'  cikimin[?]i+ 'iron on the floor'  98  (*cikiminyrf)  b. cikimin-is  ^  iron-at the beach  cildmin[?]is  (*ciMminyis)  'iron at the beach'  III. Presence of either lyl or RI  maamaakin[y]iF  (152) a. maamaakin-iF  's.o. playing inside the house (e.g. with toys)  to play-inside  maamaakin[?]is  b. maamaakin-is  's.o. playing at the beach'  to play-at the beach  (153) a. k asitum-ii-  •>  w  k asitum[?]iF w  'branches on the floor'  branch-on the floor  b. k asitum-is  ^  w  k asitum[y]is w  'branches at the beach'  branch-at the beach  Note that in (152-153) a glide and a glottal stop alternates according to the triggering suffix, but the surface form of the suffix is not predictable with the relevant suffix. The suffix -/'/appears as -yi-f-m (152a) and -P/i-m. (153a); the suffix -is appears as -Pis in (152b) and in -yis (153b). The following chart shows the variation of nasals with respect to the presence of a glide and a glottal stop; a glide surfaces more regularly compared to a glottal stop.  (154) Frequency of a glide and a glottal stop in the context of nasal lenition  Cases  No. of stems  %  Always lyl  17  71  Always /?/  5  21  Either lyl or RI  2  8  24  100  TOTAL  99 Analysis  As in glottalisation, lenition shows very complex properties phonologically and morphologically. I have found only two triggering suffixes and they are both lexical s u f f i x e s : -//'on the floor/inside (the house)' and -is 'at the beach'.  41  First, these suffixes only affect fricatives, while they cause no change of the  target stop/affricate and nasal.  Second, as in glottalisation, fricatives preceding a leniting s u f f i x exhibit  alternation: some stem-final fricatives are affected, but not some others with the same phonetic 41  Rose (1976: 14) provides another suffix -acifc 'inceptive, get to, become', but there is only one example  (?ih -aci7« w  ?iwacifc 'get to be big'). The Ahousaht counterpart shows the same form, (iia), but there is no  systematic process with respect to lenition with the suffix as seen below. i) a. camas-actA:  cam[iici7t;]  'becoming sweet'  sweet-become b. quu?as-aci?e  qu?[iici7c]  'becoming an adult'  man-become  ?ii[wacifc]  ii) a. ?iih-aci7«  'becoming big  big-become b. nisaak-aciTc full-become  iii) a. Fatx-aciTc  soft-become b. sux-aci?!; rusyt-become c. Tuuktis-aciTV to copy-become  iv) caah-aci7c  hard/ firm-become  -i>  nis[waci7<;]  'becoming full'  Fatx[k aci7t;] w  'becoming soft' sux[k aci7c] w  'becoming rusty ?uuktis[k acik] w  'according to (s.o./s.t.)' caah[aci7c]  'becoming hard'  It seems that there are four allomorphs for the suffix. In i), part of each root morpheme is truncated and -iicifc is attached; in ii), the form -waciTe is used and iia) seems to undergo lenition and in iib) part of the stem {aak} is deleted but there is no lenition; in iii) the form -k aci7t is used;finallyin iv) -acifc is used. Due to this variation, w  and the rare cases of lenition with the suffix, I will not include this suffix as a leniting suffix for now.  100  characteristics.  Third, lenition is more restricted, applying to alveolars, but not to post-alveolars.  Finally, when preceding a leniting suffix, a nasal has a glide inserted on the surface, though with some stems, a glottal stop can appear on the surface instead of a glide.  These generalisations raise the  following questions:  1. How is the form of a leniting suffix explained? 2. How do we explain the consistent lack of lenition of stops/affricates, the alternation of fricatives, and the presence of lyl or RI with nasals?  3. How do we account for the fact that post-alveolar fricatives are consistently not lenited?  I will discuss the first two issues in section, the third in section  In addition, I will  discuss the implications of the systematic phonological properties of Nuu-chah-nulth consonants in terms of glottalisation and lenition in Finally, in section,1 will examine how to treat vowelfinal stems preceding a leniting suffix. A floating feature [+Voiced], faithfulness, and markedness  Rose (1976) suggests that all the leniting suffixes begin with Ihl, which is the lenition-causing factor. To explain the patterns of lenition (mainly of Tseshaht), her analysis requires four rules: an Ihl to RI shift rule, an Ihl deletion rule, a RI deletion rule, and a fricative-glide shift rule (Rose 1976: 27-28).  The  analysis seems only to describe the phenomenon, not explaining why some variation and apparently irregular patterns occur.  In addition, there is no phonological motivation for the presence of Ihl: in  particular, it never surfaces (see Rose 1976 for the detailed discussion).  In sum, the argument for Ihl as  an initial element of a leniting suffix raises two problems: the adequacy of explanation as well as 'abstractness' (Kiparsky 1982b). Alternatively, following Howe 1996,1 assume that a leniting suffix has a floating [+Voiced] feature in its initial position, which links to an available preceding consonant (also see Kim & Pulleyblank 2003. for more detailed discussion).  42  Interestingly, Oowekyala, a Northern Wakashan, also has lenition, where  stem-final voiceless obstruents become voiced before some suffixes (Howe 2000: 34-38). Howe argues that the [+Voiced] feature is the factor for the alternation and that [+Voiced] and [+C.G:] are active in Oowekyala phonology.  I suppose that although Nuu-chah-nulth does not have a voicing contrast in  obstruents, [+Voiced] is active in some phonological processes such as lenition under discussion in the language as well.  That is, the phonological property of [+Voiced] in terms of lenition might be a  Howe (1996) proposes the same representation for a leniting suffix for Nuu-chah-nulth. 101  common characteristic through Wakashan languages.  This requires further research, though.  (155)  schematises the form of a leniting suffix: (155) Leniting Suffix: [+Voiced]VX [  RT. . . ] „ .Suffix Le  [+Voiced] | V One might suggest the possibility that the underlying form of leniting suffixes includes a glide as an initial element rather than a floating [+Voiced]. This hypothesis, however, does not work in two respects for Nuu-chah-nulth. The first problem is related to a morphological issue. If the first element of leniting suffixes were a glide, then we could not provide a straightforward answer to the question of why some suffixes with an initial lyl trigger lenition, but not others (see section 3.2.1. for the same line of discussion for glottalisation).  The second is related to a phonological issue. If a leniting suffix started as a glide,  then how could we explain the fact that a stop or affricate preceding a glide always causes the deletion of the glide, since it is either a fricative or a glide that IS deleted in the same context? phonological cues we can use to predict their distribution.  There are no  Therefore, the presence of a glide on the  surface seems to be guaranteed only when following a nasal or a vowel.  On the other hand, non-  leniting suffixes never fail to appear on the surface as shown in (156), whether it follows a stop (156), fricative (157), or nasal (158).  43  (156) Stop ?icaak-/y/aq  ^  rotten-Existential  ficaakhyjaq ' something rotten'  (something/someone)  (157) Fricative cistup-iiF-/y/aq Rope-to make-Exis.  ^  cistupii-rfy]aq 'someone making a rope'  (158) Nasal huupak ahum-/y/aq  huupak anum[y]aq  storage box-Exis.  ' A storage box'  w  43  w  Zoll (1996) claims that a segment with the same phonetic contents should have different underlying  representation, if some always appears on the surface, while some others are often deleted. "latent" segments and represents them as afloatingfeature or feature groups.  102  She names the latter  In conclusion, the representation of a leniting suffix, (157), encodes both aspects of the target (no lenition or lenition), and the surface alternations of the trigger ([+Voiced] on a preceding consonant and [+Voiced] in an independent segment). As seen in the previous section, a leniting suffix surfaces in different ways when following a consonant, and the target consonant also exhibits variation.  I repeat some relevant examples from  (141-144) for convenience. First, compare a stop and a nasal. Neither consonant group is affected by a leniting suffix.  However, the floating [+Voiced] feature of a leniting suffix does not surface when  following a stop as seen in (160), while is appears as a glide on the surface, when following a nasal as seen in (160).  (159) tup/k/-[+Voiced]is  tup[k]is  black-beach  '(s.t.) black on the beach'  (160) hayu/nV-[+Voiced]is  +  Not knowing-at the beach  hayu[my]is 'getting lost at the beach'  Interestingly, the nasal itself is not affected by a leniting suffix, like stops/affricates, but it exhibits the same effect asfricativesin that a glide appears on the surface. appears seems different.  However, the mechanism by which lyl  There is a notable difference regarding lenition of nasals: the glide is not an  output correspondent of an input nasal as infricatives;the input nasal surfaces faithfully without any featural changes (cf. (141).  Then questions arise: i) why does a nasal only allow the "insertion" of a  glide, but not a stop/affricate, and ii) why isn't a nasal replaced as a glide on the surface, as in fricatives? I suggest that the asymmetry between the three sound groups in terms of lenition is due to the interaction between a constraint on syllable structure, and some faithfulness constraints.  Cross-  linguistically, there is a tendency that the sonority of a syllable-final consonant must exceed that of a following syllable-initial consonant.  Murray & Vennemann (1983) names this principle the Syllable  Contact Law, and Clements (1990) defines it as below: $ indicates a syllable boundary.  (161) The Syllable Contact Law (Clements 1990: 287 (4)) In any sequence C $ Q, there is a preference for C to exceed C in sonority. a  a  b  (162) is the sonority scale for sounds (see Hooper 1976, Basb0ll 1977, Lekach 1979, Kiparsky 1979, Steriade 1982, Selkirk 1984 among others).  103  (162) least sonorous  most sonorous  <r  -> Obstruents 1  Nasals  Liquids  2  3  Glides 4  Vowels '5  I implement the principle (161) as a universal constraint, (163).  (163) Syllable Contact Condition (SCC) In any sequence C ] a  [C , if Cb is [+Son], then Ca must not be [-Son].  CT CT  b  When a coda obstruent precedes an onset glide, it does not create an optimal syllable contact, violating (163) , while a sonorant coda preceding an onset glide would not violate it.  The effect of (163) in Nuu-  chah-nulth appears by the interaction with the following faithfulness, DEPRootNode and MAX[+Voiced] (164) , and markedness constraint, (165), as expressed as the ranking in (166).  (164) Faithfulness MAX[+Voiced]: [+Voiced] in the input must have a correspondent in the output.  (165) Markedness *[-Son +Voiced]: [-Son] and [+Voiced] cannot cooccur within the same root node. *C: No coalescence ofthe two tokens of [+Voiced] to a single anchor is allowed. (=NoMultipleLink[+Voiced] :NML[+Vd]) [+Vd][+Vd]  (166) Ranking SCC, *[-Son, +Voiced], NML[+Vd]  MAX[+Voieed]  DEPRootNode The implication of the ranking of these constraints is illustrated in tableau (167) with a stop, and in (168) with a nasal; recall that the initial part of a leniting suffix is a floating [+Voiced].  (167) tupk-[+Voiced]is black-the beach  tupkis '(s.t.) black on the beach' 104  Tableau'  sec  •[-Son, +Vd]  NML[+Vd]  [+Voiced]  tupk-[+Voiced]is a. tupk . yis  MAX  Node  *  *!  45  DEPRoot  f+Voicedl ^ b . tup . kis  * *!  c. tup . gis  r+Voiced] Candidate a violates both SCC and DEPRootNode by inserting a root node and thus creating a bad syllable contact.  It is, thereby, possible to avoid violating MAX[+Voiced], but the fatal violation of the  higher-ranked constraint SCC leads this candidate to be ruled out.  Candidate c violates *[-Son,  +Voiced] by linking the floating feature to the voiceless obstruent target Ikl. Consequently, candidate b is selected as an optimal output form.  It violates MAX[+Voiced] by deleting the input feature, but the  violation is not crucial since the constraint is lower ranked.  (168) hayu/m/-[+Voiced]is  ^  Not knowing-at the beach  hayu[my]is 'getting lost at the beach'  Tableau SCC  *[-Son, +Vd]  NML[+Vd]  [hayum+[+Vd]is  MAX [+Voiced]  DEPRoot Node  *  ^ a. hayum. yis  1  [+Voiced] b. hayu. mis  *! *!  c. hayu. mis [+Voiced]  Candidate b is ruled out by violating the relatively high-ranked constraint MAX[+Voiced].  In candidate  c, the [+Voiced] nasal is linked to the input floating [+Voiced], leading to multiple association of the 4 4  A potential candidate is the stem-final stop surfaces as a glide as in the case of fricatives.  Such a candidate  would violate MAX[-Cont], which must be high-ranked in Nuu-chah-nulth. 4 5  This and following relevant candidates must violate DEPPlaceNode and some other features as well, in order to  realise the floating [+Voiced].  However, I do not include discussion of this constraint in order to simplify the  exposition. 105  feature.  This causes a fatal violation of NM[+Vd].  Consequently, candidate a is selected as an optimal  output form. The optimal form violates DEPRootNode, which is low-ranked and thus whose violation is not crucial.  Note that the sequence of a nasal and a glide does not violate SCC; their sonority is close  to each other, compared to that of an obstruent and a glide. Finally, a stem-final fricative is affected, exhibiting alternation.  Some stem-final fricatives surface as  glides when preceding a leniting suffix, while others are not affected.  (169) hiF-[+Voiced]is  hi[y]is.  LOC-at the beach  'there is (s.o./s.t.) at the beach  (170) 7VuF-[+Voiced]is  fcu[+]is  nice-at the beach  (s.t.) nice at the beach'  In (169) the stem-final /F/ becomes a glide lyl before the leniting suffix -[+Voiced]w, but in (170) the same fricative from another lexical item surfaces faithfully.  As in the case of glottalisation, this kind of  alternation between the same set of fricatives can be dealt with using two different input representations of a single surface fricative. I repeat from (99) the representations below: (171) Nuu-chah-nulth input fricatives a. Isl  b.  r+consi L+Cont J  IS/  r 1 L+Cont J  Recall that when a morpheme with a fricative in its final position is on its own, these different input representations are realised as the same fricative. attached.  The alternation appears when a leniting suffix is  To treat fricative cases, we need MAX[+Cons], (172), and their language-specific ranking,  (173), which is a revised version of (166).  (172) MAX[+Cons]: [+Cons] in the input must have a correspondent in the output.  (173) Ranking SCC, *[-Son, +Voiced], NML[+Vd], MAX[+Cons]  MAX[+Voiced]  DEPRootNode  106  The following tableaux illustrate this effect: (174) includes a fricative unspecified for [+Cons] and (175) a fricative specified for [+Cons].  (174)hi+-[+Voiced]is  -»  LOC-at the beach  hi[y]is 'there is s.o. at the beach  Tableau: No specification of [+Cons] SCC  *[-Son, +Vd]  MAX [+Cons]  hi-t+[+Voiced]is  MAX [+Voiced]  DEPRoot Node  •^a. h i . yis 1 [+Voiced] *!  b. h i . ids  c. tift. yis  *  *! [+Voiced] d. h i . Iris  *! [+Voiced]  In (174) the input fricative /+/ is not specified for [+Cons] and thus the constraint MAX[+Cons] is not relevant.  Candidate b violates MAX[+Voiced] by deleting the input [+Voiced] feature.  Candidate c is  ruled out by a bad syllable contact: a violation of SCC. Candidate d violates the markedness costraint *[Son +Voiced], which is caused by linking the [+Voiced] feature to [-Son] consonant.  In candidate a, the  floating feature [+Voiced] links to the immediately preceding anchor, as in candidate d, but the target surfaces as a glide lyl, which is not [-Son]. Consequently, a fricative unspecified for [+Cons] can easily become lenited as shown in the tableau. (175) is a case of a fricative specified for [+Cons].  (175)feu+-[+Voiced]is nice-at the beach  fcufFJis 's.t. nice at the beach'  107  Tableau: Specification of [+Cons] [&U4M-[+Voiced] is  +[-Son, +Vd]  SCC  1 [+Cons]  MAX [+Cons]  ®* a. TVU-HS  MAX [+Voiced].  DEPRoot Node  *  1 [+Cons] b. 7CUTVis  *  *!  [+Cons] c. foulus *!  1 [+Voiced] [+Cons]  *!  d. 7Vuyis  As shown in the tableau, MAX[+Cons], as well as the two markedness constraints, plays a crucial role in determining the optimal output. The input fricative is specified for [+Cons]; thus its disappearance in the output causes a fatal violation of the faithfulness constraint as seen in candidate d. Candidates b and c also fatally violate the high-ranked markedness constraint.  Therefore, candidate a is selected as an  optimal output form where the input fricative surfaces as such. No lenition with post-alveolar fricatives  All stem-fricatives, when preceding a glottalising suffix, consistently exhibit alternation, whether they are alveolar, velar, uvular, or pharyngeal. We found the same kind of alternation with somefricativesin the previous section.  However, if stem-finalfricativesin the context of lenition are post-alveolar, then they  are consistently not affected.  As we saw in (143), they always surface as a plain fricative, not a glide.  All unaffected fricatives constitute a phonological class, [-Anterior], and exhibit immunity to the floating [+Voiced], whether [+Cons] is specified or not in the input, unlike [+Anterior]. examples from (143).  (176) a. cu/sV-i-i" new-on the floor  ^  cu[s]fi's.t. new on the floor (e.g. mat, rug, etc.)  108  I repeat the relevant  &i[s]rF  b. &u/s7-i"r-  dry-on the floor  'the floor is dried up.  c. 9eu/s/-is  &i[s]is '(the sand) on the beach is dry.'  dry-at the beach  d. quu/x/-H-  ^  tofreeze-onthe floor  quu[x]rt 's.t. frozen on the floor (e.g. water)'  taa[x ]rt .  e. taa/x /-H-  w  w  to spit-on the floor  'spitting on the floor'  cis[x]ri  f. cis/x/-rt  'dirty inside (the house)'  dirty-inside  g. cap/x /-rF  cap[x ]H-  w  w  'men in a house'  man-inside  h. ci/h/-i+  ClPlJft  s.t. negative-on the floor  's.t. scary on the floor  Howe (2000) notices that "... Oowekyala normally excludes consonants that are specified [-anterior] (e.g. s,c, , ,£)....  [in some phonological processes (?)]...". I suggest that the feature [Anterior] plays a  crucial role in determining the availability of alternation in lenition in Nuu-chah-nulth as well. Unmarked segments are more easily a target for phonological processes than marked segments crosslinguistically, and [+Anterior] consonants are less marked than [-Anterior] (Chomsky & Halle 1968, Morelli 1999, Roca & Johnson 1999, Lombardi 2000).  46  I suggest that the lack of lenition with post-  alveolar ([-Anterior]) fricatives is related to this universal property. That is, [-Anterior] fricatives, which is more marked than [+Anterior] fricatives, are excluded in lenition. Given that glottalisation applies to all fricatives in Nuu-chah-nulth, Nuu-chah-nulth provides an example that the markedness principle is imposed only to one or part of phonological processes with the same potential targets in a single language.  4 6  Following Chomsky & Halle (1968:304), I make use of [Anterior] to distinguish anterior consonants (labials,  dentals, and alveolars) from nonanterior ones (palato-alveolar, velar, uvular, and pharyngeal).  109  While [+Anterior] provides a phonological domain where a fricative is affected or not, the relevant feature for this issue is [+Strident].  That is, [-Anterior]-[+Strident] is not subject to lenition, but  [+Anterior]-[+Strident] is. This restriction is expressed by the following two faithfulness constraints and their ranking with respect to other faithfulness and markedness constraints. _  (177) Constraints: a. MAX[+Stridenfj: The input [-Anterior]-[+Strident] must have its correspondent in the output. [-Anterior]  b. MAX[+Strident]: The input [+Anterior]-[+Strident] must have its correspondent in the output.  I  [+Anterior] (178) Ranking: MAX[+C.G.], *[+Cons, +Cont, +C.G.], [-Son, +Voiced] -0-  MAX[+Strident]  I [-Anterior] MAX[+Voiced]  MAX[+Strident] I [+Anterior]  The implication of the ranking is illustrated in the following tableaux with relevant examples, where we will see how differently [-Anterior] fricatives behave depending on whether they are in the context of glottalisation or lenition.  (179) [+Anterior]: e.g. /s/ a. Glottalisation ?uyaa/s/-[+C.G.]ahs to move-at the beach  ^  Tuyaa[y]ahs  (  'moving one position in a boat to another'  110  b. Lenition ?uyaa/s/-[+Voiced]is  Yuyaa[y]is  to move-at the beach  'moving one position to another at the beach'  (180) a. Tableau: Glottalisation Tuyaas-[+C.G.]iic [+Cont] [+Ant] [+Stridenf| *• a. luyaayiic  *[+Cons] [+ConfJ [+C.G]  MAX [+C.G.]  DEPRoot Node  [-Ant]  +Cont -Ant -Strident +C.G. b. iuyaas?iic 1 +Cont +Ant +Strident c. Tuyaas'iic +Cont +Ant +Strident +C.G. d. liiyaasiic +Cont +Ant +Strident  MAX[+Str]  MAX[+Str] [+Ant]  *  *!  *!  *!  111  b. Tableau: Lenition Tuyaas+[+Vd]is *[-Son +Voiced] [+Cont] [+Ant] [+Stridenf| ^a. Tuyaayis  DEPRoot MAX[+Str] Node [-Ant]  MAX [+Voiced]  MAX[+Str] [+Ant]  * [+Cont] [-Ant] [+Voicedl b. "Tuyaasyis 1 [+Cont] [+Ant] [+Strident] c. Tuyaazis  *!  *!  1 [+Cont] [+Ant] [+Strident] [+Voicedl d. "Tuyaasis  *!  [+Cont] [+Ant] [+Stridenf|  With [+Anterior] stem-final fricatives preceding each trigger [+C.G.] and [+Voiced], respectively, all the faithfulness and markedness constraints outranking MAX[+Str] cause the input fricative to surface as a glottalised or plain glide, if they are unspecified for [+Cons].  | [+Ant]  On the other hand, if the target fricative is [-Anterior], MAX[+Strident] in the domain of [-Anterior] plays a crucial role in maintaining its input [+Strident] in the context of lenition (but not in the context of glottalisation). MAX[+Voiced].  This M A X constraint is still lower-ranked than MAX[+C.G.], but outranks This makes it possible to maintain the input [-Anterior] fricative on the surface in the  context of lenition, scarifying the input [+Voiced], as illustrated in (182).  (181) [-Anterior]: e.g./s/ a. Glottalisation his-[+C.G.]iic all-to take  *  hi[y]iic 'to take all'  112  b. Lenition his-[+Voiced]is  +  all-at the beach  hi[s]is 'all (the people) at the beach'  (182) a. Tableau: Glottalisation his-[+C.G.]iic [+Cont] [-Ant] [+Stridentl a. hiyiic  *[+Cons] [+Cont] [+C.G.]  MAX [+C.G]  DEPRoot Node  [+Cont] [-Ant] [-Strident]  *  r+c.G.i b. his?iic  [+Cont] [-Ant] [+Strident] c. his'iic 1 [+Cont] [-Ant] [+Strident]  *!  *!  r+c.G.i  d. hisiic  [+Cont] [-Ant] [+Strident|  MAX[+Str] 1 [-Ant]  *!  113  MAX[+Str] [+Ant]  *  b. Tableau: Lenition his+[+Vd]is 1 [+Cont] [-Ant] [+Stridentl a. hiyis  *[-Son +Voiced]  DEPRoot MAX[+Str] Node [-Ant]  MAX [+Voiced]  MAX[+Str] [+Ant]  * *!  [+Cont] [-Ant] [+Voiced] b. hisyis  *! [+Cont] [-Ant] [+Stridenf| c. hisis  *! [+Cont] [-Ant] [+Strident] [+Voiced] *"d. hisis  *  [+Cont] [-Ant] [+Stridenf| 'Richness of the Base'  I treated alternation of fricatives observed both in glottalisation and lenition in terms of the principle 'Richness of the base'.  The two different representations for a single input fricative cause different  output forms in the contexts of both processes.  If, however, there is no systematic treatment of input  fricatives in the representation, then the analysis would be just an ad hoc solution. In this section, I will compare the relevant data from glottalisation and lenition and examine whether they exhibit consistency in their input representations. This will support the analysis.  (183) Fricatives: Type 1 ("glottalised") a. hi/F/-[+C.G.]ahs Loc-vessel  b. iuyaa/s/-[+C.G.]ahs to move-vessel  hi[y]ahs 'there is (s.t.) in a boat'  iuyaa[y]ahs 'moving one position to another in a boat'  114  c. nawaa/s/-[+C.G.]ahs to sit (leisurely)-vessel  d. huu/F/-[+C.G.]ahs over there (far away)-vessel  nawaa[y]ahs 'leisurely sitting in a boat'  huu[y]ahs '(someone) over there far away in a car'  (184) Fricatives: Type 2 (not glottalised) a. fcu/F/-[+C.G.]ahs  &u[F]?ahs '(s.t.) nice in a boat'  nice-vessel  tim[s]?ahs  b.tim/s/-[+C.G.]ahs  'garbage in a boat'  garbage-vessel  c. ma/F/-[+C.G.]ahs  maF[?]ahs 'cold liquid'  cold-vessel  d. hismi/s/-[+C.G.]ahs blood-vessel  hismis[?]ahs 'blood in a bowl'  I suggested that a fricative affected by a glottalising suffix is underlyingly unspecified for [+Cons] and one unaffected is specified for the feature. Therefore, each fricative in (183a-b) must not be specified for the feature and each fricative in (184a-b) must be specified. Then, we would expect the same alternation in lenition. That is, a fricative unspecified for [+Cons] is affected by a leniting suffix and one specified for [+Cons] is not. The following examples show that this is the case.  (185) Fricatives: Type 1 (lenited) a. hi/F/-[+Voiced]is Loc-at the beach  b. ftryaa/s/-[+Voiced]is ^ to move-at the beach  c. nawaa/s/-[+Voiced]iF ^ to sit (leisurely)-inside/  hi[y]is 'there is (s.o./s.t.) at the beach'  9uyaa[y]is 'moving one postion to another at the beach'  nawaa[y]iF 'sitting inside leisurely'  on the floor  115  d. huu/+/-[+Voiced]is  +  huu[y]is '(someone) over there far away on the beach'  over there-at the beach (far away)  (186) Type 2 (not lenited) a. 7eu/-t/-[+Voiced]is  TeuPFjis '(s.t.) nice at the beach'  nice-at the beach  tim[s]is  b. tim/s/-[+Voiced]is  'garbage at the beach'  garbage-at the beach  ma+i+  c. ma/"t/-[+Voiced]i-rcold-inside/on the floor  d. hismi/s/-[+Voiced]is  'the floor is cold.'  hismisis  +  'Blood on a beach'  blood-at the beach  These examples show that a fricative consistently maintains its input form through both phonological processes: glottalisation and lenition. To conclude, all the fricatives that undergo glottalisation also undergo lenition; those that do not undergo glottalisation also do not undergo lenition. discussion).  (See Kim & Pulleyblank 2003 for detailed  The free combination of features in inputs predicts the possibility of two distinct types of  fricatives (Archangeli & Pulleyblank 1994), and the consistent behaviour of fricatives in the two phonological processes in Nuu-chah-nulth provide empirical evidence for the principle "Richness of the Base" (Prince & Smolensky 1993). One might suggest that an alternate approach, Lexicon Optimization with motivated underspecification where underspecification is implemented only when phonological alternations appear on the surface (Inkelas 1995), can treat the same problems. However, as we saw in section 3.2.1 and this section, [-Anterior]fricatives,as well as [+Anterior] ones, exhibit alternation in the context of glottalisation, but not in the context of lenition. If we adopt Lexicon Optimization, then how could we determine the input form of each [-Anterior] fricative? When a set of segments does not exhibit consistent alternation over all phonological or morphological contexts, we could simply not depend on Lexicon Optimization.  On the other hand, 'Richness of the Base" does not cause the same  dilemma, since it never requires such a condition on input forms.  116 Vowel-final stems in lenition  Vowel-final stems in the context of lenition exhibit the same properties in the context of glottalisation. Just as a stem-final vowel preceding a glottalising suffix is not affected, a stem-final vowel is not affected when it is followed by a leniting suffix.  Before a glottalising suffix, a glottal stop appears; before a  leniting suffix, a glide appears as seen in (187).  (187) a. Pn-ca-(i)rr--?is huu  ?Aica[y]ii-?is  it-to go-inside-3sg/IND that  b. ciq-hsii-(i)H-  +  to speak-?-inside  'S/he is lying the other way.'  ciqhsii[y]rt 'a speaker in a house'  c. hama-(i)it  hama[y]fi  to stay-inside  'to stay s.w. in a house'  d. cii-is-afc-uk-ci  cii[y]is?afoukci  to pull-at the beach-SEQ-POSS-2sg/IMP 'go and pull your canoe up (to the beach)!'  e. kaacuu-is  kaacuu[y]is  to measure-at the each  f. sayaa-is  'to measure s.t. at the beach'  +  sayaa[y]is  far-at the beach  ' far at the beach'  When a leniting suffix follows a vowel-final stem, the vowel is not affected and a glide [y] appears on the surface between the stem and the suffix.  47  4 7  The presence of lyl with a vowel-final stem is basically due  However, there is an exception as follows: instead of lyl, a nasal /ml appears on the surface. i) ma+-(i)ri"  ^  cold-inside  rfta-ffrnjiri' 'cold inside'  Interestingly, the stem-final fricative is not glottalised, surfacing followed by a glottal stop, when preceding glottalising suffixes. ii) rha+-[+C.G.]ahs  ma+[?]ahs 'Cold liquid in a bowl'  -vessel/bowl 117  to the interaction between the two faithfulness constraints MAX[+Voiced] and DEPRootNode. I do not include constraints which are not crucial and whose effects are discussed in the previous sections. As shown in the following tableau, the high-ranked constraint MAX[+Voiced] drives the presence of lyl when a vowel-final stem precedes a leniting suffix.  (188) a. sayaa-[+Voiced]is  ^  sayaa[y]is  far-at the beach  'far at the beach'  b. Tableau [sayaa+[+Vd]is  MAX[+Voiced]  DEPRootNode  *• a. sayaa . yis  *  r+vd] b. sayaa. is  *!  Before leaving this section, we need to discuss exceptional cases with nasals in the context of lenition. I suggested above that the presence of lyl on the surface in the context of lenition is due to a floating feature [+Voiced].  When lenition is not an option for the target consonant, the [+Voiced] feature is  deleted when following a stop/affricate.  On the other hand, it is realised as a glide with a fricative or  nasal target, albeit with a different mechanism. There are some exceptions with nasals as shown in (189193).  (18 9) a. huupuk ahum-Ff w  ^  storage box-on the floor  b. huupuk ahum-is storage box-at the beach  rha+-[ CG.]aqk  w  'storage box (basket) on the floor'  ^  w  huupuk^humPJHV (*huupuk ahumyrr)  huupuk anum[?]H7 (*huupuk ahumyis) w  w  'storage box (basket) on the beach'  ma+[?]aq7c 'Cold inside'  +  -inside ma+-[+C.G.]ihta  -»  ma+[?]ihta 'Cold at the end'  +  rha+[?]aap 'To buy s.t. cold (e.g. ice cream)'  -at the end ma+-[+C.G.]aap -to buy 118  husminP]i"r-  (190) a. husmin-iF  'kelp on the floor'  kelp-on the floor  husminP]is  b. husmin-is  (*husminyis)  'kelp at the beach'  kelp-at the beach  (191) a. cikimin-ii-  (*husminyrt)  cikiminP]H-  +  (*cikirninyi+)  'iron on the floor'  iron-on the floor  cikiminPJis  b. cikimin-is  (*cikiminyis)  'iron at the beach'  iron-at the beach  (192) a. maamaakin-rt  maamaakin[y]iF 's.o. playing inside the house (e.g. with toys)  to play-inside  maamaakinPJis  b. maamaakin-is  's.o. playing at the beach'  to play-at the beach  k asitump]tf-  (193) a. k asitum-iF  w  w  'branches on the floor'  branch-on the floor  k asitum[y]is  b. k asitum-is  w  w  'branches at the beach'  branch-at the beach  These exceptions do not seem to be associated with differences in input representations.  First, unlike  alternation observed in fricatives, this is a marginal phenomenon: 17 of 24 stem-final nasals tested are followed consistently by a glide in the lenition context. Second, the issue is not whether a target segment is affected or not, but rather, the presence of an extra form only with a certain set of consonants.  Third,  the presence of a glottal stop with some lexical items does not seem to be related with the phonological input, the floating [+Voiced] feature.  48  rather, morphologically, motivated.  I suspect that this type of exception is not phonologically, but  Recall that as seen in (154), 71 % of the tested nasal-final stems  consistently exhibit lyl on the surface. Therefore, the presence of a glottal stop may be due to a kind of  48  In fact, a glottal stop has [+C.G.]. Nuu-chah-nulth makes phonological use of only [+C.G.] and [+Voiced] as  laryngeal features. Therefore, their complementary distribution makes sense, although we need to investigate what kind of mechanism drives such alternation from an underlying [+Voiced]. Thanks to Pat Shaw for this point.  119  allomorph, which uses a Nuu-chah-nulth default consonant RI as part of an allomorph of a morpheme in question.  That is, in the lenition context with a nasal, some nasal-final morphemes may lexical-  specifically drive such insertion. This requires further research.  120  3.2.3 Labialisation  Ahousaht Nuu-chah-nulth does not have labialisation, while it is claimed that another dialect, Tseshaht, does (see Sapir & Swadesh 1939, Stonham 1999). I will start with a brief discussion of labialisation, because it is closely related to the topic of delabialisation, treated in the next section, and for comparison between dialects. Stonham (1999) describes velar or uvular consonants in Tseshaht being labialised between a preceding high back rounded vowel lul and a following non-round vowel, as expressed in the rule in (194):  (194) Labialisation rule: C -> [+rnd] / u _ V [-rnd] (Stonham 1999: 86)  The Tseshaht examples in (196) are taken from Stonham (1999:86)  (195) labialisation data  49  a. ha?uk-qath-(ya)atu_k_-'e:?ita  +  eat-pretendedly-make noise-3 .PURP  b. cicmuj^-KPaaqfc-qa scapegoat-make.. .-FUT.INTENT-SUB  c. ?u-?u::staqyu_g_-a'fs-yak-uk PL-doctor-?-.. .song-POSS  ha?ukqath?atu lc e:?it w  ' he made the noise of eating'  c'iicmu q i:-F?aaq7Vqa w  'they will make him a scapegoat'  ?u?u: staqvu q aFsyakuk?i w  'his doctoring songs'  However, as Stonham himself mentions, we cannot see i f the target consonant is really underlyingly a plain velar/uvular or a labio-velar/uvular.  A labio-velar/uvular loses its labial property before a  consonant or word-finally, while it maintains that property before a vowel in Nuu-chah-nulth in general.  .. .The difficulty in providing convincing examples of this process is not that there are few examples available, but rather that of the large number of examples, the majority are difficult to establish as not involving underlying labialised consonants...  49  In previous studies including Stonham (1999), a glottalising suffix is indicated by an apostrophe mark as the  initial element as seen in (195a) -'e:?ita. 121  Consider the following examples, which are from Ahousaht: (196) The presence of labiality before a vowel cap[x ]atuk  a. cap/x /-atuk  w  w  'boiling noise  to boil-sound b. ci/x /-aa  ci[x ]aa  w  w  to fry-DUR  'frying'  c. cu/q /-aa  cu[q ]aa  w  w  to stab-DUR  'stabbing'  d. hiik -hii/k /-a  hiikhii[k ]a  w  w  w  RED-to wind-CONT e. nuu/k /-ii+  'winding, curved' nuuCk ]ii+  w  w  song-to make  'to make a song'  (197) The absence of labiality before a consonant or word-finally cap[x]saap  a. cap/x /-saap w  to boil-MOM.CAUS b. ci/x /-cuu  ci[x]cuu  w  to fry-in a state of c. cu/q /-si?c  ^  w  to stab-MOM d. hii/k /-hiik -(y)a"* w  'to boil'  w  RED-to wind-CONT  'fried' cu[q]sifc 'to stab' hii[k]hiik a w  'winding, curved'  e. nuu/k /  nuu[k]  song  'song'  w  In (196), each labio-velar/uvular consonant maintains its labiality when preceding a vowel, while in (197), it becomes its non-labial counterpart before a consonant or word-finally. Another account for the  122  alternation observed in (195), therefore, may be that the target consonant maintains its underlying labial property when preceding a vowel, rather than it being a derived property in the proposed context. Note that the following examplesfromAhousaht show that this dialect does not exhibit a process of labialisation.  (198) No-labialisation in Ahousaht a. cikyuu-/q/aaca  cikyuu[q]aaca  (*cikyuuq aaca)  cikyuu[q]aq  (*cikyuuq aq)  w  Crooked-lsg/DUB  b. cikyuu-/q/aq  w  Crooked-very much  c. cisxcuu-/q/aaca  cisxcuu[q]aaca (*cisxcuuq aaca) w  Dusty inside-lsg/DUB  d. cisxcuu-/q/aq  cisxcuu[q]aq  (*cisxcuuq aq) w  Dusty inside-very much  Each target consonant is underlyingly non-labial and does not undergo labialisation in the proposed context: between Iwl and a non-round vowel.  It is difficult to provide more data, since  there are not  many morphemes ending with lul, and since not many combinations of morphemes ending with lul and morphemes beginning with a velar or uvular can be obtained for semantic reasons. In conclusion, it seems that we need to test more data to confirm if Tseshaht really has labialisation. Moreover, it is necessary to examine other Nuu-chah-nulth dialects to see if the lack of labialisation in Ahousaht is a special case or a general tendency through all the dialects.  3.2.4 Delabialisation  We saw in (197) that a labio-velar/uvular consonant becomes delabialised before a consonant and wordfinally.  TTiis distributional restriction can be dealt with by the following constraints, (199a-b), and their  language-specific ranking, (200). (199) a. NoRoundCoda: No [+Round] consonant is in coda.  50  50  It seems that it is a general property of Nuu-chah-nulth to disallow marked features such as [+C.G.] (all glottal  consonants), [-Cons] (glides), and [+Round] (velar-labial and uvular-labial consonants). Therefore, we might need 123  b. MAX[+Round]: [+Round] in the input must have a correspondent in the output. (200) Ranking: NoRoundCoda » MAX[+Round]  (201) is the relevant example and the effect of the ranking (200) is shown in tableau (202).  (201) cap/x /-saap  cap[x]saap  w  to boil-MOM.CAUS cf. cap/x /-atuk + w  to boil-sound  'to boil' cap[x ]atuk w  'boiling noise  (202) Tableau NoRoundCoda  /capx -saap/ w  MAX[+Round]  r+Ri a. capx.saap  *  b. capx .saap w  *!  [+R]  As seen in the tableaux, the deletion of underlying labiality is due to the constraint NoRoundCoda, which disallows a labial consonant in a coda, outranking MAX[+Round], which requires an underlying [+Round] to appear on the surface. Candidate b is ruled out by fatally violating NoRoundCoda, although it obeys MAX[+Round] by maintaining the phonological element in.question on the surface. Description: delabialisation before lul  Nuu-chah-nulth has another context where the labial property is deleted. Labio-velar and uvular consonants, /x , k , x , q /, become delabialised when preceding a [+Round] vowel, /u/. (Also see Sapir w  w  w  w  51  & Swadesh 1939 and Stonham 1999). The following examples illustrate the process:  a general coda condition such as NoMarkedCoda. discussion.  However, I simply make use of (199)  Thanks to Joe Stemberger for this point.  124  for the problem under  (203) a. c a / x / - u u +  ca[x]uu+  w  to stab/spear-face  cf. ca[x ]i+ w  'wrinkles'  'to stab s.t. to the floor'  b. hawi/k /-uk  hawi[k]uk  w  to eat-doer  ' a big eater'  cf. ha?u[k ]i-i-?is 's.o. eats s.t. inside' w  c. cu/qV-urnt  cu[q]umt  to pierce-round  cf. cu[q ]rt w  'to pierce some round stuff like a drum'  'to be pierced into the floor'  Interestingly, i n Ditidaht (Klokeid 1977a) and M a k a h (Jacobsen 1969), labiovelars are consistently round both word-finally and before lul.  According to K l o k e i d , i n a variety o f Ditidaht, a vowel  assimilates i n rounding to a preceding labial consonant. O n the other hand, in Ahousaht Nuu-chah-nulth a preceding lul does not affect the roundness o f a labio-velar or - u v u l a r as shown in (204), as well as in the compared examples i n (203):  (204) a. ha?u/k /-i+-?is w  *  ha?u[k ]i+?is w  to eat-inside-3sg/IND  CmaPnkfKis)  'S/he eats inside (the house)'  b. tu/x /-rt  tu[x ]i+  w  (*tuxi-F)  w  to jump-on the floor  'jumping to the floor'  The following data shows that the process o f delabialisation is pervasive.  A l s o , note that native  speakers apply glottalisation to the final stop o f novel loan words before a glottalising suffix as w e l l , as i n (205b) and (206b).  52  (205) The labial property maintained before a non-round vowel a. ku/k /a-ap-(m)it-sis  ku[k ]a?apitsis  w  w  Korean bread-to buy-P A S T - 1 sg/IND  5 1  52  T bought Korean bread (one kind)'  Stonham (1999) provides examples of velar and uvular stops only in Tseshaht. 1 made up the words to test if delabialisation is applied to loan words too.  125  *kuka?apitsis  b. Fu/x /ap-ap-(m)it-sis w  -hi[x ]apapitsis  +  w  T bought Korean apples (one kind)'  Korean apple-to buy-PAST-lsg/IND  *-hrxapapitsis  (206) The labial property lost before a round vowel a. ka/k /u-ap-(m)it-sis  ka[k]u?apitsis  +  w  T bought Korean bread (another kind)'  Korean bread-to buy-PAST-lsg/IND  *kak u?apitsis w  -fa[x]upapitsis  b. i-a/x /up-ap-(m)it-sis w  T bought Korean apples (another kind)'  Korean apple-to buy-PAST-lsg/IND  =4- ''upapitsis ax  The unique properties of Nuu-chah-nulth delabialisation are summarised as follows: i) the trigger is a round vowel, lul, which is the only round vowel in Nuu-chah-nulth, ii) the target is labio-velar and labiouvular consonants, and iii) there is a directional restriction: only a following, not preceding, vowel causes delabialisation. Analysis  Delabialisation occurs in order to avoid the clash of [+Round] ([+R]) features, which are immediately adjacent.  There might be more than one way to resolve the feature clash cross-  linguistically: deletion of one of the feature occurrences, insertion of another segment, and so on. Nuu-chah-nulth implements deletion to avoid the feature clash.  There are two ways to delete the  [+Round] feature: deleting [+Round] linked to a consonant, or to a vowel. Considering feature values of vowels in (207), i f [+Round] of a consonant is deleted, then (208a) will surface; i f [+Round] of a vowel is deleted, then (208b) will surface.  I indicate relevant features only in (208).  Note that lul is the only  [+Round] high vowel in Nuu-chah-nulth, and thus i f the feature value is lost, then the feature [+Back] is also lost, maintaining its height.  126  (207) Feature values of Nuu-chah-nulth vowels  lil HIGH  lal  +  lei  lol  +  LOW  +  BACK  +  (+)  ROUND  (208) a. /-k u-/  (+)  + [-k u-]  w  [+R]r+Rl |+H|  [-R] T+Rl |+H|  L+Bj b./-k u-/  L+BJ [-k  w  i-]  w  [+R]T+Rl |+H|  [+R]T-Rl |+H|  L+BJ  L-BJ  As we will see below, Nuu-chah-nulth does not allow any change in backness. That-is, maintaining input backness of a segment is more significant than maintaining input roundness of a segment.  This is  guaranteed by the interaction of the faithfulness constraints (209-210), and two markedness constraints NoMultipleLink (211) and OCP [+Round] (212) (OCP is subject to syllable structure for this case), and CT  their language-specific ranking in (213). MAX constraints require an input feature in question, [+Back] and [+Round], to appear on the surface. MAXPATH[+Round] disallows the input path between a feature in question and an anchor to be deleted. two anchors.  NoMultipleLink prevents a single feature from associating to  Another aspect of delabialisation in Nuu-chah-nulth is that the trigger must follow, not  precede, the target. OCPof+Round] drives this directional restriction.  (209) a. MAX[+Back]: [+Back] in the input must have a correspondent in the output.  b. MAX[+Round]: [+Round] in the input must have a correspondent in the output.  (210) MAXPATH[+Round]: Any input path between [+Round] and an anchor must have a correspondent path in the output.  (211) NoMultipleLink[+Round](NML[+Round]: No coalescence of a single [+Round] to two anchors is allowed.  127  (212) OCP [+Round]: Adjacent [+Round] features within a syllable are banned. 0  (213) Ranking: OCP [+Round], MAX[+Back], NML[+Round] 0  MAX[+Round], MAXPATH[+Round] Now, examine, in the following tableaux, how the constraints and their ranking work. (214) ya/x /-um+  ya[x]um-t  w  (cf. ya[x ]H"'to brush s.t. on a bed') w  to brush-round/surface 'to brush off (e.g. sweater)'  (215) Tableau yax -um't w  OCP [+Round] CT  MAX [+Back]  NML [+Round]  MAX [+Round]  MAXPATH [+Round]  [+R] [+R.+B]  ^ a. ya.xum-1"  *  *  [+R,'+B1  b. ya.x um-t w  *!  VI [+R][+B]  c. ya.x imdw  *!  11  [+R][-B]  d. ya.x um+ w  *! [+R][+R]  In tableau (215), candidate b is ruled out by violating NML[+Round]: the [+Round] feature is linked to two anchors. Candidate c violates MAX[+Back] by deleting the input feature.  Candidate d is ruled out  by violating OCP, which is due to a sequence of two [+Round] features on adjacent segments within a syllable.  Consequently, candidate a is selected as an optimal output.  Note that especially between  faithfulness constraints, a lower-ranking status of MAX[+Round] and MAXPATH[+Round] than MAX[+Back] and NML[+Round] results in this form. In sum, the Nuu-chah-nulth grammar represented in (213) causes a consonant to lose its labiality when a triggering vowel follows the target consonant. Consider the following example, where lul precedes the target consonant /x /. w  128  (216)tu/x /-i4<  tu[x ]i+  w  w  to jump-on the floor  (*tuxi+)  'to jump to the floor'  (217) Tableau tu  x -i+ w  OCP  CT  [+Round]  MAX  [+Back]  NML  [+Round]  [+R,+B][+R] a. tu. xrt r+R.+Bir-Ri b. tu. x i+  MAX  MAXPATH  [+Round]  [+Round]  *!  *  w  *!  \/  r+Ri c.ti. x rt  *  w  *  *! r-R,-Bir+Ri ^ d . tu. x i+ w  r+Rir+Ri  In (217), where the potential triggering vowel precedes a labio-velar consonant, the input labiality surfaces as such. This results basically from the OCP constraint which is sensitive to syllable structure. That is, while in (215), candidate d violates this constraint by having two [+Round] features in the same syllable, candidate d in (217) does not, since they belong to different syllables.  Therefore,  MAX[+Round] (or MAXPATH[+Round] since ranking between them is not crucial) plays a decisive role in determining the optimal output.  Candidate a violates the constraint by deleting the input [+Round].  Consequently, candidate d is selected as an optimal output form, which maintains both [+Round] features in the input. In sum, a triggering vowel lul does not affect a following target consonant. The asymmetry between the same vowels with respect to delabialisation can be treated by the domain specified OCP constraint. Phonetic aspects  In the previous section, I treat delabialisation as deletion of a [+Round] feature.  However, one might  suggest that the phenomenon in fact is not a deletion, but a coalescence of two [+Round] features. In this section, I discuss phonetic properties of the relevant consonants, thereby providing a piece of evidence for the deletion approach. Interestingly, while Nuu-chah-nulth (Ahousaht) has no morpheme starting with /w/ followed by lul, I have found two tokens of the sequence word-internally as shown in (218).  129  (218) a. caa[wu]m+ 'one left'  b. na[wu]qunrt 'tardy'  It is impossible to obtain the sequence over morpheme boundaries: recall that the language does not have morphemes ending with a glide. These two morphemes, therefore, will provide very important phonetic cues for potential / C u / sequences. w  That is, these examples show what kind of acoustic picture a labial  sound followed lul has. (219a-b) is the spectrogram of (218a-b), respectively.  130  (219) Spectrograms of the /wu/ sequence a. caa[wu]nrt  500  " 1000  1500  2000  2500  3000  3500  4000  4500  5000  55p0  6000  6500 _  7000  b. na[wu]qum+  nawuquml-3  uquml-3  100  200  300  400  500  131  600  700  800  900  1000 l  In the spectrogram, the transition between the glide and the vowel is clearly shown.  If an underlying  /k u/ sequence exhibits a similar formant transition of this, and different aspects from an underlying /ku/ w  sequence in terms of spectrograms and duration, then we should say that this might be coalescence, not deletion. For this test, I recorded the same token for each case 10 times, since it was hard to obtain enough minimal pairs. consonant.  The task was to compare the duration of the vowel which follows each relevant  I chose only stops for this test, since it is easier to measure the duration of the vowel after  stop release than after frication for fricatives is over.  (220) and (221) are the spectrograms of an  underlying /k / before lil and lul, respectively. (222) and (223) are the spectrograms of an underlying Ikl w  before lil and lul, respectively.  132  (220) Spectrograms of /mamuuk it/ w  26524 ;l 1 2 -286 1| >»  *+*, am  —y+w*  mamuukwit 1 265241 1 2 l» -286 1  ,00  200  ZOO  400  500  600  700  800  900  1000  . ,1,100 ms  26524: 1 2 -286 , k W  ••C  4* JIT  mamuukwitl  26524 i| 1 2 -286 i|m W  500  1000  1500  2000  2500  3000  3500  4000  4500  5000  55t0  6000  6500  7000  7500_  (221) Spectrograms of/mamuuk uk/ w  i mamuukwuk 1 127223: 1 2 i -133 5 It  Hc|**r— mamuuk *uk1 27223 1 2 -133 W  i  BHESI  100  400  600  700  800  900  1000  1100 ms  mamuukwuk 1 27223 J 1 2  1 '** 4 JIT  "-133  —  27223 vukl fmamuuk -133  JIT |  u 55j)0  133  7500  (222) Spectrogram of /tafikit/  (223) Spectrogram of /ta^ikuk/  134  The argument that the labiality of an underlying labio-velar or -uvular consonant is deleted when preceding a round vowel lul, not coarticulated with the vowel, is supported by these acoustic results. First, a typical formant transition shown in the sequence -wV-, as in (219) and (220), is not observed in the sequence -k uw  (221) and (223) show that whether the velar stop is underlyingly /k / or Ikl, the w  surface forms exhibit identical acoustic properties when preceding lul, the lack of formant transition. Second, for a labial-velar stop followed by HI, its voicing duration is longer than a vowel following a velar stop as seen in (224) below: 142.38 ms vs. 114.74 ms. On the other hand, if the vowel in question is lul, its duration is almost identical, whether the underlying preceding stop is labio-velar or velar as seen in (225): 112.29 ms vs. 111.55 ms. The reason that a vowel following a labio-velar is longer than a vowel following a plain velar seems to be due to the phase of labiality which is phonetically realised as a glide /w/.  Given labiality is deleted before lul, no difference in duration between a vowel following an  underlying labio-velar and another token of the same vowel following a plain velar is straightforwardly accounted for.  (224) Duration of A / vs. Ii/ Token  tafikit  mamuuk^it  #1  131.72 ms-  102.31 ms  #2  146.17  112.34  #3  144.81  112.02  #4  142.72  106.35  #5  152.34  117.01  #6  132.97  114.69  #7  143.90  126.26  #8  146.44  128.12  #9  140.77  120.07  #10  142.04  108.30  142.38 ms  114.74 ms  Average  135  (225) Duration of/ u/ vs. IvJ w  Token  mamuuk^uk  #1  98.14 ms  tafikuk 104.22 ms  #2  107.55  116.78  #3  111.97  114.33  #4  127.01  116.15  #5  123.27  104.58  #6  101.36  117.37  #7  116.37  108.25  #8  118.28  99.73  #9  100.73  112.47  #10  118.23  121.63  112.29 ms  111.55 ms  Average  136  3.2.5 Vowel alternation  In Nuu-chah-nulth, vowels can exhibit alternation in length, which is triggered by suffixes (see Sapir & Swadesh  1939  for Tseshaht).  In this section,  I will  discuss  such alternation: vowel  lengthening/shortening in § and variable vowels in § Vowel lengthening/shortening  Some suffixes in Nuu-chah-nulth cause alternation in vowels in terms of length, as they do with consonants.  With the presence of some suffixes, underlying vowel(s) of a root or stem are either  lengthened or shortened on the surface.  Superficially, these appear to be independent processes, but I  will treat them under a unified system in terms of metrical requirements specified for suffixes attached to the root/stem morpheme. I will start with vowel lengthening. Description I: vowel lengthening  Some suffixes trigger lengthening of the vowel of a stem-initial syllable. The second syllable ofthe stem may also be affected.  For suffixes that trigger lengthening of the initial syllable, there are two patterns  for the effect, considering changes to the second syllable. With some suffixes, if the second syllable of the stem is long, then it is shortened; with some other suffixes, only the first syllable of the stem is affected.  In both cases, the second syllable does not have to be part of a root morpheme.  In the case  that the triggering suffix itself occupies the second syllable, it is not affected (except -hwaaF).  (226)  summarises the observation.  (226) Patterns of Nuu-chah-nulth lengthening Type  Root/stem  Triggering suffixes  1 syllable  2 syllable  Lengthened  Shortened  Lengthened  No change  st  Type I  -(q)iiF, -hwaaF, -?i&, -, -?inhi  nd  -pa(a), -pich Type II  -ihakuuh, -awiF, -panac,  I have found 21 lengthening suffixes, but only 9 of them are confirmed regarding type. This is due to the fact that bisyllabic root morphemes are rare in Nuu-chah-nulth, and many combinations of a bisyllabic  137  root/stem and the suffixes in question are not allowed for semantic reasons.  53  Therefore, I could not  check whether the stem-second long vowel is shortened or unaffected by the other 12 suffixes.  What is  significant, though, is that all 21 suffixes cause the stem-initial vowel to be lengthened, and at least two patterns are observed.  I will discuss the two confirmed patterns of vowel lengthening in this section,  which raises interesting theoretical issues. Consider the following examples, which are type I. Note that if the 1 syllable is underlyingly long, it st  is not affected by the lengthening suffix as shown in (228e).  Also, note that each compared example  shows that with "neutral" suffixes, there is no vowel alternation.  A. Type I: 54  (227) -(q)itf- 'to make'  ?[ii]nk ii+  a. ?/i/nk -ii+  w  w  'making fire'  fire-to make  PinkuwrT-  cf. ?ink -uwrf' w  'smoke house'  fire-place  c[aa]pacii4-  b. cVa/pac-iff canoe-to make  'making a canoe'  capac?i  cf. c'apac-?i  'the canoe'  canoe-Def  c. s/a/pn/ii/-qii4bread-to make'  s[aa]pn[i]qirt 'making bread'  cf. sapnii-q-naq  sapnnqnaq  bread-EXIS-choice of  d. m/a/ht/ii/-qii+ house-to make 53  'to specially like to eat bread'  m[aa]ht[i]qirt 'building a house'  Sapir & Swadesh 1939 provides a larger number of lengthening suffixes of Tseshaht, but Ahousaht speakers do  not recognize many of them and also some of Ahousaht lengthening suffixes do not have counterparts in Tseshaht. Interestingly, all cognate suffixes behave in the same way in both dialects.  138  mahtii?ap  cf. mahtii-?ap  'to buy a house'  house-to buy  n[uu]k ii+  e. n/uu/k -irt  w  w  song-to make  'composing songs'  (228) -70s 'to take'  c'[uu]s?i7\;  a. c/u/s-?i?e  'taking s.t. new'  new-to take  cf. cus-uk new-DUR  b. c7a/?/uu/s-?ifc  cusuk new c[aa]?[u]yik 'taking s.t. raw'  raw-to take  cf. ca?uus-?ak-?ick raw-POSS-2sg/TND  c. s/a/pn/ii/-q-?i?c bread-EXIS-to take  cf. sapnii-?i 'bread-DEF'  ca?uus?ak?ick 'you have s.t. raw.'  s[aa]pn[i]?i?e 'taking bread'  sapnii?i 'the bread'  (229) -hwaai 'to use'  a. k/ii/rh/aa/-hwaa4Scarcely/hardly any-to use  cf. kumaa-cas Scarcely-to bet  kfuulmfajhwaaF 'using hardly any'  kumaacas 'betting a little bit'  54  The suffix initial Id disappears on the surface, when it follows a consonant-final stem.  55  The suffix -Ivk is also a glottalising suffix, and when it is attached a stem ending with Iql, the uvular stop becomes  a pharyngeal stop (see section 3.2.1 for the detailed discussion of glottalisation). 139  t[uu]n[a]xhwaai-  b. t'/u/n/aa/x-hwaa'i'  'using a tulle'  Tulle-to use  tunaax?ata  cf. tunaax-?ata  'to need a tulle'  Tulle-to need  +  c. t/aa/n/aa/-q-hwaa+  t[aa]n[a]qhwaai'using money'  money-EXIS-to use  taanaaquwas  cf. taanaa-quwas  'bank'  money-place  c[ii]sxhw[a]-i'  d. c/i/sx-hw/aa/+  'using s.t. dirty'  dirty-to use  cisxuu+  cf. cisx-uu-f  'dirty face'  dirty-face  ?[uu]hw[a]'f'  e. ?/u/-hw/aa/-i-  'to use'  it-to use  ?uh?iis  cf. ?u-?iis  'it is...'  it-3sg/TND  s[uu]hw[a]+  f. s/uu/-hw/aa/-r'  'using (your) hand/fmgers'  to hold-to use  suu?is  cf. suu-?is to hold-3sg/TND  The vowel of the suffix  -hwaaj-  'S/he is holding (s.t.)'  'to use' is shortened, as seen in (229d-f), when it is attached to a  monosyllabic stem, which is the only case of shortening within the lengthening suffix itself that I have found so far.  56  Despite its peculiarity, it still seems to fit into the prosodic format of type I: the first  syllable is long and the second is short, although the second is not part of a stem but the suffix itself. 56  Most of lengthening suffixes consist of short syllables in the initial two syllables except -qui 'to make' and  hwaa+'Xo  use', so it is not possible to test whether other lengthening suffixes are affected, i.e. shortened.  140  When a suffix of this type is attached to a root/stem, the first syllable of the root/stem is lengthened and the second-syllable, if long, is shortened. This is the case even when the first syllable of the root is underlyingly long, in which case there is no overt lengthening process. When a suffix of type II is attached to a stem, then thefirstsyllable of the stem is lengthened as seen in (230-231)). Unlike type I, the second syllable ofthe stem is not affected; therefore, if it is long, then it surfaces faithfully as seen in (230b-c) and (231c-d).  B. Type II  (230) -panac 'moving around' ?[aa]yapanac 'Many people moving around'  a. ?/a/ya-panac many-moving around  ?ayaqs  cf. ?aya-qs  "There are many (people) in a vessel.'  many-vessel  b. n/a/qc/uu/-panac drunk-moving around  n[aa]qc[uu]panac '(s.o.) moving around drunk (from place to place)'  +  naqcuu?is  cf. naqcuu-?is  'S/he is drunk.'  dmnk-3sg/TND  c. n/a/?/uu/k-panac to accompany-moving..  n[aa]?[uu]kpanac '(s.o.) accompanies (s.o.)  ^  cf. na?uuk-?is John  na?uuk?is John.  To accompany-3sg/IND  'S/he accompanied John.'  (231)-inakuuh'to observe'  a. w/i/k-ihakuuh-sis NEG-to observe-1 sg/IND  cf. wik-ata NEG-EXIS  w[ii]kinakuuhsis ' I am watching nothing'  wikata 'nobody'  141  q[aa]Mnak\iuh  b. q/a/h-ihakuuh  'dreaming of dead people'  to die-to observe  cf. qah-saap  +  qahsaap  to die-MOM.CAUS  c. h/aa/ch/uu/+a-(i)nakuuh^ chief showing chiefs status-  d. k/aa/c/aa/-(i)nakuuh  +  hailing-to observe  'to kill'  h[aa]ch[uu]toriakuuh observing a chief doing his status (e.g. singing, dancing)  k[aa]c[aa]hakuuh 'observing hailing' Description II: vowel shortening  One suffix causes the syllable(s) of a root or stem to shorten, which is the opposite of the lengthening process shown above. too'.  57  So far, I have found only one suffix triggering vowel shortening, -(q)aq 'very,  Sapir & Swadesh (1939) also documented this suffix in Tseshaht.  (232) a. t/uu/huk -(q)aq-mit-sis  t[u]huk aqitsis  w  w  scared-very-PAST-1 sg/IND  cf. tuuhuk itsis wa-tsik w  b. h/ii/x athi-(q)aq-?is  ' I was very scared.'  'I was scared to go home.'  h[i]x athiqaq?is  w  w  angry-very-3 sg/IND  ' S/he is very angry.'  cf. hiix athi?is ?um?iiq 'Mom is angry.' w  c. y/aa/qk-(q)aq-?is  +  to dislike-very-3sg/IND  cf. yaaqfosis cakup?i  y[a]qkaq?is 'S/he dislikes s.o. very much.'  'I dislike the man.'  (233) shows that if the stem is bisyllabic, whether the second syllable is part of a root or not, then all long vowels are affected.  142  (233) a. c/ii/q/aa/-qaq a spiritual song-very  c[i]q[a]qaq?is na?aat 'S/he is singing a spiritual song very loudly.  cf. ciiqaa-?is na?aat  ciiqaa?is na?aat  a spiritual song-3sg/TND  'S/he is singing a spiritual song.'  b. n/a/q-c/uu/-qaq-?is  n[a]qc[u]qaq?is  to drink-PERT-very-3sg/IND  'S/he is much drunk.'  cf. naq-cuu-?is  naqcuu?is.  To drink-PERF-3 sg/TND  c. h/aa/ch/uu/'f-a-qaq-?is chief showing chiefs status  ' S/he is drunk.'  h[a]ch[u]-l-aqaq?is 'He is really overdoing his status as a c h i e f  cf. haachuu+a-?is  haachuu+a?is  chief showing chief s status-3sg/IND  'He is doing his status as a c h i e f  In sum, all the data above show that vowel alternations in the language cannot be due to the automatic effect of metrical structure based on phonological principles. They are imposed idiosyncratically by the suffix (cf. Sapir & Swadesh 1939). Analysis  Nuu-chah-nulth lengthening and shortening phenomena do not result from metrical requirements which are phonologically motivated, although the internal structures by the processes are phonologically based, as we will see below.  That is, they are not due to the creation of a single unmarked foot structure, a  frequent pattern cross-linguistically. processes.  Nuu-chah-nulth has various foot structures derived from these  This poses a problem with the emergence of the unmarked approach (cf. McCarthy & Prince  1994a), for it would predict unmarked foot structures  in determining surface forms.  In addition,  these phenomena occur with only some suffixes, and thus they cannot be treated as a general phonological process which affects the initial syllable(s) of all roots/stems. foot structure is determined by a morphologically supplied template.  As we will see below, each  Also, the initial syllables of the  affected roots/stems can be long or short depending upon the triggering suffixes. These properties tell us that such alternations are not completely phonologically determined. 57  The suffix initial consonant /q/ disappears on the surface when it follows a consonant-final stem. 143  I propose that both lengthening and shortening processes are lexically-determined, as in reduplication, which is discussed in section 5.1. (cf. Sapir & Swadesh 1939, Rose 1981, Davidson 2002, Wojdak 2003) Extending the ideas developed in Marantz (1982), McCarthy & Prince (1986), and Pulleyblank (to appear), I suggest that each lengthening/shortening-triggering suffix manifests metrical requirements to be satisfied on the surface. I assume that all triggering suffixes are specified for a foot form to be realised on the surface.  We need to consider metrical structures in general, and then foot forms in Nuu-chah-  nulth in order to treat the issue under discussion. According to previous treatments of metrical structures, the basic foot structures are moraic trochees, syllabic trochees, and iambs (see Hayes 1985, 1987, 1994, 1995, McCarthy & Prince 1986, among others). Hayes (1994:63 (3)) defines them as follows (I replace his symbol ' - ' for a light syllable with L and ' - ' for a heavy syllable with H , respectively, in terms of syllable weight). coda consonants do not contribute to the weight of syllable.  58  In Nuu-chah-nulth,  Therefore, a light syllable refers to a  syllable with a short vowel and a heavy syllable refers to a syllable with a long vowel.  (234) a. Moraic trochee: two light syllables, first strong (x .)  or one strong heavy: (x)  L L  H  b. Syllabic trochee: two syllables of any weight, first strong: (x  .)  a a c. Iamb: two syllables with first light and second strong: (. x) or one strong heavy : (x) L a  H  Hayes claims that these templates are grounded on an extralinguistic principle as follows (1994: 63 (4) for more detailed discussion).  (235) Iambic/Trochaic Law i. Elements contrasting in intensity naturally from groupings with initial prominence. ii. Elements contrasting in duration naturally form groupings with final prominence.  58  1 do not have strong evidence that Ahousaht sonorants in the coda are moraic and there seems no clear way of  testing it, although there are claims in previous work that they are moraic (see Wilson 1985, Stonham 1990, 1994, 1999 for Tseshaht). 144  According to Sapir and Swadesh (1939), Wilson (1985), Howe (1996), and Stonham (1999), Nuuchah-nulth assigns stress on either of the first two syllables of the word, i.e., the first foot, and the weight of the syllable is a crucial factor in determining the position for stress in the foot. syllable of the word, unless it is light and the 2  nd  Stress falls on the 1  st  is heavy, in which case stress falls on the 2 syllable. nd  Then each prosodic word (PW) consists of a single foot, which stands in the initial position of the word. This is derived by the following constraints, (236), and their language-specific ranking as in (237) (Howe 1996).  According to ALIGN-L, every foot except the initial foot of a prosodic word must violate it.  Violations of ALIGN-L are counted in terms of syllables.  FT-BIN requires that each foot have either  two syllables or two moras. PARSE-SYLL disallows any syllable unlinked to foot.  (236) a. ALIGN-L=Align(Ft, L, PrWd, L): The left edge of each foot must align with the left edge of a prosodic word (Violations assessed in terms of syllables). b. FT-BIN: Feet must be binary under syllabic or moraic analysis. c. PARSE-SYLL: All a must be parsed into feet.  (237) Ranking: ALIGN-L, FT-BIN PARSE-SYLL  (238) illustrates the implication of the ranking.  (238) Tableau (rj stands for syllable; q> foot; PW prosodic word) FT-BIN  ALIGN-L •»* a. {(a o-yr a}  PARSE-SYLL **  PW  b. {(a 0% (a a)(p}  PW  ***!*  c. a a a a d. {(a )«pO- a a}  *!  PW  *!  e. {(aao-o%}pw f. {a(ao-)<pO-} w P  ***  **  *!  The prosodic restriction can lead a foot form to be trochaic or iambic.  That is, (237) requires a  prosodic word to have a single foot, which is bisyllabic, but as seen in (238), the optimal foot can be trochaic or iambic depending on the weight of the syllables within the foot. 145  Unstressed syllables link  directly to PW as shown in (239; 238a), rather than to cp, which leads to a violation of FT-BIN (as in 23 8e).  (239) Internal structure of the Nuu-chah-nulth Prosodic Word  9  cr ci  To conclude, Nuu-chah-nulth has a single foot in the initial position of each prosodic word as shown in (239) As far as vowel lengthening and shortening are concerned, the alternation is associated with trochaic foot patterns. Following Crowhurst (1991)'s treatment of foot structures, I suggest that Nuu-chah-nulth vowel alternation triggered by suffixes must be dealt with in terms of either of the three possible trochaic structures, that is, templates. ,  59 60  (240) Trochaic foot a. FootForm I: two light syllables (a a) I  9  I  p p b. FootForm II: two syllables with 1 heavey ( a  o%  st  A  p p c. FootForm III: two syllables with one heavy (a  A  0% I  M- u M-  59  Given that vowel lengthening/shortening is associated with trochaic foot structures, we can expect another  trochaic foot, which consists of two heavy syllables as seen below. (See Hammond 1990, Crowhurst 1991 for crosslinguistic evidence for this foot structure.) (a  0% (=(240b)  A A I have not found any cases of the type in the processes of vowel alternation. However, this type is observed in the patterns of reduplication, which will be discussed in section 5.1. In the section, I will also discuss how an iambic foot as defined in (234c) and represented as below, is used to generalise metrical structures triggered by suffixes. Iambic foot: two syllables with second heavy: (o o)^ (=(234c) I A U u a 6 0  See section 5.1 for detailed discussion of possible foot structures in Nuu-chah-nulth, and Crowhurst (1991) as a  comprehensive study of templatic approach for morphologically-detenriined metrical structure.  146  FootForm I specifies that the foot consists of two light syllables and the first is prominent. form is specified for Class III suffixes (the shortening case).  This foot  That is, in the lexicon relevant suffixes  include not only melodic but metrical information and the metrical requirement is realized on the surface. This raises an interesting issue: the metrical element of the suffix has priority over that of the stem in terms of foot structure (cf. McCarthy & Prince 1995, Alderete 1999; I will leave this as further research). Foot Form II specifies that the foot consists of two syllables and the first should be heavy, but the second has no specification.  This foot form is specified for Class II suffixes (=Type II of lengthening cases).  Foot Form III specifies that the foot consists of two syllables and the first should be heavy and the second is light. This foot form is specified for Class I suffixes (Type I of lengthening cases). Now, I will show how these templates are associated with each lengthening-/shortening-triggering suffix.  First, the lengthening suffixes of type I, which cause the first syllable of the stem to be  lengthened but the second, i f any, to be shortened, are specified for Foot Form III, (240c), to be realised on the surface.  Second, lengthening suffixes of type II, which affect only the first syllable of the stem,  are specified for Foot Form II, (240b). Finally, shortening suffixes, which cause the first two syllables of the stem to shortened, are specified for Foot Form I, (240a). From the perspective of OT, the realisation of each foot form specified for each triggering suffix can be explained by the following constraints, as shown in (241), and their language-specific ranking, as indicated in (242). (I provide constraints only which are significant to my discussion.)  (241) Constraints: a. MAXFootForm: A foot in the input must have a correspondent in the output. b. M A X u . : Moras in the input must have a correspondent in the output. c. DEPp: Moras in the output must have a correspondent in the input.  (242) Ranking (237+241): A L I G N - L , FT-BIN  PARSE-SYXL T> MAXFootForm  M A X u , DEPn The grammar requires that any prosodic requirements for surface forms should always be obeyed, even at the cost of the input forms' change, specifically in terms of moras.  147  The effect of the grammar is illustrated in tableau (244) with the relevant example (243).  I take for  granted that there is only a single foot in the left edge of a prosodic work as, I discussed above, and thus, I provide candidates only which observe the relevant constraints in the following tableaux (see (238)).  (243) sapnii-qirr-  ^  saapniqiiF  bread-to make'  'making bread'  (244) Tableau sapnii-qiH- (o~ 0% A 1 H \i u  MAXFootForm  MAXp.  DEP|i  *  a. (saapni)<p qii-t  b. (sapnii^qiiF  *!  c. (sapni^qiiF  *!  *  As shown in the tableau, the suffix requires that the foot must be of FFIII on the surface (see (240)). Candidate a obeys the constraint MAXFootForm by realising the foot structure specified for class III suffixes on the surface, which is a long vowel on the 1 syllable and a short vowel on the 2 st  the stem.  nd  syllable of  Candidate b obeys both MAXu and DEPp. constraints by maintaining the input moras, but  fatally violates MAXFootForm.  Candidate c also violates this constraint by failing to realise the input  foot of the suffix on the surface.  The language-specific ranking, MAXFootForm »  MAX/DEP[j.,  determines the optimal output form, which is candidate a. On the other hand, if the suffix vowel itself constitutes the 2  nd  syllable, then it is not shortened as  shown in (247).  (245) a. rink -ii+ w  fire-to make  ?iink ii+ w  'making fire'  To treat this restriction, we need an alignment constraint for the suffix -//^as in (246) (See McCarthy & Prince 1993 for relevant discussion).  (246) ALIGN-/}y-=Align(u, R, iit L)  148  We need to restrict this constraint to iii-, since other suffixes are not subject to this kind of restriction (cf. -  hwaai). In addition, we need WSP, which prevents a light syllable from being prominent in a trochaic foot.  (247) Weight-to-Stress Principle (WSP) (Prince & Smolensky 1992:53) Heavy syllables are prominent in foot structure.  (248) illustrates the implication of these constraints.  (248) Tableau for (245) ?ink -iiF(a 0% A 1 p p p a. (7iin) k ii+ w  FT-BIN  WSP  MAXFootForm  ALIGN-  *  w  9  *!  c. (?ink i+)  *!  *  *  *  w  w  9  *!  d. (?ink ii+) w  (p  w  *  *  *!  w  *  *  *!  f. (?iink irr%  DEPp  * *  b. (?iink i+)<p  e. (?in)<pk iiF  MAXu  *  In tableau (248), candidates b, c and f are ruled out by aligning the suffix inside of the foot, a fatal violation of ALIGN-///  The alignment constraint requires the suffix to be outside the foot. Candidates  d and e violate either of the metrical constraints: candidate d has a trochaic foot structure with a light prominent syllable, a violation of WSP, and candidate e has a monomoraic foot.  In Nuu-chah-nulth, the  coda is not moraic, as I will discuss in Chapter 4; therefore, the stem-final sonorant Ird in candidate e does not count, which leads to a violation of FT-BIN.  Consequently, candidate a is selected as an optimal  output form. It does not have a foot template which suffixes of type I require, but surfaces without violating any high-ranked constraints. With suffixes of type II, only the first syllable of the stem is affected.  149  (249) a. q/a/h-ihakuuh  q[aa]hiha]fuuh  to die-to observe  ' dreaming of dead people'  b. n/a/qc/uu/-panac  ^  drunk-moving around  n[aa]qc[uu]panac '(s.o.) moving around drunk (from place to place)'  FFII is specified for this type of suffixes as a prosodic requirement: for convenience, I repeat it in (250). (250)FootFormll: ( a A  a\  This foot form does not impose any requirements on the second syllable. The template will be satisfied if the first syllable of the stem has a bimoraic trochee, whether the second syllable is long or not. The following tableaux illustrates the process for (249a-b).  (251) Tableau for (249a) qah-ihak\iuh(c? 0% A  MaxFootForm  MAXp  DEPp  nn  *  a. (qaahi^nakuuh  b. (qahi)(pnalcuuh  *!  c. (qahii)^nak\iuh  *!  *  In (251), candidates b and c are ruled out by violating MaxFootForm by failing to realise the input foot on the surface.  Candidate a is selected as an optimal output, where the first syllable of the stem is  lengthened.  150  (252) Tableau for (249b) naqcuu-panac(a o% A n n =*" a. (naaqcuu)<ppanac  MAXFootForm  MAXu  DEPu  *  b. (naqcu)^panac  *!  c. (naqcuu)<ppanac  *!  d. (naaqcu)<ppanac  *!  *  *  In (252), candidates b, c and d all violate MAXFootForm by not having the input foot realised on the Candidate a is selected as an optimal output form, where the first syllable of the stem is  surface.  lengthened, but both the second syllable and the suffix are not affected. Finally, the process of vowel shortening is associated with the foot form I, which is repeated in (253). (253) (a 0% u Ii (254) is the relevant example and (255) illustrates the selection process.  (254) a. t/uu/huk -(q)aq-mit-sis w  scared-very-PAST-1 sg/IND  t[u]huk aqitsis w  ' I was very scared.'  (255) Tableau tuuhuk -aq(a 0% w  MAXFootForm  MAXu  DEPu  1 1  *  a. (tuhu)<pk aq w  b. (tuuhu) k aq  *!  c. (tuuhuu)(pk aq  *!  d. (tuhuu)<pk aq  *!  w  (p  w  w  * *  *  151  In (255), candidates b, c, and d violate MAXFootForm by failing to have the input foot on the surface. Candidate a obeys the high-ranked constraint, selected as an optimal output. The following example shows that when the stem consists of two long syllables, both are shortened, which is expected from the template in (253).  (256) a. haachuuFa-qaq-?is  hachuFaqaq?is  chief showing chiefs status  'He is really overdoing his status as a chief  (257) Tableau haachuuFa-qaq(rj 0%  MAXFootForm  MAXu.  DEPu  **  ^a. (hachu)<pFaqaq  b. (haachuu)(pFaqaq  *!  c. (hachuu)(plaqaq  *!  *  d. (haachu^Faqaq  *!  *  In sum, both the lengthening and shortening of vowels in the same context, albeit with different triggers, tells us that these phenomena are not purely phonologically motivated.  That is, the domain of  the process is the same, the foot of a stem morpheme, but the motivation for each phenomenon is not to meet general metrical requirements. Recall that long vowels are shortened with some suffixes, but short vowels are lengthened with some other suffixes, and also many suffixes have no effect on length. Lengthening and shortening of a vowel is dependent on metrical requirements of specific suffixes, not of the general grammar of Nuu-chah-nulth. The treatment of the processes in terms of adequate foot forms underlyingly manifested on the suffix in question provide a clear account with respect to vowel alternation.  Moreover, a superficially complex array of apparently separate processes, including  reduplication as we will see in section 5.1, may be treated under a unified system. Variable vowels  Nuu-chah-nulth has three types of vowels in terms of length: always long, always short, and a contextdependent long/short, which is called "the variable vowel" in previous work (see Sapir & Swadesh 1939, Rose 1976, 1981). 152  (258-260) shows examples of vowels that are always long, irrespective of where they are positioned: i.e. irrespective of how many syllables precede it. (261-263) are cases of vowels that are always short.  naa^[ii]k  (258) a. naq-?/ii/k  's.o. who always drinks a lot'  to drink-Habitual  waa?ic'[ii]k  b. wa?ic-?/ii/k to sleep-Habitual  's.o. who always sleeps'  wiks[uu]k  (259) a. wik-s/uu/k  '... .that you are not...'  NEG-2sg/NEU  b. k i-k is-cik-(m)it-s/uu/k«* w  w  ki k iscikits[uu]k w  w  RED-different-?-PAST-2sg/NEU 'You're saying (words) differently.'  k isw[aa]qh?ea  (260) a. k is-w/aa/qh-7Va  w  w  'different meaning'  different-to mean-again  b. ?i-?iqh-w/aa/qh-fca  ?i?iqhw[aa]qh7ca  'the same meaning'  RED-same-to mean-again  (261) a. ta?/i/t-(m)it-sis  ta?[i]+if?is  sick-PAST-1 sg/IND  ' I was sick.'  tata?[i]-t?a-kik  b. ta-taP/i/fr-fa-hik  'looking after s.o. sick'  RED-sick-to look after  ?us[u]m  (262) a. ?us/u/m  'to need'  to want  b. ?u-?us/u/m RED-to want  (263) a. hi+-?/a/7V-?is LOC-SEQ-3sg/TND  ^  ?u?us[u]m 'to want'  hi+?[a]7c?is 'S/he was there.'  153  b. ha?um-?/a/?e-?is  ^  food7rasty-SEQ-3sg/IND  ha?um?[a]7V?is 'it is tasty.'  Some vowels are variable in length: if they are in the first or second syllable, then they are long, but if not, they are short, as shown in (264-267). This process is independent of the presence of a lengthening suffix.  Moreover, the number of following syllables, (265) vs. (266), and their heaviness, (264) vs.  (267), do not matter.  Variable vowels can appear either on a root morpheme as in (264-265) or on a  suffix as in (266-267).  In the case of roots, the alternation occurs only by reduplication, which is the  only way to position a root vowel outside the first two syllables.  na?[uu]k?is  (264) a. na?/u(u)/k-?is  'S/he went (along with s.o.)'  going along-3sg/IND  nana?[u]kiik  b. na-na?/u(u)/k-?iik  's.o. who goes always along (with another)'  RED-going along-Habitual  tic[aa]siHt?is  (265) a. tic/a(a)/si-t-(m)it-?is  'S/he is cheating at the hanaa game.'  cheating at a game-3 sg/IND  tiitic[a]si'f?iik?is  b. t'ii-t'ic/a(a)/si+-?iik  's.o. who always cheats at the hanaa game'  Red-cheating at a game-Habitual  cus?[aa]p?is  (266) a. cus-?/a(a)/p-?is  61  'S/he bought s.t. new'  new-to buy-3 sg/IND  b. suwis-?/a(a)/p-sk ii-?is w  shoes-to buy-must be-3sg/IND  (267) a. suhaa-?/i(i)/c-?is salmon-to eat-3 sg/IND  b. camas-?/i(i)/c-?is sweet-to eat-3 sg/IND  61  ^  suwiy[a]psk i?is w  'it must be that s/he bought shoes.'  suw[ii]c?is 'S/he ate salmon.'  camay[i]c?is 'S/he ate s.t. sweet.'  -?aap and -?iic are glottalising suffixes, which cause a plain consonant to become its glottalised counterpart. I  simply show them with an initial glottal stop in the underlying form, to simplify exposition. 154  As with other phonological phenomena in Nuu-chah-nulth, this is not a general property of vowels; this kind of vowel alternation is a property of some morphemes only.  Two major questions arise with  these data: why is the domain of the alternation the first two syllables and  what is the underlying form  of the vowels; in particular, how are they distinguished from vowels that are consistently long or short? The first issue may be closely related to the scope of foot in Nuu-chah-nulth. Recall that the domain of vowel alternation is the foot, which can include at most the first two syllables.  Variable vowels are  metrically "strong" in the domain of foot, while they are "weak" outside the foot. This treatment has the consequence that all vowel length alternation in Nuu-chah-nulth consistently occurs in the domain of the foot. For the second issue, I propose that Nuu-chah-nulth vowels are distinguished in terms of the number of moras and their linking status to feature matrices (cf. Harris 1985).  62  They are represented as follows:  here each vowel stands for a set of relevant features. Long (268) a. p p  Short b. p  V  Variable c. p p.  I  (269) a. p p  I  b. p  c. p p  b. p  c. p p  V  (270) a. p p  V a  I  I  a  a  Each (a) vowel is always long, each (b) vowel is always short, but the length of each (c) vowel alternates depending on the context.  These representations satisfy a requirement that underlying representations  among vowels with different phonological properties be distinct from each other.  In particular, if  variable (long) vowels have an input representation distinct from non-variable long vowels in terms of association, it can straightforwardly account for why only variable vowels exhibit such an alternation. The lack of a second link reflects the fact that the vowel is not always linked to that mora.  Recall that  variable vowels are long only within the first two syllables in the word.  62  Harris (1985:34) proposes a similar analysis for an analogous set of facts involving diphthongs in Spanish. He  suggests that non-alternating diphthongs have two underlying moras linked to the vowel, and alternating diphthongs underlyingly have two moras, but only one is linked to the vowel. A second link surfaces only if they occupy a stressed syllable. 155  Within OT, I propose the following constraints to treat this issue.  (271) a. MAXp: Mora in the input must have a correspondent in the output.  b. MAXp]^: Within a foot, mora in the input must have a correspondent in the output.  (272) a. MAXPATHRtNode: Any input path between mora and a root node must have a correspondent path in the output.  b. DEPPATHRtNode: Any output path between mora and a root node must have a correspondent path in the input.  (273) HaveRtNode: A mora must be specified (by linking to a root node).  M A X constraints require input phonological elements to appear on the surface. domain-specified MAXp as in (273b) as well as a general version (273a). relative ranking status must be MAXp],, »  However, we need a  As we will see below, their  MAXp. -To maintain an input mora in the output in the  domain of foot is more important than a general domain.  MAXPATHRtNode and DEPPATHRtNode  prevent differences in terms of association between a root node and mora. Finally, observance/violation of all these faithfulness constraints is driven by another constraint, HaveRtNode, (273). These constraints and their ranking, (274) drive the observed effects in terms of vowel length.  (274) MAXp]cp, MAXPATHRtNode, HaveRtNode  DEPPATHRtNode  MAXp  The following tableaux with the relevant examples illustrate the implication of (274). I start with long vowels.  (275) Long vowels: e.g. /i:/  a. naq-?iik  ^  to drink-Habitual  naaiiik 's.o. who always drinks a lot' 156  b. wa?ic-?iik  waa?ic'iik  to sleep-Habitual  's.o. who always sleeps'  (276) Tableau for (275a)  naq»  V  MAXu],p,  MAXPATHRt Node  *!  *  HaveRtNode  DEPPATHRt Node  MAXu,  DEPPATHRt Node  MAXu  ? i k u u  V  a. (naSj_k)cp  b. (naTj_k)(p  *  *! c. (na?j_k)cp (277) Tableau for (275b) u n  MAXu],p,  V  MAXPATHRt Node  HaveRtNode  wa?ic- ?_j_k  «-  n fx  y  a. (wa?i)(p c'j_k  *  *!  P b. (wa?i)(p c'j_k  T  *  *!  c. (wa?i)cp cj_k In tableaux (276-7), an underlyingly long vowel must surface faithfully, in whichever context it appears. If, therefore, one of the underlying moras is deleted as in each b candidate, it leads to fatal violations of M A X constraints: M A X p and/or MAXPATHRtNode.  Here, the domain is not crucial, since all non-  optimal candidates violate one or both of the M A X u constraints.  In the case of each candidate c,  although it maintains the input mora, it fatally violates HaveRtNode^ and MAXPATHRtNode. (278) is an example of underlying short vowels.  (278) Short vowels a. ta?H-(m)it-sis sick-PAST-1 sg/IND  ^  ta?i+it?is ' I was sick.'  157  b. ta-ta?iF-?aFuk  ^  RED-sick-to look after  tata?iF?aFuk 'looking after s.o. sick'  (279) Tableau for (278a) MAXp]«p,  MAXPATHRt Node  HaveRtNode  DEPPATHRt Node  MAXp  ta?jL+-(m)it p a. (ta? i )cp -Ht  *! V b. (ta?jj(p pp  *!  c. (ta? i )cp Ht (280) Tableau for (278b) MAXPATHRt Node  MAXp]cp 1 ta-ta?j_F-?aFuk ^  HaveRtNode  DEPPATHRt Node  MAXp  p  a.(tata)(p?JF?aFuk p p  *i  V b.(tata)(p?iF?aFuk p p  *!  c.(tata)(p?jF?aFuk In tableaux (279-280), each candidate b is ruled out by inserting a path (in fact, a mora as well, but the main issue is more related to DEPPATH; thus I do not include DEPp), which leads to fatal violations of DEPPATHRtNode.  Each candidate c violates HaveRtNode by having a more unlinked on the surface.  As in (276-277), a distinction of domain is not crucial. Finally, in the case of variable vowels, the interaction of the M A X constraints and DEPPATHRtNode leads to an alternation, which is why we call this type of vowel 'variable'.  (281) Variable vowels a. suh(aa)-?ji_c-?is salmon-to eat-3sg/IND  +  suwii_c?is  (*suwic?is)  'S/he ate salmon.'  158  b. camas-?jj_c-?is  camayj_c?is (camayiic?is)  sweet-to eat-3sg/IND  'S/he ate s.t. sweet.'  (282) Tableau for (281a) MAXPATHRt Node  MAXu]<p  U.U  HaveRtNode  DEPPATHRt Node  MAXu  suh(aa)-?j_c  *  u u  V ®°a. (suwj_c)cp  r  *  *!  b. (suwj_c)(p  *! c. (suwj_c)cp (283) Tableaus for (281b) MAXu]<p  MAXPATHRt Node  HaveRtNode  DEPPATHRt Node  MAXu  camas-?j_c *  u a. (camas)(p?j_c U  *!  U  V b. (camas)cp? i_c uu  *!  c. (camas)(p? i_c As seen in the tableaux, the vowel lil in question appears as short or long depending on the context. The relevant context is the foot.  When it stands within the foot, it surfaces as long, while when it is outside  foot, it surfaces as short.  In (282), candidate b is ruled out, since it fatally violates the constraint  MAXu,],,.  It deletes an underlying mora in the domain of foot. Although candidate a has an inserted  path, allowing its vowel to appear as a long vowel on the surface, it maintains an underlying mora. A n insertion of path within the domain of foot to realise the input mora is not a fatal violation, given that the candidate obeys the higher three constraints. unlinked on the surface.  Candidate c is ruled out by having one of the input mora  On the other hand, in tableau (283), candidate a, which has a short vowel, is  selected as an optimal output.  The determining factor is the high-ranked HaveRtNode, and  DEPPATHRtNode and low-ranked M A X p .  Now that the domain in question is not the foot, the domain-  specified M A X constraint MAXu],p is not relevant. Candidate b violates the DEPPATHRtNode constraint, 159  by inserting a path.  Deleting an underlying mora outside the foot is not a fatal violation, which leads  candidate a to win. Candidate c has a mora unlinked to an anchor, which is a violation of HaveRtNode. Note that candidates a and c have the same phonetic realisations and thus it seems that the ranking between HaveRtNode and MAXp is not crucial. This raises the following questions: how much we should consider phonological aspects for surface forms, or whether we need to consider phonetic properties only for them. HaveRtNode »  I leave these questions for further research, ranking them as such for now:  MAXp.  Consequently, the alternating length of vowels result from domain-specified faithfulness constraints and their interaction with other faithfulness constraints.  160  Chapter 4 PROSODIC PHONOLOGY  In this chapter, additional properties of Nuu-chah-nulth prosody will be discussed.  Some Nuu-chah-  nulth prosodic structures and constituents exhibit properties which are not commonly observed crosslinguistically.  Therefore, this study will provide significant opportunities to consider linguistic  properties from a different perspective in terms of universalities and typological issues.  4.1 Syllable Structure  Nuu-chah-nulth allows one and only one consonant in the onset position and a maximum of three consonants in the coda position. Every syllable must have an onset, but codaless syllables are possible. While many North-West American indigenous languages allow consonant clusters in onset, it seems rare to allow complex codas, but disallow complex onsets.  Although cross-linguistic preference for open  syllables (the Maximal Onset Principle: complex onset is preferred over complex coda) and the Syllable Contact Law (in a sequence of two consonants belonging to different syllables, the first must outrank the second in sonority: Murray & Vennemann 1983) apply to many languages (Clements & Keyser 1983, Murray & Vennemann 1983, Laeufer 1985, Clements 1990), Nuu-chah-nulth syllable structure is not restricted by these principles (see section 3, where concrete examples are provided). Moreover, while any consonant can be an onset, none of the glottal consonants can appear in the coda position: glottalised obstruents Ip, t, lc, k , c, c, 7e/, glottalised sonorants /rfi, n, y, w/, glottal consonants /?, w  hi, and a pharyngeal stop A7 are all impermissible as codas (see Sapir & Swadesh 1939, Stonham 1999 among others).  This is an interesting variation between related languages.  The two sister languages  Ditidaht and Makah allow glottalised consonants in coda. Nuu-chah-nulth has only three vowel phonemes cross-cut by a length contrast and their distribution is not restricted, as we saw in chapter 2. The properties of the syllable structure in Nuu-chah-nulth can be schematised as in (1), with some examples in (2), repeated from (53) and (54) in section 3.2.1.  161  (1) The Nuu-chah-nulth syllable structure (cf. Stonham 1994: 76) CT Onset  |  Rhyme  Nucleus  I  A  C  (Coda)  •  V (V)  / T \ C (C) (C)  1  ""Laryngeal  (2) Examples a. CV  :  ha. ?um  'food'  b. CVC  :  ha. Turn  'food'  c. CVCC  :  muks. ?i  'the rocks'  d. CVCCC :  cu . cum-th. ta 'to wash feet'  c. CVV  :  maa  'to bite'  d. C W C  .:  wiiq. srt  'stormy'  f. C W C C :  yaack  'to kick'  g. C W C C C :  yaaqfcs  'to despise someone  The prosodic information provides a piece of evidence for the argument that Nuu-chah-nulth glottalised consonants are a single consonant, not a sequence of a plain consonant and a glottal stop.  (See section  3.1. more detailed discussion.)  4.2 Prosodic constituents  I discussed in chapter 3 (and chapter 5) that prosodic constituents such as mora, syllable, foot, prosodic word, among which the following hierarchy is assumed to exist (McCarthy and Prince 1986, 1988, 1990, 1991a, b, 1993, van der Hulst 1984, Hyman 1985, Hayes 1989, Zee 1988, Ito 1989 among others), play a crucial role in the phonology and morphology of Nuu-chah-nulth.  1  The parentheses mean that coda consonants are optional. It does not seem right to say that one consonant is in the  coda and the others are appendices, since there is no restriction on consonant clusters regarding their location, i.e. word-internal or at word-edge.  162  (3) Prosodic Hierarchy  Prosodic Word  PrWd I  Foot  Ft  Syllable  rj I  Mora  u.  In particular, the number of moras for vowels and their linking status provide phonological distinction between vowels. TTie Nuu-chah-nulth foot seems to be both syllable-counted and mora-counted. There is no phonological evidence that the language allows moras on coda consonants. irrespective of where a syllable has coda or not, depends only on vowels.  Syllable weight,  If coda consonants did have  moras, then we would expect that there could not be syllables with long vowels before codas. However, Nuu-chah-nulth has many cases of syllables with long vowels before codas, even 3 three coda consonants (see (2g)).  Syllable weight does not play many significant roles in Nuu-chah-nulth.  It seems that it is  involved only in stress assignment: stress is assigned on the initial syllable in a foot except when the second syllable is heavy i.e. includes a long vowel.  4.3 Consonant clusters  Nuu-chah-nulth allows consonant clusters in codas: CC or CCC.  A sequence of three consonants is not  very common in the middle of a morpheme, but is frequently observed in morpheme edges or between morphemes.  Also, a sequence of two identical consonants is possible only between morphemes, as in  (6), and there are no true geminates (i.e. within a single morpheme). Very interestingly, the first one of the stop-stop or affricate-affricate sequence produces a release typical for such consonants, even in the coda position.  In addition, the sequence sounds longer than a single token of the same segment. This  phonetic property, not only the morphological aspects, tells us that they are not a geminate.  (4) a. huhta[kk] huhtak-k To know-2sg/INT 'Do you know....?'  163  b. iiihaka[M:]a iiih-ak-?a7t-7ca  to cry-DUR-SEQ-again/also 'S/he is crying again.'  c. ?acsi7cwit'a[ss]is ?ac-si7c-wit'as-sis fishing-MOM-is going to-lsg/IND T am going to go fishing.'  Another interesting properly of Nuu-chah-nulth prosody is that consonant clusters of obstruents do not require a strict version of the Sonority Sequence Principle, which is defined in (5).  (5) Sonority Sequencing Principle (Clements 1990: 2) Between any member of a syllable and the syllable peak, only sounds of higher sonority rank are permitted.  The general sonority hierarchy is as follows, although there can be more subdivision depending on individual languages, repeated from (162) in section 3.2.2 (see Hooper 1976, Basboll 1977, Lekach 1979, Kiparsky 1979, Steriade 1982, Selkirk 1984, Clements 1990, Kenstowicz 1994).  (6)  least sonorous  most sonorous  <r Obstruents  Nasals  Liquids  Glides  Vowels  Within Nuu-chah-nulth codas, there is no case where a sonorant follows an obstruent, while it is common that a sonorant precedes an obstruent as seen in (7).  (As mentioned above, because a glide cannot occur  in a coda, there is no example of a consonant cluster including a glide.) This property regarding syllable structure is cross-linguistically common, applying to Nuu-chah-nulth as well.  However, as seen in (8-  11), there seems to be no strict requirement between obstruents, with a fricative-fricative sequence, (8), a stop/affrcate-stop/affricate sequence, (9), a fricative preceding a stop/affricate, (10), and a stop/affricate preceding a fricative, (11).  Interestingly, fricatives preceding stops/affricates are not common in Nuu-  chah-nulth, compared to other combinations of obstruents as shown in (10), which seem to be more natural cross-linguistically.  164  In addition, there seems to be no restriction on order of coda consonants in terms of place. For example, compare (8c)-(8d) and (9b)-(9c): both the coronal-dorsal sequence and the dorsal-coronal sequence are possible, unlike in English, where only the coronal-dorsal sequence is possible.  I. Sonorant+obstruent  (7) a. kiFanuyinFPanitnis (kiFanus-inF-?at-mit-nis) 'We were served sea lion meat' ATF/ b. ?uushvums 'friend/relative'  /ms/  c. &ntya Ta (?eint-yaq-?aa?a) 'ashes on the rock'  /nt/  d. 9euF?akfcinfc (9cuF-ak7Vi-in7V) 'touching s.o.'s buttocks'  /nfc/  <  e. mucxumFyafihta (mucxumF-yaq-ihta) 's.o. curled up at the end'  /mF/  f. mamak ink  Ivkl  w  'trying to sell'  g. hii-Hnksta (hiF-(w)inksta)  's.t. in between'  /nks/  h. kimx^is (kimx-?is) 'S/he breathes a type of breathing.'  /mx / w  II. Fricative+fricative  (8) a. waFwais (waF-waF-s) 'going home once in a while'  /Fs/  b. ?nushyumsuk?i (?uushyums-uk-?i) 'my friend'  Ishl  c. tuxsi?eahs?is (tux-si?c-ahs-?is) 'S/he is jumping in a boat'  /hs/  d. cisx?akfci (cisx-akki) 'dirty buttocks'  IsxJ  e. ciyapuxs?i (ciyapuxs-?i) 'the hat'  /xs/  f. ?u?uussyuk apa?ei (?u-?uus-s-yuk -apa7V-i) 'Make her cry for something!'  /ss/  g. cicisxhta (ci-cisx-hta) 'dirty feet'  /xh/  w  w  III. Stop/affricate+stop/affricate  (9) a. huhtakk (huhtak-k) 'Do you know...?'  /kk/  b. ?cuF?aq7V (9euF-aq9e) 'nice/clean inside (e.g. an oven)'  /qkl  c. ?gi^q?ei^qs (9ei7Vq-?ci^q-s) 's.t. keeps sparkling'  /kqj  d. hupckumF 'curled up'  /pc/  e. yack?is (yack-?is) 'S/he kicked (s.t.)'  /ck/  f. tupk?is (tupk-?is) 'It is black.'  /pk/  g. cuuhcmapthwaaF (cuuhcmapt-hwaaF) 'to use alder tree'  /pt/  h. wiiwiitqkuk (wii-witq-kuk) 'to appear not good'  /tq/  i. citkcitks (citk-citk-s) 'to twist repeatedly'  /tk/ 165  j. siktfis (sikt-?is) Tt is an egg of head lice.'  /kt/  III. Fricative+stop/affricate  (10) a. TusfiaaPa (?ust-q-?aa?a) 's.t. moved from one place to another on the rock'/st/ b. cuuhcmapthwaaF (cuuhcmapt-hwaaF) 'to use alder tree'  /he/  c. wiskwisks?is (wisk-wisk-s-?is) 'S/he keeps scolding.'  /sk/  d. huuhuustq^inyaS'a (huu-huustqiin-yaq-?aa?a) 'sound of splashing water in a canoe' (  /stq/  IV. Stop/affricate+fricative  (11) a. kaakkamatqs pinSaaFPiiffaF (kaa-kamatq-spin?aaF-?is-?aF)' 'They compete with each other in running'  .  b. suwisukqs (suwis-uk-qs) 'my shoes'  /tqs/ .•  c. na?uuqs (na?uu-qs) 's.o. going along (with another) in a vessel'  /kqs/ /qs/  d. cacapxPaFuk (ca-capx-aFuk) 'looking after a man'  Ipxl  e. Ficx?aa?a (Ficx-aa?a) 's.t. spread out on the rock'  /cx/  f. katx?ahs 'plate'  Itxl  g. ?iigh?i& Q\ab-vk) 'taking the same'  /qh/  h. FaaFakhFiPiikkuk (Faa-FaakhFi-Piik-kuk) 'someone seems to always tell a tale' Ikhl i. miitxmiitx akuk (miitx-mitx -a-kuk) 'to keep turning continuously'  /tx/  j. 9eah?iicithsuu (7Vah-iic-mit-hsuu) 'Did you finish eating?'  /th/  w  w  4.4 Vowel hiatus  4.4.1 Description  As mentioned above, Nuu-chah-nulth does not allow onsetless syllables. If a vowel hiatus arises when combining two morphemes (V]+V ), there are three ways to avoid it: i) insertion of a glottal stop RI, ii) 2  insertion of a glide lyl (both of these providing an onset for the second vowel, as shown in (12) and (13)), and iii) deletion of one of the vowels as in (14).  2  2  The insertion of/?/ is not associated with glottalisation. If a morpheme, e.g. -uufc had a floating [+C.G.] feature as  an initial element, as we discussed in section 3.2.1, then it would cause a stem-final stop/affricate to be glottalised. However, as seen in the example cikuuTc (< cik-uuTV), the stem-final Ikl is not affected.  166  (12) a. ci-uu7c  ^  ci[?]uu7c  'to throw s.t. to fire/fire place'  to throw-become  Cf. cik-uu?e  cikuu7e  +  'to become crooked'  Crooked-become  b. qii-uk  (*cikuu7V)  ^  Long time-DUR  qii[?]uk 'To take a long time'  witquk  Cf. witq-uk  'awful'  Awful-DUR  saa?uk  c. saa-uk To crawl-DUR  (13) a. hayu-ista Ten-in a vessel  'Crawling'  hayu[y]ista 'There are ten in a boat.'  wikist  Cf. wik-ist  'no one in a boat'  NEG-in a vessel  b. muu-ista  muu[y]ista 'There are four in a boat.'  Four-  c. nupu-ista  hupu[y]ista "There are six in a boat.'  Six  d. 7ca-um-hsa another-thing-to want  fca[y]umhsa 'To want some other.'  tfiaq7cum  Cf. ti-Taq7V-um  'toilet paper'  To wipe-buttock-thing  e. muu-unrF Four-s.t. left  muu[y]umF 'Four left'  167  ?u?[u]tah  (14) a. ?u-?u-atah  'Whaling'  It-trying to get/aim at  hihinatah?is  Cf. hi-hin-atah-?is t'ahaak  ?a?e[i]sta  b. ?a?ca-ista  "There are two in a boat.'  Two-  qacc[i]sta  c. qacca-ista  'There are three in a boat.'  three-  kurh[ii]sta  d. kurhaa-ista  'There is few in a boat.'  Few-  ?[uu]c  e. ?u-ii c  'To belong to'  It-to belong to  Cf. wik-iic  wikiic  ^  'not to belong to'  NEG-to belong to  f. ?aya-(a)as Many-on the surface  ?ay[aa]s 'lots of (s.t.) on the table'  wikaas  Cf. wik-(a)as  'nothing on the table'  NEG-on the surface  g. kurhaa-(a)as Few-  h. kumaa-umF Few-s.t. left  i. nupu-umF Six-  kurh[aa]s 'Few on the table.'  kuurh[u]mF 'Few left'  nup[u]mF 'Six left'  168  j. qacca-unrt  qaacc[u]m'T-  'Three left'  three-  k. ?a9ea-um-i'  ?aa7V[u]m-f'  'Two left'  Two-  ?ay[i]sta  1. ?aya-ista  "There many people in a boat'  Many-in a vessel (people)  In Nuu-chah-nulth, there are not many morphemes that begin or end with a vowel, which makes it hard to establish thefrequencyof each case in the vowel-hiatus context.  Also, for morphological or  semantic reasons it was simply easier to elicit data with some specific morphemes such as -umi and -ista. Therefore, at the current stage, I cannot tell which method is most productive in Nuu-chah-nulth.  It  seems that the three ways to avoid vowel hiatus occur with almost the same frequency. Consider the following chart, which shows potential and observed distribution: shaded cells indicate cases where there is no occurrence among the three options; in the vowel-deletion column, the deleted vowel is indicated in the parenthesis; a long vowel includes variable vowels, since that distinction does not seem to be crucial; finally, when the vowels in the sequence are the same, I do not indicate which one is deleted.  (15) The frequency of /? / or lyl insertion and vowel deletion Contexts  RI insertion  lyl insertion  /i/_/i/ /i:/_/i/ /i/_/i:/ /i:/__/i:/ /i/_/u/ /i:/_/u/  2  /i/_/u:/  3  /i:/_/u:/ /i/_/a/  169  Vowel deletion  Contexts  /?/ insertion  /y/ insertion  Vowel deletion  /i:/_/a/ /i/_/a:/ /i:/_/a:/ 1  /u/_/u/ 2  /u:/_/u/ /u/_/u:/ /u:/_/u:/  1  /u/_/i/  3  /u:/_/i/  1  /u/_/i:/  .  1(10  /u:/_/i:/ l(u)  /u/_/a/  1(a) /u:/_/a/ /u/_/a:/ /u:/_/a:/ /a/_/a/  3  /a:/_/a/ /a/_/a:/  1  /a:/_/a:/  1  /a/_/i/  3(a)  /a:/_/i/  l(a:)  170  Contexts  /?/ insertion  /y/ insertion  Vowel deletion  /a/_/i:/ /a:/_/i:/ /a/_/u/  2  /a:/_/u/  2  1  2(a) 1 (a:)  /a/_/u:/ /a:/_/u:/  1  TOTAL  15  7  12  As shown in the chart (15), there are many gaps, presumably accidental, in the cells.  Except for the  contexts of the /a(:)-u/ sequence, either /?/, lyl insertion or deletion is used, exhibiting complementary distribution.  In the case of deletion, /a/ is predominantly deleted, whether it is short or long.  Interestingly, sometimes the length of the deleted vowel is maintained on the surviving vowel as in (14de) and sometimes not as in (14h): note that in (14d) and (14h), the stem is the same, kumaa. Therefore, it cannot be said that this kind of process is completely based on phonological aspects.  4.4.2 Analysis  The distribution ofthe three processes raises the following questions: i) how to characterise the contexts: i.e., is there any phonetic, phonological, or lexical motivation for each case, and ii) why is lal more subject to deletion than other vowels? For the first question, although in some cases the contexts exhibit complementary distribution, there seems to be no phonological significance.  Although only 171 insertion is used when VI is HI, and all  cases of Vl=/i/ take /?/, all three alternatives can be used when VI is lul or lal. Further, it does not seem that V2 is the determining factor, for the three ways can be used whether V2 is IM, lul, or lal.  The  number of syllables does not work, either: whether the stem morpheme is mono- or bisyllabic, all three alternatives are observed. Also, it is not likely that the distribution is lexical. As seen (12-14), the same morphemes appear in each case. deletion are found.  For example, with -ista and -umF both /y/-insertion and vowel  Furthermore, the morpheme ?u- 'it' loses its vowel sometimes as in (14e) and  maintains it sometimes as in (14a).  171  The best way of treating these apparently unpredictable phenomena would be to consider each inserted RI or lyl as the underlyingly last segment of each morpheme in question. does not allow glides or glottalised segments in coda position.  Recall that Nuu-chah-nulth  If they are a' stem-final segment  underlyingly, their surface alternation is straightforwardly accounted for: the presence of them before a vowel on the surface, as in (16a) and (17a), respectively, but the absence before a consonant, as seen in (16b) and (17b), respectively.  (16) a. saa?-uk To crawl-DUR  b. saa?-mis-in7c to crawl-thing-?  (17) a. muuy-umF Four-thing (left)  b. muuy-ciiF Four-day long  saa[?]uk 'Crawling'  saamisin?e (*saarrnisuT7e) 'to crawl up on something'  muu[y]umF 'Four left'  muuciiF  (*muuyciiF)  'Thursday'  This approach would resolve both the alternation and unpredictability problems.  As mentioned above,  Nuu-chah-nulth implements the three ways to resolve "vowel-hiatus" problems. However, we could not predict when and where each one of them is used. One problem still might remain: with nupu 'six' we have both lyl and null surface forms as below, which repeated from (13c) and (14i).  (18) a. =(13c) hupu-ista  nupu[y]ista  Six  'There six in a boat.  b. =(14i) nupu-umF  nup[u]mF  Six-s.t. left  'Six left'  This would be a counter-example to the proposed solution. I will leave this for further research. Supposing that the 'insertion' case is not insertion, but (consonant) deletion, we would have only one type of vowel-hiatus solution, which is vowel deletion as seen in (14). 172  Interestingly, it is /a/ that is  consistently deleted.  The question is why is /a/ more subject to deletion than other vowels,  most sonorous vowel, and also it seems that the vowel is most frequent in the language.  3  /a/ is the  There are three  possible solutions for this problem, which still need to be thoroughly examined: two phonological and one morphological.  One of the phonological solutions is that /a/ may be a default vowel in terms of  frequency in Nuu-chah-nulth and that a default vowel is deleted in the context of vowel hiatus.  4  If it is  true that /a/ is a default in the language, this would be a straightforward solution. The other phonological solution is that VI is always deleted unless it is the only vowel in the morpheme. , (See Casali 1996, 5 6  1997, Rosenthall 1994, Lamontagne 1996, Lamontagne & Rosenthall 1996, Bakovic 2002, Michael & Crowhurst 2002 for relevant discussion, which investigate how vowel hiatus across morpheme boundaries is resolved by deletion of the leftmost or rightmost vowel.) This seems to work in all the cases in (14). The only problem is that when two vowels meet, the first vowel is all /a/ or the two vowels are the same. At the current stage, it is not clear whether thefirstvowel is deleted since it is /a/, or since it occupies the first position in the sequence.  The morphological solution is that the stem vowel is  deleted unless it constitutes the only syllable of the stem. As shown in (14), it is the stem vowel that is deleted in the vowel-hiatus context, if it is not the only vowel of the stem.  Again, each deleted stem-  vowel is either /a/ or has the same phonetic quality as the surviving vowel. Consequently, it is not clear yet whether the factor is morphological or phonological.  The vowel hiatus problem seems to require a  long-term project, obtaining enough data, to provide a complete solution.  3  1 have got such impression via many elicitation sessions, although I have not collected statistics.  4  Thanks to Joe Stemberger for this point. (Also see Pulleyblank 1988, Stemberger 1992 for relevant discussion.).  5  If the only vowel is deleted, then there might be an identity problem raised.  6  Thanks to Pat Shaw for this point. 173  Chapter 5 MORPHOLOGY  All the phonological processes discussed so far are sensitive to morphological or lexical information. The phenomena to be treated in this chapter also result from the interaction between phonology and morphology. However, I deal with them here in a separate chapter, because their morphological aspects are more significant, compared to other morpho-phonological phenomena, especially with respect to word formation.  That is, the two issues of this chapter, reduplication and allomorphy, are related to  morphemes, rather than phonemes, as a target unit in the relevant processes.  I start with reduplication,  which is a pervasive phenomenon in Nuu-chah-nulth.  5.1 Reduplication  Reduplication is a phenomenon that has attracted much attention from linguists, due to developments in phonological and morphological theory (McCarthy 1979a,b; Marantz 1982; Kiparsky 1986; McCarthy & Prince 1986, 1994a,b, 1995, 1999; Steriade 1988; Urbanczyk 1995, 1996, 1999; Spaelti 1997; Gafos 1998; Downing 1998, 2000, 2001; Alderete et.al 1999; Inkelas & Zoll 2000; Struijke 1998, 2000; Kim to appear; Pulleyblank to appear among others). Nuu-chah-nulth has very unique patterns of reduplication, which raise many interesting questions both analytically and theoretically. Nuu-chah-nulth has two types of reduplication processes: reduplication without triggers, and reduplication triggered by suffixes. I will start with the former in the following section.  5.1.1 Description Reduplication without a triggering suffix  When reduplication occurs without a triggering suffix, the reduplicated form leads to another word either with or without additional meaning. When an additional meaning is added, the reduplicated form refers to plurality or repetition of the thing/act/status in question in most cases. On the other hand, for the cases where an additional meaning is not given, there seem to be no non-reduplicated counterparts, i.e. the reduplicated words are frozen forms. The following examples illustrate each case: in the morpheme-bymorpheme gloss, RED(uplicant), a reduplicative prefix, indicates the copied part of the stem morpheme. Reduplication can refer to repetition as in (la-b) or plurality as in (lc-f).  174  (1) a.naaqnaaqPis  1  RED-naq-?is RED-to drink-3sg/TND 'S/he keeps drinking.'  cf. naqsi?e?is 'S/he drinks (water).'  b. titicasr/t  2  RED-t'icaa-si7V RED-to switch-MOM 'switching more than once'  cf. ticaasr/e 'switching once'  c. mamahti  3  RED-mahtii RED-house 'houses'  cf. mahtii?i 'the house'  d. tutupk?ic RED-tupk-?ic RED-black-to wear 'more than one person wearing black'  cf. tupk?ic 'one person wearing black  1  In addition to reduplication, the vowels of the reduplicant and the root morpheme are lengthened in this case.  2  In the root morpheme t'icaa- 'to switch', the second vowel is a 'variable vowel'; therefore, in the surface form the  vowel is shortened since it stands outside the foot. 3  The second vowel of the morpheme mahtii- 'house' is also a variable vowel. 175  e. tutuciih  4  RED-tuc(up)-?iih RED-sea urchin-to gather/fish 'gathering more than one sea urchin'  cf. t'ucupiih 'gathering one sea urchin'  f. nuuknuuk RED-nuuk  w  RED-song 'songs'  cf. nuuk?i 'the song'  Reduplication can add new meaning other than repetition/plurality as follows.  (2) a. nana?a RED-na?a RED-to hear 'to understand/to be educated'  cf. na?amits... 'I heard that...'  c. nunuuk RED-nuuk RED-song 'to sing'  cf. nuuk?i  4  'the song'  -?uh is a reduplication-triggering suffix.  This example is a case where there are two motivators for reduplication  in a word, but a coping process happens only once. This provides another piece of evidence that Ahousaht Nuuchah-nulth does not have double reduplication, although it is not clear which is the trigger for reduplication. Also, I suppose that no reduplication in t'ucupiih in the compared example might be due to maximisation of lexical contrast (see section 5.1.3 for detailed discussion).  176  d. maamaati RED-mat-i RED-to fly-? 'bird'  cf. mataa  'flying'  Some words do not have non-reduplicative forms. In this circumstance, reduplication is used just for creating a word: many animal names seem to be loan words from Chinook Jargon, e.g. muusmuus 'cow'.  5  (3) a. kakawin  'killer whale' (*kawin)  b. SaSaafafihta (fa£aakiq-?ihta) 'mouse' (*?aafcffihta)  c. piispis  'cat'  (*pis7*piis)  d. muusmuus 'cow (*muus) e. maamaati  'bird'  f. papacaqfc  (<papac-?aq?e)  g. cicici  'teeth' (*ci)  6  'yeast bread' (*pac)  Tbese forms are made by repeating a sequence of sounds which consist of a single syllable, with sometimes different vowel length as in (3b and c).  Because they are frozen forms, we cannot know  whether the word kakawin, for example, isfromeither ka-ka-win or ka-kawin. An interesting issue is whether they really resultfromthe process of '(inherent) reduplication' or they just happen to have the same sequence of sounds. One possible answer isfroma property of Nuu-chahnulth reduplication.  Ahousaht Nuu-chah-nulth does not have double reduplication, i.e. repeating a  sequence of sounds more than once.  TTherefore, if a word is made by reduplication, there is no more  reduplication, even when a reduplication-triggering suffix such as -kuk is added as in (4). already created by reduplicating the morpheme na?a, so there is no more reduplication.  nana?a is The lack of  double-reduplication seem to be related to morphological haplology, where two suffixes happen to have 5  6  Mary Jane Dick and Pat Shaw (p.c). For (3e), Nuu-chah-nulth has a base morpheme mat-'to fly', although - i is not confirmed about its origin.  177  the same phonological content, one of them is not realised on the surface. (See Stemberger 1981 for detailed discussion.).  As a result, the cases in (3) can be called 'inherent reduplication' (see Buckley  1996, Rose 1996 for relevant discussion).  (4) nana?akuk?is nana?a-kuk-?is  (*nanana?akuk?is) (nana?a < RED-na?a)  to understand-to resemble-3sg/TND 'S/he seems to be knowledgeable'  cf. mimiFk\ik?icuus  (*miFmiFkuk?icuus)  RED-miF-k^k-?icuus RED-same-to resemble-2pl/IND 'Both of you look alike.'  In the same spirit, if the forms in (3) were made by reduplication, we would expect that reduplication would not occur with any form in (3). Consider the following examples.  (5) a. kakawinkuk?is  (*kakakawinkuk?is)  kakawin-kuk-?is a killer whale-to resemble-3sg/TND 'It looks like a killer whale.'  b. piispiskuk?is  (*piispiispiskuk?is)  piispis-kuk-?is cat-to resemble-3sg/IND 'It looks like a cat.'  c. maamaatikuk?is  (*maamaamaatikuk?is)  maamaati-kuk-?is bird-to resemble-3sg/TND 'It looks like a bird.'  These examples support an analysis that the words are made by 'inherently' reduplicating some part (or a whole) of a sequence of sounds. The following examples are cases where reduplication contributes no clear additional meanings to the root morpheme, but there exist non-reduplicated root forms without meaning changes. For example, the  178  root morpheme cu- can be used with its own meaning 'to wash' but without reduplication, as in cumM'to wash the floor'.  However, as seen in (6a), with the suffix -qs 'dish', the root morpheme must be  reduplicated and there is no additional meaning but 'to wash'..  (6) a. cucuqs RED-cu-qs RED-to wash-dish 'to wash dishes' cf. cumiiF 'to wash the floor' (<cu 'to wash'-mirf- 'floor')  b. +a+alc inyarahs w  (  RED-Fak in-yaq-?ahs w  RED-to console-EXIS-vessel 'S/he is consoling s.o. in a boat/car.' cf. +alc init?is . . . 'S/he consoled s.o w  ' (<Fak in 'to console'-(m)it 'PAST'-?is '3sg/IND') w  c. kukuupsum?ihta RED-kupsum-?ihta RED-ring-at the end 'a ring at the end of a nose cf. kupsum?i 'the ring' (<kupsum 'ring' -?i 'Def.')  d. kikkii?euksum?ap RED-kii9euksum-?ap RED-glasses-to buy 'to buy glasses'  cf. kiifcuksum 'glasses'  Reduplication without a triggering suffix as shown in (l)-(6) can be classified into two processes in terms of word formation: one is a systematic, so predictable, process such as the case of plurality/repetition, (1), and the other is an exceptional, so unpredictable, process such as the cases of addition of unpredictable meaning, (2), inherent reduplication, (3), and no additional meaning, (6). be processed in the lexicon as a lexical-internal process.  179  The unpredictable cases would  For the predictable cases, we might provide a  formal analysis illustrated as the tableau in (8) with the relevant example in (7).  I do not discuss the  prosodic identity of the reduplicant, the constraints, and their ranking here, because they will be examined in detail when I discuss reduplication triggered by suffixes in the next section.  7  (7)=(lc) mamahti RED-mahti(i)  8  RED-house 'houses'  (8) Tableau: INTEGRITY  a]rep.- mahti  (a)  NOCODA  *  a. [ma]mahti a  MAXBR  *** (hti)  **  b. [mah]mahti a  c. [mah]timahti  **|  d. [ ]mahti  *  0  CT  (mahti)  e. [ma] [hi]timahti CT  CT  *!  *  The 'repetition' reduplicant manifested as a syllable in the input surfaces by copying the first syllable of the root morpheme.  In particular, candidate b and c are ruled out by having a coda in the reduplicant.  This is crucial, sacrificing complete identity between the base and the reduplicant: cf. candidate a. Candidate e violates INTEGRITY(a) by having multiple copying of syllables. Candidate a is selected as an optimal output. This kind of mechanism will be investigated in more detail below.  7  Definition of the constraints used in tableau (8); we would need INTEGRITY(seg.) to prevent multiple  correspondents of an input segment from appearing on the surface, but see for detailed discussion. a. NOCODA: Syllables may not have codas. b. M A X R : Every element of the base must have a correspondent in the reduplicant. B  c. INTEGRITY(a): The input syllable must not have multiple correspondents in the output. 8  Tableau (7b) illustrates reduplication only, ignoring vowel length change of lil in mahti(i): see section 3.2.5 for  relevant discussion.  180 Reduplication triggered by a suffix  Reduplication triggered by. suffixes exhibits relatively more systematic aspects morphologically and semantically, although there are some complicated characteristics. The characteristics of reduplication triggered by suffixes in Nuu-chah-nulth are as follows.  First, when  reduplication is triggered by a suffix, the meaning of the suffix is added to the reduplicated form. However, given that the meaning of the suffix cannot be distinguished from the overall meaning of the suffix plus reduplicant, it would be right to say that the added meaning is associated to reduplicant and the triggering suffix as a whole, rather than the suffix on its own. This raises an interesting question regarding the morphological identity of reduplicant+suffix: are they two independent morphemes, i.e. suffix and concomitant prefix, or a single morpheme whose constituents are just discontinuous. (I will discuss this in section 1.2.)  Second, when a triggering suffix is  attached to a stem, the reduplicative properties of triggered reduplication are comparable to reduplication without a trigger.  Interestingly, the form of the reduplicant, the copied part, is not fixed for all the suffix-triggering  reduplication, but it is systematic. Depending upon the attached suffix, the form of the reduplicant ranges from CV to CVVCCC.  The reduplicant, at most one syllable, either has a coda or not, and its vowel is either long or short  depending upon the triggering suffix. in Nuu-chah-nulth reduplication.  In total, there are 14 patterns which I analyse as following into 7 main types I do not include a sub-classification depending on whether a  reduplicant copies the coda of the base or not in the chart (in which case we would expect 14 types in total) to simplify the exposition. This is because I focus on vowel length variation, and coda variation is not related to the vowel-alternation issue.  I will return to the coda issue in the next section.  summarises the patterns in terms of vowel length:  181  (9)  (9) Patterns of Nuu-chah-nulth reduplication TYPE  RED-BASE  Vowel length in Reduplicant  Base  Class I  Short/long  Unaffected; so maintaining its length on the surface.  CV(V)(C)-CV(V)(C)  Class II  Long  Unaffected; so maintaining its length on the surface  CW-CV(V)(C)  Class III  Short  Unaffected; so maintaining its length on the surface  CV-CV(V)(C)  Class IV  Long  Affected; lengthened, if underlyingly short  CVV(C)-CW(C)  Class V  Short  Affected; shortened, if underlyingly long  CV-CV(C)  Class VI  Long  Affected; shortened, if underlyingly long  CW-CV(C)  Class VII  Short  Affected; lengthened, if underlyingly short  CV(C)-CW(C)  9  Very interestingly, exhibiting the full range of possible interactions, each two of the 7 patterns constitutes a pair within the system, in terms of the interaction between the base and the reduplicant in vowel length: except for Class I, for which, logically, constituting a pair is not possible. In each pair, classes II and III, classes IV and V, and classes VI and VII, one of every pair has a reduplicant with a long vowel and the other a reduplicant with a short vowel.  Also, with the pairs of classes IV and V, and of classes VI and  VII, the interaction between the base and the reduplicant exhibit different properties.  In the pair of  classes IV and V, the base and the reduplicant have the same vowel length, while in the pair of classes VI and VII, the base and the reduplicant exhibit different vowel length. The following sections illustrate each case ofthe 7 patterns. Class I: Red=au(u); Base unaffected  Four suffixes belong to this type: -ka 'again, also' -/'once in a while/continually', -Pa-hik'to look after' and -hta 'foot'.  Of these, -Pa-hik, and -hta do not allow a coda in the reduplicant, while -fca and -sdo.  The reduplicant has a long or short vowel depending upon the base, the root ofthe stem the reduplicant attaches to, and there is no change in the base.  10  I exemplify each suffix in  (10-13), respectively: 9  The same patterns are attested in Tseshaht except the 5 pattern (Sapir and Swadesh 1939). th  whether they did not find the pattern or whether the Tseshaht dialect just does not have the pattern.  182  I am not sure  (10) -fca 'again, also' a. yacyacmi-t?a7V?is9ca  (*yayacmi+?a7c?is7ca)  RED-yac-mi4--?a7c-?is-7ca RED-to walk-on the floor-SEQ-3sg/IND-again 'She is walking around again now.'  b.  foaqiaafaTtfisfca  11  (*W?aaSa7c?is7ca) ,  RED-£aaq-?ak-?is-fca RED-to shout-SEQ-3sg/TND-again 'She is yelling again.'  c. tatamis-7ea  (*tamtamis7ea)  RED-tamis-7ca RED-to drift-again 'To keep drifting'  (11) -s 'continually'  a. tuuhtuuhs?is?a-i-  t'auWis  RED-tuuh-s-?is?a+  (*tuutuuhs?is?a-i-)  t'atna-?is  RED-to get frightened-continually-3pl/IND children-DEVI 'The children get frightened continually (e.g. by thunder)  b. watqwatqs?is RED-watq-s-?is  Tisciip Kyle.  (*wawatqs?is)  ?isciip Kyle  RED-to swollow-continually-3sg/TND gum 'Kyle keeps swallowing gum.'  1 0  As seen in the examples, the triggering suffix is not always adjacent to the base, which is why I need to define the  base as the root of the stem the suffix attaches to. 11  The suffix -?a7c is a glottalising suffix, which causes the preceding uvular stop to become a pharyngeal stop (see  section 3.2.1).  This example will raise a problem with my analysis in terms of parallel syllable structure and the  feature identity between the base and the reduplicant. For with this suffix, the coda of the base must be copied, but the base coda is not a coda any more and some of its featural properties are changed. further research.  183  I will leave this issue for  c. kakamatqsci?atoik?is  tarWis. (*kamkamatqsci?afcuk?is)  RED-kamatq-s-ci7V-?a^-uk-?is  tana-?is  RED-to mn-continually-MOM-SEQ-POSS-3sg/TND child-DIM 'Her/His child keeps running.'  (12) -?a+uk'to look after'  a. tata?i+?a-hik  (*tafta?rt?a+uk)  RED-ta?i+-?a-ruk RED-sick-to look after 'to look after s.o. sick'  b. cacapxPa-hik  (*capxcapx?a-hik)  RED-capx-?a4aik RED-man-to look after 'to look after a man/husband'  c. nuunuuk a+uk w  12  (*nuuknuuk*a-hik)  RED-nuuk -?a-hik w  RED-song-to look after 'to look after songs (in a sense as a care-taker)'  (13) -hta 'foot'  a. rharha+hta  (^aiiha-rhta)  RED-ma+-hta RED-cold-foot 'cold feet'  b. tatakinishta  (*taktakinishta)  RED-takinis-hta RED-socks-foot 'to wear socks'  184  c. ?uu?uushtacip?is  Lois  suwis. (*?uus?uushtacip?is)  RED-?uus-rita-cip-?is Lois  suwis  RED-some-foot-?-3sg/IND Lois shoes 'Lois is wearing someone else's shoes.' Class II: Red=app; Base unaffected  One suffix is found for this type: -?iik 'someone who is always doing something (habitually)'. The reduplicant is always long, whether the base vowel is long or short; there is no change in the base, but coda is not allowed in the reduplicant with the suffix.  However, we would expect cases that allow codas  to appear with some other suffixes, but I have not found such cases.  (14) -?iik 'some who always does something'  a. naana?atah?iik  (*naa?na?atah?iik)  RED-na?atah-?iik RED-to listen-s.o. who always does s.t. 's.o. who always listens a lot'  b. ?uu?uuwa?iik  (*?uuw?uuwa?iik)  RED-?uuwa-?iik (?uuwa < ?u(u)-wa) it-to say RED-to complain- s.o. who always does s.t. 's.o. who always complains a lot'  c. yaayaq9esta-i-?iik  (*yaaq7VyaqWa-fk?iik)  RED-yaqk-sta+-?iik RED-disliking-each other- s.o. who always does s.t. 's.o. who always dislikes another' Class III: Red=ap; Base unaffected  Two suffixes belong to this class: -yuk 'to cry', and -?iih 'to hunt for, fish'. The reduplicant is always w  short, whether the base vowel is long or short; there is no change in the base, but coda is consistently not  12  -Paivkttiggexs glottalisation as well. 185  found in the reduplicant in all cases. I exemplify each suffix in (15-16), respectively. (15) -yuk 'Tocry' w  a. ?a?aqiyukh  (*?aq?aqiyukh)  RED-?aqi-yuk -h w  RED-what-to cry-3sg/LNT 'What is she crying for?' b. wiwikyuk?is  ("^vikwikyukTis)  RED-wik-yuk -?is w  RED-NEG-to cry-3sg/IND 'S/he is crying for nothing' c. ?u?uusyuk apa9ei  (*?us?uusyuk apa?ei)  w  w  RED-ftius-yuk -?ap-?afc-?i w  RED-some-to cry-CAUS-SEQ-3sg/IMP 'Make her cry for something!' d. tataanaqayuk?is  (*tantaanaqyuk?is)  RED-taana-qa-yuk-?is RED-money-for-to cry-3 sg/IND 'S/he is pouting for money.' (16) -?iih 'to hunt for/try to get/collect/fish' a. kiki+at?iih  (*ki-fkii-anust?iih)  RED-ki+anus-t-?iih RED-sea lion-PL-to hunt for 'hunting for seals' b. ?u?uuska?iih  (*?us?uuska?iih)  RED-?uuska-?iih RED-?-to hunt for 'taking a chance'  186  c. sisikt'iih  13  (*siktsikt'iih)  RED-sikt-?iih R E D - e g g o f head lice-collect 'picking eggs o f head l i c e ' Class I V : R e d = a p p ; B a s e ^ a p p  T w o suffixes belong to this class: -ya 'continuously', -siTc 'to start'. The reduplicant is always long, and the base (or the first syllable o f the base, i f it consists o f more than one syllable) is also long. therefore, the vowel o f the base is short, then it is lengthened. o f the base to be copied.  (17) -(y)a 'continuously'  (*waaswaasaqa?is)  RED-wasaq-(y)a-?is R E D - t o cough-continuously-3sg/IND 'She is continuously coughing.'  cf. wasaqifPis 'S/he coughed'  b. cuuccuuca?is  (*cuucuuca?is)  RED-cuc-(y)a-?is R E D - t o scratch-continuously-3sg/IND 'S/he is continuously scratching.'  cf. cucaa 'scratching'  c. miitxmiitxa?is  (*miimiitxa?is)  RED-mitx-(y)a-?is R E D - t o spin-continuously-3sg/IND 'S/he spins continuously.'  cf. mitxaa -fi'ihis  Reduplication o f this type forces the coda  (17-18) illustrate each suffix (the glide lyl o f -ya is deleted after a consonant,  which is another process beyond my discussion here):  a. waawaasaqa?is  If,  'spining'  a glottalising suffix as well.  187  d. t'iickt'iicka  (*t'iit'iicka)  RED-t'iick-(y)a RED-the sound of thunder-continuously 'thunder'  (18) -sifc'to start to ..'  a. tuuxtuuxsifc  (*tuutuuxsi^)  RED-tux-sifc RED-to jump-to start to., 'starting to jump'  cf. tuxmitsis 'I jumped'  b. waawaasaqsifc  (*waaswaasaqsifc)  RED-wasaq-sifc RED-to cough-to start to., 'starting to cough'  cf. wasaqitsis  'I coughed.'  c. cuuscuussik  (*cuucuussifc)  RED-cus-si7c RED-to dig-to start to., 'starting to dig (a hole)'  cf. cusaa 'digging'  d. ^iMiihsi?a^aik?is nayaqak  (*^iffiihsi?a^uk?is)  RED-^iih-si^-?a7V-uk-?is nayaqak RED-to cry-to start to-SEQ-POSS-3sg/LND baby 'Her baby starts to cry.' Class V: Red=au.; Baseman.  Two suffixes belong to this type: -kuk 'to resemble', and-(c)ink 'together, side by side'. w  188  The  reduplicant has short vowel and (the first syllable of) the base is also short. If, therefore, the vowel of the base is long, then it is shortened.  The coda of the base is not copied with this class of suffix.  exemplify each suffix.  (19) -kuk 'to resemble' w  14  a. ?u?usumkuk?is  (*?us?usumkuk?is)  RED-?usum-kuk -?is w  RED-to need/want-to resemble-3sg/IND 'S/he appears to need (s.t.)'  b. mimi+kuk?icuus  (*mirmii'lcuk?icuus)  RED-mrt-k\ik -?icuus w  RED-same-to resemble-2pl/IND 'Both of you look alike.'  c. ?ei9cix akuk  (*?eix&x akuk)  w  w  RED-&ix -(a)a-kuk w  w  RED-to smile/laugh-DUR-to resemble 'Smirk' cf. &ix aa 'smiling' w  d. q iq iqkuk ii w  w  w  RED-q ii-q-kuk -ii w  w  RED-what-EXIS-to resemble-3sg/REL 'What appears to be (pi), s.t. unusual'  cf. q iicum?akii ?aa?aa?isa ?um?i r\iucum?ak w  '(I wonder) what is the purpose, your mom is in a hurry.'  14  The labiality of the suffix is deleted when preceding a consonant.  189  (19-20)  (20) -(c)ink 'to converse with/together/side by side'  a. cacacink RED-caa-cink RED-swiftly moving water-side by side 'going against the tide of swift current'  cf. caanit?is haciqs '(The ocean) is flowing rapidly at Torino.'  b. huhu?acinksap?is  muna  RED-hu?a-cink-sap-?is  (*humuu?acinksap?is)  muna  RED-to put together-side by side-MOMCAUS-3 sg/IND engine 'He puts engine back together.'  c. ciciqink?is  (*ciqciqink?is)  RED-ciq-(c)ink-?is RED-to speak-to converse 'S/he is praying.' Class VI : Red=auu.; Base=,aji 15  Two suffixes belong to this type: -ityak 'afraid/fear', and -(k)casci 'to play on someone's side'.  The  reduplicant is always long, but (the first syllable of) the base is short. If, therefore, the vowel of the base is long, then it is shortened.  The coda of the base is not copied with this class  of suffix. (21-22) exemplify each suffix.  (21) -ityak 'afraid/fear'  a. wiiwikityak  (*wiikwikityak)  RED-wik-ityak RED-NEG-afraid/fear 'Not afraid of anything'  1 5  Thanks to Rachel Wojdak for calling my attention to this and Type VII.  190  b. siisicityaksis  (*siicsicityaksis)  RED-siic-ityak-sis RED-maggot-afraid/fear T am afraid of maggots.'  cf. siic?is 'it is a maggot.'  c. ciicisxityak RED-cisx-ityak RED-dirty-afraid/fear 'afraid of s.t. dirty'  d. Wihiyityak RED-hiyi-ityak RED-snake-afraid/fear 'Fearing snakes'  (22) -(k)casci 'to play on someone's side'  a. wiiwikcasci  (*wiikwikcasci)  RED-wik-(k)casci RED-NEG-to play (on someone's side) 'Not participating..'  b. ?uu?uscasci  (*?uus?uscasci)  RED-?uus-(k)casci RED-some-to play (on someone's side) 'S/he is on s.o.'s side in a team.'  cf. ?uusnaak 'to appreciate something'  c. ?aa?ayasci RED-?aya-(kca)sci RED-many-to play (on someone's side) 'Many on someone's side'  191 Class VII: Red=au; Base=iauu  Three suffixes belong to this class: -sapi 'to depend on', -nuk 'on the hand', and -sui- 'on the eyes'.  16  The process is exactly opposite to Class VI reduplication: the reduplicant is always short, but if (the first syllable of) the base is underlyingly short, then it is lengthened as in (23).  Of these three suffixes, -sapi  does not allow coda reduplication.  (23) -sapi 'to depend on'  a. wiwiiksapi?is  (*wikwiiksapi?is)  RED-wik-sapi-?is RED-NEG-to depend on-3sg/LND 'S/he is depending on nothing.'  cf. wik?is .. ' it is not...'  b. ?u?uussapi?is  (*?us?Aiussapi?is)  RED-?uus-sapi-?is RED-some-to depend on-3 sg/IND 'S/he is depending on someone.'  c. ?a?aaqisapihsuu RED-?aqi-sapi-hsuu  waad-ak mituuni wa-t-ak mituuni  RED-what-to depend-2pl/INT to go-DUR Victoria 'What are you depending on to go to Victoria?'  cf. ?aqih 'What is it?'  16  -su+ 'on the eyes' raises another interesting issue: fixed segmentism.  issue in sections, to avoid repetition. 192  I will provide the relevant data and the  (24)-nuk 'on the hand'  (*hihiicnuk)  a. hichiichuk RED-hic-huk RED-feces-on the hand 'Feces on the hand'  cf. hicmis  'feces'  b. tupktuupknuk  (*tutuupknuk)  RED-tupk-nuk RED4>lack-on the hand 'Black hand (e.g. from grease)' cf. tupk?is  'It is black.'  (*c'ic'iisxnuk)  c. c'isxc'iisxnuk RED-cisx-huk RED-dirty-on the hand 'Dirty hands'  cf. cisxPis  'It is dirty'  d. &aq9eaaqhuk RED-?eaaq-huk RED-grease/lard-on the hand iard on the hand'  e. nanaawinkhuk RED-naawink-huk RED-slow-on the hand '(working) slow using hands'  193  5.1.2 Analysis  Since McCarthy (1979), Marantz (1982), Kiparsky (1986) and McCarthy & Prince (1986), much theoretical  attention  has  been  given  to  partial  reduplication.  Under  the  Templatic Prosodic Morphology, partial reduplication is performed to satisfy templatic requirements which are specified for a reduplicative morpheme.  Recently, Downing (2000, 2001) has claimed that  reduplication-specific prosodic constraints determine reduplicant size. On the other hand, Generalized Template Theory (McCarthy & Prince 1994, Urbanczyk 1995) implements general phonological constraints which derive the shape of the reduplicant through indirect reference to morphological categories such as 'Affix'.  Further, the A-templatic approach, favored in  recent work, assumes systems where various patterns of reduplication cover cross-linguistic possible range, and argues for the Emergence of the Unmarked (TETU) effect, without reduplication-specific templates (Urbanczyk 1996, 1999; Spaelti 1997; Gafos 1998; McCarthy & Prince 1999). Apparently, the patterns of reduplication in Nuu-chah-nulth might be treated under any mechanisms.  However, as we  will see when we discuss fixed segmentism in reduplication, the approach taken in the thesis has more advantages. Nuu-chah-nulth reduplication can be summarized as follows. exhibit multiple patterns in terms of vowel length.  Both the reduplicant and the base  Moreover, the reduplicants with some class of  triggering suffixes are codaless, while those with some others have codas.  I provide the schematic  representations of Nuu-chah-nulth reduplication below, including both vowel and coda variation, for convenience:  194  (25) Patterns of Nuu-chah-nulth reduplication Coda (Reduplicant)  TYPE  RED-(l CTof)BASE  Class 1-1  CV(V)(C)-CV(V)(C)  Yes  Class 1-2  CV(V)-CV(V)(C)  No  Class II  CVV-CV(V)(C)  No  Class III  CV-CV(V)(C)  No  Class IV  CW(C)-CW(C)  Class V  CV-CV  No  Class VI  CVV-CV  No  Class VII-1  CV-CW  No  Class VII-2  CV(C)-CW(C)  Yes  st  Yes  17  We would expect that the possible full range of reduplication patterns would be 14 types: each class has either coda or not, although TETU would predict fewer cases with coda reduplication. However, Nuuchah-nulth reduplication creates 9 patterns only: coda reduplication has been observed with classes I, IV & VII only; classes II, III, V, and VI do not have coda reduplicaton; class IV allows reduplication including the coda ofthe base only. In sum, for Nuu-chah-nulth reduplication triggered by suffixes, the size of the reduplicant is consistently one syllable, but the exact shape of the reduplicant varies depending upon triggering suffixes. Also, the underlying stem is subject to change depending upon the attached suffix.  These observations  raise the following questions:  I. How to define the identity ofthe reduplicant? II. How to treat the systematic size of the reduplicant? III. How to treat variation in reduplicant forms in terms of vowel length and coda? IV. How to treat modification of base forms in terms of vowel length? V. How to treat the 9 reduplicative types within a unitary system 17  With one of class IV suffixes, -(y)a, a coda is obligatory and fixed, Ikl, if it is monosyllabic and codaless. The  chart does not reflect this property, but I will discuss the issue in section and also see Wojdak (2002) for more comprehensive discussion. 195  I propose that in Nuu-chah-nulth the reduplicant shape emerges from prosodic requirements manifested in some suffixes (for the first and second problems) and that the surface shapes of both reduplicant and base are determined by metrical requirements, which are also specified for each triggering suffix (for the third and fourth problems).  In addition, I suggest that lexically indexed  faithfulness constraints cause variation between the 9 types in terms of the presence/absence of reduplicant coda and modification of the base vowel length (for the third, fourth, and fifth problems). The following three sections discuss each argument. Prosodic characterisation of reduplicants  Adapting Marantz (1982), McCarthy & Prince (1986), Downing (2000, 2001), and Pulleyblank (to appear), I suggest that each reduplication-triggering suffix manifests prosodic requirements to be satisfied on the surface as seen in (25).  (26) a.. .fca (for example)  They could be called circumfixes, where the prefix part consists only of a prosodic element and the suffix consists of both prosodic and melodic elements.  It is still controversial whether this kind of affixation  should be named as circumfixation, i.e. a single morpheme whose constituents are discontinuous, or whether it consists simply of a suffix and a concomitant prefix. The typical counter-example against the 'circumfix' approach is the German past participle, ge...t as in phonetically identical form to the past tense, N.  gewandert 'wandered', which has a  However, in the Nuu-chah-nulth case, the suffixes in  question are not used as an independent morpheme unlike the German past participle (see Spencer 1991 for more discussion). To discuss the morphological aspects of circumfixation is beyond the scope of the thesis; hence, I do not develop more arguments for circumfixation. Such prosodic requirements on each suffix cause a reduplicative prefix on the surface in a way to be examined shortly.  This templatic approach is the same as, in particular, Downing (2000, 2001).  However, Downing treats the issue of the reduplicant size grammatically, i.e., using a constraint which defines the size of the reduplicant, while my approach tries to solve the problem lexically, i.e. with lexically-specified prosodic requirements.  These two approaches apparently achieve the same goal, but I  will show later that the lexical approach has an advantage in dealing with the issue of reduplicant shape, at least in Nuu-chah-nulth (see sections Prosodic requirements manifested as a cooccurring monosyllabic prefix define the identity of the reduplicant, both prosodically and morphologically, and its size. reduplicant and the base vary in vowel length.  However, as we saw above, the  Vowels in reduplicative prefixes surface as long with  class I, II, IV and V I suffixes, while surfacing as short with class I, III, V , and VII suffixes. Moreover, 196  the base form is modified with class IV-VII suffixes.  To treat these problems, I propose that variation of  reduplicant forms and modification of base forms are due to metrical requirements specified for each triggering suffix and to the interaction between domain-specified faithfulness constraints and a constraint regulating foot-structures. Metrical requirements ofthe foot  In section 3.2.5, I discussed metrical structures, in particular trochaic foot forms in Nuu-cha-nulth. Metrical requirements manifested in some suffixes, i.e. vowel-lengthening and -shortening suffixes, cause modification to morphemes in terms of vowel length, when they combined with a stem.  Although  trochaic foot forms are only required in vowel alternation via the two processes, both iambic and trochaic foot forms are found in reduplication.  Crowhurst (1991) suggests that the inventory of primitive foot  structures provided by Universal Grammar is as follows:  (27) Inventory of primitive foot structures: Crowhurst (1991:54) Name  Prosodic Shape  #  18  Disyllabic  [a a]  1  Bimoraic  [P P]  2  Left-heavy  [ujx |a]  3 '  Right-heavy  [u uu]  4  Heavy  [au.u app,]  5  According to Crowhurst, all these foot structures are observed cross-linguistically, citing Hayes (1987, 1991), Prince (1991), Prince & Smolensky (1991), McCarthy & Prince (1986, 1990), Hammond (1990), Ishihara (1990), Crowhurst (1990), Dresher & Lahiri (1991), and Rice (1991). Very interestingly, when it comes to Nuu-chah-nulth reduplication, the following foot structures are found; they all belong to the primitive foot structures in (27).  However, Nuu-chah-nulth foot structures  need to be more finely specified: for example, two syllables + 'they must be light' in (28a), two moras linked a single syllable + another syllable with no specification of mora in (28b), two syllables + 'the first syllable must be light' in (28e).  18  1 replaced the original column with this column to simplify the exposition. 197  (28) Possible foot structures in Nuu-chah-nulth a. F(oot)F(orm)I: two light syllables (a a)cp  = (27-1)  p p b. F(oot)F(orm)II: two syllables with 1 heavy ( a A  a )cp  st  = (27-1)  p p c. F(oot)F(orm)III: two syllables with 1 heavy, 2 light (a A st  nd  a)cp  I  = (27-3)  p p p d. F(oot)F(orm)IV: two heavy syllables (a A  a)cp A  = (27-5)  e. F(oot)F(orm)V: two syllables with first light: (a  a)cp=(27-l)  I  H  f. F(oot)F(orm)VI: two syllables with first light; second heavy: (a I  a)cp = (27-4) A  p u p As metrical requirements manifested in some suffixes, expressed as foot structures, are related to modification of some roots/stems in vowel length, so multiple forms of the reduplicant and modification of the base in vowel length can be due to the same requirements.  Hence, I suggest that each suffix  (except for class I) is specified for one of these foot forms as in (30-35).  This is summarised in (29).  Note that with class I suffixes, R E D forms an independent foot, while with class II-VII suffixes, R E D forms either a trochaic or iambic foot with the base.  198  (29) Surface foot structure of each class TYPE  RED-BASE  Foot form  Class I  CV(V)-CV(V)  Class II  CW-CV(V)  Class III  CV-CV(V)  Class IV  CVV-CVV  (32): FFIV  Class V  CV-CV  (33): FFI  Class VI  CVV-CV  (34): FFIII  Class VII  CV-CVV  (35): FFVI  No specification (30): FFII  •  (31):FFV  (30) Class II: FFII: two syllables with 1 heavy ( a A H Ii st  (31) Class III: FFV: two syllables with 1 light: (a I st  a )q>  a)cp  P  (32) Class IV: FFIV: two heavy syllables (a A  a)cp A  uuuu  (33) Class V: FFI: two light syllables (a a)cp I I P  P  (34) Class VI: FFIII: two syllables with 1 heavy, 2 light (a A st  nd  a)cp I  P P P  (35) Classes VI: FFVI: two syllables with 1 light, 2 heavy: (a a)cp I A st  -  nd  -  u P u  Recall that with vowel lengthening or shortening suffixes, either only the first syllable of the root morpheme is lengthened (in vowel lengthening) or the first two syllables of the stem are shortened (in vowel shortening).  Cases with only the second syllable of the stem lengthened or shortened or cases  with only the first syllable of the stem is shortened are not attested in Nuu-chah-nulth. 199  These prosodic  characteristics in Nuu-chah-nulth can only be compatible with trochaic foot structures, while multiple patterns observed in reduplication cannot result from only one type of foot forms. Therefore, we can find both trochaic and iambic foot forms in the reduplication patterns.  Note also that with class II suffixes,  either foot form II or V I can be used, which are of the same structure. Such different specifications of foot structure above drive the multiple patterns both in the reduplicant and the base, with the interaction of the constraints below, some of which I make use of for vowel lengthening and shortening processes as well (see section 3.2.5: (241a)).  (36) MAXFootForm: A foot must agree with the metrical requirement specified on suffixes, i f any. Indexation of faithfulness constraints  Patterns of reduplication in Nuu-chah-nulth exhibit variation between reduplicant forms in terms of the presence/absence of coda as well as variation in vowel length as we discussed above. problem, I adopt the proposal of Ito & Mester (1999). faithfulness constraints.  19  To treat the  Lexical/stratal variation is due to the ranking of  The reduplicants of class II, III and V - V I , and some of class I and VII suffixes  are codaless, while the base consistently maintains its coda.  I propose that this is due to different  ranking status between indexed faithfulness constraints with respect to the markedness constraint NOCODA. First, the following input-output faithfulness constraints, which are domain-specified, ensure the identity between the input and output correspondents.  (37) Input-Output faithfulness: 5=all classes a. M A X I O 5 : Every segment of the input in the domain of 8 has a correspondent in the output. b. DEPlOg: Every element in the output in the domain of 8 has a correspondent in the input. Second, following Spaelti (1997) and Pulleyblank (to appear), I interpret the identity relationship between the reduplicative prefix and the base by transitivity as seen in (38).  The input-reduplicant  correspondence is indirectly related via the base; thus, a constraint is needed which requires the prosodic prefix to have featural content, rather than a constraint which requires the input-output faithfulness relationship such as DEPlO. The relevant constraint is INTEGRITY (39) (see McCarthy & Prince 1995).  19  Also see Buckley 1996, Smith 1997, 1998a,b, 1999, 2000, 2001, Odden 1998, Kim 2001 for discussion of  constraints subject to morphological/lexical domains.  200  (38) Input:  a ABC L U LJ I  ABCDE ABCDE I  I I I I I  (39) INTEGRITY: No segment ofthe input has multiple correspondents in the output.  (38) violates (39), because A B C of the input each have the two identical output elements on the surface. However, this constraint is violable, when higher-ranked constraints are at stake.  That is, the violations  of INTEGRITY result in order to satisfy the requirement that the base have a correspondent in the reduplicant and vice versa.  The relevant constraints are M A X B R and DEPBR as defined in (40), which  are morphological domain-specified. Moreover, they play a crucial role in determining the shape of the reduplicant in terms of the presence/absence of coda, as we will see below.  20  (40) Base-Reduplicant Faithfulness: 8=all classes a. MAXBRJ: Every element of the base in the domain 8 of has a correspondent in the reduplicant.  b. DEPBRg: Every element of the reduplicant in the domain of 8 has a correspondent i n the base.  Lexically domain-specified MAX/DEPlOg, in (37), and MAX/DEPBRg constraints, which, as will be clear throughout the discussion, are also phonologically domain-specified. As will be clearer when I discuss the relevant cases, the identity between the reduplicant and the base in the domain of class 1-1, IV and VII-1 is crucial with respect to the coda, forcing a violation of N O C O D A , while one in the domain of class 1-2, II, III, V , VI, and VII-2 can be suppressed to obey the higher-ranked N O C O D A .  Also, the interaction between the MAX/DEPIO and MAX/DEPBR constraints,  subject to both phonological and lexical domains which are indicated on them, and one between FootForm and the faithfulness constraints lead to variation in both bases and reduplicants. (41) shows language-specific ranking status of all the constraints to be used in the process under discussion.  20  While Pulleyblank (to appear) claims that reduplication-specific constraints such as FAITHBR constraints are not  necessary in the case of Yoruba reduplication, my analysis must make use of the constraints to treat modification of the base forms in Nuu-chah-nulth, which will be made explicit throughout discussion. 201  (41) MAX7DEPI0(SEG), M A X l O ( n )  [MV  , v i n , DEPIO(H) II, - v i ] [M  V  MAXFootForm  MAXlO(u) ,vi], DEPlO(p) ,vii] [V  [IV  MAX/DEPBR [HJV, vii-i]  NOCODA  M A X / D E P B R [i-2,ii,m,v, vi, vn-2]  INTEGRITY  Now, we will see how these constraints and their language-specific ranking work to create the surface forms in the reduplication context.  In the following tableaux, I indicate the base via underlining.  It  seems that there is no generally agreed formal definition of the base, sometimes referring to it (and the reduplicant as well) in an arbitrary way for the purpose of analysis (see Spaelti 1997; cf. Urbanczyk 1995).  For present purposes, I simply consider the base as the root morpheme of the stem to which the  reduplicant affixes, following general practice (McCarthy & Prince 1993, Spaelti 1997).  I do not count  each triggering-suffix as part of the base. As seen in many cases, a triggering suffix does not have to be immediately adjacent to a root morpheme.  It is possible that there are one or more other suffixes  intervening between the root and a triggering suffix.  The suffix just causes (part of) a root morpheme to  be reduplicated, but does not include itself as part of the base. I will start with Class 1-1 suffixes, with which the reduplicant is completely identical with the base in vowel length: the reduplicant is short/long i f the base is short/long and also the coda is copied.  (42) Class 1-1 yacyacmiFTafcPisfca RED-yac-miF-?a7«-?is-7t:a  RED-to walk-on the floor-SEQ-3sg/IND-again 'She is walking around again now.'  202  (43) Tableau /a-yac...-7ea/  MAXIO  DEPIO  MAXBR DEPBR 1-1  1-1  INTEGRITY  NO CODA **  •^a. [yac]yac CT  21  ***  (yac) b. |ya]ya CT  **.  *! (c)  c. dyalyac  *!(c)  d. [yac]ya  *! (c)  a  *  (ya) **  *  (>a) **  (ya)  e. „[vac]vaac  *!GO  f.„[ lyac  *(p)  **  *t**  * ••  ***  (vac)  Candidates b and e are ruled out by violating the high-ranked constraints MAXIO and DEPIO, respectively: the input stem-final consonant Icl does not surface in b and a mora is added on the surface in e. Recall that the reduplicant does not cause a DEPIO violation, but rather an INTEGRITY violation. It must be violated to satisfy MAXBR, which outranks INTEGRITY.  Candidates c, d, and f violate  M A X B R and DEPBR, respectively, which is higher-ranked than N O C O D A in the domain of class 1-1. The reduplicant does not copy the base-final consonant Icl in c, and Icl in the reduplicant does not have a correspondent in the base in d. Candidate a, which obeys all these high-ranked constraints, is selected as an optimal output.  MAXFootForm is not relevant in reduplication triggered by class I suffixes, because  the suffixes do not impose a metrical structure to be realised on the surface. limited to a single syllable.  Note that reduplication is  As suggested above, it is due to the underlying single-syllabic prefix  (without featural content). Consider the following example, which has a bisyllabic base.  (44) The case of a bisyllabic base tatamis-7ca  (*tamtamis7Va or *tamistamis7ea)  RED-tamis-7ca RED-to drift-again 'To keep drifting'  This case can have candidates such as (45g and i), in addition to candidates of the types found in (43b-f).  21  1 simply count the number of INTEGRITY violations as melodic doubling, ignoring moraic doubling.  203  (45) Tableau MAXIO  /a-tamis-ka/  DEPIO  INTEGRITY  MAXBRCTSTRUC  MAXBR DEPBR 1-1  ***  ^ a. Jtaltamis  *!  R. J t a l Jmisltamis  *!  i. Jtamltamis  **  1-1  NO CODA  *  INTEGRITY  **  **  3|e $ :{e $  **  ***  $  To prevent these candidates from appearing as surface forms, we need the following two constraints.  (46) a. INTEGRITY(a): The input syllable must not have multiple correspondents in the output.  b. M A X B R C T - S T R U C : The constituents of the reduplicant must match with the counterparts in the base in terms of syllabic structure.  Violation of LNTEGRITY(a) is fatal, while having multiple correspondents of the input segments is tolerated as the ranking shows.  Therefore, candidate g is ruled out, with the consequence that  reduplication is limited only to a single syllable. To observe (46b), the reduplicant has the same syllabic structure as the counterpart of the base. (See parallel syllable structure conditions in work on language production such as Nooteboom 1969, Stemberger 1985a: ch. 6).  In candidate i, the coda of the  monosyllabic reduplicant Iml is an onset of the second syllable of the base, violating M A X B R a - S T R U C . Although the reduplicant must copy the base maximally to observe M A X B R , a requirement to maintain a faithful relationship between the base and reduplicant in terms of syllable structure has priority over the constraint.  In sum, with class 1-1 suffixes, the reduplicant can have a coda, but only if (the first syllable  of) the base must have a coda as well. Class 1-2 suffixes have the same partem as 1-1 suffixes except for the fact that the coda of the base is not copied. constraints.  This difference is due to different ranking status among domain-specified M A X B R To obtain the no-coda effect in the reduplicant, the ranking of M A X B R I - 2 with respect to  N O C O D A must be N O C O D A »  M A X B R , which is reflected in tableau (48) with the relevant example  (47) .  204  (47) Class 1-2 cacapx?a-fuk RED-capx-?a+uk RED-man-to look after 'to look after a man/husband'  (48) Tableau /Ra-capx?a+uk/ ^  MAXIO  DEPIO  NO  MAXBR  CODA  1-2  *  a. [ca]capx 0  DEPBR 1-2  **(px)  ** ****  b. rtfcapxlcapx c. [ca]ca  INTEGRITY  **  *I*  0  d. „|calcaapx  *  *!(p)  ** (px)  *(u)  *  e.„[ Icapx  **  *** I * (capx)  As shown in tableau (48), candidates c a n d d are ruled out by violating the high-ranked constraints MAXIO and DEPIO, respectively, by deleting the coda consonants in c and by inserting a mora in d. Candidates a and b tie in these constraints. Note that the M A X / D E P B R constraint in the domain of class 1-2 is lower-ranked than NOCODA.  Consequently, candidate a is selected as an optimal form.  With class II suffixes, the reduplicant always has a long vowel but the base is not affected.  22  Recall that class II suffixes are specified for the following metrical requirement.  (49) Class II: FFII-two syllables with 1 heavy ( a a )„ A p p st  (50) Class II yaayaqfosta-Kfiik RED-yaqfc-sta-KPiik RED-disliking-each other- s.o. who always does s.t. 's.o. who always dislikes another'  From now on, I do not include candidates relevant to HAVESPEC for space reasons. 205  (51) Tableau /Ra-yaq7V...?iik(a a )J A P  MAXIO  DEPIO  MAX  Foot Form  u  NO CODA  c  23  (  c. {olyaqfclyaqk},,  d. Uvaaqklvaaqfc},,,  *!  *  **(qfc)  *!  **  ****  **  «fc )fc  *!(u)  *  e. { ryaa]yaaq^}<p o  *(u)  g. {ofyaaq^Jyaq*;},,  ** **  **  **(qk)  *!*(qfc)  f. {oLvaalyal.p  INTEGRITY  II  **(qfc)  (  b. { [ya]yaq^} p  II  *  a. { [yaa]yaq7V}p (J  M A X B R DEPBR  *(u)  **  •Ox)  ****  In tableau (51), candidates d, e, and f fail to maintain the correspondence between the input and the output by deleting the input consonants in f, and by inserting a mora on the stem (i.e. base) in d and e. Note that the identity relationship between reduplicant and input element is transitive. Whether the reduplicant is long or short, this does not cause MAX/DEPIO violation, although it may cause MAX/DEPBR violation.  Candidates b and c do not obey the metrical requirement that is specified for  the suffix: a foot with two moras on the 1 syllable. st  This leads to a fatal violation of MAXFootForm.  Candidate g is ruled out by fatally violating NOCODA.  Candidate a, which is the only candidate  obeying or incurring fewer violations ofthe high-ranked constraints, is chosen as an optimal output. With class III suffixes, the reduplicant is always short, and the base is unaffected. (52) is the metrical requirement specified for the suffixes and (53) is one ofthe relevant examples with tableau (54). (52) Class III: FFV: two syllables with first light: (a a)„ I  (53) Class III ?Aimusyuk apa& w  RED-?uus-yuk -?ap-?a?e-?i w  RED-some-to cry-CAUS-SEQ-3sg/IMP 'Make her cry for something!'  To compare candidate b and c, they violate MAXFootForm in the same way, whether the surface has coda in the reduplicant or not. Recall that Nuu-chah-nulth consonants cannot be moraic.  206  (54) Tableau /Ra-?uus-yuk (a  MAXIO  ay  w  DlPlO  MAX  Foot Form  1 a. {^[PulPuus}^  NO CODA  MAXBR  DEPBR  III  III  INTEGRITY  *  •(g)  **  *(H) •(g)  **  b. kPuuTPuus}^  *!  *  c. kPuugJftiug},,  *!  **  ***  **l  ***  d. { [?\isl?uus} p (  0  e. {[?us]?us}<p  *!(p)  f. { [?U]?UU}q,  *!(§)  0  G  **  *(u)  *** **  *(n)  As with class II suffixes, the identity between the base and the reduplicant is not crucial regarding the vowel length and coda.  The only difference from class II is that reduplication-triggering suffixes from  class III require the first syllable of the foot to be monomoraic on the surface. obey this requirement, which leads to a violation of MAXFootForm.  Candidates b and c do not  Candidates e, and f also violate the  high-ranked constraint: one of the input stem moras is deleted in e, and the stem-final consonant does not surface in f.  Candidate d is ruled out by violating N O C O D A , which is higher-ranked than MAX/DEPBR  in the domain of class III.  This results in  the selection of candidate a as an optimal output, which  trivially violates the latter. With class IV suffixes, both the reduplicant and the base must be long, which sometimes leads to modification of the base in terms of vowel length.  This is due to the following metrical requirement  specified for the suffixes.  (55) Class IV: FFIV: two heavy syllables (a o)„ A A pppp Before we see the tableau, recall that I mentioned that two 10 Faithfulness constraints, MAXIO and DEPIO need to be ranked depending on phonological and morphological classes.  Until now, the ranking  was not crucial and thus I did not provide the detailed ranking status in the previous tableaux. However, we need to consider their ranking status subject to phonological morphological classes at this point.  In  the domain of class IV (in fact, class VII as well), DEPIO is lower-ranked than MAXFootForm, which leads to lengthening of the base vowel.  (56) DEPlOp -m, v-vi]  > : >  FootForm »  DEPlOpv, vii] 207  (57) Class IV cuuccuuca?is RED-cuc-(y)a-?is RED-to scratch-continuously-3sg/IND 'S/he is continuously scratching.'  (58) Tableau /Rc-cuc-(y)a (o~  a)J  MAXIO  A A  MAXFoot  DEPIO  Form  IV  MAXBR IV  DEPBR IV  *  &~a. { [cuuc]cuu}<pCa a  (u) b. { [cuc]cuu) ca  *!  c. { [cuc]cu] ca  *!  d. klcuuclcujpca  *!  CT  (p  *  •Gi)  NO CODA  INTEGRITY  *  ***  *  ***  *  ***  *  ***  (u) 0  (p  *(u)  *  e. { [cuu]cuu}(pCa CT  *!(c)  (u)  *  *!(c)  f. { [cuulcuu}(pya 0  ** **  As seen in the tableau, candidate f is ruled out by deleting an input consonant Id, a violation of MAXIO. Candidates b-d do not obey MAXFootForm. The identity between the base and the reduplicant is crucial in the domain of class IV, which forces trivial violation of N O C O D A . Candidate e obeys N O C O D A but thereby violates M A X B R fatally. Consequently, candidate a is chosen as an optimal output. With class V suffixes, the reduplicant is always short and the base vowel is shortened, i f it is underlyingly long.  This means that MAXIO[JI] in the domain of class V is not crucially high-ranked.  The MAXIO constraint is high-ranked in the domain of class I-IV & VII, whether the element of interest is moras or segments.  On the other hand, in the domain of class V (in fact, also in the domain of VI),  MAXlO[Seg.] and MAXlOfp.] are ranked differently.  A n input segment must surface, while an input  mora can be suppressed when some other phonological requirements are at stake. In sum, the apparently complicated aspects regarding reduplication can be simplified as seen in the following ranking in (59).  (59) MAXIOMV.VII, MAXlO[seg] -vi » V  MAXlO[u] -vi V  (60) is the metrical structure required for class V suffixes.  208  (60) Class V: FFI: two light syllables (a o)„ I I p  p  Now, consider the relevant example, (61), with tableau, (62).  (61) Class V &3cix alcuk w  RED-&ix -(a)a-kuk w  RED-to smile/laugh-DUR-to resemble 'Smirk'  (62) Tableau /Ra-&ix ...kuk / w  (cr a),  MAXIO DEPIO MAX [Seg.]  v  1 1  Foot Form  MAXIO NO CODA Mv  MAXBR  V  DEPBR  INTEGRITY  V  p p  *  ^ a . { p£i]*iipX^a CT  *(x )  **  w  b. { [&il&i}„,x a  *!  *(x )  **  c. UfcTfeil^a  *!  *(x )  **  w  0  w  e. {[&]&}<i>a 0  w  *  d. Ufox lfoLx a w  w  *!  *00  ***  *  *!  **  ( w) X  f. {cPwiJ^^a  *!  *  **  *(x ) w  *(H) Candidate e violates MAXlO[Seg], because the input stem-final consonant [x ] is deleted. Candidates b , w  c, and f are ruled out by violating the high-ranked MAXFootForm constraint. the reduplicant, which causes a fatal violation of NOCODA.  Candidate d has a coda in  Candidate a does not achieve complete  identity between the base and the reduplicant, in order to less violate the markedness constraint. The final pair, classes VI and VII, exhibits an opposite property from class IV and V, showing moraic polarity. First, consider the following example from Class VI suffixes with which the reduplicant has a long vowel, but the base vowel is shortened, if it is underlyingly long. required for this class. (63) Class VI: FFIII: two syllables with one heavy (a 0% A I p p p  209  (63) is the metrical structure  (64) is the relevant example with tableau (65).  (64) Class VI a. siisicityaksis sii-siic-ityak-sis RED-maggot-afraid/fear 'I am afraid of maggots.'  (65) Tableau /Ra-siic-ityak/  MAXIO  0-)O  [Seg.] ,  (O  v  A 1  DEPIO  MAX  Foot Form  u uu  NO CODA  MAXBR VI  DEPBR VI  INTEGRITY  *(c)  *(u)  **  *  ^a. { [sii]si] ci a  MAXIO  (p  b. {a[sii]sii}cpci  *!  c. UsiJsiipCi  *!  d.{ [siic]sii}<pCi  *!  CT  e. {[sii]si}<p 0  f. { [sii]sii},p CT  *! (c) *!  *  *  **  *  **  if  ***  *  *(u)  *  ** **  (c) g. {a[si]sii] ci (p  h. Usii^sjipti  *!  **  *(c) *(u) *  *!  *(u)  In tableau (65), what is notable are candidates b, c, d, a n d g.  ***  They are all ruled out by violating  MAXFootForm. With class VI suffixes, the first syllable of the foot must be heavy and the second light. Candidates a and h tie on these high-ranked constraints.  NOCODA determines the optimal output,  which is candidate a. Finally, consider the final class, VII, which can be classified into VII-1 and -2 according to whether the coda of the base is copied or not.  Both subsets exhibit moraic polarity as in class VI, but in an  opposite way, which is due to the following metrical structure required for the class.  (66) Classes VII: FFVII: two syllables with second heavy: (a 0% I A u u u  210  (67) is the relevant example and (68) illustrates the implication of the template and the constraints.  (67) Class VII-1 a. hichiicnuk RED-hic-mik RED-feces-on the hand 'Feces on the hand'  (68) Tableau /a-hic-nuk(o 0%/  MAXIO  1 A  MAX  Foot Form  pp p  DEPIO  MAXBR  DEPBR  (M-)VII  VII-1  VII-1  a. {a[hic]hjic}<p b. {afhiilhiic},,  *!  c. {athijhic^  *!  d. { [hic1hic)|,  *!  n  (  e. { [hii]hj}  *!(c)  *  f. { [hii]hii}<p  *!(c)  *  (5  (p  0  CT  (  *!  INTEGRITY  *(p)  **  ***  *(c)  *  **  *(c)  *  **  **  *** **  *(p)  * *  g. fcfjhilhiic},,, h. { [hii]hic}p  *  NO CODA  ** •(c) *!(p) *(c)  *(n)  *  **  *  **  As seen in the tableau (68), candidates b, c, d, f, and h are ruled out by violating MAXFootForm.  With  class VII suffixes, the foot structure must have the first syllable light and the second heavy, but these candidates have different foot structure from the input form. ranked constraints and DEPIO.  MAXBR  Candidates a and g tie on these all high-  determines the final winner, which is candidate a.  Note that  N O C O D A is lower ranked than M A X B R in the domain of class VII-1. (69) is the case where the reduplicant does not have a coda, which is due to N O C O D A outranking MAX/DEPBR in the domain of VII-2 as illustrated in (70). The selection process is the same as VII-1.  211  (69) Class VII-2 a. wiwiiksapi?is RED-wik-sapi-?is RED-NEG-to depend on-3sg/TND 'S/he is depending on nothing.'  (70) Tableau /Ra-wik-sapi(a o%/  MAXIO  MAX  Foot Form  1A  uu u  DEPIO (u)vn  *  «• a. { [wilwiik}<p 0  NO  MAXBR  CODA  VII-2  *  DEPBR VII-2  INTEGRITY  **  *(k) *(u)  *  *(k)  **  *!  *  *(k)  **  *!  **  b. {[wii]wiik}<p  *!  c. { [wilwik},p d. { [wiklwik}<p  a  a  0  e. { [wii]wi},p 0  f. {„rwii]wii},p  *! (k) *! (k)  0  *** *(u)  *  *  ** **  *  g. kfwiklwiik},, h. { [wiilwik}(p  *  *!  **|  *(u)  *  *(k)  ***  •Ox)  **  In sum, although patterns of Nuu-chah-nulth reduplication exhibit complicated properties, they can be treated with only a simple set of constraints. The constraints used are universal in that they play a role in determining surface forms in other languages as well, such as NOCODA, while some of them still have language-specific properties: for example, morphological-domain-specified faithfulness constraints. The reduplicative morpheme is specified as a prosodic element, which is a. This circumfixation leads to the combination of a monosyllabic prefix and a suffix.  Moreover, metrical requirements specified for suffix  determine the surface reduplicant form, sometimes leading to modification of the base.  On the other  hand, because, whether the base is mono- or bi-syllabic, the reduplicant is always monosyllabic, one might suggest that the size of the reduplicant results from the emergence of the unmarked effect (for an A-templatic approach) or from a constraint which defines the size of the reduplicant: e.g. RED=o\ (for a templatic approach). The presence of underlying prosodic elements leading to reduplication, however, is supported byfixedsegmentism in Nuu-chah-nulth, which will be discussed in the next section. In conclusion, the interaction of prosodic/metrical requirements and domain-specified faithfulness constraints, and one of faithfulness and markedness constraints cause variation in both reduplicant and  212  base forms.  This treatment straightforwardly explains the complicated properties of Nuu-chah-nulth  reduplication.  5.1.3 Exceptional cases  Reduplication triggered by suffixes consistently exhibits the patterns described above, but there are several exceptional cases with some suffixes.  (71) with -k'uk a. siisiickuk  (*sisickuk)  RED-siic-kuk RED-maggot-to resemble 'rice'  b. ?uu?uuskuk?is  (*?u?uskuk?is)  RED-?uus-kuk-?is RED-some-to resemble-3sg/IND 'S/he looks like someone.'  c. tiitiickuk?is  (*titickuk)  RED-tiic-kuk-?is RED-alive-to resemble-3 sg/IND 'S/he looks healthy.'  In (71), we would expect both the base and the reduplicant vowels to be short, according to the pattern with the suffix (cf. (28): class V ) .  However, the underlying long vowel appears as such in the  reduplicant as well as the base. I assume that this exceptional case can be treated as lexicalisation. For example, the meaning of the word in (71a) is not '(it) looks like a maggot' but 'rice'.  24  The preservation  of the vowel length may be related to the lexicalised meaning. In (71b), the underlying long vowel appears on the surface and the shortened form is not allowed.  I suggest that this exception is to  maximise lexical contrast (Czaykowska-Higgins & Urbanczyk 2001). Consider the following example.  24  If we add a pronominal suffix -fis, as follows, then it can mean either 'it is rice' or 'it looks like maggots.'  Interestingly, the sentence still exhibits the same length with the both meanings, i) siisiickuk?is  213  (72) ?u?ukuk?is 7u-Puukuk-?is RED-to resemble-3sg/TND 'S/he looks like some specific person.'  (71b) means 'S/he looks like someone (the speaker does not have any specific person in mind), while in (72) , the speaker thinks about a certain person s/he knows.  I suppose that no shortening in (71b) results  from the purpose of clear distinction between phonologically similar sequences of words.  The most  mysterious case is (71c), which is really an exceptional case for no morphological or semantic reasons. (73) shows that both the presence of the reduplicant and its absence does not affect the meaning as a whole.  This kind of optionality only occurs when the base is followed by the morpheme -waaqh 'to  mean'; therefore, it can be said that it is not really an exception for the pattern of-ka.  (73) Optionality with -ka  a. ?i?iqhwaaqh?ca ?i-?iqh-waaqh-7Va RED-same-to mean-again 'the same meaning  cf. ?iqhwaaqh7Va 'the same meaning'  b. k isk iswaaqh?ea w  w  k is-k is-waaqh-ka w  w  RED-different-to mean-again 'different meaning'  cf. k iswaaqh7«a 'different meaning' w  5.1.4 Fixed segments in reduplication  As seen above, reduplicants generally obtain their phonological constituents from the base morphemes. However, there are two types of fixed segments which appear with reduplication-triggering suffixes.  214 Presence of M with 'Repetitive' suffixes'  With the suffixes -(y)a 'continuously' and -s/c 'continually', the reduplicant has a coda M on the surface.  26  It appears only when the base is monosyllabic and ends with a vowel, as seen in (74)-(75),  (compare a case where (the first syllable of) the base has a coda). However, if the base starts with M or /&/, then the alveolar affricate Id is inserted instead, as in (74c-d) and (75d).  (74) with -(y)a ' continously'  a. cuufccuuya?is RED-fo-cu-ya-?is RED-to wash-continuously-3sg/LND 'S/he does laundry continuously'  cf. cu-k ik-it-?is John mucictupuk?i. 'John washed his clothes.' w  cf. cuuccuuca?is  (*cuufccuuca?is)  RED-cuc-(y)a-?is RED-to scratch-continuously-3sg/IND ' S/he is continuously scratching.'  b. k aafck aaya?is w  w  RED-fc-k aa-ya-?is w  RED-to back up-continuously-3sg/IND 'S/he keeps backing up.'  cf. k aacikk acik?is John ruTuufc. 'John is backing up and ending (up to the rocks).' w  w  Wojdak (2002) also investigates the same issue. 26  The initial lyl in -ya is deleted after a consonant as in (i) (see (16) for more examples); -s and -c are allomorphs of  the {CONTINUALLY} suffix: the former appears after a consonant, or a low vowel /a/, and the latter after a high vowel, lil or Id (see (69)). Also see Rose (1981). i) cuuccuuca?is cuuc-cuc-(y)a-?is RED-to scratch-continuously-3 sg/IND 'S/he is continuously scratching.' 215  c. kaac7taaya?is RED-c-fca-ya-?is RED-to split wood-continuously-3sg/IND 'S/he keeps splitting wood.'  cf. 9eacitamit?is naniiqsak?i. 'John is splitting wood for his granpa.'  d. ?ciic7ciiya?is7a"l' RED-c-?ci-ya-?is?a'i' RED-to shoot-continuously-3pl/IND 'They keep shooting.'  cf. 9eici7titwa?is John piispis. 'It is said that John shot a cat.'  (75) with -s 'continually'  a. tikt'ic?is RED-k-ti-c-?is RED-to throw-continually-3sg/IND 'S/he keeps throwing (s.t.).'  cf. tici7cit?is John k aacsacum. 'John threw chairs.' w  cf. watqwatqs?is  ?isciip Kyle.  RED-watq-s-?is  (*wa7Vwatqs?is)  ?isciip Kyle  RED-to swollow-continually-3sg/IND gum 'Kyle keeps swallowing gum.'  b. sufcsuks?is RED-k-su(k i7c)-s-?is w  RED-to grab-continually-3sg/IND 'S/he keeps taking s.t.'  cf. suk $as?is yuk iiqsak?i. ' S/he wants to get his younger sibling.' w  w  216  c. kuufckuuc?is RED-k-kuu-c-?is RED-tofilet-continually-3sg/IND 'S/he keeps mending a mat.'  cf. kuuci7Vit?is John. 'John was filleting (e.g. salmon for smoking).'  d. 7cac7cas?is. _ 9ea-c-fca-s-?is RED-to split wood-continually-3 sg/IND 'S/he is splitting wood continually' Presence of Id  Nuu-chah-nulth reduplication creates another kind of fixed segmentism.  Id appears with one of the class  VII suffixes -^/(also see Sapir & Swadesh 1939). As seen in (76), whether the base has a coda or not, and is monosyllabic or bisyllabic, unlike Ikl insertion, it is always present. coda, Id replaces it.  27  (76) a. kuckuuxsuiRED-c-kux-su-1RED-residue-on the eyes 'Dirt on the eyes' cf. kuxk acyu 'matted with dirt' w  b. wicwiiksu-F RED-c-wik-su+ RED-NEG-on the eyes 'Nothing on your eyes (e.g. glasses)' cf. wik?is 'It is not...'  For the lengthening process of the base vowel, see 5.1.2. 217  If, therefore, the base has a  c. kickiiTVuksu-rRED-c-ki7c-uk-su4RED-?-POSS-on the eyes 'Wearing glasses' cf. ki&uuk 'glasses'  d. mucmuuqsu-fRED-c-rhuq-su'r' RED-burnt-on the eyes 'A burnt-color eyeball' cf. rhuqumF 'burnt around (e.g. a canoe)'  e. PucPuuksu-r/ RED-c-Puk-suiRED-another-on the eyes 'Wearing another's (glasses)'  cf. Pukciq  'two vessels traveling side by side'  f. nuchuuqsu+ RED-c-nuq (ii)-su+ w  RED-stye-on the eyes 'stye on the eyes'  cf. huq ii 'boil' w  g. kickiinucsu+?is RED-c-kinuc-suF-Pis RED-blue-on the eys-3sg/IND 'S/he has black eyes.'  cf. kinucak?is 'It is blue.'  218 Analysis  The examples above lead to the interesting issue of fixed segmentism. Alderete et. al (1999) distinguish two types of reduplication with fixed segmentism.  They claim that fixed segments can be treated as  cases of emergence ofthe unmarked if they are phonological defaults, but fixed segments can also be due to a process of affixation in which case they should be treated as morphologically-driven fixed segmentism (cf. Wojdak 2002). The fixed segments in Nuu-chah-nulth reduplication, Ikl and Id, appear only with some suffixes and can be the unmarked segments neither language-internally nor cross-linguistically. presences are morphologically motivated.  It seems that their  Following Kim & Picanco (2003), I suggest that the fixed  segments should be underlyingly specified. (Also see Wojdak 2002 for another argument in the same line).  Moreover, since Nuu-chah-nulth reduplicants result from prosodic requirements, i.e. prosodic  templates, manifested on some suffixes, the fixed segments are specified on the prosodic element. As I claimed above, some suffixes are specified for a prosodic element, a, and thus the fixed segments would be specified within the underlying syllable.  Recall that the fixed segments always appear as coda: the  base always starts with a consonant. This means that fixed segments should be specified in the input for both phonological forms and prosodic positions. Therefore, their underlying representations would be as follows, where the position ofthe fixed segments within the underlyingly specified syllable is determined.  (77) a...ya Coda  I  (78)  CT...SUF  Coda c  There are two other problems: the context of their appearance and allomorphy. While the segment Id with -^/appears invariably on the surface, M appears only when the base morpheme ends with a vowel and is monosyllabic. In addition, the latter has an allomorph Id, which appears when the base morpheme starts with M or /&/ as in (79).  219  (79) a. &ac9eas?is 7ca-c-7ea-s-?is  RED-to split wood-continually-3sg/IND 'S/he is splitting wood continually'  b. 7ciic£iiya?is?aF 7eii-c-?ei-ya-?is7aF RED-to shoot-continuously-3pl/nND "They keep shooting.'  For the first problem: the contexts of the fixed segments, I propose that their distribution results from the interaction of faithfulness constraints, (80), and a constraint which prevents the presence of complex coda in a prefix, (81a), and an alignment constraint, (81b).  Note that (80c) is domain-specified: this  constraint is ranked differently depending on classes of triggering suffixes, as we will see in tableaux below (cf. Wojdak 2002).  (80) a. MAXIO: A n input element must have a correspondent in the output.  b. MAXBR: Every element of the base has a correspondent in the reduplicant.  c. MAXBRCodaFs]8: Every feature of the base coda has a correspondent in the reduplicant in the domain of 8 (8= a morphological class: class I  or VII).  (81) a. NoComplexCoda] fi : There is no complex coda in the domain of prefix. Pre  X  b. ALIGN-/TV/: Align Ikl with a monosyllabic root. (80a) drives an effect by which a fixed segment appears on the surface. (80b-c) require a counterpart of the base elements in the reduplicant.  (81a) disallows more than one coda consonant in the reduplicant.  (81b) prevents M from appearing on the surface, i f the root morpheme the prefixal reduplicant attaches to (i.e. the base) consists of more than on syllable. (82) shows language-specific ranking status of these constraints: the ranking drives underlyingly specified coda segments in the reduplicant to surface.  220  (82) NoComplexCoda]p x, ALIGN-/*/ refi  U MAXBRCodaFsiv  u MAXIO  u MAXBRCodaFsvii u MAXBR  First, consider the /c/ case in (83): as illustrated in (84).  This is a simpler case: it does not exhibit  alternation unlike Ikl. The fixed consonant appears as a coda of the reduplicant on the surface, instead of the base coda Ikl.  (83) ?uc?uksuF ?uc-?uk-suF RED-another-on the eyes 'Wearing another's (glasses)'  (84) Tableau NoComplex Coda]  /a-?uk-suF 1 coda 1 Icl  MAXIO  Prefix  a. kPucJPuuk},,  CT  <  MAXBR  *  *  *  *  *!  b. kPuktfuuk},, c. { [?ukc]?uuk} p  MAXBR  CodaFs VII  *! *!  d. {aPujTuukJcp  In tableau (84), candidate a violates MAXBRCodaFs in the domain of class VII. while the reduplicant coda is the underlyingly specified Icl. [Dorsal] and so on.  The relevant features can be [-Strident],  However, candidates b, c, and d do not obey one of the higher-ranked constraints  NoComplexCoda] fix and MAXIO. Pre  The base coda is Ikl,  Candidate b has the reduplicant which almost completely copies the  The suffix is specified for FootForm VII, where the first syllable is short and the second long, Our issue under discussion is fixed segmentism, so I do not include constraints regarding metrical requirements. 221  base, but by doing that, violates MAXIO. Note that the input coda Icl does not surface. Candidate c has another coda as well as. the fixed coda consonant in the reduplicant, which is not allowed by NoComplexCoda]  Prefix  Consequently, candidate a is selected as an optimal output, only realising the  .  fixed coda. Second, the restriction that Ikl appears only when the base morpheme is monosyllabic AND ends with a vowel as in (85a), but does not when the root is bisyllabic as in (85b), can be treated by the grammar in (82) in the same way.  (85) a. cuufccuuya?is  (*cuucuuya?is)  RED-fc-cu-ya-?is RED-to wash-continuously-3sg/IND 'S/he does laundry continuously'  b. haahaaiicxa?is  (*haa7chaaiicxa?is)  RED-haYicx-(y)a-?is RED-to sneeze-continuously-3sg/IND 'S/he continuously sneezes.'.  Compare the following tableaux.  (86) Tableau for (85a) /a-cu-ya  NoComplexCoda]p fj re  X  MAXBR  MAXIO  CodaFsiv coda Ikl ^ a. [cuufc]cuu CT  *!  b. [cuu]cuu CT  222  MAXBR  (87) Tableau for the case of a monosyllabic base with coda /a-cuc-ya  NoComplexCoda]  Prefix  1 coda  MAXBR  CodaFs  MAXIO  MAXBR  IV  Ikl *  a. [cuuc]cuuc a  b. [cuuk]cuuc  *!  c. [cuu]cuuc  *!  CT  CT  *  *  *!  d. [CUUC7V]CUUC CT  (88) Tableau for (85b) /a- haTicx-ya  NoComplexCoda]  Prefix  ALIGN-/7V/  MAXBR  CodaFs  MAXIO  MAXBR  IV  coda Ikl  *  a. [haa]haaucx n  b. [haa7<:]haa ricx <  a  *!  *  *  ****  ****  As seen in the tableau above, the underlyingly specified coda fid can surface only if the base has a specific phonological structure: i.e. a single open syllable.  Note that while MAXBRCodaFs outranks  MAXIO in the domain of class IV, it is lower-ranked than MAXIO in the domain of class VII-1. drives different effects in terms ofthe distribution of each fixed segment.  This  That is, Id, with a class VII-1  suffix, must surface whether the base has coda or not, whereas Ikl, with a class I V suffix, can only surface when the base does not coda. Finally, following Wojdak (2002), which treats the problem as an OCP effect, where the sequence of two [+Lateral] features is disallowed as defined in (89a), I show that the appearance Id, instead of Ikl, can be dealt with the following constraints.  223  (89) a. *[+LAT][+LAT]: A sequence of two [+Lateral] features is not allowed. b. MAXIO[+Lateral]: An input [+Lateral] feature must have a correspondent in the output. c. MAXIO[+StridenfJ: An input [+Strident] feature must have a correspondent in the output.  These constraints and their language-specific ranking (as illustrated in tableau (91)) cause the underlying Ikl to appear as Id on the surface: both have identical features except for [Lateral], (see Wojdak 2002 for a detailed discussion). (90) is the relevant example.  (90) 7Vaac7t:aayaris  (*foaa7Vkaaya?is)  kaa-c-7Va-ya-?is RED-to split wood-continuously-3 sg/IND 'S/he keeps splitting wood.'  (91) Tableau /c?-&aa-ya (FFIV)  *[+LAT][+LAT] MAXlO(seg)  MAXIO [+Lateral]  MAXIO [+Strident]  coda  ill ^ a. o~[7Vaac]?eaa  b. a[kaak]ka& c. a[7Vaa]?caa  *! *!  d. ap\aat]9eaa  *  *  *  *!  In the tableau, candidate b is ruled out, a case of the OCP violation, *[+Lat][+LafJ. Candidate c deletes the input Ikl, violating MAXlO(seg), which count a segment itself.  Candidates a a n d d both violates  MAXIO [+Lateral]. MAXlO[+Strident] determines candidate a as the optimal output.  224  5.2 Allomorphy  Nuu-chah-nulth has many interesting processes of allomorphy.  We need to look at these morpho-  phonological phenomena, since such morphological information often helps to better understand phonological processes such as glottalisation, lenition and reduplication; otherwise, some aspects of the phonological phenomena could be considered exceptions.  In many cases, their distribution is predictable  in terms of phonological factors, while in some cases, there seem to be no phonological clues for each allomorph of a morpheme in question. I will start with the predictable cases.  5.2.1 Predictable allomorphy  The following morphemes are cases where the distribution of their allomorphs is predictable.  The  predictability comesfromphonological aspects. -si7e/ci7c/k i7c 'momentaneous' w  The morpheme -si?e/ci?c/k i?t; 'momentaneous' is an aspectual suffix. w  It can denote either perfective or  inceptive aspect depending on semantic properties of the stem morpheme (see Swadesh & Swadesh 1933, Sapir & Swadesh 1939, Rose 1981, Davidson 2002 for the detailed discussion: I concentrate on the phonological aspect of the morpheme-initial segment).  The distribution of each allomorph of the suffix  is as follows  (92) The distribution of the allomorphs of {size} Allomorphs  Examples  Contexts  [s]i7*  After a consonant-final stem  (93)  [c]ifc  After a [-round] vowel-final stem  (94)  [k ]i7*  After a [+round] vowel-final stem  (95)  w  When the suffix is attached to a consonant-final stem, it surfaces as -s/fcas shown in (93).  (93) a. tuwah-[s]ifc  'jumping into a vessel'  b. kaapap-[s]i?a7taf?is John. 'John is loved by someone' c. kamatq-[s]i?e?is  'S/he starts to run.'  d. tux-[s]i*?is ' S/he starts to jump.' 225  e. suut-[s]i7V?is 'S/he starts to drill.' f. tupk-[s]i7V?is ' It becomes black.' g. capx-[s]i7V?is 'It starts to boil.' h. ma+-[s]i7«?is 'it is getting cold.' i. his-[s]i^?is capx?i 'She hit the man.' j. tuxtuxs-[s]i?a9euk?is 'S/he now starts to keep jumping.' k. hac-[s]i?a7V?is wa?icu7V 'S/he completely fell asleep.' 1. 9ic-[s]i7V?is 'it is getting rotten.'  When the suffix follows a vowel-final stem and the vowel is [-round], the suffix surfaces as -cifc as shown in (94).  (94) a. naatsii-[c]ifcif?is  John ?uushyumsuk?i. 'John saw his friend.'  b. &-[c]i?e?is maamaati?i. c. saa-[c]i?c?is  'He shot the bird.'  ' S/he starts to crawling.'  d. waasca-[c]i7eh huwi 'Where does your dad go?'  When the suffix is preceded by a vowel-fmal stem, and the vowel is [+round], the suffix surfaces as ^"^as shown in (95).  (95) a. su-[k ]i7Vif?is?aF taana 'they took the money' w  b. cu-[k ]i7V?is w  ' S/he starts to wash s.t.'  c. tu-[k ]i?e?is 'it starts to scatter.' w  d. ?uu-[k ]i7tas?is cukuu ' w  '  In sum, the momentaneous suffix surfaces as -Rafter a consonant, and as either -cikox -k ifr after a w  vowel. This generalisation raises two questions: i) what is the underlying form, and ii) after the underlying form is determined, how to treat the distribution of the allomorphs within OT. For the first question, I suppose that -s/Aris the underlying form.  While each context for -c/#and -  k ifc provides a predictable clue for those allomorphs; [-round] and [+round], respectively, it seems that w  there is no close phonological relation between -si'% and its distribution.  Therefore, this morphological  process can be generalised as follows: the momentaneous suffix -sib surfaces as -cik an'd -k ifc after w  vowels. For the second question, given it is proposed that -s/Aris the underlying form, how can we account for the distribution of each allomorph? I suggest that the complementary distribution of the allomorphs can 226  be treated in terms of sequence restriction and assimilation. For the sequence restriction, we would need the following constraint which prevents [+Cont] from appearing after [-Cons]: because this restriction applies only to the momentaneous suffix, we would need to specify a morpheme-specific domain.  (96) Sequence constraint: {is a morpheme boundary. *[-Cons] Mom{[+ConfJ: A sequence of [-Cons] and [+Cont] is not allowed.  The assimilation aspect is associated with two allomorphs, -c/#-and -k i&, which appears only after a w  vowel-final stem. after [+Round].  Their distribution is predictable: the former appears after a [-Round], and the latter The presence of -cik'xs, a simple case: its featural content is identical to that of -sifc  except for [Cont]. To obey (96), the underlying [+Cont] is changed to [-Cont]. To obtain this effect, we would have the following ranking of the relevant constraints.  (97) * [-Cons] m {[+Cont], MAXfCons] MO  MAX[+Cont]  The surface presence of -k ik can be a case of true assimilation case. w  vowel.  In Nuu-chah-nulth [+round] vowels are always [+back].  It appears after a [+round]  I choose [round] as a relevant feature  instead of [back], since the initial roundness, rather than backness, property of the allomorph -k i%seems w  to be activated for the process in question Now that the surface form of the allomorph is -k ifc, not kik, w  as a contrast form against -ci&, backness does not seem to be crucial. To treat the assimilation aspect, we need the following alignment constraint (98), which outranks the two faithfulness constraints (99).  (98) ALIGN-[+R]=Align([+Round], R,  Momentaneous, L): The right edge of the feature [+Round]  should coincided with the left edge of the momentaneous suffix.  (99) a. DEP[+Round] : The feature [+Round] in the output must have a correspondent in the input. b. DEPPATH[+Round]:  Any output path between [+Round] and an anchor must have a  correspondent path in the input.  In the following tableaux we see how the constraints work for the proper allomorphs of the suffix to surface.  To simplify the exposition, I exclude all other phonological aspects which are not relevant to  my discussion.  227  (100) a. tuwah-si* ^ tuwahsi*  'jumping into a vessel'  (101) Tableau tuwah- si?c  *[-Cons] om{[+Cont] M  MAX[+Cont]  MAX[Cons]  [+Cons][+Cont] ^ a. tuwah-[s]i* [+Cons][+Cont] b. tuwah-[c]i7e *!  [+Cons][-Cont] c. tuwah-[k ]ik I i 11 [+Cons][-Cont] w  *!  In the context where a stem-final element is [+Cons], the momentaneous suffix surfaces faithfully as shown in (101).  The higher-ranked two constraints are not relevant.  (102) is a case of -ciArwith the tableau (103).  The underlying -sifc surfaces as -cik. to avoid a fatal  violation of *[-Cons] m{[ Cont], and MAX[-Cons]. +  Mo  (102) naatsii-/s/iMt?is  John ?uushyumsuk?i.  naatsii[c]i?c 'John saw his friend.'  (103) Tableau naatsii-  ^  si*  *[-Cons] m{[ Cont] MAX[Cons] ALIGN[+R] DEP[+R] +  Mo  MAX[+Cont]  [-Cons][+Cont] a. naatsii-[c]i7c 1 1 [-Cons] [-Cont] [-Round] [-Round]  *  b. naatsii-[s]i* [-Cons][+Cont]  *!  c. naatsii-[k ]i9e w  1 1  *!  [-Cons] [-Cont] [+Round] d. naats-fsji* [+Cont]  *!  228  [III i ' V^j  sSSlslfiS  When a stem-final element is [-Cons], the constraint *[-Cons] m{[ Cont] prevents the input -sikfrom +  Mo  surfacing.  Moreover, -k ik is not allowed, either: it would cause a DEP[+R] violation as seen with w  candidate c. The deletion of the input [-Cons] in candidate d leads to a fatal violation of MAX[Cons]. Therefore, the momentaneous suffix surfaces with III in its initial position as seen with candidate a. Finally, -k ifc surfaces i f the stem ends with lul as illustrated in tableau (105), with the relevant w  example (104).  (104) tu-si7tfis  tuk ik?is 'it starts to scatter.' w  (105) Tableau tu- si7c  *[-Cons] om{[+Cont] MAX[Cons] ALIGN[+R] DEP[+R] M  MAX[+Cont]  1 1 [-Consl[+Cont] <*• a. tu-Pc^Jik  *  [+Round] b. tu-[c]i7V  1 1 [-Cons] [-Cont] [+Round]  *!  c. tu-[s]i9e 1 1 [-Cons][+Cont]  *!  d. tu-[k ]i9e w  1 1 [+Round][+Round]  *!  In (105), candidate b is ruled out by violating the alignment constraint. aligned with the left edge of the momentaneous suffix. [+Cont], a fatal violation of *[-Cons] feature.  Mom  The feature [+Round] is not  Candidate c has a sequence of [-Cons] and  {[+Cont]. Candidate d violates DEP[+R] by inserting [+Round]  Candidate a violates MAX[+Conf], but trivially; therefore, it is selected as an optimal output. In  addition, it violates DEPPATH [+Conf], which I did not include in the tableau for reasons of space. However, in the spirit of OT, it must be lower-ranked than the four high-ranked constraints. The approach provides a simple account regarding the distribution of the allomorphs of the suffix. However, I have found the following exceptional cases.  (106) Exceptions a. him-[c]i7« him?as?anitsis. 'S/he brought s.t. to show me.'  (*himsi7\;...)  b. ?iih-[k ]i9easit?is muks?i. 'S/he was going to throw big stones.' (*?iihsi?tasit?is...) w  229  These examples apparently raise a problem with my analysis above. In the two examples, we expect -sik on the surface for each case. Besides, there are no common phonological properties between these stemfinal consonants. This requires further research. Consonant deletion: -(C)V....  Some suffixes such as -(k)+aa, -(qjum-f-, (q)ii+, and -(y)a have their initial consonant deleted when following a consonant-final stem.  (107) -(k)-raa'to be called..' a. Tu-k+aa-sis  Eun-Sook .  Puk-faasis Eun-Sook  it-to be called-lsg/IND  'My name is Eun-Sook'  b. k is-k+aa-kuk-?is  k is+aakuk?is  w  w  different-to be called-to seem-3sg/IND  'it seems like he has a different name.'  (108) -(q)um+ 'round' a. ?a7ta-qunri"  T>  'two dollars'  two-round  b. &s-qunriwhite-round  ?a7caqum+  •>  ?eisum-i's.t. white and round'  (109) -(q)ii+ a. sapnii-qift bread-to make  b. mamuuk -qiii' w  basket-to make  sapniiqiiF 'to make bread'  mamuuk iri" w  'to make baskets'  (110)-(y)a  29  a. cu-ya-?is to wash-continuously-3sg/TND  cuu?ccuuya?is ' S/he does laundry continuously'  -ya is a reduplication-triggering suffix (see section 5.1) 230  b. cuc-ya-?is  cuuccuuca?is  to scratch-continuously-3sg/TND  'S/he is scratching continuously.'  This kind of deletion is not related to a restriction forbidding consonant clusters.  As we saw in  section 4.3, in Nuu-chah-nulth a sequence of three consonants is allowed, even in the middle of a word. In fact, all the morphemes except -k+aa have only one initial consonant.  Moreover, the relevant  sequences do not violate the Sonority Sequence Principle (see section 4.3.). Interestingly, although some suffixes start with a consonant cluster, such as -swi 'to overdo s.t.,  -q?ich 'year', and -As  ' lsg/Interogative', they do not allow their initial consonant to be deleted as seen below.  (111) wa?ic-swi-?is  ^  wa?icswi?is  (*wa?icwi?is)  to sleep-beyond normality-3sg/IND 'S/he slept in.'  (112) nup-q?ich  ^  one-year(s)  (113) siya-(a)s-hs I-belong to-3sg/INT  nupq?ich  (*nup?ich)  'one year'  siyashs  (*siyas)  'Does it belong to me?'  Although the distribution of allomorphs of each morpheme in (107)-(110) is predictable, it seems that we could not find any context from neighbouring sounds, given that consonant clusters are frequently observed in the language and that there are no other phonological factors for deletion in Nuu-chah-nulth. Nevertheless, one possible solution for this problem is that segments which are deleted in the relevant context do not have a root node underlyingly. Zoll (1996) proposes that when only part of segments with the same phonological contents are deleted in certain contexts, they should be distinguished from full segments, which are never deleted.  Zoll names the former as 'latent segments' and suggest that they  consist of a floating feature or a set of floating features, i.e. subsegments.  They link to an epenthetic root  node inserted only in certain phonological contexts, while conventional floating features link to an existing root node. While I claimed in section 3.2.1 that a distinction between floating features and latent segments is not necessary, a distinction between full segments and latent segments is necessary in order to treat this kind of asymmetry in terms of deletion.  Therefore, following Zoll, I propose that the  segments in question in (107)-(110) consist of a set of floating features and that they appear on the surface by inserting a root node, when they follow a vowel.  However, if they follow a consonant, they  do not appear on the surface. This process can be treated by the interaction of DEPRootNode, which is domain-specified, and MAX[Subseg.] (114).  231  (114) MAX[Subseg.]: every subsegment in the input must have a correspondent in the output.  As seen in the ranking (115), to insert a root node is tolerated only if they following a vowel.  (115) DEPRootNode(C_J »  MAX[Subseg.] »  DEPRootNode(V_J  (117) and (119) illustrate the implication of the ranking, with the relevant examples (115) and (117), respectively.  30  (116) =(107a) Tu-ktaa-sis  Eun-Sook  ^  it-to be called-1 sg/IND  ?uk+aasis Eun-Sook 'My name is Eun-Sook'  (117) Tableau 7u-[Subseg.]-i-aa  DEPRootNode(C_)  MAX[Subseg.]  DEPRootNode(V_J *  a. Tuktaa  *!  b. ?u+aa  Candidate b is ruled out by deleting the input subsegment. output, violates DEPRootNodefV  Candidate a, which is selected as an optimal  ), but trivially.  (118)=(107b) k is-k+aa-kuk-?is  k is4-aakuk?is  different-to be called-to seem-3sg/IND  'it seems like he has a different name.'  w  w  (119) Tableau k is-[Subseg.]4-aa w  a. k isk+aa w  DEPRootNode(C__)  MAX[Subseg.]  DEPRootNode(V_J  *! *  «° b. k is+aa w  To insert a root node after a consonant leads to a fatal violation as seen with candidate a.  Hence;  candidate b is selected as an optimal output form, which has the input subsegment deleted on the surface. I do not provide a set of features for Ikl in the input form for reasons of space, specifying just as 'Subseg.' 232 -s/c/k i(?e) 'momentaneous' w  The suffix-final consonant, Ikl, is deleted before some grammatical suffixes such as -(?)a7c 'sequential', f?)at 'passive', -(?)i '2sg/IMP(erative), and -?aq7c 'future tense' (Stonham 1999). The first three suffixes are glottalising suffixes and the last isn't, but commonly they all start with a glottal stop on the surface. (Recall that the initial glottal stop of the glottalising suffixes is just one case of surface realisations of such suffixes: when following a stop/affricate, there is no glottal stop in the surface form of the relevant suffix).  Interestingly, the suffix-final consonant is not deleted but glottalised before lexical glottalising  suffixes such as -(?)as and -f?)ahs.  Consider the following examples: the suffix is followed by a  grammatical suffix in (120) and by a lexical suffix in (121).  (120) Grammaticalglottalising suffixes  a. naatsii-ci k -l+C.G.1afc-?at-?is  yuk i w  ^  naatsiici?a7eat?is  to see-MOM-SEQ-PASS-3sg/IND  cf. naatsiiciksis  yuk i w  yuk i w  'S/he saw (your) younger sibling then.'  T saw (your) younger sibling.'  b. 3&uh-Si[+C.G.]at-?is  &ihsi?af?is  to slap-MOM-PASS-3sg/Ind  'S/he was slapped (by someone)'  cf. Jeuhsi^sis John. T slapped John.'  (121) Lexical glottalising suffixes  a. tux-si_^_-[+C.G.]as-?is  tuxsije_as?is  to jump-MOM-going s.w.-3sg/IND b. tux-sik-[+C.G.]ahs-?is  'S/he is going s.w. to jump.' tuxsi_&_ahs?is  ^  to jump-vessel-3 sg/IND  ' S/he starts to jump in the boat.'  As I discussed in section, the momentaneous suffix, although only its initial segment is involved, exhibits a no-faithfulness property.  This kind of deletion which occurs with the suffix tells us that the  suffix in general is susceptible to change.  Another interesting aspect about this suffix is that the  alternation of the momentaneous suffix provides a significant clue to the morphological distinction of suffixes.  It is sometimes difficult to identify the morphological status of Nuu-chah-nulth suffixes using 233  only semantic or lexical properties.  This phonological information helps to understand the  morphological properties of some suffixes.  The examples in (120) and (121) provide a phonological way  to distinguish between lexical and grammatical suffixes. On the other hand, deletion of the suffix-final consonant before a grammatical glottalising suffix poses an interesting problem.  An affricate such as Ikl is supposed to be glottalised by the initial floating  [+C.G.], and the feature surfaces as a glottal stop when a vowel-initial stem precedes it.  The triggering  factor for the deletion of Ikl seems to be a glottal stop, while a glottal stop can surface with a glottalising suffix only if it follows a vowel.  This situation creates a paradox.  That is, the consonant is deleted  before a glottal stop, but the glottal stop from a glottalising suffix can surface only after the affricate is deleted, thereby the stem to which a glottalising suffix attaches becomes vowel-final.  I will leave this  problem for further research. quu?as/quu?ac 'First Nation person'  The root morpheme-final consonant surfaces as Isl before a consonant-initial suffix, as in (122), and as Id before a vowel-initial suffix, as in (123).  (122) a. quu?a_s_-?i  'the man/First Nations person'  First Nations person-Definite  b. quu?a_s_-?is  'S/he is a First Nations person'  F.N. person-3sg/IND  c. quu?a_s_-mahsa?is'S/he wants to be a First Nations person.' F.N. person-to want-3 sg/IND  (123) a. quu?a_c_-aq-?is  'a big First Nations guy'  F.N.person-very, much-3sg/IND  b. quu?a_c_-iic  'belongings to F.N. e.g. land, house, etc'  F.N.person-to belong to  The alternation exhibits a property similar to the alternation of momentatneous suffix -sik, in that the context is consonant vs. vowel.  A more interesting issue, however, is related with glottalisation.  The  alternation of the suffix gives clear clues to apparently exceptional cases of glottalisation and supports my argument regarding the representation of a glottalising suffix. 234  Consider the following examples.  (124) a. quu?as/c-aq& F.N. -inside  b. quu?as/c-ahs F.N.  -vessel  c. quu?as/c-aq?cas F.N.  -in a house  quu?acaq?e 'seagull eggs.'  quu?acahs 'a F.N. person in a boat'  quu?acaq?eas 'F.N. people living in a house'  With a glottalising suffix, a fricative becomes either a glottalised glide or a plain fricative followed by a glottal stop, depending on stem morphemes the suffix attaches to. Given that the root morpheme has two allomorphs, quu?as and quuFac, the surface glottalised affricate [c] is obviously not an exceptional case. Moreover, the alternation provides support to the argument that the initial element of a glottalising suffix is not a glottal stop, a consonant (cf. Sapir and Swadesh 1939, Rose 1976). appears only before a consonant-initial suffix, as shown in (123).  Trie morpheme-final Isl  Therefore, my analysis that a  glottalising suffix has a floating [+C.G] feature, not a full glottal stop (thus the initial element of the suffix is a vowel), is borne out (see section 3.2.1 for the detailed discussion).  5.2.2 Unpredictable cases  Allomorphs of the following morphemes are unpredictable in terms of their distribution. Although they do not seem phonologically interesting and also allomophy of this kind is purely morpheme-specific alternation, I include them in the thesis for the purpose of documentation, and also in the hopes that others would be inspired to find and investigate new issues in greater detail. -yaq/-q ' Existential'  Either -yaq or -q can be used with the same meaning, but their use is not predictable. Moreover, as seen in the ungrammatical forms, it seems not be related to free variation. determined according to what the stem morpheme is, lexical idiosyncrasy.  235  TTiat is, their distribution is  (125) a. supicyaTas  (*supicTas) <  supic-yaq-[+C.G.]as  31  sand-EXIS-on the ground "There is sand on the ground'  b. PucknaKas  (*?ucknahyaSas)  ?ucknah-q-[+C.G.]as small-EXIS-on the ground "There is something small on the ground' pronominal suffixes: sis/s  Both forms ofthe 1 singular indicative pronominal suffix, -sis and -s, can be used alternatively without st  change of meaning. Unlike the -yaq/-q alternation, this morpheme exhibits free variation.  (126) a. yaa?akuksis yaa?ak-uk-sis  suwa. suwa  love-CAUS-1 sg/IND you 'I love you' i  b. yaa?akuks yaa?ak-uk-s  suwa. suwa  love-CAUS-1 sg/LND you 'I love you'  31  -as is a glottalising suffix and when it follows a uvular stop Id, it causes the stop to be a pharyngeal stop /?/ (see  section 3.2.1). 236  Chapter 6 CONCLUSION  In the previous chapters, I have described various phonological and morphological phenomena in Ahousaht Nuu-chah-nulth, and investigated the theoretical implications of these phenomena in terms of universality, markedness, variation, and typology, in the framework of Optimality Theory (OT). Chapter 2 discusses the internal structure of Nuu-chah-nulth words and morphological properties that are related to phonological phenomena.  Nuu-chah-nulth words consist of a root followed by suffixes,  which must be classified into lexical and grammatical categories.  It is important to understand the  mechanism of combining morphemes and the characteristics of morphemes in order to find out how and/or to what extent morphology is involved in phonological alternations.  Morphological, as well as  phonological, aspects provide important clues to the questions raised by the phonological phenomena discussed in chapter 3 and 4. Chapter 3 treats the properties of intra- and inter-segmental phonology and their consequences for linguistic theory.  Section 3.1 and 3.2 looked at how free combination of features drives surface  alternations, in particular consonant alternation.  How to encode patterns where instances of the same  surface segments exhibit different behaviour depending on the morpheme in which they are found has been a controversial issue. The approach taken in this thesis to solving this problem provides a solution consistent with a core idea of OT, 'Richness ofthe Base'. alternation in the context of glottalisation and lenition. both contexts.  Nuu-chah-nulth fricatives show a surface  Moreover, they exhibit consistent behaviour in  Fricatives with a surface alternation before a glottalising suffix also show the same  pattern of alternation in the context of lenition.  Also, if a fricative is consistently not affected in the  context of glottalisation, it is not affected in the context of lenition.  These systematic patterns of  fricatives in both phonological processes are straightforwardly treated under 'Richness of the Base'. Very interestingly, post-alveolarfricativesare consistently not affected in both processes, however. This problem can be dealt with by the same mechanism, using a faithfulness constraint which requires [Anterior]fricativesto maintain its feature value in question on the surface.  Ironically, this asymmetry  between [+Anterior] and [-Anterior]fricativesin terms of presence/absence of alternation according to different phonological processes supports the approach of 'Richness of the Base".  As discussed in  section 3.2.2, an alternative approach, Lexicon Optimization, would have a problem in determining an input form offricativesin these specific cases. Another interesting question is how to treat markedness of glottalised consonants cross-linguistically.  I discuss how to treat this problem in terms of factorial  typology by universal constraints and their language-specific ranking. Section 3.3 and 3.4 discuss labialisation and delabialisation, respectively.  Ahousaht Nuu-chah-nulth  does not have labialisation, while delabialisation raises interesting questions regarding its phonetic properties.  Nuu-chah-nulth labio-velar and labio-uvular consonants lose their labiality when preceding a  consonant or a high-back vowel lul. What is especially interesting is whether the loss of labiality before 237  lul should be interpreted as co-articulation or pure deletion. deletion approach.  Acoustic treatments of the issue support a  Nevertheless, it seems necessary to conduct more research to investigate both  phonetic and phonological characteristics of co-articulation and deletion more clearly. Section 3.5 deals with vowel alternation. Nuu-chah-nulth has two types of vowel alternation: one is morphologically-based and the other is phonologically-based. some suffixes.  Vowel alternation can be triggered by  There are three patterns depending on the triggering suffixes: lengthening of the first root  vowel, lengthening of the first stem vowel and shortening of the second stem vowel, and shortening of the first two vowels of a stem.  I treat the various patterns in terms of metrical templates.  results from foot structures specified for triggering suffixes.  Each pattern  This section (with section 5.1) gives an  opportunity to examine the scope of possible foot structures both in Nuu-chah-nulth and crosslinguistically. On the other hand, vowel alternation can be phonologically motivated. Some vowels are either long or short depending on their position in the word. The prosodic unit 'foot' plays an important role in determining the length of vowels in question. When such vowels, i.e. variable vowels, stand in a foot, they are long, while when they stand outside a foot, they are short. I treat this problem in terms of different representations of vowels and faithfulness constraints.  This issue reveals that even within OT,  we still need to implement phonological representations. Chapter 4 provides additional characteristics of Nuu-chah-nulth prosody such as syllable structure, prosodic units, vowel hiatus and consonant clusters. interesting typological issues.  Prosodic structures in Nuu-chah-nulth pose many  I discussed basic properties of prosodic structures and their relationship  with some phonological processes. Finally, chapter 5 investigates morphological processes such as reduplication and allomorphy. Nuuchah-nulth has multiple patterns of reduplicant and base, which is not common cross-linguistically. The treatment of 9 patterns of reduplication is conducted in terms of both prosodic and metrical templates. This is an approach consistent with the treatment for vowel alternation. The vowel alternation found in reduplication is due to prosodic and metrical requirements specified for triggering suffixes.  Such  treatment provides a unified system for all kinds of vowel alternation observed in the language. Moreover, reduplication with fixed segmentism raise a controversial question concerning whether reduplicant forms result from grammars or lexical specification. I claim that the shape of the reduplicant and modification of the base forms are determined by both prosodic and metrical templates, although their surface realisation is achieved by grammar.  The consequence of my anlaysis is that patterns of  reduplication in Nuu-chah-nulth can't be dealt with a-templatically.  Another morphological process  discussed in the thesis is allomorphy. Allomorphs of some morphemes are phonologically predictable, while others are not. Whether they are predictable or not, they make linguistically important challenges. The thesis discusses to what extent phonology can be involved in the formation of allomorphs and defines how the interaction between phonology and morphology can be interpreted within OT.  238  This thesis covers a broad range of the phonological and morphological phenomena in Nuu-chahnulth.  However, for reasons of time and space, some interesting and important issues could not be  treated completely.  It seems that the stress system and vowel deletion in the context of vowel hiatus will  require a bigger data set for a proper treatment.  These issues are discussed, but to establish systematic  patterns of their distribution, we need additional relevant data by which we can obtain a generalisation. Finally, I hope that this work contributes to the revitalisation of the language and will stimulate further documentation ofthe other Nuu-chah-nulth dialects.  ?eeekoo!  239  Bibliography  Alderete, John, et al. 1999. Reduplication with fixed segmentism. Linguistic Inquiry 30: 3, 327-364. Archangeli, Diana. 1983. The root CV-template as a property of the affix: evidence from Yawelmani. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 1, 347-384. Archangeli, Diana. 1984.  Underspecification  in Yawelmani phonology and morphology. Ph.D.  dissertation. MIT. New York: Garland Press, 1988. Archangeli, Diana. 1988. Aspects of underspecification theory. Phonology 5, 183-208. Archangeli, Diana & Douglas Pulleyblank. 1989. Yoruba vowel harmony. Linguistic Inquiry 20, 173-217. Archangeli, Diana & Douglas Pulleyblank. 1994. Grounded Phonology. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Archangeli, Diana & Terrence Langendoen (Eds.). 1997. Optimality Theory: An Overview. Oxford: Blackwell. Aronoff, Mark. 1976. Word Formation in Generative Grammar. MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts. Bagemihl, Bruce. 1991. Syllable structure in Bella Coola. Linguistic Inquiry 22, 589-646. Bakovic, Eric. 2002. Conspiracies and morpholophonological (a)symmetry. Paper delivered at the Colloquium at University of British Columbia. Basb0ll, A. 1977. The distributional syllable. In A. Juilland (ed.) Linguistic Studies Offered to Joseph Greenberg. Saratoga: Anma Libri, 249-262. Benua, Laura. 1997.  Transderivational Identity: Phonological  Relations Between Words. Ph.D.  dissertation. University of Massachusetts, Amherst. Bermudez-Otero, Ricardo. 2003. The acquisition of phonological opacity. ROA Bernhardt H. Barbara & Joseph P. Stemberger. 1998. Handbook of Phonological Development. San Diego: Academic Press. Bessell, Nicola J. 1998. Local and non-local consonant-vowel interaction in Interior Salish. Phonology 13:1-30. Blevins, Juliette. 1993. Klamath laryngeal phonology. UAL 59: 237-279. Boas, Franz. 1910. Kwakiutl Tales. New York, Columbia University Contributions to Anthropology 2. Boas, Franz. 1911. Kwakiutl. In Franz Boas (ed.), Handbook of American Indian Languages 1. Washington, Bureau of American Ethnology, Bulletin 40. 559-677. Boas, Franz. 1928. Bella Bella Texts. New York, Columbia University Contributions to Anthropology 5. Boas, Franz. 1932. Bella Bella Tales. New York, Memoirs of the American Folklore Society 25. Boas, Franz. 1947. Kwakiutl Grammar. Philadelphia, PA: American Philosophical Society. Booij, Geert, & Jerzy Rubach. 1987. Postcyclic versus postlexical rules in lexical phonology. Linguistic Inquiry 18. 1-44. Borrowsky, Toni. 1986. Topics in the lexical phonology of English. Ph.D. dissertation. University of Massachusetts at Amherst.  240  Borrowsky, Toni. 1992. On the word-level. In S. Hargus & E. Kaisse (eds.) Studies  in Lexical Phonology.  San Diego, California: Academic Press. Buckley, Eugene. 1993.  Theoretical Aspects of Kashaya Phonology and Morphology. CSLI: Stanfor  California. Buckley, Eugene. 1996. Levels vs. domains: the case of Kashaya vowel length.  Proceedings of the  Berkeley Linguistic Society 22. 36-45. Caldecott, Marion. 1999. A  Comparison of Glottalized Resonants in Smca&sn and St 'at 'imcets.  thesis, University of British Columbia. Casali, Roderic. 1996.  Resolving Hiatus. Ph.D. dissertation. UCLA.  Casali, Roderic. 1997. Vowel elision in hiatus contexts: which vowel goes? Language 73,493-533. Chambers, J. K., P. Trudgill, & N. Schilling-Estes. (eds.) 2002.  The Handbook of Language Variation  and Change. Oxford: Blackwell. Chomsky, Noam & Morris Halle. 1968.  The Sound Pattern of English. New York: Harper & Row,  Publishers. Clements, G. N. 1990. The role of the sonority cycle in core syllabification. In J. Kingston & M . E. Beckman (eds.) Papers  in Laboratory Phonology I: between the grammar and physics of s  Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 283-333. Clements, G. N. 1999. Affricates as noncontoured stops. In O. Fujimura, B. Joseph, & B. Palek (eds.),  Proceedings ofLP '98: Item Order in Language and Speech. Prague: Karolinum Press. 271-29 Clements, G. N. & S. J. Keyser. 1983.  CV Phonology: a Generative Theory of the Syllable. Linguist  Inquiry Monograph 9. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Cole, Jennifer. 1991. Planar Phonology and Morphology. Garland: New York. Crowhurst, Megan. 1990. On morphological and metrical feet in Tubatulabal. Proceedings  of Western  Conference on Linguistics 20. Crowhurst, Megan. 1991.  Minimality and Foot Structure in Metrical Phonology and Prosodic  Morphology. Ph.D. dissertation. University of Arizona, Tucson. Czaykowska-Higgins, Ewa & Suzanne Urbanczyk. 2001. Maintaining Contrast in Nxa'amxcin Reduplication. In K. Megerdoomian & L. A. Bar-el (eds.), Proceedings Davidson, Matthew. 2002.  ofWCCFL 20: 101-114.  Studies in Southern Wakashan (Nootkan) Grammar. Ph.D. dissertati  University of New York, Buffalo: New York. Davis, Henry & Naomi Sawai. 2001. Wh-movement as noun incorporation in Nuu-chah-nulth. In K. Megerdoomian & L. A. Bar-el (eds.), Proceedings  ofWCCFL 20. 123-136.  Dick, Mary Jane, Catherine Fraser, Darin Howe & Douglas Pulleyblank. In prep. Ahousaht Dictionary. MS. University of British Columbia. Downing, Laura J. 1998. On the prosodic misalignment of onsetless syllables. NLLTX6, 1-52.  241  Downing, Laura J. 2000. Morphological and prosodic constraints on Kinande verbal reduplication.  Phonology 17, 1-38. Downing, Laura J. 2001. Ungeneralizable Minimality in Ndebele.  Studies of African Linguistics 30, 33-  58. Dresher, B.E. & A. Lahiri. 1991. The Germanic foot: metrical coherence in Old English.  Linguistic  Inquiry 22, 251-286. Gafos, Diammandis. 1998..A-templatic reduplication. Linguistic Inquiry 29, 515-527. Gamble, Geoffrey. 1977. Nootkan glottalized resonants in Nitinat: a case of lexical diffusion.  The Lexicon  in Phonological Change, ed. William S.-Y. Wang. The Hague and Paris: Mouton. Goldsmith, John A. 1990.  Autosegmental and Metrical Phonology. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.  The Last Phonological Rule: Reflections on Constraints and Derivati  Goldsmith, John A. (ed).  Chicago: the University of Chicago Press. Golston, Chris & Wolfgang Kehrein. 1997. Mazatec Syllable Structure. CLS 33, 115-127. Greenberg, Joseph H. 1970.  Some generalizations concerning  glottalic  consonants, especially  implosives. UAL 36, 123-145. Greenberg, Joseph H. 1978.  Universals of Human Languages, vol.2: Phonology. Stanford, CA: Stanford  University Press. Haas, Mary. 1969. Internal Reconstruction of the Nootka-Nitinat Pronominal Suffixes. UAL 35, 108124. Haas, Mary & Morris Swadesh. 1933. A Visit to the Other World, a Nitinat Text. UAL 7, 195-208. Halle, Morris. 1959.  The Sound Pattern ofRussian. The Hague: Mouton.  Halle, Morris. 1995. Feature Geometry and Feature Spreading. Linguistic Inquiry 26:1, 1-46. Halle, Morris & G. N. Clements. 1983.  Problem Book in Phonology. Cambridge, MA: MIT  Press/Bradford Books. Hammond, M. 1990. Metrical theory and learnability. Ms. University of Arizona. Harris, James W. 1985. Spanish diphthongisation and stress: a paradox resolved. Hayes, Bruce. 1985.  Phonology 2, 31-45.  A Metrical Theory of Stress Rules. New York: Garland Publishing.  Hayes, Bruce. 1987. A revised parametric theory. Proceeding of NELS 17. Hayes, Bruce. 1989. Compensatory lengthening in moraic phonology.  Linguistic Inquiry 20, 253-306.  Hayes, Bruce. 1991. Metrical stress theory: principles and case studies. MS. UCLA. Hayes, Bruce. 1994. 'Gesture' in prosody: comments on the paper by Ladd. In Patricia Keating (ed.),  Papers in Laboratory Phonology III. Academic Press. San Diego, CA. 213-226. Hayes, Bruce. 1995. Weight of CVC can be determined by context. In Jennifer Cole & Charles Kisseberth (eds.),  Perspectives in Phonology. CSLI, Stanford: CA. 61-79.  Hermans, Ben & Marc van Oostendorp. 1999.  The Derivational Residue in Phonological Optimality  Theory. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing. 242  Hooper, J. B. 1976.  An Introduction to Natural Generative Phonology. New York: Academic Press.  Hoover, Alan L. 2002 (ed.)  Nuu-chah-nulth Voices: Histories, Objects & Journeys. Victoria, B.C.: Roy  British Columbia Museum. Howe, Darin.  1996.  Lenition and Glottalization in Nuu-chah-nulth. Paper presented  in the 31  st  International Conference on Salish and Neighbouring Languages. Howe, Darin. 1998. Aspects of Heiltsuk laryngeal phonology. Ms., University of British Columbia. Howe, Darin. 2000. Oowekyala  Segmental Phonology. Ph.D. thesis. University of British Columbia.  Howe, Darin & Douglas Pulleyblank. 2001. Patterns and Timing of Glottalisation.  Phonology 18, 1-37.  Cambridge University Press. Howe, Darin & Douglas Pulleyblank. In progress. Harmony as Faithfulness. MS. University of Calgary and University of British Columbia. Hulst, H. van der. 1984.  Syllable structure and Stress in Dutch. Dordrecht: Foris.  Hyman, Larry M. 1975.  Phonology: Theory and Analysis. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.  Hyman, Larry M . 1985.  A Theory ofPhonological Weight. Foris Publications: Dordrecht.  Hyman, L, S. Inkelas, & G. Sibanda. 1998. Morphosyntactic Correspondence in Bantu Reduplication. ROA 437-0601. Inkelas, Sharon. 1994. The consequences of Optimization for Underspecification. ROA 40-1294. Inkelas, Sharon. 1997. The Theoretical Status of Morphologically Conditioned Phonology: A Case Study of Dominance Effects.  Yearbook of Morphology. 121-155  Inkelas, Sharon. 1999. Exceptional Stress-attracting Suffixes in Turkish: Representations versus the Grammar. In Rene Kager, Harry van der Hulst, and Wim Xonnrbrl (eds.), The Prosody-  Morphology Interface, 134-187. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Inkelas, Sharon. Exceptions and Static Phonological Patterns: Cophonologies vs. Prespecification, ROA 124-0496 Inkelas, S. & C. Zoll. Reduplication as Morphological Doubling. ROA 412-0800. Inkelas, S. & O. Orgun. 1995. Level Ordering and Economy in the Lexical Phonology of Turkish.  Language 71: 763-793. Inkelas, S. & O. Orgun. 1998. Level (Non)ordering in Recursive Morphology: Evidence from Turkish".  Morphology and its Relations to Phonology and Syntax. Eds. S. Lapointe et. al. Stanford, CSLI Publications. 360-410 Inkelas, S., O. Orgun & C. Zoll. 1997. The Implications of Lexical Exceptions for the Nature of Grammar. In I. Roca, ed., Derivations  and Constraints in Phonology. Oxford: Oxford University  Press. Ishihara, M . 1990. Hypocoristic formatin in Okinawan Japanese: evidence from heavy feet in morphology. Ms. University of Arizona.  243  Ito, Junko. 1986.  Syllable Theory in Prosodic Phonology. Ph.D.thesis. University of Massachusetts,  Amherst. Ito, Junko & Armin Mester. 1986. The phonology of voicing in Japanese: theoretical consequences for morphological accessibility. Linguistic Inquiry 17, 49-73. Ito, Junko & Armin Mester. 1999. The structure ofthe phonological lexicon. In Tsujimura, Natsuko (ed.).  The Handbook of Japanese Linguistics, Blackwell Publishers, Maiden, MA, and Oxford, U.K. 62-100. Ito, Junko, Armin Mester & Jaye Padgett. 1995. Licensing and underspecification in Optimality Theory.  Linguistic Inquiry 26: 571-614. Jacobsen, William H. Jr. 1969. Origin of the Nootka pharyngeals. UAL 35, 125-153. Jacobsen, William H., Jr. 1979a. Noun  and  Verb  in Nootkan. Tbe Victoria Conference on  Northwestern Languages, 1976, Barbara, S. Efrat (ed.), 83-153. British Columbia Provincial Museum, Heritage Record No. 4. Jacobsen, William H., Jr. 1979b. Wakashan comparative studies. In Campbell & Mitun (eds.), The  Language of Native America: Historical and Comparative Assessment. Austin/ Londo University of Texas Press. 766-791. Jacobsen, William H., Jr. 1986. The heterogeneity of evidentials in Makah. In Wallace Chafe & Johanna Nichols (eds.) Evidentiality:  the linguistic coding ofepistemology. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. 3-28.  Jacobsen, William H., Jr. 1996. 'Hardening' and 'softening' in Makah. Paper presented at the 31 ' s  International Conference on Salish and Neighbouring Languages. Jacobsen, William H., Jr. 1999.  First Lessons in Makah. Neah Bay, Washington: Makah Cultural and  Research Center. Jakobson, Roman. 1940. Kindersprache, aphasie und allegemeine Lautgesetze. In Roman Jakobson (ed.),  Selected Writings I. Mouton: The Hague. 328-401 Kager, Rene. 1999.  Optimality Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.  Katamba, Francis. 1989.  An Introduction to Phonology. London & New York: Longman.  Kean, Mary Louise. 1975.  The Theory ofMarkedness in Generative Grammar. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT  Keating, Patricia A. 1988. Underspecification in phonetics. Phonology 5: 275-292. Kenstowics, Michael. 1995.  Phonology in Generative Grammar. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.  Kenstowicz, Michael & Charles Kisseberth. 1979.  Generative Phonology: Description and Theory. New  York: Academic Press. Kim, Eun-Sook. 1999a. Hypocoristics of Nuu-chah-nulth. In M. Caldecott, S. Gessner, & E-S. Kim (eds.)  UBC Working Papers in Linguistics!. University of British Columbia. 125-138. Kim, Eun-Sook. 1999b. Glottalization in Nuu-chah-nulth in Optimality Theory. In John Kyle (ed.)  Kansas Working Papers in Linguistics24: 2, 85-100. The University of Kansas Press.  244  Kim, Eun-Sook. 2000a. Glottalization in Nuu-chah-nulth (Nootka): A Module Interaction Case. Paper delivered in the 35 International Conference on Salish and Neighbouring Languages. In Suzanne th  Gessner, Sun-Young Oh, & Kayono Shiobara (eds.),  UBCWPL 3, 107-117. University of British  Columbia. Kim, Eun-Sook. 2000b. The Morphology and Syntax of -?at in Nuu-chah-nulth in the Minimalist Theory. In Hee-Kyung Moon (ed.), In  Honour of Professor Young-Jae Lee. Korea University Press. 237-  281. Kim, Eun-Sook. 2000c. The Morphology and Syntax of-?at in Nuu-chah-nulth. MS. University of British Columbia. Kim, Eun-Sook. 2001a. Theoretical issues of Nuu-chah-nulth glottalisation. MS. University of British Columbia. Kim, Eun-Sook. 2001b. Glottalization in Southern Wakashan. Paper delivered in the 36th International Conference on Salish and Neighbouring Languages. In Leora Ba-rel, Linda Watt, & Ian Wilson (eds.),  UBCWPL. University of British Columbia. 175-188.  Kim, Eun-Sook. 2001c. Phonetic aspects of glottalised consonants in Nuu-chah-nulth. Ms. University of British Columbia. Kim, Eun-Sook. 2002a. "Faithfulness"and "Markedness"in Southern Wakashan Glottalisation. Paper delivered in the 7 Workshop on Structure and Constituency in the Languages of the Americas. th  March 22-24, University of Alberta. Kim, Eun-Sook. 2002b. Glottalised Consonants and the Timing of glottalisation: A Nuu-chah-nulth case. Paper delivered in the Annual Meeting of Canadian Linguistic Association. May 25-28. University of Toronto. Kim, Eun-Sook. 2003a. Patterns of Reduplication in Nuu-chah-nulth.  Proceedings of NELS 33,  Kadowaki, M. & S. Kawahara (eds.), 127-146. University of Massachusetts, Amherst. Kim, Eun-Sook. 2003b. Delabialisation in Nuu-chah-nulth. Paper delivered in the 38 International th  Conference on Salish and Neighbouring Languages. In Jason Brown, & Michele Kalmar (eds.),  UBCWPL 77, 161-173. University of British Columbia. Kim, Eun-Sook. To appear. The Consequences of Richness of the Base for Glottalization of Nuu-chahnulth Obstruents.  Proceedings ofWECOL 2001. University of California, Fresno.  Kim, Eun-Sook. To appear. Morphologically motivated prosodic and metrical structures.  Proceedings of  BLS 29. University of California, Berkeley. Kim, Eun-Sook & Rachel Wojdak. 2002. A Survey of Nuu-chah-nulth Reduplication. Paper delivered in the 37 International Conference on Salish and Neighbouring Languages. In Carrie Gillon, th  Naomi Sawai, & Rachel Wojdak (eds.),  UBCWPL 9. University of British Columbia. 189-202.  Kim, Eun-Sook & Douglas Pulleyblank. 2003. The specification of Nuu-chah-nulth fricatives. Ms. University of British Columbia.  Kim, Eun-Sook & Gessiane Picanco. 2003. Reconsidering fixed segmentism in reduplication. Paper delivered at the G L O W colloquium 2003. 9-11 April. University of Lund, Sweden. Kingston, John. 1985.  The Phonetics and Phonology of the Timing of Oral and Glottal Events. Ph.D  dissertation. University of California, Berkeley. Kingston, John. 1990. Articulatory binding. In J. Kingston & M . E. Beckman (eds.) Papers  in Laboratory  Phonology I: between the grammar and physics of speech. Cambridge: Cambridge Universit Press. 406-434. Kinkade, M . Dale. 1991. The decline of native languages in Canada. In Robert H . Robins & Eugenius. M . Uhlenbeck (eds.), Endangered Languages. Oxford/New York: St. Martin's Press. Kiparsky, Paul. 1979. Metrical structure assignment is cyclic in English.  Linguistic Inquiry 3: 421-441.  Kiparsky, Paul. 1981. Vowel harmony. Ms. MIT. Kiparsky, Paul. 1982a. Lexical Phonology and Morphology. In I.-S. Yang (ed.), Linguistics in the  Morning Calm 1. Seoul, Korea: Hanshin. 3-91. Explanation in Phonology.  Kiparsky, Paul. 1982b. How Abstract is Phonology?. In Paul Kiparsky, Dordrecht: Foris Publications. 119-163.  Kiparsky, Paul. 1985. Some consequences of lexical phonology. Phonology 2, 85-138. Kiparsky, Paul. 1986. The phonology of reduplication. Ms., Stanford University, Stanford, California. Kiparsky, Paul. 1988. Phonological change. In Fritz Newmeyer (ed.),  Linguistics: The Cambridge survey  I. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 363-415. Kiparsky, Paul. 2003. Diachronic evidence for stratal OT. Talk given at the Manchester Phonology Conference. May 2003. Kirchner, Robert M . 1998.  An Effort-Based Approach to Consonant Lenition. Ph.D. dissertation.  University of California, L A . Klokeid, Terry J. 1969. Notes on the comparison of Wakashan and Salish. Paper delivered at the 4  th  International Conference on Salish Languages. University of Victoria. Klokeid, Terry J. 1976. Encliticization in Nitinaht. Paper delivered at the 11 International Conference on th  Salish Languages. Klokeid, Terry J. 1977a. Syntactic and conceptual relations in Nitinaht. Paper delivered at the 12  th  International Conference on Salish Languages. Klokeid, Terry J. 1977b. Some irrelevant observations concerning rule interaction.  Journal of Linguistics  13,283-285. Klokeid, Terry J. 1978. Surface structure constraints and Nitinaht enclitics. In Eung-Do Cook & Jonathan Kaye, (eds.). Linguistic  Studies of Native Canada. University of British Columbia Press. 157-176.  Kortlandt, F. H . H . 1975. Tones in Wakashan. Linguistics 146: 31-34. LaCharite, Darlene. 1993.  The Internal Structure ofAffricates. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Ottawa.  Ladefoged, Peter. 1982. A  Course in Phonetics. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich. 246  Ladefoged, Peter & Ian Maddieson. 1996. Laeufer, C. 1985.  The Sounds of the World's Languages. Oxford: Blackwell.  Some Language-specific and Universal Aspects of Syllable Structure an  Syllabification: evidence from French and German. Ph.D. dissertation, Cornell University. Lekach, A.F. 1979. Phonological markedness and the sonority hierarchy. In K. Safir (ed.)  Papers on  Syllable Structure, Metrical Structure and Harmony Processes. MIT Working Paper Linguistics 1. Lamontagne, Greg. 1996. Relativized contiguity, Part I: contiguity and syllable prosody. ROA-150, the Rutgers Optimality Archive. Lamontagne, Greg & Sam Rosenthall 1996. Contiguity constraints and persistent vowel parsing. Ms. University of British Coumbia and The Ohio State University. Lieberman, Philip & Sheila E. Blumstein. 1988.  Speech Physiology, Speech Perception, and Acous  Phonetics. Cambridge: the University of Cambridge Press. Lindau, Mona. 1984. Phonetic Differences in Glottalic Consonants.  Journal of Phonetics 12, 147-  155. Lombardi, Linda. 1996. Postlexical rules and the status of privative features. Phonology 13, 1-38. Lombardi, Linda. 1998. Evidence for MaxFeature constraints from Japanese. ROA-247, the Rutgers Optimality Archive. Lombardi, Linda. 2000. Second language data and constraints on Manner: explaining substitutions for the English interdentals. Ms. University of Maryland, College Park. Lombardi, Linda.  2001.  Why Place and Voice are different: Constraint interactions and feature  faithfulness in Optimality Theory. In Linda Lombardi (ed.)  Segmental Phonology in Optimality  Theory: Constraints and Representations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 13-45. Maddieson, Ian. 1984.  Patterns of Sound. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.  Marantz, Alec. 1982. Re reduplication. Linguistic Inquiry 13:483-545. McCarthy, John. 1979a.  Formal Problems in Semitic Phonology and Morphology. Ph.D. thesis. MI  Cambridge, Mass. McCarthy, John. 1988. Feature Geometry and Dependency: A Review. McCarthy, John. 1994.  The Phonetics  and  Phonology  Phonetica 43, 84-108.  of Semitic Pharyngeals.  Phonological  Structure and Phonetic Form: Papers in Laboratory Phonology 3, 191-234. Cambridge University Press. McCarthy, John. 1999. Sympathy and phonological opacity. McCarthy, John 2002. A  Phonology 16: 331-399.  Thematic Guide to Optimality Theory. Cambridge, UK ; New York, NY, USA  Cambridge University Press. McCarthy, John & Alan Prince. 1986. Prosodic morphology. Ms., UMass, Amherst, and Brandeis University, Waltham, Mass.  247  McCarthy, John & Alan Prince. 1990. Foot and word in Prosodic Morphology: the Arabic broken plural.  NLLTS, 209-283. McCarthy, John & Alan Prince. 1991a. Prosodic minimality. Paper presented at University of Illinois Conference:  The Organization of Phonology.  McCarthy, John & Alan Prince. 1991b. Linguistics 240: Prosodic Morphology, lectures and handouts from 1991 Linguistic Society of America Linguistic Institute Course, University of California, Santa Cruz, CA. McCarthy, John & Alan Prince. 1993. Generalized Alignment.  Yearbook of Morphology. 1993, Geert  Booij and Jaap van Marie (eds.). Dordrecht: Kluwer. 79-153. McCarthy, John & Alan Prince. 1994a. The Emergence of the Unmarked: Optimality in Prosodic Morphology. Proceedings  of the NESL 24, 333-379. Amherst, MA:GLSA.  McCarthy, John & Alan Prince. 1994b. Prosodic morphology: An overview. Handout of talks presented at the Workshop on Prosodic Morphology, University of Utrecht, June 22-24. McCarthy, John & Alan Prince.  1995.  Faithfulness  and Reduplicative Identity.  UMOPL: Papers  in Optimality Theory, 249-384. Amherst, MA.:GLSA. McCarthy, John & Alan Prince. 1999. Faithfulness and identity in prosodic morphology. In Kager, R., Harry van der Hulst, & Wim Zonneveld (eds). The Prosody-Morphology Interface, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 218-309. McCarthy, John & Alan Prince. To appear. Prosodic Morphology I: Constraint Interaction and Satisfaction. Cambridge, Mass: the MIT Press. Michael, Lev & Megan Crowhurst. 2002. Iterative footing and prominence driven stress in Nanti (Kampa). Ms. University of Texas, Austin. Morelli, Frida. 1999.  The Phonotactics and Phonology of Obstruent Clusters in Optimality Theory  dissertation. University of Maryland. Murrary, R. W. & T. Vennemann. 1983. Sound change and syllable structure in Germanic phonology.  Language 59: 514-528, Nakayama, Toshihide.  1997a.  Discourse-Pragmatic Dynamism in Nootka Morphosyntax. Ph.D  dissertation. University of California, Santa Barbara. Nakayama, Toshihide. 1997b. Functions of the Nootka(Nuu-chah-nulth) 'Passive' Suffix." UAL 63: 3, 412-431. Odden, David. 1998. Principles of tone assignment in Tanzanian Yao. In Larry Hyman & Charles Kisseberth (eds.), Theoretical Aspects  ofBantu Tone. Stanford: CSLI Publications, 265-314.  Ola, O. O. 1995. Optimality in Benue-Congo Prosodic Phonology and Morphology. Ph.D. dissertation. University of British Columbia. Padgett, Jaye. 1995. Feature classes. In J. Beckman, S Urbanczyk & L. Walsh (eds.), GLSA, UMOP. 285-320.  Padgett, Jaye. 2002.  The unabridged feature classes in phonology, [to appear Language 78: 2].  Paradis, C. & J.-F. Prunet (eds.). 199F Phonetics and Phonology 2: The Special Status of Coronal, Internal and External Evidence. New York: Academic Press. Plauche, Madelaine C , Rosemary Beam de Azcona, Rungpat Roengpitya& William F. Weigel. 1998. Glottalized sonorants: a phonetic universal? Proceedings of BLS 24, 381-389. Prince, Alan & Paul Smolensky. 1991. Optimality. Paper presented at the 4  th  Arizona Phonology  Conference, University of Arizona, Tucson. Prince, Alan & Paul Smolensky.  1993.  Optimality Theory: Constraint interaction  in generative  grammar. Technical Report 2 of the Rutgers Center for Cognitive Science. Rutgers University. Pulleyblank, Douglas. 1986.  Tone in Lexical Phonology. Boston: D. Reidel.  Pulleyblank, Douglas. 1988. Vocalic underspecification in Yoruba. Linguistic Inquiry 19, 233-270. Pulleyblank, Douglas. 1989. Patterns of feature cooccurrence: The case of nasality.  Coyote Working  Papers 9, 98-115.Pulleyblank, Douglas. 1994. Underlying mora structure. Linguistic Inquiry 25, 344-353. Pulleyblank, Douglas. 1995. Feature geometry and underspecification. In Jacques Durand & Francis Katamba (eds.),  Frontiers of Phonology: Atoms, Structures, Derivations. London, Englan  Longman. 3-33. Pulleyblank, Douglas. 1996. Neutral vowels in Optimality Theory : A comparison of Yoruba and Wolof.  The Canadian Journal ofLinguistics 41: 4, 295-420. Pulleyblank, Douglas. 1997. Optimality Theory and features. In Diana Archangeli and Terrence Langendoen (eds.), Optimality  Theory. Oxford: Blackwell. 59-101.  Pulleyblank, Douglas. 1998. Markedness-based feature-based faithfulness. Paper delivered at SWOT 4, University of Arizona, April 5, 1998. Pulleyblank, Douglas. 2002. Harmony Drivers: No Disagreement Allowed. Proceedings  of BLS 28, 1-28.  Pulleyblank, Douglas. To appear. Patterns of reduplication in Yoruba. In Kristin Hanson & Sharon Inkelas (eds.), Rice, C. 1991.  The Nature of the Word: Essays in Honor of Paul Kiparsky. The MIT Press.  Binarity and Ternarity in Metrical Theory: Parametrical Extensions. Ph.D. disserta  University of Texas. Roca, Iggy & Wyn Johnson. 1999.  A Course in Phonology. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.  Rose, Suzanne. 1976.  Lenition and glottalization in Nootka. MA thesis. University of Victoria.  Rose, Suzanne. 1981.  Kyuquot Grammar. Ph.D. dissertation. University of Victoria.  Rose, Suzanne & Barry F.Carlson. 1984. The Nootka-Nitinaht Passive.  Anthropological Linguistics  26, 1: 1-12. Rosen, Eric. 2001.  Phonological Processes Interacting with the Lexicon: variable and non-regular  in Japanese phonology. Ph.D. dissertation. University of British Columbia.  249  Sagey, Elizabeth. 1986.  The Representation of Features and Relations in Nonlinear Phonology.  dissertation. MIT. Sapir, Edward. 1924. The Rival Whalers, a Nitinat Story (Nootka text with translation and grammatical analysis. UAL 3:76-102 Sapir, Edward. 1938. Glottalized continuants in Navaho, Nootka and Kwakiutl (with a note on Indo-  European). Language 14, 248-74. Sapir, Edward & Morris Swadesh. 1939.  Nootka Texts: Tales and Ethnological Narratives wi  Grammatical Notes and Lexical Materials. Philadelphia: Linguistic Society of America. Selkirk, Elisabeth. 1984.  Phonology and Syntax. The MIT Press.  Selkirk, Elisabeth. 1986.  The Syntax of Words. LI Monograph 7. The MIT Press.  Shaw, Patricia. 1980. Theoretical Issues in Dakota Phonology and Morphology. New York: Garland. Shaw, Patricia. 1989. Non-conservation of melodic structure in reduplication. In CLS 23. Part 2, Parassession  on Autosegmental  and Metrical Phonology.  Chicago Linguistic Society,  University of Chicago Press. 3-37. Shaw, Patricia. 1989. The Complex Status of Complex Segments in Dakota.  Theoretical Perspectives on  Native American Languages. In Donna Gerdts & Karin Michelson (eds.). New York: SUNY Press. 3-37. Shaw, Patricia. 1991a. The laryngeal/post-velar connection. Paper presented at the Conference on Phonological Feature Organization. LSA Summer Linguistic Institute, UCSC. Shaw, Patricia. 1991b. Consonant harmony systems: The special status of Coronal harmony. In Carole Paradis and Jean-Francois Prunet (eds.),  The Special Status of Coronals. New York: Academic  Press. 125-157. Shaw, Patricia. 1994. Paper presented at OTS/HIL Workshop on Prosodic Morphology. University of Utrecht, The Netherlands. Silverman, Daniel. 1997.  Phasing and Recoverability. New York: Garland Publishing.  Smith, Jennifer. 1997. Noun faithfulness: on the privileged behavior of nouns in phonology. ROA-242, the Rutgers Optimality Archive. Smith, Jennifer 1998a. Noun faithfulness and word stress in Tuyuca. In J. Austin & A. Lawson (eds.),  Proceedings ofESCOL 97. Ithaca, CLC Publications. 180-191. Smith, Jennifer. 1998b. Noun faithfulness: evidence from accent in Japanese dialects. In N. Akatsuka, H. Hoji, S. Iwasaki, S.-O. Sohn, & S. Strauss (eds.), Japanese  and Korean Linguistics 7. Stanford,  CSLI. 611-627. Smith, Jennifer. 1999. Noun faithfulness and accent in Fukuoka Japanese. In S. Bird, A. Camie, J. Haugen, & P. Norquest (eds.),  Proceedings ofWCCFL. 519-531.  250  Smith, Jennifer. 2001. L e x i c a l category and phonological contrast. In R. Kirchner, J . Pater & W . Wikeley (eds.), Papers in Experimental and Theoretical Linguistics 6: Workshop on the Lexicon in Phonetics and Phonology. University o f Alberta. 61-72. Smolensky, Paul.  1993. Harmony,  markedness  and phonological  activity. R O A - 8 7 , the Rutgers  Optimality Archive. Smolensky, Paul. 1996. The Initial State and 'Richness o f the B a s e ' i n Optimality Theory. Technical Report, Johns Hopkins University. Spaelti, Philip. 1997. Dimensions of Variation in Multi-pattern Reduplication. P h . D . thesis. University o f California, Santa Cruz. Spencer, Andrew. 1991. Morphological Theory. Cambridge, M A . : B l a c k w e l l . Stemberger, Joseph P. 1981. Morphological haplology. Language 57, 791-817. Stemberger, Joseph P. 1985a. The Lexicon in a Model of Language Production. Garland Publishing: N e w York/London. Stemberger, Joseph P. 1985b. A n interactive activation model o f language production. In A . Ellis (ed.), Progress in the Psychology of Language I. London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. 143-186. Stemberger, Joseph P. 1991. Radical underspecification i n language production. Phonology 8: 73-112. Stemberger, Joseph P. 1992. V o c a l i c underspecification i n language production. Language 68: 492-524. Stemberger, Joseph P. 1993. Glottal transparency. Phonology 10: 107-138. Steriade, Donca. 1982. Greek Prosodies and the Nature of Syllabification. P h . D . dissertation, M I T , Cambridge, M A . Steriade, Donca. 1988. Reduplication and syllable transfer i n Sanskrit and elsewhere. Phonology 5, 73155. Steriade, Donca. 1995. Underspecification  and markedness. In John Goldsmith (ed), Handbook of  Phonological Theory. Cambridge, Mass.: B l a c k w e l l . Steriade, Donca. 1997. Phonetics in phonology: the case o f laryngeal neutralization. M s . University o f California, L o s Angeles. Stonham, John. 1990. Current Issues in Morphological Theory. P h . D . dissertation. Stanford University. Stonham, John. 1994. Combinatorial Morphology. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Stonham. John. 1999. Aspects ofTsishaath Nootka Phonetics & Phonology. L I N C O M E U R O P A . Stonham, John. 2003. Southern Wakashan double reduplication. Paper delivered i n the 3 8 International th  Conference on Salish and Neighbouring Languages. In Jason B r o w n , & M i c h e l e Kalmar (eds.), UBCWPL 11, 237-251. University o f British Columbia. Stonham, John. T o appear. L e v e l ordering i n Nootka. In Kristin Hanson & Sharon Inkelas (eds.), The Nature of the Word: Essays in Honor of Paul Kiparsky. The M I T Press. Stonham, John & Sze M a n Y i u . 2000. Woman-buy vs. two-have: two types o f incorporation in Nootka. Paper presented at the L S A Annual meeting. Chicago: I L .  251  Struijke, Caro. 1998. Reduplicant and Output TETU in Kwakwala. In H. Fukazawa, F. Morelli, C. Struijke, & Y. Su (eds.). University of Maryland Working Papers 7: 150-178. Struijke, Caro. 2000. Why constraint conflict can disappear in reduplication. In H. Hirotani, A. Coetzee, N. Hall, & J-Y. Kim (eds.), Proceedings ofNELS 30. Swadesh, Morris. 1933. Internal Economy of the Nootka Word. Ph.D. dissertation. Yale University. Swadesh, Morris. 1939. Nootka Internal Syntax. UAL 9, 77-102. Swadesh, Morris. 1948. A structural trend in Nootka. Word 4, 106-119. Thomas, John & Thorn Hess. 1981. An Introduction to Nitinaht Language and Culture. MS. Urbancyzk, Suzanne. 1995. Double reduplications in parallel. In. J. Beckman, L. W. Dickey & S. Urbancyzk (eds). UMOP 18: Papers in Optimality Theory. GLSA, UMass, Amherst. 499-531. Urbancyzk. Suzanne. 1996. Patterns of Reduplication in Lushootseed. Ph.D. thesis, UMass. Urbancyzk, Suzanne. 1999. A-templatic reduplication in Halq'emeylem. In Shahin, K, S. Blake, and E.-S. Kim (eds). WCCFL 17. Stanford: CSLI. 655-669. Vaux, Bert. 1998. The laryngeal specifications of fricatives. Linguistics Inquiry 29, 497-511. Wang, William S.-Y. 1968. TTie basis of speech. Project on Linguistic Analysis, Reports, Second Series 4, January 1968. University of Berkeley. Wilson, Stephen A. 1985. Stress Rules in Wakashan. MA thesis. University California, Berkeley. Wilson, Ian. 2003. Post-velar C-V interactions in Nuu-chah-nulth: phonology or phonetics?. Ms. University of British Columbia. Wojdak, Rachel. 2001. An argument for category neutrality? In K. Megerdoomian & L. A. Bar-el. Proceedings of WCCFL 20. 101-114. Wojdak, Rachel. 2002a. Variable fixed segmentism in Nuu-chah-nulth iterative reduplication. Ms. University of British Columbia. Wojdak, Rachel. 2002b. Phonologically-driven head movement in Nuu-chah-nulth. Ms. University of British Columbia. Yiu, Sze Man & John Stonham. 2000. 'Good-stocked with mussels':.incorporation on the edge. Paper presented at the LSA Annual meeting. Chicago: IL. Zee, Draga. 1988. Sonority Constraints on Prosodic Structure. Ph.D. dissertation. Stanford University. Zhang, Jie. 2000. Non-contrastive features and categorical patterning in Chinese diminutive affixation: MAX[F] or IDENT[F]? Phonology 17, pp 427-478. Cambridge University Press. Zoll, Cheryl. 1996. Parsing Below the Segment in a Constraint Based Framework. Ph.D. dissertation. University of California, Berkeley.  252  Appendix: List of triggering suffixes (page numbers refer to pages where each suffix is discussed with relevant examples)  Gloss  Suffixes  Glottalising  Leniting Vowel Lengthening  Vowel Shortening  Redupli- Page cation No.  -akfoi  At the rear  34  -(a)a-hik  To look after  34, 185 S  34  -ahi  Thing  -ahs  Vessel/container  34  -ak  NOW/Sequential  40  -(a)ap  To buy  34  -aq  Very  142  -aqa  Happening/result of s.t.  34  -aqk  Inside  34  -aqTeas  In woods, in the house  34  -as  To go s.w., to do s.t.  34  -as  Outside, on the ground  34  (status) -awiF  To expect  -a(a)?a  On the rock  -(c)ink  To converse with,  137 34  •/  189  together, side by side -hta  Foot  184  -hwaF  To use  137  -iic  To eat  34  -iih  To hunt/fish, to try to get  34, 185  -ihta  At the end  34  -iF  Inside the house, on the  93  floor A person who is always  34,  doing s.t.  185  -(q)iiF  To make  136  -is  At the beach  93  -iik  253  Suffixes  Gloss  Leniting Vowel Lengthening  Glottalising  Vowel Shortening  Redupli- Page cation No. 34  •/  •/  -ifc  To take/get  -iik  On the ground (process)  34  -inF  To serve  34  -ihakuuh  To watch  -ityak  Fear  -kuk  To resemble  -(k)casci  To play on someone's  S  137 190 •/  189 190  side -ka  Again, also  183  -huk  On the hand  192  -panac  To move about  137  -p(a)a  Not to like  S  137  -pich  Doing s.t. while doing  S  137  some other. S  192  -sapi  To depend on  -suF  At the eye  -s  Continually  -sik  To start to  187  -uup  Vehicles (all kinds)  34  -(y)a  Continuously  -?inhi  To wait for  34  -yuk  To cry  185  w  217 S  S  254  183  187  


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