"Arts, Faculty of"@en . "Linguistics, Department of"@en . "DSpace"@en . "UBCV"@en . "Fee, Elizabeth Jane"@en . "2011-01-24T23:26:33Z"@en . "1991"@en . "Doctor of Philosophy - PhD"@en . "University of British Columbia"@en . "The goal of this thesis is to develop a parametric model of acquisition which incorporates the idea that phonological systems are underlyingly unspecified for certain feature values. I examine two variants of this model: one based on the theory of Radical Underspecification (Archangeli and Pulleyblank 1986), and one based on the theory of Contrastive Underspecification (Steriade 1987). I assume the principles and parameters framework, where the initial phonological system of the child is assumed to be characterized by the unmarked parameter settings of UG. The two types of parameters that are examined in detail are featural parameters and rule parameters. The unmarked settings of featural parameters are supplied by universal redundancy rules. In most cases, the unmarked settings of rule parameters are assumed to be OFF, or non-application.\r\nI provide analyses of the vocalic systems of Hungarian and Spanish, based on the parametric theories of Radical and Contrastive Underspecification, which demonstrate that certain phonological parameters in these languages must be reset to the marked option. The Hungarian analyses focus particularly on spreading processes, while those in Spanish focus on alternations that take place within verb conjugation classes. Given the differences between the initial child state and the adult phonological systems of Hungarian and Spanish, the underspecification acquisition models make certain predictions\r\nregarding acquisition in these languages. These predictions are then tested using data from children acquiring both Hungarian and Spanish.\r\nThe early phonological systems of children acquiring Hungarian and Spanish are found to initially be smaller than predicted by either acquisition model. To account for these results, and still maintain a parametric model, I propose a theory of feature availability, which specifies the order in which features may become part of a child's phonological system. In conjuction with this theory of feature availability, the RU model is able to explain the development of children's early phonological inventories, as well as certain substitution patterns. The contrastive specifications required by the theory of CU cannot account for these aspects of the data."@en . "https://circle.library.ubc.ca/rest/handle/2429/30805?expand=metadata"@en . "UNDERSPECIFICATION, PARAMETERS, AND THE ACQUISITION OF VOWELS By ELIZABETH JANE FEE B.A., The University of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1978 M.A., The University of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1980 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT 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 October 1991 (c)Elizabeth Jane Fee, 1991 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. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the head of my department or by his or her representatives. It is understood that copying or publication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission. Department of. ilrJ^U-t^Ti C C The University of British Columbia Vancouver, Canada Date DE-6 (2/88) ABSTRACT The goal of t h i s thesis i s to develop a parametric model of a c q u i s i t i o n which incorporates the idea that phonological systems are underlyingly unspecified for c e r t a i n feature values. I examine two variants of t h i s model: one based on the theory of Radical Underspecification (Archangeli and Pulleyblank 1986), and one based on the theory of Contrastive Underspecification (Steriade 1987). I assume the p r i n c i p l e s and parameters framework, where the i n i t i a l phonological system of the c h i l d i s assumed to be characterized by the unmarked parameter settings of UG. The two types of parameters that are examined i n d e t a i l are featural parameters and r u l e parameters. The unmarked settings of featural parameters are supplied by universal redundancy r u l e s . In most cases, the unmarked settings of rule parameters are assumed to be OFF, or non-application. I provide analyses of the v o c a l i c systems of Hungarian and Spanish, based on the parametric theories of Radical and Contrastive Underspecification, which demonstrate that c e r t a i n phonological parameters i n these languages must be reset to the marked option. The Hungarian analyses focus p a r t i c u l a r l y on spreading processes, while those i n Spanish focus on alternations that take place within verb conjugation classes. Given the differences between the i n i t i a l c h i l d state and the adult phonological systems of Hungarian and Spanish, the underspecification a c q u i s i t i o n models make c e r t a i n predictions i i i regarding acquisition in these languages. These predictions are then tested using data from children acquiring both Hungarian and Spanish. The early phonological systems of children acquiring Hungarian and Spanish are found to i n i t i a l l y be smaller than predicted by either acquisition model. To account for these results, and s t i l l maintain a parametric model, I propose a theory of feature a v a i l a b i l i t y , which specifies the order in which features may become part of a child's phonological system. In conjuction with this theory of feature av a i l a b i l i t y , the RU model is able to explain the development of children's early phonological inventories, as well as certain substitution patterns. The contrastive specifications required by the theory of CU cannot account for these aspects of the data. i v TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT i i ACKNOWLEDGEMENT v i i i Chapter 1 INTRODUCTION 1 1.1 Overview 4 1.1.1 An Acquisi t i o n Model 4 1.1.2 Components of the Acq u i s i t i o n Model 7 1.1.2.1 Underspecification Theory 7 1.1.2.2 Organization of UG 9 1.1.2.3 Constraints 12 1.1.2.4 The Nature of Phonological Development 13 1.1.3 Predictions 16 1.1.4 Some General Findings 17 1.2 Organization 19 Chapter 2 PARAMETRIC THEORIES OF UNDERSPECIFICATION 22 2.1 Aspects of Phonology 25 2.1.1 Lex i c a l Phonology 25 2.1.1.1 The Lexicon 26 2.1.1.2 The Cycle 27 2.1.1.3 P o s t - l e x i c a l Component 30 2.1.1.4 Structure Preservation 31 2.1.2 Representations 33 2.1.2.1 Non-linear Phonology 33 2.1.2.2 Feature Geometry 36 2.1.2.3 The OCP 37 2.1.2.4 Metrical Theory 39 2.1.3 Rules 47 2.2 Underspecification Theory 50 2.2.1 Radical Underspecification 55 2.2.1.1 Elimination of Redundancy 55 2.2.1.2 Rule Types 58 2.2.2 Contrastive Underspecification 62 2.2.2.1 Specifications 62 2.2.2.2 R-Rules 64 2.2.2.3 Phonological Rules / 67 2.2.3 Alternate Theories of Feature S p e c i f i c a t i o n 68 2.2.3.1 Clements (1987) 69 2.2.3.2 P r i v a t i v e Features 70 2.3 P r i n c i p l e s and Parameters 72 2.3.1 B i n a r i t y 74 2.3.2 Multiple Parameters 75 2.3.3 Non-parametric Acqui s i t i o n 77 2.4 L e a r n a b i l i t y 78 2.4.1 L e a r n a b i l i t y Condition 79 2.4.2 Continuity Assumption 80 2.4.3 No-negative Evidence Hypothesis 81 V 2.5 Parametric Approaches to Underspecification 83 2.5.1 Parameters and Radical Underspecification 85 2.5.1.1 UG i n RU 85 2.5.1.2 Input i n RU 101 2.5.2 Parameters and Contrastive Underspecification 103 2.5.2.1 UG i n CU 103 2.5.2.2 Input i n CU 114 Notes to Chapter 2 116 Chapter 3 THE VOCALIC SYSTEMS OF HUNGARIAN AND SPANISH 120 3.1 Harmony Systems i n Hungarian 123 3.1.1 Hungarian Vowels 123 3.1.2 Parametric RU Analysis of Hungarian Harmony 126 3.1.2.1 Back Harmony 131 3.1.2.2 Round Harmony 143 3.1.2.3 Low Front Vowel Formation 155 3.1.3 Parametric CU Analysis of Hungarian 156 3.1.3.1 Back Harmony 161 3.1.3.2 Round Harmony 169 3.1.3.3 Peripheral Rules 175 3.1.4 Summary and Comparisons 177 3.2 Spanish Vocalic Alternations 184 3.2.1 Spanish Vowels and Stress 185 3.2.2 Parametric RU Analysis of Spanish 188 Alternations 3.2.2.1 Spanish Verbal Classes 190 3.2.2.2 Alternating Vowel/Diphthongs 200 3.2.2.3 High/Mid Alternations 215 3.2.2.4 Peripheral Rules 226 3.2.3 Parametric CU Analysis of Spanish Alternations 229 3.2.3.1 High/Mid Alternations 231 3.2.3.2 Vowel/Diphthong Alternations 234 3.2.3.3 Peripheral Rules 241 3.2.4 Summary and Comparisons 243 Notes to Chapter 3 249 v i Chapter 4 A PARAMETRIC ACQUISITION THEORY 253 4.1 Aspects of Phonological Development 256 4.1.1 Speech Perception 256 4.1.2 Speech Production 258 4.1.2.1 Stages of Phonological Development 258 4.1.2.2 Consonantal Inventories 262 4.1.2.3 Natural Processes 265 4.1.2.4 Early S y l l a b l e Structures 267 4.1.3 Some General Issues 271 4.1.3.1 V a r i a b i l i t y 271 4.1.3.2 Levels of Organization 273 4.1.3.3 Units of Organization 277 4.1.3.4 Phonological Rules 279 4.1.4 Implications for the Ac q u i s i t i o n of Vocalic Systems 281 4.2 Assumptions for a Model of Phonological A c q u i s i t i o n 282 4.2.1 Perception 283 4.2.2 Phonological Development 284 4.2.2.1 Featural Parameters 284 4.2.2.2 Rule Parameters 285 4.2.2.3 Other Parameters 286 4.2.3 Substitution Processes 288 4.2.3.1 Paradigmatic Substitutions 290 4.2.3.2 Syntagmatic Substitutions 292 4.2.4 Summary 300 4.3 Predictions for the Acq u i s i t i o n of Hungarian and Spanish 302 4.3.1 RU Predictions 304 4.3.1.1 Hungarian 306 4.3.1.2 Spanish 313 4.3.2 CU Predictions 317 4.3.2.1 Hungarian 319 4.3.2.2 Spanish 324 4.3.3. Comparison of RU and CU Predictions 328 4.3.3.1 Hungarian 328 4.3.3.2 Spanish 332 4.3.3.3 Summary 336 Notes to Chapter 4 341 Chapter 5 VOCALIC ACQUISITION IN HUNGARIAN AND SPANISH 347 5.1 Phonetic Inventories and Phonological Contrasts Methodology 347 5.1.1 Phonetic Inventories 347 5.1.2 Substitutions 352 5.1.3 Phonological Inventories 353 5.2 Vocalic A c q u i s i t i o n i n Hungarian 355 5.2.1 Samples 356 5.2.2 Hungarian Vowels 357 5.2.3 Phonological Inventories 360 5.2.4 Mismatches 364 5.2.5 Substitution Patterns 372 5.2.5.1 Syntagmatic Substitutions 372 5.2.5.2 Paradigmatic Substitutions 375 v i i 5.3 Vocalic A c q u i s i t i o n i n Spanish 377 5.3.1 Samples 377 5.3.2 Spanish Vowels 379 5.3.3 Phonological Inventories 380 5.3.4 Mismatches 383 5.3.5 Substitution Patterns 389 5.3.5.1 Syntagmatic Substitutions 389 5.3.5.2 Paradigmatic Substitutions 392 5.4 Summary 392 Notes to Chapter 5 396 Chapter 6 TESTING THE PREDICTIONS 398 6.1 Predicted vs. Attested Phonological Inventories 399 6.1.1 The Inventories 400 6.1.2 Gradual A c q u i s i t i o n of Complex Vowels 403 6.1.3 Gradual A c q u i s i t i o n of the Inventory 405 6.1.3.1 Jakobson and Halle (1956) 407 6.1.3.2 Calabrese (1988) 411 6.1.3.3 A Theory of Feature A v a i l a b i l i t y 413 6.2 Inventories 416 6.2.1 Hungarian 416 6.2.1.1 RU Account 419 6.2.1.2 CU Account 425 6.2.2 Spanish 428 . 6.2.2.1 RU Account 428 6.2.2.2 CU Account 431 6.3 Substitution Patterns 433 6.3.1 Syntagmatic Substitutions 434 6.3.1.1 C r o s s - l i n g u i s t i c S i m i l a r i t i e s 434 6.3.1.2 C r o s s - l i n g u i s t i c Differences 437 6.3.2 Paradigmatic Substitutions 439 6.3.2.1 Hungarian 439 6.3.2.2 Spanish 441 6.4 Rules 442 6.4.1 Hungarian 443 6.4.2 Spanish 448 6.5 Summary 455 6.6 Implications 462 6.6.1 Implications for Phonological Theory 464 6.6.2 Implications for a Theory of Phonological Ac q u i s i t i o n 466 Notes to Chapter 6 473 REFERENCES 475 v i i i ACKNOWLEDGEMENT I would l i k e to thank the members of my thesis committee, David Ingram, P a t r i c i a Shaw and Ewa-Czaykowska-Higgins, for t h e i r comments, c r i t i c i s m s and encouragement throughout the writ i n g of t h i s t h e s i s . Writing a long-distance d i s s e r t a t i o n i s never easy, but the fact that the members of my committee were always avai l a b l e has made i t less d i f f i c u l t than i t could have been. David Ingram has been a friend, confidant and source of never-ending support since I f i r s t began my studies at U.B.C. David sparked my o r i g i n a l i n t e r e s t i n language a c q u i s i t i o n , and has kept the f i r e s going over the many years I have known him. He has helped to shape many of the ideas presented here and has read every word that has gone into t h i s t h e s i s , often three or four times. My i n t e r e s t i n non-linear phonology was i n i t i a t e d by Pat Shaw, and I have continued to p r o f i t from her insights over the years. Pat's comments and c r i t i c i s m s of the various drafts of t h i s thesis have always been exacting and constructive. She has been a valuable resource for someone who writes and thinks i n a rather impulsive manner. This thesis could not have been completed without the help of Ewa Czaykowska-Higgins. Ewa, perhaps because of a f a i r l y recently completed d i s s e r t a t i o n , always seemed to know when I needed a push and when I needed a kind word. She has been p a r t i c u l a r l y h e l p f u l i n pointing out where my assumptions were i n v a l i d or unsupported, and where the a c q u i s i t i o n sections needed to be expanded or revised so they could be understood by phonologists. I have p r o f i t e d greatly from the l i n g u i s t i c s community at U.B.C. Toni Borowsky was helpful i n much of the groundwork for t h i s t h e s i s . M.D. Kinkade has always been a v a i l a b l e for administrative help, and i n the early stages of my degree was a valuable source of information on anything to do with fieldwork. Bernard St-Jacques and Mike Rochemont provided useful advice on some of the more bureaucratic aspects of f i n i s h i n g a degree. The members of the student population at U.B.C. have provided help and encouragement over the years. Susan Blake, Kathy Hunt, Bruce Bagemihl, David M i l l a r d , Henry Davis and Nicola Bessell have provided useful discussion of many of the ideas presented here, as well as moral support when the going got rough. The phonologists at McGill, including Glyne Piggott, Jose T o u r v i l l e and Dominique Rodier, were supportive and f r i e n d l y to a stranger i n a strange land. Glyne, e s p e c i a l l y , helped me to integrate into the Montreal academic community, and provided me with a forum for some of work presented here. Perhaps the most f r u i t f u l period of my student career occurred when I attended the 1987 L.S.A. Summer I n s t i t u t e at Stanford University. The contacts and friends I made there, as well as the ambiance of Stanford i t s e l f , made for a ix productive and i n t e r e s t i n g summer. Courses I took from John McCarthy, John Goldsmith and Nick Clements helped me to decide the path of my d i s s e r t a t i o n research. My family (and more recently my extended family) have been of invaluable support over the years. My parents i n s t i l l e d i n me the b e l i e f that i t was possible to do anything, so long as one wanted i t badly enough. The encouragement and support of my parents, s i s t e r s , brothers, and in-laws i s both acknowledged and appreciated. My sons, Patrick and Christopher Lougheed, have watched t h i s thesis develop and evolve. They have grown up with the physical and mental debris of academia and have had to put up with a mother who was not always there (be i t mentally or p h y s i c a l l y ) . While there may have been times that they d i d not understand, t h e i r presence and love has always helped me to keep at l e a s t one foot i n the r e a l world. Last, but by no means lea s t , I would l i k e to thank Tom. He has been i n c r e d i b l y supportive and patient and has always been there when I needed someone to l i s t e n , someone to argue with, or simply a shoulder to cry on. This thesis i s dedicated, with love, to him. 1 CHAPTER 1 Introduction There i s an abundance of evidence i n c r o s s - l i n g u i s t i c phonological research that not a l l segments are f u l l y s p e c i f i e d for a l l feature values underlyingly. There i s l i t t l e agreement, however, as to exactly which features may be underspecified or under what conditions underspecification may occur. The theory of Radical Underspecification, outlined i n Archangeli and Pulleyblank (1986), maintains that only non-predictable feature values are included i n underlying representations. Archangeli and Pulleyblank (1989) argue that r a d i c a l underspecification of the feature [ATR] i s required i n Yoruba, while Abaglo and Archangeli (1989) argue that a r a d i c a l l y underspecified system i s necessary i n order to account for the v o c a l i c facts of Gengbe. An alternate theory of underspecification, that w i l l be refer r e d to here as Contrastive Underspecification, i s outlined i n Steriade (1987). Contrastive Underspecification assumes that underlying representations contain only those feature values that are necessary to d i s t i n g u i s h pairs of segments i n a given language. Mester and Ito (1989) argue that contrastive underspecification must be assumed i n order to account for the facts of p a l a t a l prosody i n Japanese mimetics. In a recent d i s s e r t a t i o n , Calabrese (1988) examines both types of underspecification and suggests that there may 2 be a parameter which allows languages to choose a phonological system that i s either r a d i c a l l y underspecified or c o n t r a s t i v e l y underspecified. Given a theory of Universal Grammar (UG), children's l i n g u i s t i c systems are possible adult grammars/ and are therefore constrained by the same sets of p r i n c i p l e s as adult grammars. Data from f i r s t language a c q u i s i t i o n should then be a revealing alternate source of evidence for the v a l i d i t y of l i n g u i s t i c theories. In t h i s thesis I propose to use data from phonological a c q u i s i t i o n to test the underlying premises of Radical and Contrastive Underspecification. I attempt to determine how these competing theories must be organized i n order to represent coherent models of a c q u i s i t i o n , and I w i l l examine the predictions these theories make for the a c q u i s i t i o n of the v o c a l i c systems of Hungarian and Spanish. These predictions are then tested using real-time a c q u i s i t i o n data. The task the c h i l d faces i n acquiring the grammar of a language can be shown as i n (1.1). (1.1) Input ;-> Grammar The c h i l d must determine, on the basis of the input received, the form of the grammar. When the input i s examined c l o s e l y , the schematization of a c q u i s i t i o n i n (1.1) can be shown to be incomplete. White (1989), summarizing research that has been c a r r i e d out over the past 20 years, i d e n t i f i e s three problems 3 that r e l a t e to input: underdetermination, degeneracy, and the No-negative Evidence Hypothesis. The problem of underdetermination i s that many aspects of grammar are not overtly v i s i b l e i n the input. Traces, for example, which are assumed to be ah i n t e g r a l part of the syntactic representation of sentences, are abstract e n t i t i e s which are not present i n the spoken language a c h i l d hears. The degeneracy problem i s one o r i g i n a l l y addressed i n Chomsky (1965), which points out that the language ch i l d r e n hear may contain ungrammatical or incomplete utterances. How i s i t possible for a c h i l d to determine which sentences are grammatical, and therefore generated by the grammar, and which are the r e s u l t of performance errors? The No-negative Evidence problem points out that our grammatical competence allows us to make judgments about the ungrammaticality of sentences as well as t h e i r grammaticality. If we assume (as i s generally done i n t h i s type of research) that c h i l d r e n learn only through p o s i t i v e evidence, how can they possibly learn that c e r t a i n construction types are not generated by the grammar? These problems demonstrate that children must a t t a i n the complex adult grammar using input that does not provide a l l the clues necessary for the language being acquired. This has been referred to as the projection problem or the l o g i c a l problem of language a c q u i s i t i o n . In an attempt to solve the projection problem, researchers such as Chomsky (1981a,b) have posited a mediating component to (1.1) c a l l e d Universal 4 Grammar or UG. (1.2) Input > UG > Grammar UG i s our s p e c i e s - s p e c i f i c endowment for language, which constrains the form of possible human grammars. The conception of a c q u i s i t i o n i n (1.2) has led to two consequences for l i n g u i s t s interested i n a c q u i s i t i o n research. F i r s t has been the creation of the f i e l d of l e a r n a b i l i t y , which investigates the l o g i c a l problems r e l a t i n g to language a c q u i s i t i o n . This f i e l d attempts to explain how the c h i l d , given an incomplete and imperfect set of input s t r i n g s , can achieve the adult grammar, i . e . to specify what form the input and UG components of (1.2) must take i n order that the grammar be attainable. Secondly, the schema i n (1.2) has led to the acceptance of a c q u i s i t i o n data as an important and useful source of evidence for the t e s t i n g of a l t e r n a t i v e l i n g u i s t i c theories. 1.1 Overview 1.1.1 An A c q u i s i t i o n Model In t h i s thesis I develop a model of a c q u i s i t i o n that i s based on the assumption that phonological systems are underlyingly unspecified for c e r t a i n feature values. I examine two variants of t h i s model: one that i s based on the assumption that underlying representations lack a l l predictable information, and one that i s based on the 5 assumption that underlying representations lack only non-contrastive information. I assume that t h i s a c q u i s i t i o n model i s organized according to the p r i n c i p l e s and parameters model of grammar o r i g i n a l l y proposed i n Chomsky (19813,13). The two variants of the a c q u i s i t i o n model make ce r t a i n predictions regarding the a c q u i s i t i o n of phonological systems, and I w i l l t e s t these predictions using a c q u i s i t i o n data from Hungarian, a Finno-Ugric language, and Spanish, a Romance language. In order to r e s t r i c t my task somewhat, I have chosen to focus on v o c a l i c systems, because t h i s i s where the majority of work i n underspecification has taken place. I also r e s t r i c t my investigations to the types of featural and rule parameters that are required given an RU or CU a c q u i s i t i o n model. While parameters have been proposed for many other aspects of phonological organization, these are the two sets of parameters that are the most c r u c i a l to a theory of underspecification. The underlying theme of t h i s thesis i s very s i m i l a r to that of Calabrese (1988). Calabrese develops a hierarchy of universal f i l t e r s to explain c e r t a i n facts of phonological a c q u i s i t i o n and foreign language transfer. Calabrese argues that UG consists of a set of f i l t e r s , or negative constraints, which are h i e r a r c h i c a l l y ordered. In the a c q u i s i t i o n of a language, children may learn a segment which v i o l a t e s a c e r t a i n f i l t e r i f segments v i o l a t i n g f i l t e r s further down the hierarchy have already been acquired. My objectives d i f f e r from Calabrese's i n a number of 6 c r u c i a l ways. F i r s t , I have chosen to use real-time a c q u i s i t i o n data to test the predictions of the parametric theories of RU and CU. This has been done so that cross-l i n g u i s t i c differences and relationships between adult phonological systems and a c q u i s i t i o n can be c l e a r l y demonstrated. Calabrese attempts only to account for some very general aspects of the Jakobsonian picture of phonological development, which sometimes s u f f e r from having been misinterpreted over the years (see Ingram 1989a). Secondly, while Calabrese attempts only to account for the development of phonological inventories, I attempt to account for the types of substitution processes and phonological rules that young children use, as well as the development of t h e i r i n i t i a l inventories. The a c q u i s i t i o n data that are analyzed i n t h i s thesis come from previously published studies of young childre n acquiring Hungarian and Spanish. The choice of languages studied was made by force rather than by choice. Although there i s a large inventory of c r o s s - l i n g u i s t i c a c q u i s i t i o n samples to choose from, I wanted to use only languages where data from several d i f f e r e n t children was av a i l a b l e , i n order to be c e r t a i n that the samples were t r u l y representative. I also wanted to choose languages for which previous underspecification analyses of the voc a l i c systems had been proposed. These two c r i t e r i a narrowed down the choice of languages considerably. 7 1.1.2 Components of the Acquisition Model I have dual objectives i n writing t h i s t h e s i s . F i r s t , I wish to examine the l e a r n a b i l i t y aspects of the theories of Radical and Contrastive Underspecification, looking at the innate mechanisms that must be attributed to the c h i l d and the learning procedures that are required to a t t a i n the adult language. Secondly, I wish to examine phonological cross-l i n g u i s t i c a c q u i s i t i o n data i n order to determine whether the underspecification analyses can c o r r e c t l y account for the patterns of development. In developing an a c q u i s i t i o n model which allows me to investigate these issues I have made ce r t a i n assumptions regarding 1) how underlying representations are structured, 2) the organization of UG, 3) the constraints that hold i n an a c q u i s i t i o n model such as t h i s , and 4) the nature of phonological development. Some of these issues are addressed i n the following sections. 1.1.2.1 Underspecification Theory The a c q u i s i t i o n model developed i n t h i s thesis adopts the basic premise that a l l features have binary values, but that underlying representations lack c e r t a i n feature values. Two variants of t h i s model are investigated: one based on the theory of Radical Underspecification, and the other based on the theory of Contrastive Underspecification. Radical Underspecification (RU) i s based on the notion of minimal redundancy developed i n Kiparsky (1982, 1985) and i s outlined i n d e t a i l i n Archangeli and Pulleyblank (1986). In t h i s 8 theory i t i s assumed that only non-redundant feature values e x i s t i n underlying representations. Redundant or predictable feature values are inserted by redundancy rules at some point during the l e x i c a l or p o s t - l e x i c a l phonology. Contrastive Underspecification (CU), sometimes referre d to as Restricted Underspecification (Mester and Ito 1989), i s developed from the theory of feature s p e c i f i c a t i o n s used i n Halle (1959) and i s outlined i n Steriade (1987). CU i s also discussed, i n a somewhat revised form, i n the works of Clements (1988), Christdas (1988) and Calabrese (1988). Steriade's theory assumes that only contrastive feature values are marked underlyingly, and that non-contrastive feature values are inserted l a t e i n the derivation by redundancy ru l e s . The theories of underspecification that are examined here make d i f f e r e n t claims about how children specify t h e i r phonological inventories, and about the ro l e that redundancy rules play i n phonological systems. An a l t e r n a t i v e conception of the s p e c i f i c a t i o n of underlying feature values assumes that features are p r i v a t i v e , or have only a single functional value. Den Dikken and van der Hulst (1990) argue that a l l features are p r i v a t i v e , while Steriade (1987), Mester and Ito (1989) and Piggott (1990, to appear) argue that c e r t a i n features are best viewed as being p r i v a t i v e . A p r i v a t i v e or unary feature can have only one possible marked value i n any language, and the unmarked value i s never s p e c i f i e d , even at some late point i n the phonology. The data presented i n Chapter 3 for Hungarian present a 9 challenge to a theory which assumes that a l l features are p r i v a t i v e , because there i t i s argued that [-round] must be the l e x i c a l l y s p e c i f i e d value of Hungarian. I believe that cases l i k e t h i s , where a un i v e r s a l l y redundant value can be shown to be marked underlyingly on a language-specific basis, w i l l help to demonstrate that some or a l l d i s t i n c t i v e features have binary values available for manipulation. 1.1.2.2 Organization of UG I assume that UG consists of a set of universal p r i n c i p l e s , and a set of parameters. P r i n c i p l e s are those aspects of UG that are held constant across a l l languages, while parameters are p r i n c i p l e s which have several s p e c i f i e d options. Syntactic parameters have been proposed to account for differences between languages i n the use of \"empty\" subjects (the Pro-drop parameter, see Hyams 1983 and Wexler and Manzini 1987), subject-aux inversion (Davis 1987), binding theory (Solan 1987) and subjacency ( R i z z i 1982). Phonological parameters have more recently been proposed to account for d i r e c t i o n a l i t y and maximal/minimal e f f e c t s of the feature hierarchy (Archangeli and Pulleyblank 1986, Piggott, to appear), feature hierarchitecture (Piggott, to appear), branching p o s s i b i l i t i e s of s y l l a b i c constituents (Kaye 1987) and stress placement (Hayes 1981, Dresher and Kaye 1988). While suggestions have been made for parameters with multiple settings (e.g. Wexler and Manzini 1987), I assume that the parameters that are required i n an a c q u i s i t i o n model 10 based on underspecification theory have only binary options. I show that universal redundancy rules can be viewed as the unmarked settings of featural parameters, although languages may choose to reset featural parameters to the marked option. The unmarked set t i n g of featural parameters i n i t i a l l y constrain the s p e c i f i c a t i o n of a l l children's phonological inventories, and consequently, i n languages which require the marked s e t t i n g of a featural parameter, the i n i t i a l system hypothesized by the c h i l d w i l l be d i f f e r e n t from the adult system. This parametric model can help to explain why many ac q u i s i t i o n researchers have noted that c r o s s - l i n g u i s t i c a l l y children's early phonological systems are very s i m i l a r , and only l a t e r take on language-particular q u a l i t i e s . In the p r i n c i p l e s and parameters model of grammar i t i s assumed that children's grammars may d i f f e r from adults only i n the parameter settings that characterize them. This model then places very severe r e s t r i c t i o n s on the types of phonological systems that can be attributed to c h i l d r e n , and on the developments that can occur i n the attainment of the adult grammar. I believe that t h i s i s an important and necessary constraint on a c q u i s i t i o n models, because for f a r too long a c q u i s i t i o n research has ignored advances i n l i n g u i s t i c theory and has attempted to e x i s t as an independent f i e l d . I believe that t h e o r e t i c a l l i n g u i s t i c s and a c q u i s i t i o n research can both benefit from closer t i e s between these f i e l d s . A c q u i s i t i o n research can help to determine which are the unmarked parameter settings, while t h e o r e t i c a l l i n g u i s t i c s 11 can provide a model against which we.can t e s t a c q u i s i t i o n data. In the course of t h i s thesis I examine parameters that r e l a t e to 1) redundancy rules, 2) phonological r u l e s , and 3) complex vowels. The f i r s t two types of parameters are discussed i n d e t a i l i n Chapter 2, as s p e c i f i c to theories of underspecification. The parameter r e l a t i n g to complex vowels i s not a p a r t i c u l a r feature of an underspecification model of a c q u i s i t i o n , but i s required to account for the a c q u i s i t i o n of long vowels i n Hungarian and diphthongs i n Spanish. The parameters that r e l a t e to phonological rules are i d e n t i c a l i n RU and CU. Based on work i n current non-linear phonology I assume that rule parameters allow for the spreading, deletion or i n s e r t i o n of phonological elements. The unmarked se t t i n g of a l l rule parameters i s OFF or non-a p p l i c a t i o n . In t h i s thesis I discuss how spreading rules can be used to describe what have been c a l l e d 'reduplications* i n c h i l d language. As stated above, the unmarked settings of redundancy rules are assumed to be provided by UG. In the theory of RU there are two possible types of redundancy r u l e s : context-free rules and context-sensitive rules. At the unmarked s e t t i n g , context-free rules i n s e r t u n i v e r s a l l y unmarked feature values redundantly, while at the marked set t i n g they provide the u n i v e r s a l l y marked values redundantly. At the unmarked se t t i n g context-sensitive rules provide universal feature co-occurrence r e s t r i c t i o n s , while at the marked s e t t i n g a 12 context-sensitive rule i s suppressed or eliminated i n the language-specific grammar, and the u n i v e r s a l l y redundant feature value i s marked underlyingly. In the theory of CU only context-sensitive redundancy rules are permitted. At the unmarked s e t t i n g these rules provide universal feature co-occurrence r e s t r i c t i o n s (as i n RU), while at the marked se t t i n g these redundancies do not apply and the contrastive feature values must be marked underlyingly. 1.1.2.3 Constraints The a c q u i s i t i o n model I develop i s constrained by the L e a r n a b i l i t y Condition (Pinker 1979, 1984), the Continuity Condition (Atkinson 1982, Pinker 1984), and the No-negative Evidence Hypothesis (Williams 1976, Baker 1979, Berwick 1985), which are the most commonly held assumptions i n the f i e l d of l e a r n a b i l i t y research. Both the L e a r n a b i l i t y and Continuity Conditions constrain the organization of UG. The L e a r n a b i l i t y Condition says that any developmental stage posited by an a c q u i s i t i o n theory must be attainable v i a an acquisiton mechanism that begins with UG and ends at the adult grammar. The Continuity Condition says that the p r i n c i p l e s and a c q u i s i t i o n mechanisms that are a v a i l a b l e to the c h i l d must be the same throughout the whole course of development. These two conditions are b u i l t d i r e c t l y into a p r i n c i p l e s and parameters model of phonology. Given the parameter se t t i n g account of a c q u i s i t i o n children's grammars can d i f f e r from adults' only i n the s e t t i n g of 13 parameters, and the only type of a c q u i s i t i o n that takes place i s the switching of parameters. The No-negative Evidence Hypothesis, which says that only p o s i t i v e evidence may be used i n a c q u i s i t i o n , i s also be assumed i n t h i s t h e s i s . In a parameter s e t t i n g model, t h i s constraint says that parameter r e s e t t i n g can only be triggered by p o s i t i v e evidence from the input. Given the No-negative Evidence Hypothesis, the ungrammatically of c e r t a i n representations or constructions can never be learned, but rather w i l l have to be provided for the c h i l d as a p r i n c i p l e of UG. 1.1.2.4 The Nature of Phonological Development In order to a t t a i n the phonological system of a language the c h i l d must c o r r e c t l y perceive the adult phonetic repertoire, determine the appropriate cues to attend to, and learn which sounds i n the language being acquired are used d i s t i n c t i v e l y . I make ce r t a i n assumptions about each of these steps, some of which r e s u l t from previous research into phonological development, and some of which follow d i r e c t l y from the a c q u i s i t i o n theory assumed. I assume, following work i n perception research, that chidren acquire the phonetic inventory of t h e i r language i n advance of phonological organization. In addition, following previous a c q u i s i t i o n evidence, I assume that ch i l d r e n begin to organize speech sounds into a phonological system sometime i n the f i r s t half of the second year. Given the parametric model 14 of a c q u i s i t i o n , UG w i l l provide the structure for the c h i l d ' s i n i t i a l phonological system i n the form of a set of universal p r i n c i p l e s and parameters. The ch i l d ' s f i r s t attempts at phonological organization w i l l show the e f f e c t s of the unmarked featural and rule parameters provided by UG, and po s i t i v e evidence w i l l be required to t r i g g e r the r e s e t t i n g of any one of these parameters. According to these assumptions, c r o s s - l i n g u i s t i c a l l y children's e a r l i e s t phonological systems w i l l be s i m i l a r i n that they are a l l constrained by the same set of universal p r i n c i p l e s and parameters, but may d i f f e r i n that these constraints may be applied to d i s t i n c t phonetic inventories. The parametric a c q u i s i t i o n theories based on the theories of RU and CU make very s i m i l a r claims about the types of sub s t i t u t i o n patterns that w i l l be found i n children's e a r l y speech. One type of pattern, that I c a l l paradigmatic substitutions, a r i s e when the unmarked parameter s e t t i n g provided by UG forces the c h i l d to represent d i s t i n c t i v e sounds i n a non-distinctive fashion. This type of sub s t i t u t i o n i s predicted to occur i n languages where the marked s e t t i n g of context-sensitive parameters i s c a l l e d f o r . The c h i l d ' s i n i t i a l phonological inventory w i l l be s p e c i f i e d according to the featural parameters (redundancy rules) of UG, while the language being acquired c a l l s f or a d i f f e r e n t pattern of s p e c i f i c a t i o n . In t h i s case the representations of two sounds may be collapsed and the unmarked sound w i l l be 15 produced i n place of a more marked one. Since both RU and CU allow for context-sensitive rules, and since I assume the same basic set of context-sensitive rules i n both theories, the types of paradigmatic substitutions they predict are i d e n t i c a l . D i f f erent substitution patterns are predicted for Hungarian and Spanish, however, because t h e i r phonetic inventories are quite d i f f e r e n t . I also assume, again following both previous research and the constraints of the parameter s e t t i n g model, that the structure of children's word forms i s i n i t i a l l y provided by a set of templates. These templates provide simple CV and CVCV s y l l a b l e structures to which featural information can be mapped. In c e r t a i n cases the adult target w i l l contain more information than the c h i l d can represent i n the template, and c e r t a i n elements i n the target w i l l be omitted i n the c h i l d ' s representation of that form. In other cases the f e a t u r a l information that the c h i l d can represent does not exhaustively f i l l the template, and portions of the template w i l l be underlyingly unspecified. In t h i s case I assume that the S a t i s f a c t i o n Condition (McCarthy and Prince 1986) forces the c h i l d to provide featural information for the unspecified s l o t s , e i t h e r by a paradigmatic s u b s t i t u t i o n provided by UG or through the spread of featural information from another segment or s y l l a b l e i n the word form. Substitutions that r e s u l t from a phonological r u l e f i l l i n g i n the featural information of an underlying empty s k e l e t a l s l o t are referred to as syntagmatic s u b s t i t u t i o n s . 16 Syntagmatic substitutions then occur across a word form, as opposed to paradigmatic substitutions, which are segment s p e c i f i c . I t i s predicted that both syntagmatic and paradigmatic substitutions w i l l occur when a sound i n the adult target i s not present i n the c h i l d ' s inventory, or when there i s some complexity i n the adult form that somehow int e r f e r e s with how much featural information the c h i l d can represent. 1.1.3 Predictions In Chapter 4 i t i s shown that the parametric a c q u i s i t i o n models based on the theories of RU and CU make remarkably s i m i l a r claims regarding the c h i l d ' s i n i t i a l phonological system. Both theories, for example, predict that c h i l d r e n acquiring Hungarian and Spanish w i l l i n i t i a l l y represent 5 d i s t i n c t vowels, which w i l l surface as [ i ] , [u], [e], [o] and [a], and that they w i l l represent these inventories using the features [high], [back] and [low]. Both theories p r e d i c t that c h i l d r e n acquiring Hungarian w i l l i n i t i a l l y substitute front unrounded vowels for front rounded vowels, a low back vowel for a low front vowel, and short or simple vowels f o r complex vowels. Both theories also predict s i m i l a r sets of phonological rule parameters for both Hungarian and Spanish, with the major difference being i n how these rules are assumed to operate. The two variants of the parametric a c q u i s i t i o n theory d i f f e r i n t h e i r predictions regarding the number and types of 17 featural parameters that must be reset i n order to achieve the adult systems of Hungarian and Spanish. RU predicts that 4 f e a t u r a l parameters must be reset i n the acquistion of Hungarian, while CU predicts only 2. In Spanish, RU predicts that only a single context-free parameter w i l l be reset, while CU predicts that no featural parameters w i l l be reset at a l l . When a featural parameter i s reset the c h i l d ' s phonological system w i l l be restructured to accommodate the new feature markings. RU therefore predicts that a greater number of r e s t r u c t u r i n g stages w i l l take place i n both Hungarian and Spanish than i s predicted by the theory of CU. 1.1.4 Some General Findings In both languages i t i s found that a large number of the mismatches that occur between a c h i l d ' s form and the adult target are the s u b s t i t u t i o n of a short or simple vowel for a complex one. The only predicted paradigmatic s u b s t i t u t i o n pattern that i n fact occurs i s the s u b s t i t u t i o n of [a] for /e/ i n Hungarian. In both languages a large number of mismatches are the r e s u l t of a rule of Spread f i l l i n g i n underlyingly unspecified feature values, so that both vowels i n a m u l t i s y l l a b i c c h i l d form are i d e n t i c a l on the surface. The fact that Spread i s found i n the speech of c h i l d r e n acquiring Hungarian and Spanish, even when Spanish does not appear to have a productive Spreading rule i s an i n t e r e s t i n g f i n d i n g . One of the main differences between the Hungarian and Spanish data relates to the conditions under which 18 substitutions occur. In Hungarian, i t i s found that substitutions generally occur when a sound i n the adult target i s not present i n the c h i l d ' s phonological inventory, although i n a few cases substitutions also occur when the adult form i s complex i n some way, such as containing a consonant c l u s t e r or being t r i s y l l a b i c . In Spanish, however, substitutions seem to be a function of the stress patterns of the language. Vowels whose features spread to another element i n the word form are almost e x c l u s i v e l y i n the stressed s y l l a b l e i n the adult target. It i s hypothesized that because of the complex stress system i n Spanish children mark stress i n every form. This adds to the complexity of the ch i l d ' s form, and as a r e s u l t only the fe a t u r a l information of the stressed vowel or s y l l a b l e i s mapped to the template. The early phonological systems of childre n acquiring Hungarian and Spanish are found to i n i t i a l l y be smaller than predicted by the parametric theories of underspecification. While both theories predict that children's e a r l i e s t systems w i l l contain 5 d i s t i n c t vowels, the data suggest that c h i l d r e n only gradually achieve a 5 vowel system. The f i r s t vowel i s /a/, followed by the mid vowels /e/ and /o/, then by / i / and f i n a l l y by /u/. In Hungarian the l a s t vowels added are the front rounded vowels /u7 and /o7. To account for these r e s u l t s , and s t i l l maintain the parametric model of a c q u i s i t i o n , I propose a theory of feature a v a i l a b i l i t y , which provides a basic order i n which features become av a i l a b l e to chil d r e n . This theory i s i n part based on the theory of 19 d i s t i n c t i v e features developed i n Jakobson and Halle (1956). I maintain a UG perspective of features and assume that child r e n have access to a l l d i s t i n c t i v e features innately, but the theory of feature a v a i l a b i l t y s p e c i f i e s the order i n which features can be used when the c h i l d begins to organize a phonological system. It i s found that given t h i s theory of feature a v a i l a b i l i t y , the RU model i s able to account for the development of children's early phonological inventories, while the CU model i s not. The types of s p e c i f i c a t i o n s required i n the CU model made i t impossible to predict which segments w i l l be added to the chi l d ' s inventory at a given time. I t i s also found that the type of underspecification required by the theory of RU i s able to explain the id i o s y n c r a t i c behaviour of [e] i n the Spanish data, while t h i s i s not possible given a contrastive underspecification system. I therefore conclude that an RU a c q u i s i t i o n model i s a better representation of UG than the CU model. 1.2 Organization This thesis i s organized i n the following fashion. In Chapter 2 I develop the parametric theories of Radical and Contrastive Underspecification, based on the theories outlined i n Archangeli and Pulleyblank (1986) and Steriade (1987), focussing on the type of information and feature values that are present i n underlying representations and the form of both redundancy and phonological rules. In doing so I f i r s t 20 outline some current aspects of non-linear phonology that are assumed in the course of this thesis, with a particular focus on those aspects of phonology that are assumed to be universal principles. I then discuss some of the basic assumptions of the principles and parameters model of grammar, and of the theory of learnability. Finally I examine the theories of RU and CU as parameter setting models. I describe how UG w i l l be organized given each theory, and the types of input that w i l l be required to trigger the resetting of parameters. In Chapter 3 I present certain facts regarding the vocalic systems of Hungarian and Spanish, which help to argue for a specific underspecification system. This type of argumentation is more necessary in the parametric theory of RU, since this theory allows for a greater number of language-specific choices than the parametric theory of CU. Each analysis concludes with a summary of how the grammar would be organized, given the proposed feature specifications and phonological rules. Chapter 4 presents a parametric theory of phonological acquisition. I f i r s t present some of the major findings of previous research on phonological acquisition, and then discuss the assumptions that I make regarding these findings. Finally the CU and RU predictions for the acquisition of the vocalic systems of Hungarian and Spanish are outlined, given the analyses developed in Chapter 3. Chapter 5 presents the acquisition data from Hungarian and Spanish. I present analyses of the phonological 21 inventories used by these children at two time periods, and the types of substitution patterns that occur i n the data. In Chapter 6 I look more c l o s e l y at the a c q u i s i t i o n data, with an eye to seeing how successful the parametric a c q u i s i t i o n theories of RU and CU are at capturing the a c q u i s i t i o n fa c t s . F i r s t I examine the discrepancies that e x i s t between the inventories used by the Spanish and Hungarian children and the inventories predicted by RU and CU, and show that a theory of feature a v a i l a b i l i t y can help explain the early patterns of development. I then attempt to account for the development of these early phonological inventories, the substitution patterns, and the phonological rules used by these two groups of children, given RU or CU. La s t l y , I discuss the implications these analyses have both for phonological theory and for a theory of phonological a c q u i s i t i o n . 22 CHAPTER 2 Parametric Theories of Underspecification In t h i s chapter I examine the theories of Radical and Contrastive Underspecification as representative of p r i n c i p l e s and parameters models of phonology. This w i l l be a wholly l o g i c a l enterprise; the development of a c q u i s i t i o n models capable of handling real-time a c q u i s i t i o n data w i l l be l e f t u n t i l Chapter 4. I f i r s t outline the two theories of underspecification, showing the types of features and feature values that are l e f t unspecified and how redundancy and phonological rules are dealt with. I w i l l then present some of the basic assumptions of the p r i n c i p l e s and parameters model of phonology and of l e a r n a b i l i t y theory, and demonstrate how Radical and Contrastive Underspecification may be revised to f i t i n with these assumptions. Many of these issues have already been faced i n Radical Underspecification (RU), since i t i s presented as a p r i n c i p l e s and parameters model of phonology i n Archangeli and Pulleyblank (1986). Contrastive Underspecification (CU), on the other hand, has not been developed as extensively as Radical Underspecification, and has not been discussed within the p r i n c i p l e s and parameters framework. In the 1960s and 1970s i t was assumed that language a c q u i s i t i o n took place as the c h i l d created rules compatible with the l i n g u i s t i c data. An \"evaluation metric\" would lead 23 the c h i l d to the appropriate adult grammar by allowing the c h i l d to choose between competing rules or rul e systems. The theory of UG (and i n p a r t i c u l a r the parametric model) gradually replaced t h i s rule-writing model, i n part because i t was found to be extremely d i f f i c u l t to understand or even characterize the evaluation m e t r i c 1 . In the theory of UG, the set of possible hypotheses that are necessary for a c q u i s i t i o n i s assumed to be innate. This type of theory requires more innate machinery than the rule-writing approach, but on the other hand i t severely l i m i t s the types of hypotheses that childr e n are assumed to make about language. The parametric model i s a s p e c i f i c theory of UG which assumes that the c h i l d comes equipped to the language learning process with a set of universal rules or p r i n c i p l e s and a set of parameters, which together make up UG. Parameters present the c h i l d with s p e c i f i c options of a p a r t i a l l y unspecified p r i n c i p l e 2 . Parameters are generally assumed to have binary settings \u00E2\u0080\u0094 one achieves the unmarked option, the other the marked option. Thus i n addition to providing the c h i l d with a very l i m i t e d set of possible hypotheses, the parametric framework provides a theory of markedness that w i l l lead to predictions about order of a c q u i s i t i o n and complexity of phonological systems. F a i r l y recently, the p r i n c i p l e s and parameters model has become well-integrated into phonological theory. Phonological parameters have been proposed to account for d i r e c t i o n a l i t y of mapping or association (Archangeli and Pulleyblank 1989, 24 Piggott, to appear), feature hierarchitecture (Davis 1990; Piggott, to appear), branching p o s s i b i l i t i e s of s y l l a b i c constituents (Kaye 1987), stress assignment (Hayes 1981, Halle and Vergnaud 1987, Dresher and Kaye 1988) and the underlying s e l e c t i o n of feature values (e.g. Archangeli 1988; Archangeli and Pulleyblank 1986, 1989; Abaglo and Archangeli 1989). In t h i s chapter I argue that i f a parametric theory of underspecification i s adopted, UG w i l l include a set of feat u r a l parameters, which i n s e r t redundant feature values, and a set of rul e parameters, which provide the possible form of phonological r u l e s . RU assumes that UG supplies both context-free and context-sensitive featural parameters. When a context-free rule i s reset to the marked option a new rul e ( c a l l e d a complement rule) w i l l be created to i n s e r t the opposite feature value predicted by UG. When a context-s e n s i t i v e rule i s reset, a marked feature s p e c i f i c a t i o n w i l l be added to the underlying representation of a segment, but the r u l e i t s e l f w i l l remain i n the grammar. CU allows only for context-sensitive rules, and parameter switching w i l l occur and have the same eff e c t s as i n RU. This chapter w i l l be organized as follows. In 2.1 I discuss some general issues i n current phonological theory, looking s p e c i f i c a l l y at the theory of Lexical Phonology, aspects of phonological and metrical representations, and phonological rules. Many of the issues discussed i n 2.1 are both controversial and complex, but rather than o u t l i n i n g a l l approaches and controversies, I w i l l discuss only those issues 25 that are c r u c i a l for t h i s d i s s e r t a t i o n . In 2.2 I look at underspecification theory, focussing p a r t i c u l a r y on the theories of Radical and Contrastive Underspecification. In 2.3 I present some assumptions concerning the p r i n c i p l e s and parameters model of grammar, and i n 2.4 I discuss some of the basic assumptions of l e a r n a b i l i t y theory. In 2.5 the parametric theories of Radical and Contrastive Underspecification are outlined by superimposing the basic premises of these two theories upon the p r i n c i p l e s and parameters model of phonology. 2.1 Aspects of Phonological Theory 2.1.1 L e x i c a l Phonology In The Sound Pattern of English (henceforth SPE, Chomsky and Halle 1968) the syntactic component was assumed to feed d i r e c t l y into the phonological component of grammar. Word formation processes operated i n the syntax. Morphological junctures were represented by boundary symbols, and these remained v i s i b l e to the phonology. L e x i c a l Phonology developed out of the SPE framework, using insights from the work of Chomsky (1970) and Aronoff (1976) on word formation. In L e x i c a l Phonology boundaries are encoded through sets of bracketings and through l e v e l s , rather than through boundary symbols. There are two components to the lexicon \u00E2\u0080\u0094 the l e x i c a l component and the p o s t - l e x i c a l component. In the l e x i c a l component rules apply only to words and/or morphemes, while i n the p o s t - l e x i c a l component rules apply to the output 26 of the syntax, i . e . to words, or to larger sets of str i n g s such as phrases or sentences. 2.1.1.1 The Lexicon The work of authors such as Siegel (1974), Aronoff (1976) and A l l e n (1978) demonstrated that there i s often a s i g n i f i c a n t i n t e r a c t i o n between phonological rules and morphological processes. Certain types of morphological operations appear to t r i g g e r c e r t a i n types of phonological r u l e s , while morphological operations often seem to c l u s t e r together. Pesetsky (1979) t r i e d to capture these facts by proposing that phonological rules can apply inside the lexicon, to the output of s p e c i f i c kinds of morphological operations. Groupings of morphological operations are c a l l e d l e v e l s or s t r a t a , and the output of each l e v e l i s subject to the rules of the phonology. Mohanan (1982) and Pulleyblank (1986) assume that there i s a single set of phonological rules i n the grammar of a language, but a s p e c i f i c r u l e may be constrained to apply only within the l e x i c a l component, only within the p o s t - l e x i c a l component, or within both 3. In t h i s model rules w i l l display d i f f e r e n t properties depending upon where they apply i n the phonology, because of the d i f f e r e n t constraints that hold of these two components. 27 (2.1) LEXICON MORPHOLOGY Underived l e x i c a l items Level 1: rule A * rule B... \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 r / Level n: rule X rule Y... PHONOLOGY p -rule i (domain L) p -rule i (domain P) > p -rule k. .(domain L&P) SYNTAX POSTLEXICAL PHONOLOGY 2.1.1.2 The Cycle Underived l e x i c a l items are fed into the f i r s t l e v e l of the morphology where they undergo morphological operations. Af t e r each morphological operation takes place these forms are fed back into the phonology, and then back into the morphology to undergo another morphological operation, and so on. Each feed through a morphological process and the set of phonological rules i s c a l l e d a cycle. Kiparsky (1982) notes that many phonological processes, such as T r i s y l l a b i c 28 Shortening (TSS), do not operate on underived forms. TSS applies to derived words such as serenity and i n v i t a t i o n , while i t does not apply to underived forms such as nightingale and ivory. The S t r i c t Cycle Condition was proposed to account for these facts (Mascar6 1976). The statement of the S t r i c t Cycle Condition given i n Kiparsky 1982: 41) i s reproduced i n (2.2). (2.2) The S t r i c t Cycle Condition (SCC) a. C y c l i c rules apply only to derived representations. b. A representation 4> i s derived with respect to r u l e R i n cycle j i f f 4> meets the s t r u c t u r a l analysis of R by v i r t u e of a combination of morphemes introduced i n cycle j or the a p p l i c a t i o n of a phonological rule i n cycle j . This condition w i l l p r o h i b i t forms such as ivory from undergoing c y c l i c phonological rules such as TSS, since they are underived forms i n the sense of (2.2). Kiparsky (1982) then argues that the SCC can be derived from the Elsewhere Condition (EC), a condition on the ordering of rules that has been adopted as a standard constraint on ru l e a p p l i c a t i o n (Kiparsky 1973, Koutsoudas, Sanders and N o l l 1974). 29 (2.3) The Elsewhere Condition (Kiparsky 1982: 136-7) Rules A and B i n the same component apply d i s j u n c t i v e l y to a form $ i f f : a. The s t r u c t u r a l description of a (the s p e c i f i c rule) properly includes the s t r u c t u r a l description of R (the general rule) b. The r e s u l t of applying a to $ i s d i s t i n c t from the r e s u l t of applying fi to $. In that case, a i s applied f i r s t , and i f i t takes e f f e c t , then 15 i s not applied. Kiparsky argues that every underived l e x i c a l item i s i n fact an i d e n t i t y r u l e , which by the EC w i l l block the a p p l i c a t i o n of any other phonological rule (since the i d e n t i t y r u l e w i l l always be more s p e c i f i c ) . With t h i s assumption, only the formulation of the EC i n (2.3) i s needed, obviating the s p e c i f i c statement of the SCC i n (2.2). While the SCC (or the EC) was successful i n capturing many aspects of the i n t e r a c t i o n of morphological and phonological processes, there i s some evidence that c e r t a i n types of rules do not obey the SCC. Kiparsky (1982) argued that structure-building rules, such as rules of s y l l a b i f i c a t i o n and stress assignment, and redundancy r u l e s , which f i l l i n feature values, may apply to non-derived forms (th i s argument i s l a t e r refuted i n Kiparsky 1985). Halle and Mohanan (1985) argue that the rule of f i n a l - n deletion i n English, which i s hot a structure-building r u l e , must also be 30 non-cyclic. This rule deletes the n i n forms l i k e columns, hymn-book and column, yet does not apply i n forms l i k e hymnal. The facts show that t h i s rule i s a l e x i c a l r u l e and must apply before compounding and i n f l e c t i o n s , yet i t must not apply on the same l e v e l as the - a l s u f f i x . In addition, t h i s r u l e applies to underived forms such as column and hymn. Halle and Mohanan suggest that f i n a l - n deletion i s part of a l e v e l of the morphology that i s non-cyclic. Kiparsky (1985) interprets these facts by saying that either there i s only a singl e l e x i c a l l e v e l i n English, or that brackets are not erased at the end of Level 1. 2.1.1.3 P o s t - l e x i c a l Component The most relevant c r i t e r i o n for determining whether a rul e i s l e x i c a l or p o s t - l e x i c a l i s the domain of a p p l i c a t i o n . Since p o s t - l e x i c a l rules may be fed by syntactic information, they often apply to segments across word boundaries as well as within words. Lexical rules, on the other hand, can apply only within words. The rule of Flapping i n English i s a t y p i c a l p o s t - l e x i c a l r u l e . Flaps occur inside words, as i n ladder ([laDar], but also occur across word boundaries, as i n h i t i t ! [hIDIt]. P o s t - l e x i c a l rules always apply i n an across-the-board fashion, since they cannot be s e n s i t i v e to l e x i c a l l y marked exceptions. It has also been suggested that p o s t - l e x i c a l rules may be optional and may be s e n s i t i v e to rate or s t y l e of speech (Kaisse and Shaw 1985). 31 2.1.1.4 Structure Preservation Kiparsky (1982,1985) argues that l e x i c a l rules are subject to Structure Preservation, while p o s t - l e x i c a l rules are not. Structure Preservation i s the constraint that features, feature combinations, s y l l a b l e types or any other structures that are not present underlyingly i n the language may not be referenced or derived. In Kiparsky (1985) i t i s shown that Structure Preservation w i l l r e s t r i c t the r u l e of Voicing Assimilation i n Russian to apply to obstruents, since voicing i s not s p e c i f i e d on sonorants anywhere i n the lexicon. Kiparsky assumes that the formal work of Structure Preservation i s c a r r i e d out by marking conditions operating i n the lexicon. In the case of Russian Voicing A s s i m i l a t i o n the relevant constraint i s given i n (2.4) (Kiparsky 1985: 108). (2.4) * [avoiced] [+son] This constraint says that neither [+voice] nor [-voice] i s marked underlyingly on sonorants i n Russian, and therefore by Structure Preservation neither feature value may be added to the representation of a sonorant anywhere i n the l e x i c a l phonology. This prevents sonorants from being affected by the rule of Voicing Assimilation, and allows Voicing A s s i m i l a t i o n to be stated without a target condition excluding the sonorant c l a s s . Phonetic implementation rules, such as those that derive aspirated stops i n English, are p o s t - l e x i c a l rules that are 32 non-structure preserving since they derive segments that are not underlyingly d i s t i n c t i v e . In Russian the constraint i n (2.4) must be turned o f f p o s t - l e x i c a l l y i n order that sonorants be phonetically r e a l i z e d as voiced segments. There have been a number of arguments given i n the l i t e r a t u r e that Structure Preservation as stated by Kiparsky i s too strong. Borowsky (1986) claims that Structure Preservation must i n fact be turned off before the end of the lexicon i n English i n order to account for the a s s i m i l a t i o n of velar nasals. Mohanan and Mohanan (1984) argue that c e r t a i n places of a r t i c u l a t i o n that are not underlyingly d i s t i n c t i v e i n Malayalam must be derived i n the course of the l e x i c a l phonology, and therefore that Structure Preservation does not play a r o l e at a l l i n the lexicon of t h i s language. Sproat (1985) also argues that Catalan v i o l a t e s Structure Preservation. Archangeli and Pulleyblank (1986) employ marking conditions such as (2.4), but argue that i t must be s t i p u l a t e d for each constraint whether i t holds i n the l e x i c a l component, the p o s t - l e x i c a l component or both. In the following chapters I assume the o r i g i n a l version of Structure Preservation (given by Kiparsky 1982, 1985), as there i s no evidence eit h e r i n Hungarian or Spanish that an alternate version i s required. It w i l l be shown i n 3.3.1 that Structure Preservation can explain neutral vowel behaviour i n the Hungarian Back Harmony system. 33 2.1.2 Representations 2.1.2.1 Non-linear Phonology The focus of generative phonology, as presented i n works such as SPE, was on rule writing, rule ordering and the derivation of l e x i c a l items. In the l a t e 1970s, due to such works as Goldsmith's Autoseqmental Phonology (1976), t h i s focus changed to show a greater i n t e r e s t i n representations. Goldsmith proposed that i n d i v i d u a l features belong to separate t i e r s , where they can be linked by association l i n e s to one or more than one segment. Autosegmental representations were o r i g i n a l l y proposed to account for tone patterns, which t r a d i t i o n a l l y posed problems for standard generative approaches, since tones often spread over a domain larger than a segment, or s h i f t from one segment to another by phonological or morphological operations. I t has since been recognized that many melodic features, including n a s a l i t y , voicing, g l o t t a l i z a t i o n and places of a r t i c u l a t i o n can be autosegmentalized, or generally act independently of other features. An example i s a feature that may be a morphological property of a root and underlyingly may ' f l o a t ' or be unassociated to any p a r t i c u l a r segment i n that root (e.g. Archangeli and Pulleyblank's 1986 discussion of [-ATR] i n Yoruba). A l t e r n a t i v e l y , a segment may be l e x i c a l l y linked to a single segment but a phonological r u l e may operate to add association l i n e s between t h i s feature and other segments i n a root (e.g. the Type A languages given i n Piggott (to appear)). Both these cases are examples of 34 autosegmentalized features; features which behave independently of the remainder of the melodic representation. Goldsmith (1976), i n his treatment of tone, proposed that tones are always underlyingly unassociated, and that they become anchored segmentally by means of the WeiIformedness Condition. (2.5) Well-formedness Condition (Goldsmith 1976: 27) a. A l l vowels are associated with at least one tone. b. A l l tones are associated with at lea s t one vowel. c. Association l i n e s do not cross. These conventions allowed more than one tone to be linked to a single vowel to create contour tones. Work by Clements and Ford (1979) and Halle and Vergnaud (1982) demonstrated that (2.5) i s too weak as i t predicts that when there i s a mismatch between the number of tones and the number of vowels, several options are possible. In fact, i n a given language, there i s generally only one method of resolving the mismatch. Clements and Ford argue that (2.5) i s also too strong because i t predicts that tones may be multiply linked, which i s not the case i n a l l languages. Halle and Vergnaud (1982) then propose that a set of association conventions apply only to free or f l o a t i n g tones. These conventions as adopted by Pulleyblank (1986: 11) are given i n (2.6). 35 (2.6) Association Conventions Map a sequence of tones onto a sequence of tone-bearing units, a. from l e f t to r i g h t b. i n a one-to-one r e l a t i o n Well-formedness Condition: Association l i n e s do not cross. These conventions do not allow for the mapping of more than one tone to a given segment. Multiple linkings of a sing l e tone to more than one tone-bearing unit or of one tone-bearing unit to more than a single tone are accomplished by language-s p e c i f i c r u l e , according to Pulleyblank (1986). Autosegmentalized features of any sort are assumed to be linked to representations by a set of Association Conventions such as those i n (2.6) (e.g. see Piggott, to appear), although i n Archangeli and Pulleyblank (1989) and Lieber (1987) i t i s claimed that the d i r e c t i o n of i n i t i a l association i s parameterizable. In the unmarked case association proceeds from l e f t to r i g h t , but i n marked cases, such as the association of Yoruba [ATR], association operates from r i g h t to l e f t . In Chapters 3 and 5 I w i l l adopt the version of the Association Conventions given i n (2.6), with the added assumption that the i n i t i a l d i r e c t i o n of mapping i s parameterizable. 36 2.1.2.2 Feature Geometry It was r e a l i z e d as early as Jakobson and Halle (1956) that segments do not consist of bundles of t o t a l l y unorganized features, but i t was not u n t i l Mohanan (1983) and Clements (1985) that the f i r s t models of feature geometry were proposed. Feature geometries attempt to account for r e s t r i c t i o n s on how features i n t e r a c t i n human languages. The geometry i n (2.7) i s one possible model of feature hierarchitecture that i s consistent with recent work i n t h i s area (cf. Clements 1985, Sagey 1986) 4. (2.7) Feature Geometry x Skeleton Root Node [nasal] Laryngeal Node [voice; [spr.gl [CG] v Supralaryngeal Node [cont] [cons] [lateral] Labial Node [round] [high] Dorsal Node Tback] [distr] 37 There i s a d i s t i n c t i o n i n (2.7) between nodes and features. Nodes (given as \" o \" ) dominate features or nodes, while features (given i n [ ] brackets) are the terminal elements i n the tree. Three a r t i c u l a t o r nodes -- L a b i a l , Coronal and Dorsal \u00E2\u0080\u0094 are immediately dominated by the Place node. The vowel features of [back], [high] and [low] are dominated by the Dorsal node, which i s the node also used to represent ve l a r and uvular consonants. The Coronal node dominates [anterior] and [distributed] while the L a b i a l node dominates the feature [round], a fourth feature used i n the d e s c r i p t i o n of v o c a l i c systems. In Archangeli and Pulleyblank (1986) a feature geometry i s proposed i n which a separate node, the Secondary Place Node, dominates a l l vowel features. This node was meant to capture the fact that harmony rules are almost e x c l u s i v e l y triggered by vowels and have vowels as t h e i r targets. I t has since been argued that other aspects of representations and ru l e types can account for these facts, while incorporating the model i n (2 .7) 3. 2.1.2.3 The OCP The Obligatory Contour P r i n c i p l e (OCP) was o r i g i n a l l y proposed by Leben (1973) to account for the d i s t r i b u t i o n of surface tones i n Mende, a Niger-Congo language. In t r i s y l l a b i c nouns i n Mende the tonal patterns LLH and HHL do not occur. Leben used the OCP to p r o h i b i t i d e n t i c a l adjacent 38 tones, so that i f a t r i s y l l a b i c noun has three tonal autosegments, only HLH and LHL patterns w i l l be permitted. Other patterns, such as HLL and LHH w i l l be derived from underlying sequences of HL or LH tones, with spreading of the second underlying tone to the f i n a l s y l l a b l e . In t h i s way the OCP and p r i n c i p l e s of spreading are able to account for the systematic gap i n the tonal patterns of t h i s language. In McCarthy (1979) the OCP was applied to segmental patterns i n Arabic, to account for the systematic lack of roots of the form /CAC^C-,/. McCarthy's generalized statement of the OCP i s given i n (2.8). (2.8) OCP (McCarthy 1986: 208) At the melodic l e v e l , adjacent i d e n t i c a l elements are prohibited. McCarthy (1986) systematically examines evidence for and counterexamples against the OCP i n many d i f f e r e n t languages. In Afar, for example, a rule of syncope applies to forms i n (2.9a) but f a i l s to apply i n the forms i n (2.9b) where the a p p l i c a t i o n of syncope would r e s u l t i n two i d e n t i c a l adjacent consonants. 39 (2.9) Afar (McCarthy 1986: 220) digib-t-e digb-e 'she/I married' me*i er-ta meSr-a \u00E2\u0080\u00A2you/he k i l l s a c a l f wager-n-e wagr-e 'we reconciled/he reconciled adad-e *add-e 'I/he trembled' danan-e *dann-e 'I/he was hurt' xarar-e *xarr-e 'he burned' McCarthy concludes that i n the vast majority of languages, the OCP appears to hold of segments at the l e x i c a l l e v e l , but does not necessarily hold at the l e v e l of phonetic implementation. He suggests that i f convincing examples of the OCP not holding at the l e x i c a l l e v e l can be found, then the OCP could be regarded as a parameterizable p r i n c i p l e of UG, but one that i n the unmarked case holds of a l l non-prosodic information i n the lexicon (but see Paradis and Prunet 1990 for a convincing argument that perhaps the OCP does not have parametric options). Recently i t has been suggested that the OCP holds not just of enti r e segments, but of in d i v i d u a l features (e.g. Archangeli and Pulleyblank 1986, Mester to appear). 2.1.2.4 Metrical Theory In generative phonology s y l l a b l e s were not considered to be primitives of the theory, and could only be referenced as some sequence of consonants and vowels. In Kahn (1976) i t i s argued that s y l l a b l e s are constituents of phonological representations, represented as a separate t i e r dominating 40 s k e l e t a l s l o t s . There have been many subsequent elaborations of the non-linear approach to s y l l a b l e structure, the most common of which are the rule-based approach (Kahn 1976, Steriade 1982, Levin 1985), the templatic-approach (Selkirk 1978, Halle and Vergnaud 1978) and the government approach (Kaye and Lowenstamm 1984). Here I outline the rule-based approach of Levin (1985), and t h i s framework w i l l be employed i n Chapter 3 i n the analysis of Spanish s y l l a b l e structure. Levin's framework focusses p a r t i c u l a r l y on the univeral and language-specific aspects of a theory of s y l l a b i c i t y . S y l l a b i c constituents are generated by a version of X-bar theory, where each s y l l a b l e contains one and only one head. The universal components of t h i s theory are given i n (2.10) (Levin 1985: 12). (2.10) A. X-bar theory i . Categorial Component a. N-Placement b. Complex-N i i . Projection a. Project N\" b. Project N' i i i . Incorporation a. Incorporate into N\" b. Incorporate into N' i v . Adjunction (to N\") B. Condition on Structure-Dependent Rules C. Sonority Hierarchy 41 N-Placement i s the process which determines the s y l l a b l e head. N-Placement may be marked i n the lexicon or may be determined by a redundancy or phonological r u l e . Levin assumes that [ s y l l a b i c ] i s not an operative feature, but rather that i n many languages the category N i s erected by rul e over segments s p e c i f i e d as [-consonantal] and/or [-high]. Complex Ns may e x i s t , c o n t r o l l e d by a parameter associated with the Complex-N process of the categorial component. Although Levin does not s p e c i f i c a l l y address the issue of markedness i n complex Ns, I assume that Universal Grammar i n i t i a l l y t e l l s the c h i l d that Ns may not branch, but that based on p o s i t i v e evidence from the input the c h i l d may switch t h i s parameter to allow a single N to dominate two sk e l e t a l s l o t s (this aspect of Levin's theory w i l l be discussed i n Chapter 5). The rules i n (2.10) w i l l apply c y c l i c a l l y , so that i f an epenthetic vowel i s inserted a f t e r the i n i t i a l a p p l i c a t i o n of N-Placement, i t w i l l receive a designation as a nucleus on a subsequent cycle. Afte r N i s found N\" i s projected by picking up segments immediately to the l e f t of N. N\" i s the maximal projection, and therefore the s y l l a b l e node i t s e l f . The f i n a l p r o j e c t i o n i s N', and t h i s projection i s p a r t i c u l a r l y influenced by language-specific information. Project N' w i l l pick up any remaining post-nuclear segments. Incorporation i s a process which then allows additional s k e l e t a l s l o t s to be incorporated under N\" or N*. This process w i l l allow for both complex onsets and codas on a language-particular basis. The 42 operation of N-placement, Project N\" and N' and N\" Incorporation are shown i n (2.11) for the English word t r i p . (2.11) a. N-Placement N I X X X X Redundancy | rul e inserts [-cons] [-cons] t r i p b. Project N\" X X X X I [-cons] t r i p 43 c. Project N' d. Incorporation [-cons] t r i p Each of the operations of N-Placement/ Project N\" and Project N' must operate within the constraints of the Sonority Hierarchy, as shown i n (2.IOC). Levin posits a universal hierarchy of features which determine sonority ranking, which serves as the base from which language-particular sonority 44 scales are developed. If a given s t r i n g cannot be exhaustively s y l l a b i f i e d i n adherence with the language-s p e c i f i c sonority scale, then several possible options are ava i l a b l e to resolve t h i s problem. The most common option, i s that a s k e l e t a l s l o t , which can then undergo the r u l e of N-Placement, i s inserted or epenthesized into the representation. This new segment w i l l then serve as the head of a new s y l l a b l e to which the previously u n s y l l a b i f i a b l e segment may be associated. Zee (1988) discusses such a case of Epenthesis i n Bulgarian. In Bulgarian l i q u i d s are not able to act as n u c l e i , and therefore a form such as /grk/ 'Greek' w i l l undergo epenthesis as shown i n (2.12). (2.12) Underlying /grk/ Epenthesis x x x x g r k S y l l a b i f i c a t i o n N\" X X X X [-cons] g r k [grak] 'Greek' 45 Within t h i s view Epenthesis i s seen as an automatic r e s u l t of the s y l l a b i f i c a t i o n algorithms i n a language, and does not require that such rules be language-specific phonological rules such as rules of spreading or delinking (to be discussed i n 2.1.3). The past decade has also seen much research into a theory of metrical s t r e s s . Liberman and Prince (1975) propose a metrical theory i n which stress i s determined by the r e l a t i v e prominence of s y l l a b l e s , determined through binary branching tree structures erected over s y l l a b l e s . Each node i n the tree i s l a b e l l e d as either w (weak) or s (strong), and each binary branching tree i s c a l l e d a foot. Both terminal and non-terminal constituents are l a b e l l e d for prominence, allowing stress to be assigned to words of more than two s y l l a b l e s . Hayes (1981) revises and expands on t h i s theory of s t r e s s , arguing that a theory of metrical tree structure and a small number of parameters can account for stress assignment i n the world's languages. Hayes' p r i n c i p l e s of tree construction are given i n (2.13) (Hayes 1981: 48). 46 Tree Construction Project rimes. Optionally form a subprojection of [+syllabic] segments within the rime. Select either r i g h t or l e f t nodes as dominant. Form the largest possible binary branching tree, such that recessive nodes do not branch. Optionally, i t may be s p e c i f i e d that i . A l l terminal nodes are counted as non-branching. i i . Dominant nodes must be terminal. i i i . Dominant nodes must branch. The f i r s t p r i n c i p l e i n (2.13a) says that rhymes form the i n i t i a l p rojection on which trees are erected, or o p t i o n a l l y that t h i s projection i s the nucleus. Since Hayes (1981) predates Levin (1985) I assume that i n a Levin-style analysis (2.13a) would say 'project N', o p t i o n a l l y project N. ' (2.13b) provides the choice of whether the foot i s l e f t or right-dominant. By (2.13c) foot construction continues, erecting feet over rhymes or s y l l a b l e s i n accordance with (2.13b), where nodes marked w never branch. The parameters i n (2.13c) i n the unmarked case are OFF, and i n the marked case are i n e f f e c t . If Parameter (2.13ci) i s chosen foot construction w i l l be quantity s e n s i t i v e , ignoring branching within the rhyme or nucleus. If (2.13cii) i s chosen, then foot construction i s maximally binary rather than unbounded, and i f ( 2 . 1 3 c i i i ) i s chosen then nodes are l a b e l l e d s i f and only i f they branch. Following (2.13) stress w i l l be assigned (2.13) a. b. c. 47 to the form merepet from Maranungku using the parameters given i n (2.14a and b)(Hayes 1981: 51). (2.14) a. Going from l e f t to r i g h t , construct binary, quantity i n s e n s i t i v e , l e f t dominant feet. b. Group the feet into a l e f t dominant word tree. c. merepet The most prevalent competing theory of stress assignment i s g r i d theory, where the branching structures of Hayesian tree theory are not recognized (Prince 1983). In the analysis of stress assignment i n Spanish given i n Chapter 3 I w i l l adopt the Hayesian framework, although I believe nothing hinges on t h i s p a r t i c u l a r choice of theory. 2.1.3 Rules Non-linear phonology and theories of feature geometry have led to a much clearer view of how phonological representations are structured. This, along with the move i n syntax to l i m i t rule types, has led phonologists to a constrained view of the number and types of phonological rules that may occur i n any language. Piggott (to appear), for example, allows for the rules shown i n (2.15). 48 (2.15) Phonological Rules a. Spread a A B a b. Delink a A B A B I I \" > I I a A a., a 1 / : ) d. Insert a A I a* B -> A B I I Each of these rules i s a simple operation which adds or deletes some part of the phonological representation. Spread a i s the rule involved i n most assim i l a t i o n processes, adding an association l i n e between a feature already anchored and a new segment. Delink a i s the d i s s i m i l a t i o n rule which deletes some element due to the presence of a second element. Fusion i s a process that i s not unique to Piggott's work, although i t i s f i r s t discussed as a rule of phonology i n Piggott (to appear). Fusion creates a double l i n k i n g between an element (feature, s k e l e t a l s l o t , etc.) on one t i e r and two elements on 49 another t i e r . Insert a i s the process which accounts f o r the i n s e r t i o n of a feature (or features) into the melodic component. Although Piggott views Fusion as a separate and d i s t i n c t r u l e from those i n (2.15a/ b and d), i t i s possible to view Fusion as the i n s e r t i o n of an association l i n e . In the analysis of Spanish and Hungarian presented i n Chapter 3 I f i n d no evidence for a separate rule of Fusion and consequently I assume that t h i s rule i s simply one possible i n s t a n t i a t i o n of the rule Insert a. Piggott (to appear) assumes that the operation of any one of the rules i n (2.15) i s regulated by a D i r e c t i o n a l i t y Parameter which says that rules may spread leftward, rightward or i n a b i d i r e c t i o n a l fashion. I assume that the unmarked s e t t i n g of a D i r e c t i o n a l i t y parameter i s always the same d i r e c t i o n as the i n i t i a l mapping regulated by the Association Conventions. A more precise statement of how these rules operate w i l l depend upon the theory of feature s p e c i f i c a t i o n assumed (see 2.2.1 - 2.2.3). For example, Spread a w i l l behave very d i f f e r e n t l y i n a theory of Contrastive Underspecification than i n Radical Underspecification. In the contrastive model, both feature values may be underlyingly s p e c i f i e d , i n which case i f a spreads to ft i t w i l l also have to delink a from ft. In the r a d i c a l model, only a single feature value w i l l be present underlyingly, so a w i l l only spread to ft i f ft i s not s p e c i f i e d for a. A theory which assumes that features are p r i v a t i v e 50 ( i . e . have only a single functional value) w i l l assume that Spread a functions as i n Radical Underspecification. 2.2 Underspecification Theory Underspecification has been a part of phonological theory since the days of the Prague School l i n g u i s t s . In Trubetzkoy (1969) archiphonemes are elements represented by the set of features that are common to a group of phonemes i f those phonemes are neutralized i n some context. Archiphonemes lack those feature values that are involved i n the n e u t r a l i z a t i o n process. Trubetzkoy discusses the case of word-final devoicing i n German (Trubetzkoy 1958/69: 79): In German the b i l a t e r a l opposition d-t i s neutralized i n f i n a l p o s i t i o n . The opposition member, which occurs i n the p o s i t i o n of n e u t r a l i z a t i o n , from a phonological point of view i s neither a voiced stop nor a voiceless stop but \"the nonnasal dental occlusive i n general\". Archiphonemes are only p o s i t i o n a l elements -- i n contexts where segment contrasts are not neutralized segments are f u l l y s p e c i f i e d . Halle (1959), adopted the Praguian notion of archiphoneme, but also assumed that features and feature values may be unspecified due to d i s t r i b u t i o n a l constraints, combinatorial p o s s i b i l i t i e s , grammatical context, or the nature of the segment i t s e l f . Unspecified feature values are f i l l e d i n during the course of the derivation by morpheme structure constraints or by phonological r u l e s . Specified features have one of three possible values: \"+\", or \"0\". In the t r a d i t i o n of Halle (1959) underlying 51 representations i n SPE were assumed to be redundancy free (Chomsky and Halle 1968: 381): Languages d i f f e r with respect to the sounds they use and the sound sequences they permit i n words. Thus each language places c e r t a i n conditions on the form of phonetic matrices and hence of the configurations of pluses and minuses (indicating membership i n one of a p a i r of complementary categories) that may appear as entries i n the c l a s s i f i c a t o r y matrices of the lexicon. These constraints make i t possible to predict, i n a given language, the s p e c i f i c a t i o n of features i n p a r t i c u l a r segments. Such p r e d i c t a b i l i t y applies to segments i n i s o l a t i o n (e.g. i n Finnish, a l l obstruents are voiceless) as well as to segments i n p a r t i c u l a r contexts (e.g. i n English, /s/ i s the only true consonant admissible before a true consonant i n w o r d - i n i t i a l p o s i t i o n ) . Rules describing these constraints can r e a d i l y be formulated within our framework, and can be interpreted as specifying the c o e f f i c i e n t s of p a r t i c u l a r features i n p a r t i c u l a r environments. It i s therefore natural to propose that such rules be incorporated i n the grammar and that the features that are predictable be l e f t unspecified i n l e x i c a l e n tries. The d e s i r a b i l i t y of underspecification had been questioned by Lightner (1963) and Stanley (1967), however, who argued that the underlying omission of feature values could lead to a system of unwanted ternary contrasts. Chomsky and Halle accepted the Lightner and Stanley arguments and dealt with the problem by ordering a l l redundancy rules i n a block to f i l l i n l e x i c a l l y unspecified feature values before the operation of phonological rules. In t h i s way the underlying s p e c i f i c a t i o n of features did not inte r a c t with the phonological rules of the language. Unspecified feature values were to be interpreted as the unmarked values of features, allowing markedness values to be computed for each l e x i c a l item. Kiparsky (1982) also adopted the premise that underlying representations are free from a l l redundancy, but dealt with 52 the Lightner-Stanley objections i n a d i f f e r e n t fashion from Chomsky and Halle (1968). Kiparsky proposed that within a given environment, only a single feature value may be l e x i c a l l y s p e c i f i e d , so that i f a phonological r u l e applies to f i l l i n the alternate value a three-way contrast w i l l never be possible within that p a r t i c u l a r environment. Chomsky and Halle (1968) believed that ordering redundancy rules before a l l phonological rules avoided a ternary system and at the same time allowed s i g n i f i c a n t l e x i c a l generalizations to be captured. They f e l t the e a r l y a p p l i c a t i o n of redundancy rules was warranted because \"no good examples have been discovered of empirically s i g n i f i c a n t generalizations that r e s u l t from ordering these r u l e s \" (Chomsky and Halle 1968: 386). Since that time a number of empirical arguments for the underspecification of segmental features at the time that phonological rules apply have been found. One example i s the voicing of obstruents i n Japanese (Ito and Mester 1986, Steriade 1987, Mester and Ito 1989). The two phenomena involved are Rendaku and Lyman's Law. Rendaku i s a r u l e which voices i n i t i a l obstruents i n the second element of a compound: (2.16) Rendaku a. o r i + kami \u00E2\u0080\u0094> origami 'paper f o l d i n g ' b. yo + sakura \u00E2\u0080\u0094> yozakura 'blossoms at night' c. yama + tera --> yamadera 'mountain temple' d. kake + futon --> kakebuton 'top futon' 6 53 Rendaku i s a productive phonological rule applying to compounds made up of native Japanese morphemes whose components stand i n a modifier-head r e l a t i o n s h i p . I t i s formulated i n Ito and Mester (1986) as a rule associating the feature [+voice] before the second member of a Rendaku compound. This feature w i l l be associated to the f i r s t e l i g i b l e segment i n the second member of the compound. Lyman's Law i s a constraint i n Japanese which says that Rendaku i s blocked i f any segment i n the second compound member i s s p e c i f i e d for voicing. In (2.17) the i n i t i a l consonants of the second member of a compound do not undergo Rendaku because they are followed by a voiced segment. (2.17) Lyman's Law a. s i r o + t a b i --> s i r o t a b i 'white t a b i ' b. maru + hadaka \u00E2\u0080\u0094> maruhadaka 'completely naked' c. taikutsu + sinogi --> taikutsusinogi ' t i m e - k i l l i n g ' d. doku + tokage \u00E2\u0080\u0094> dokutokage 'poisonous l i z a r d ' e. onna + kotoba \u00E2\u0080\u0094> onnakotoba 'feminine speech' Ito and Mester (1986) formalize Lyman's Law as a r u l e which deletes the [+voice] Rendaku feature when a [+voice] feature i s already part of the representation of the second compound member. (2.17d and e) show that Lyman's Law applies even when a voiceless obstruent surfaces between the i n i t i a l voiceless obstruent of the second compound member and a voiced obstruent. If voiceless obstruents i n Japanese are s p e c i f i e d as [-voice] they would be expected to block the operation of 54 Lyman's Law, since they would make the voicing of the f i n a l voiced obstruent i n v i s i b l e to the r u l e . Ito and Mester suggest that t h i s evidence shows that voiceless obstruents must be underlyingly unspecified for the feature [voice] at the point i n the derivation where Lyman's Law applies. This gives the representation i n (2.18) for the form 'poisonous l i z a r d ' i n (2.17e). (2.18) [+voice] [+voice] \u00C2\u00A3 I [o n n a] RENDAKU [k o t o b a] 'feminine speech' This analysis demonstrates that i n Japanese obstruents are unspecified for voicing at the point i n the phonology when ce r t a i n phonological rules apply - 7. Pulleyblank (1985) presents arguments that i n T i v tone i s underlingly unspecified and c e r t a i n tone bearing units remain unspecified u n t i l the p o s t l e x i c a l component. Ito (1984) provides evidence that /a/ i n Ainu must be unspecified for backness at the point i n the derivation where a r u l e of d i s s i m i l a t i o n applies. Evidence of t h i s sort has led phonologists to attempt to develop theories of underspecification that w i l l predict when and where underspecified representations e x i s t . Currently, there are two major theories of underspecification: Radical Underspecification, outlined i n Archangeli and Pulleyblank (1986) and Contrastive 55 Underspecification, outlined i n Steriade (1987). These theories w i l l be discussed i n 2.2.1 and 2.2.2, and i n 2.2.3 I w i l l present some al t e r n a t i v e views of feature s p e c i f i c a t i o n . 2.2.1 Radical Underspecification 2.2.1.1 Elimination of Redundancy The theory of RU (Archangeli 1984, 1988; Archangeli and Pulleyblank 1986, 1989; Pulleyblank 1986, 1988) i s an exploration of the nature of phonological rules and representations which adopts Kiparsky's (1982) view that a l l redundant feature values are omitted from underlying representations and may remain unspecified throughout the lexicon. Only non-predictable feature values are present i n the underlying system of a language, and only a s i n g l e value of any feature i s permitted. Two types of redundancy rules are distinguished. Default rules i n s e r t u n i v e r s a l l y predictable feature values, while complement rules i n s e r t feature values that are language s p e c i f i c . Both types of rules may be context-free, i n s e r t i n g feature values i n general, or context-sensitive 8, i n s e r t i n g feature values that are based on co-occurrence r e s t r i c t i o n s . Redundancy rules are ordered among the phonological rules of a language by the set of ordering constraints given i n (2.19). 56 (2.19) Ordering Constraints (Archangeli and Pulleyblank 1986) a. Redundancy rules apply as l a t e as possible i n the grammar. b. A redundancy rule must apply at the l e v e l at which reference i s made to the feature value being inserted (The Redundancy Rule Ordering Constraint or RROC). c. A redundancy rule applies as early as possible at the l e v e l dictated by the RROC. The i n t e r a c t i o n of these constraints prohibits the p r a c t i c a l use of a ternary system of feature values. At some point i n the derivation, before a redundancy rule f i l l s i n a value of [F], there w i l l be a contrast between the underlying value of [F] ([ctF]) and [OF], At a l a t e r stage i n the d e r i v a t i o n , i f a phonological rule applies to [-aF], the unmarked feature value, then by (2.19b) and (2.19c) the redundancy ru l e w i l l apply immediately before the phonological r u l e and there w i l l be a contrast between [a] and [-aF]. If there are no phonological rules i n the language that manipulate the unmarked feature value, then the redundancy ru l e i n s e r t i n g [-aF] does not apply u n t i l the p o s t l e x i c a l component, by (2.19a). RU also assumes that redundancy rules are subject to the EC (Kiparsky 1973, 1982; Koutsoudas, Sanders and N o l l 1974) given i n (2.3). The EC w i l l force a context-sensitive redundancy rule to apply before a context-free rule i f they reference the same feature value, since the environment for 57 the a p p l i c a t i o n of a context-sensitive rule i s more s p e c i f i c . The a p p l i c a t i o n of the context-sensitive rule w i l l block the app l i c a t i o n of the context-free rule i n the p a r t i c u l a r environment s p e c i f i e d by the context-sensitive r u l e . The EC also constrains the ordering of phonological rules with respect to redundancy rules, as i n the case of Yokuts Echo Vowel Formation, which i s ordered before the more general default rule of [high] i n s e r t i o n (Archangeli and Pulleyblank 1986). In a hypothetical language which has the 9 consonants /p,t,k,b,d,g,m,n,1/ i n i t s phonological inventory, RU predicts the s p e c i f i c a t i o n of the features [sonorant], [voice], [ l a t e r a l ] , and [nasal] i n (2.20), given the accompanying set of default r u l e s . (2.20) p t k b d g m n 1 [sonorant] [voice] + + + [ l a t e r a l ] + [nasal] + + Default rules: [ ] \u00E2\u0080\u0094> [-son] [+nasal] \u00E2\u0080\u0094> [+son] [ ] --> [-lateral] [+lateral] \u00E2\u0080\u0094> [+son] [ ] \u00E2\u0080\u0094> [-nasal] [+son] \u00E2\u0080\u0094> [+voice] [-son] --> [-voice] These consonants w i l l be further s p e c i f i e d for place of 58 a r t i c u l a t i o n , which w i l l then d i s t i n g u i s h the l a b i a l s , alveolars and velars from one another. The feature [sonorant] i s completely redundant i n t h i s hypothetical system, since the sonorancy values of a l l segments i n (2.20) are given by the context-free rule i n s e r t i n g [-son] and the two context-s e n s i t i v e rules predicting [+son] on segments marked [+lateral] or [+nasal]. 2.2.1.2 Rule Types Archangeli and Pulleyblank (1986) provide a typology of possible r u l e types with accompanying markedness statements. Each and every phonological rule has a function and an argument, and may also have a target and/or t r i g g e r condition. (2.21) gives the possible s p e c i f i c a t i o n s of rul e s , where \" I \" designates functions or operations, \" I I \" arguments, and \" I I I \" t r i g g e r / t a r g e t conditions. (2.21) I. a. ( i n s e r t ) d < 2 > t Q U l t / d e l e t e b. ( r a a x i m a l ) d e f a u l t / m i n i m a l c. (content) d\u00C2\u00AB \u00C2\u00A3 a ux t/structure d. (same d i r e c t i o n ) d e f a u i t / o p p o s i t e d i r e c t i o n / b i d i r e c t i o n a l I I . node or feature(s) I I I . t r i g g e r condition target condition There are four function parameters, each of which has a default or unmarked set t i n g . \"Insert/delete\" indicates that a feature or association l i n e i s added to or taken away from the 59 representation, with \" i n s e r t \" being the unmarked option. The \"maximal/minimal\" function describes the adjacency of rul e targets. At the unmarked \"maximal\" set t i n g a rul e which targets a node or feature scans the highest l e v e l of s y l l a b i c structure providing access to that target, while at the \"minimal\" s e t t i n g a rule scans the t i e r containing the target. Rules targeting vowels can therefore apply to segments that are not immediately adjacent at the s k e l e t a l l e v e l , but must be adjacent or l o c a l at the l e v e l of the nucleus. This constraint on adjacency i s termed the L o c a l i t y Condition i n Archangeli and Pulleyblank (1987). \"Content/structure\" indicates that i t i s a feature or an association l i n e which i s added to the representation by the rule, with \"content\" being the default or unmarked option. The d i r e c t i o n a l i t y parameter describes the d i r e c t i o n of spreading, with \"same d i r e c t i o n \" i n d i c a t i n g that the unmarked set t i n g for t h i s function i s i n the same d i r e c t i o n as the i n i t i a l association of s k e l e t a l s l o t s to melodic structure (as given by a set of Association Conventions such as those i n (2.6)). This typology of rule functions or operations predicts that there are two unmarked types of phonological rules a v a i l a b l e to children -- default rules and rules of epenthesis. Default rules use only default settings of function parameters and inse r t arguments that are provided by UG. A context-free default rule i n s e r t i n g the feature [-low] w i l l be stated as i n (2.22), where the parentheses indicate the default settings of parameters. 60 (2.22) Default [-low] I. a. (insert) c. (content) d. (same direction) I I . [-low] (2.22) says that [-low] w i l l be inserted anywhere (a set of Configuration Constraints w i l l d i c t a t e where i t can attach and where i t cannot), and i n s e r t i o n w i l l operate i n l e f t - t o - r i g h t fashion, assuming that t h i s i s the unmarked d i r e c t i o n of i n i t i a l association. The maximal/minimal parameter i s ir r e l e v a n t to t h i s rule, since there i s no s p e c i f i e d t a r g e t 9 . A context-sensitive default rule w i l l use the same function parameters as i n (2.22) but w i l l require the addition of a target condition. The second type of maximally unmarked ru l e i s an epenthesis r u l e , where the function parameters are again set to the defaults, with the argument s p e c i f i e d as a s k e l e t a l s l o t 1 0 . (2.23) Epenthesis I. a. (insert) c. (content) d. (same direction) I I . s k e l e t a l s l o t Such a rule w i l l only be posited when s y l l a b i f i c a t i o n or other l i c e n s i n g requirements make i t necessary. The inserted 61 s k e l e t a l s l o t w i l l have no featural content; however, since (2.22) i s not a redundancy rule, i t w i l l not be subject to the Ordering Constraints i n (2.18) and w i l l apply i n the l e x i c a l phonology before the redundancy r u l e s 1 1 . In t h i s way the feature s p e c i f i c a t i o n s of the epenthetic segment w i l l be provided by the redundancy rules of the language. If we follow current assumptions about Epenthesis (as discussed i n 2.1.2.4) then the unmarked status of (2.23) i s explained by the fact that i t i s simply an automatic r e s u l t of the s y l l a b i f i c a t i o n algorithms i n a p a r t i c u l a r language. The rule i n (2.23) w i l l not have the same status as other phonological rules (such as those i n (2.15), which do not i n general have a bearing on prosodic representations. Rules that w i l l involve s e t t i n g at lea s t one of the function parameters i n (2.22) to the marked value w i l l be those that delete features or structure; spreading or ass i m i l a t i o n rules which use the marked \"structure\" parameter; rules whose targets are s p e c i f i e d as \"minimal\"; and rules that operate i n some d i r e c t i o n other than the canonical d i r e c t i o n of i n i t i a l association. Thus RU recognizes three of the rul e types given i n (2.15): Deletion, Spread and Insertion, without allowing for Fusion. Both the type of underspecification assumed by RU and the rule typology i n (2.21) have implications for how phonological rules operate i n t h i s theory. Because only a single feature value i s present i n any environment, Spreading rules w i l l be able to manipulate only a single feature value. The typology 62 i n (2.21) formalizes Kiparsky's claim (Kiparsky 1985) that i n the unmarked case features spread only to segments which are \u00E2\u0080\u00A2free' or unspecified for that feature. The fact that a target i s free i s stated i n (2.21) by the lack of a target condition (2.21III). In the analysis of Khalka Mongolian harmony given i n Archangeli and Pulleyblank (1986), i t i s assumed that Round Harmony, which spreads [+round], lacks a target condition, explaining why the rule i s blocked by / l i / . I t i s rare that two values of any feature are s p e c i f i e d at once (although i t could happen: i f a voiceless l a t e r a l were present i n the inventory shown i n (2.20) t h i s l a t e r a l would presumably be s p e c i f i e d as [-voice]), but i f a r u l e spreading [+F] encounters a segment s p e c i f i e d as [-F] spreading should presumably also be blocked). 2.2.2 Contrastive Underspecification 2.2.2.1 Specifications The theory of CU was f i r s t outlined i n Steriade (1987), and has been taken up i n works such as Clements (1987), Calabrese (1988) and Mester and Ito (1989). Steriade's work was not meant as a t h e o r e t i c a l t r e a t i s e , but rather as an a l t e r n a t i v e to the theory of RU. As a r e s u l t , many aspects of the theory are not f u l l y a r t i c u l a t e d , although most c r u c i a l aspects of the theory may be drawn from s p e c i f i c analyses given i n Steriade (1987). Steriade (1987) makes an i n i t i a l d i s t i n c t i o n between t r i v i a l and n o n - t r i v i a l underspecification. T r i v i a l 63 underspecification occurs when a segment lacks s p e c i f i c a t i o n for a p a r t i c u l a r feature at a l l stages i n a derivation. It arises i n the case of monovalent features or a r t i c u l a t o r nodes/ where only a single value of the feature or node i s operative, and i n the case of features which never acquire a value for a second feature because of r e s t r i c t i o n s i n the feature hierarchy. An example of the l a t t e r type of t r i v i a l underspecification i s a Dorsal consonant which w i l l never receive a s p e c i f i c a t i o n for [an t e r i o r ] , since [anterior] i s a feature that i s dependent on the Coronal a r t i c u l a t o r node (see (2.7)). N o n - t r i v i a l underspecification occurs when a segment lacks a s p e c i f i c a t i o n for a feature at some stage i n the derivation, but eventually becomes s p e c i f i e d for that feature value. The important d i s t i n c t i o n within n o n - t r i v i a l underspecification i s made between R-values of features, which are redundant feature values, and D-values, which are those values of a feature, that contrast within a s p e c i f i c c lass of segments. R-values are absent from underlying representations, while D-values must both be present. A contrastive s p e c i f i c a t i o n of the hypothetical consonantal system shown i n (2.20) i s given i n (2.24). 64 (2.24) p t k b d g m n l [sonorant] [voice] - - - + + + a [ l a t e r a l ] - + [nasal] - - + + Redundancy rules: [+nasal] \u00E2\u0080\u0094> [+son] [+lateral] \u00E2\u0080\u0094> [+son] [+son] \u00E2\u0080\u0094> [+voice] [+cons] \u00E2\u0080\u0094> [-son] [+cons] --> [-lateral] [+cons] \u00E2\u0080\u0094> [-nasal] The voiced and voiceless obstruents contrast with regard to the feature [voice] i n t h i s system, so voiceless obstruents are underlying marked [-voice] and the voiced ones as [+voice]. / I / contrasts with /d/ i n terms of l a t e r a l i t y , so both are s p e c i f i e d for a value of the feature [ l a t e r a l ] . The two nasals contrast with the corresponding voiced obstruents, and therefore /b/ and /d/ are s p e c i f i e d as [-nasal] while /m/ and /n/ are s p e c i f i e d as [+nasal]. In t h i s system [sonorant] i s completely redundant. 2.2.2.2 R-Rules There i s no formal contrast i n CU between universal and language-specific redundancy (R-^rules). R-rules i n s e r t R-65 values. They are always context-sensitive, since they i n s e r t redundant values based on co-occurrence r e s t r i c t i o n s , and they may have one of two functions (Steriade 1987: 359): (2.25) a. the enhancement of perceptual salience, e.g. [+back] \u00E2\u0080\u0094> [+round], or b. the demonstration of the r e s t r i c t e d d i s t r i b u t i o n of a content feature within the realm of a s t r i c t u r e feature ( s t r i c t u r e features are [sonorant], [cons], [continuant], [high], [low]) e.g. [+son] \u00E2\u0080\u0094> [+voice]. Steriade points out that assuming that R-rules may have only the functions i n (2.24) rules out the p o s s i b i l i t y of an R-rule such as [+round] \u00E2\u0080\u0094> [+high], which i s used by Archangeli and Pulleyblank (1986) i n the analysis of Nyangumarta. This r u l e i s not excluded on the grounds that i t i s language-specific, but on the grounds that i t does not have one of the functions i n (2.25). The R-rules for vo c a l i c segments used i n Steriade (1987) are given i n (2.26) 1 2. 66 R-rules 1. [+low] ---> [-high] 2. [+low] \u00E2\u0080\u0094 > [+back] 3. [+back] ---> [+round] [-low] 4. [-low] ---> [-back] [-round] 5. [+high] ---> [+round] [+ATR] In Steriade's analysis of Hungarian Back Harmony an R-rule i s e x t r i n s i c a l l y ordered before a phonological r u l e . Two R-rules and a r u l e of Back Harmony are posited for Hungarian (the CU analysis of Hungarian BH w i l l be discussed i n d e t a i l i n 3.1.5.2): (2.27) R-rule 1: [+low] \u00E2\u0080\u0094> [+back] R-rule 2: [-low, -round] \u00E2\u0080\u0094> [-back] Back Harmony ( i t e r a t i v e , feature-changing) [aback] [Aback] V . . . V The rule of Back Harmony i s ordered between R-rules 1 and 2 i n order that the low long vowel /a:/ can act as a t r i g g e r of Harmony. R-rule 2 cannot be ordered before Harmony, because i t f i l l s i n the backness s p e c i f i c a t i o n s of / i / , / i : / and /e:/ and these vowels are transparent to the Harmony process. The 67 EC, which orders s p e c i f i c rules before more general ones, cannot force the ordering of R-rule 1 before Back Harmony, since the s t r u c t u r a l description of R-rule 1 i s not part of the s t r u c t u r a l description of Back Harmony. Steriade (1987) also posits an e x t r i n s i c ordering r e l a t i o n s h i p between the rule of Round Harmony i n Mongolian and the redundancy rule i n s e r t i n g the predictable value of [round]. She argues, however, that language-specific ordering between phonological rules and redundancy rules i s unwanted, and instead assumes that i n Mongolian [round] acts as a monovalent feature. In t h i s language then the redundancy r u l e i n s e r t i n g [-round] i s not required. Unfortunately, an alternate analysis of the Hungarian facts i s not provided. 2.2.2.3 Phonological Rules Because CU assumes that both values of a contrastive feature are underlyingly s p e c i f i e d , the theory must also assume that a s s i m i l a t i o n rules may be e i t h e r f e a t u r e - f i l l i n g or feature-changing. Steriade (1987: 339) states: nothing, i n my view, prevents a r u l e of vowel harmony from operating sequentially, by successive spreading and delinking steps, as shown i n (1): (1) F -F -F -F F -F -F V C V C V C V --> V C V C V C V --> F -F F V C V C V C V --> V C V C V C V A rule propogating the feature [F] w i l l therefore not be blocked when a segment i s encountered that i s s p e c i f i e d for 68 [F], as i s assumed i n the unmarked case by Radical Underspecification. Steriade provides examples of feature-changing processes i n the Height Harmony system of Pasiego, following McCarthy (1984) and i n the Back Harmony system of Hungarian, following the analysis of Farkas and Beddor (1987), shown i n (2.27). In Pasiego either [+high] or [-high] i n i t i a t e s Height Harmony, spreading to a vowel s p e c i f i e d as e i t h e r [+high]. In Hungarian, Steriade assumes that e i t h e r [+back] or [-back] i n i t i a t e s the harmony process and that targets may be s p e c i f i e d as either [+back]. If r u l e t r i g g e r s may be s p e c i f i e d for either value of a feature, then these rules w i l l have to be stated using alpha notation, as shown i n (2.27) . 2.2.3 Alternate Theories of Feature S p e c i f i c a t i o n The majority of current analyses dealing with underspecified values adopt either the Radical or Contrastive framework. Calabrese (1988), Clements (1987) and Christdas (1988) argue for s l i g h t l y modified versions of CU. Calabrese's revisions involve deriving the pattern of underspecification i n a given language from the set of universal f i l t e r s that are v i o l a t e d language-specifically (this i s e s s e n t i a l since Calabrese uses f i l t e r s or negative constraints, whereas Steriade uses universal redundancy or R-r u l e s ) . Calabrese's claims regarding the hierachy of universal f i l t e r s w i l l be discussed i n 6.1.2.2. In 2.2.3.1 I w i l l b r i e f l y outline Clements' theory. A number of other 69 works> such as Den Dikken and van der Hulst (1990) and Piggott (1990, to appear) assume that features are p r i v a t i v e rather than binary, and therefore do not adopt a theory of underspecification at a l l . 2.2.3.1 Clements (1987) Clements' (1987) position on underspecification i s that both values of a contrastive d i s t i n c t i v e feature are always f u l l y s p e c i f i e d i n URs, as are the so-called 'primary' or major class features such as [sonorant] and [consonantal]. Incomplete underlying s p e c i f i c a t i o n of values occurs when features are not used contrastively, or when they represent a r t i c u l a t o r nodes ( i . e . L a b i a l , Coronal and Dorsal i n (2.6)). There are no univeral default rules to f i l l i n missing values, but language-particular rules may add missing feature values. The hypothetical 9 consonant language s p e c i f i e d i n (2.20) and (2.24) i s s p e c i f i e d according to Clements' system i n (2.28). (2.28) p t k b d g m n l [sonorant] - - - - - - + + + [voice] - - - + + + [l a t e r a l ] - + [nasal] - - + + The feature [sonorant] i s f u l l y s p e c i f i e d since i t i s a major class feature, while the features [voice], [ l a t e r a l ] and [nasal] are contrastive. A r t i c u l a t o r nodes would behave i n a monovalent fashion ( i . e . are either present or absent), with 70 Labia l present for /p,b, and m/ and absent for a l l other features, etc. In t h i s thesis I w i l l t reat the Clements (1987) (and Christdas 1988) view of underspecification as another form of CU, since vowel features, which are neither major class features nor a r t i c u l a t o r nodes, w i l l be c o n t r a s t i v e l y s p e c i f i e d . Clements* treatment of vowels w i l l therefore be equivalent to a contrastive one. 2.2.3.2 P r i v a t i v e Features Each of the theories of underspecification discussed assume that features are binary, as was f i r s t proposed i n Jakobson and Halle (1956). Trubetzkoy (1939/69), on the other hand, proposes that featural oppositions may be p r i v a t i v e , where features are either present or absent; gradual, where features have degrees; or equipollent, where features have polar d i s t i n c t i o n s that are each l o g i c a l l y possible. In the feature geometry i n (2.7) nodes are assumed to behave i n a p r i v a t i v e (or monovalent) fashion, even by proponents of underspecification theory. More relevant to a discussion of underspecification i s the issue of whether terminal features are binary or p r i v a t i v e . Piggott (1990) proposes that the feature [nasal] i s u n i v e r s a l l y a p r i v a t i v e feature, while Mester and Ito (1989) and Steriade (1987) propose that [voice] and [round] are p r i v a t i v e features i n Japanese and Mongolian resp e c t i v e l y . Den Dikken and van der Hulst (1990) assume that a l l features 71 are p r i v a t i v e , and Goldsmith (1987) proposes that a l l features are e i t h e r p r i v a t i v e or equipollent. In the majority of cases i t w i l l be impossible to determine whether a feature i s pr i v a t i v e or whether i t i s binary but has only a single feature value present underlyingly. This i s because underspecification theory assumes that underlyingly unspecified feature values are f i l l e d i n by redundancy rules l a t e i n the derivation, and therefore redundant values w i l l generally have no phonological e f f e c t s . Mester and Ito (1989: 283) warn that t h i s may make comparisons of RU and a theory of p r i v a t i v e features d i f f i c u l t : If not a l l features are p r i v a t i v e (see den Dikken & van der Hulst 1988 and references c i t e d there for a s t r i c t l y single-valued approach), a p r i n c i p l e d typology of features must be developed. Otherwise private features could be invoked ad libitum whenever i t seems that RU i s needed. It i s only i n the case of a binary feature whose predictable value has phonological e f f e c t s that we w i l l be able to d i s t i n g u i s h i t from a p r i v a t i v e feature. In RU, the phonological use of predictable features i s accomplished by the RROC, given i n (2.19b). Some examples of the use of the RROC are presented i n Archangeli and Pulleyblank (1986, 1989) for Yoruba and i n Archangeli and Pulleyblank (1986) for Yokuts. I believe that i t i s contingent upon those who assume that features may be pr i v a t i v e to account for these cases. In t h i s thesis I assume that terminal features are binary, and always have two possible values. Based on the h i s t o r i c a l development of d i s t i n c t i v e features as binary units, I believe that the binary approach i s more conservative than the 72 p r i v a t i v e one. 2.3 P r i n c i p l e s and Parameters The p r i n c i p l e s and parameters theory of grammar was f i r s t outlined i n Chomsky (1981a,b) and has been widely used to account for a v a r i e t y of facts i n both syntax and phonology. Parameters are used to explain c r o s s - l i n g u i s t i c differences, and at the same time make predictions about the course of language a c q u i s i t i o n . For these reasons, i n t h i s thesis I w i l l develop a theory of phonological a c q u i s i t i o n that assumes that UG contains both p r i n c i p l e s and parameters. In the following sections I outline how the p r i n c i p l e s and parameters model of grammar i s organized, and show how some previously proposed parameters are assumed to operate. The p r i n c i p l e s and parameters theory emphasizes the u n i v e r s a l i t y of the t h e o r e t i c a l constructs used i n a l l languages, while predicting that languages d i f f e r i n c e r t a i n constrained ways: What we expect to f i n d , then, i s a highly structured theory of UG based on a number of fundamental p r i n c i p l e s that sharply r e s t r i c t the class of attainable grammars and narrowly constrain t h e i r form, but with parameters that have to be fixed by experience. If these parameters are embedded i n a theory of UG that i s s u f f i c i e n t l y r i c h i n structure then the languages that are determined by f i x i n g t h e i r values one way or another w i l l appear to be quite diverse, since the consequences of one set of choices may be very d i f f e r e n t from the consequences of another set; yet at the same time, l i m i t e d evidence, just s u f f i c i e n t to f i x the parameters of UG, w i l l determine a grammar that may be very i n t r i c a t e and w i l l i n general lack grounding i n experience i n the sense of an inductive basis. (Chomsky 1981a: 3-4) According to t h i s view a c q u i s i t i o n becomes a r e l a t i v e l y simple 73 endeavour. A p a r t i c u l a r hypothesis i s supplied by UG, and evidence from the language being acquired w i l l confirm that t h i s i n i t i a l hypothesis i s correct, or suggest that an alternate hypothesis should be chosen. In the l a t t e r case, the c h i l d need not create a new hypothesis, but simply \"switch\" a parameter, and a new hypothesis w i l l be given. The p r i n c i p l e s and parameters approach provides a b u i l t -i n theory of markedness. The parameter settings provided by UG are the default or unmarked settings, while the other s e t t i n g ( s ) , which can only be achieved v i a evidence from the input, are marked. A language that makes use of the default s e t t i n g of a parameter w i l l be less complex or marked than a language that uses the marked set t i n g . In a c q u i s i t i o n , then, t h i s model predicts that the c h i l d w i l l f i r s t assume the unmarked parameter set t i n g , and only switch to a marked parameter s e t t i n g i f there i s evidence that t h i s i s necessary. Developmentally, the chi l d ' s speech should f i r s t be characterized by the unmarked parameter s e t t i n g , and only l a t e r be characterized by the marked se t t i n g . In Hyams (1983), for example, the ac q u i s i t i o n of the \"pro-drop\" or AGR/PRO parameter (Chomsky 1981a, R i z z i 1982) i s discussed. This parameter was proposed to explain differences between languages i n the a b i l i t y to have null-subjects i n tensed c l a u s e s 1 3 . Hyams argues that the unmarked parameter s e t t i n g allows null-subjects, as i n I t a l i a n , while the marked s e t t i n g requires l e x i c a l subjects, as i n English. The low incidence of l e x i c a l i z e d subjects i n the speech of young childre n 74 acquiring English i s due to the i n i t i a l unmarked parameter f o r AGR/PRO (this analysis has sparked much controversy -- see Gu i l f o y l e 1984 and Lebeaux 1987 for two reanalyses of these f a c t s ) . 2.3.1 B i n a r i t y The majority of parameters that have been discussed i n the l i t e r a t u r e , i n both syntax and phonology, have binary settings. For example, Bach (1965) claims that languages have the choice of having a rule of Wh-movement or not (Williams 1987 c a l l s the Wh-movement parameter an \"existence\" parameter). A phonological example i s given i n Archangeli and Pulleyblank (1989) where the i n i t i a l association of autosegmentalized features i s assumed to operate i n l e f t - t o -r i g h t fashion i n the unmarked case and i n r i g h t - t o - l e f t fashion i n the marked case (see 2.1.2.1). Bach's Wh-Movement parameter i s a binary parameter that has a choice between ON and OFF, while Archangeli and Pulleyblank's i n i t i a l a ssociation parameter i s binary but has two s p e c i f i e d choices: LEFT-TO-RIGHT or RIGHT-TO-LEFT. Suggestions for parameters with multiple settings have been given i n Wexler and Manzini (1987) for the governing category of anaphors, or for the d i r e c t i o n of spreading i n Archangeli and Pulleyblank (1986). Fodor (1989) argues that non-binary parameters can and should be analyzed as sets of parameters, each with a binary choice. Only binary parameters w i l l provide a cle a r statement of the markedness of parametric 75 systems. Archangeli and Pulleyblank*s d i r e c t i o n of spreading parameter (1986) can be stated as two separate parameters, as i s done i n Piggott (to appear): (2.29) D i r e c t i o n a l i t y Parameter(s) i . Multiple Settings (Archangeli and Pulleyblank 1986) Same dir e c t i o n / o p p o s i t e / b i d i r e c t i o n a l i i . Binary Settings (Piggott (to appear)) a. Spread leftward (yes/no) b. Spread rightward (yes/no) Archangeli and Pulleyblank's parameter i s t i e d to another parameter which regulates the d i r e c t i o n of i n i t i a l a ssociation (see, for example, (2.6)), but Piggott's parameter does not make t h i s connection. The b i d i r e c t i o n a l s e t t i n g i n (2.29i) i s achieved i f the YES option i s chosen for both parameters i n (2 . 2 9 i i ) . The featural and rul e parameters investigated i n 2.5 w i l l a l l be binary, c e r t a i n of them providing ON-OFF choices, and others two s p e c i f i e d choices. 2.3.2 Multiple Parameters Dresher and Kaye (1988) encounter cross-parameter dependencies i n t h e i r account of parameterized stress systems. An example i s given involving the three parameters i n (2.30). (2.30) PI The word-tree i s strong on the (LEFT/RIGHT) P2 Feet are (BINARY/UNBOUNDED) P5 Feet are quantity sensitive (QS) (YES/NO) 76 In order for a learner to determine which s e t t i n g of PI i s required, a \"window\" at the l e f t or r i g h t edge of a word must be sampled. P2 w i l l determine the size of the window, but the s e t t i n g of P2 i s dependent upon the s e t t i n g of P5. If the NO option of P5 i s chosen, then the BINARY option of P2 must also be chosen, and i f the YES option of P5 i s chosen, then P2 must be UNBOUNDED. Thus the default s e t t i n g of P2 w i l l depend upon the appropriate s e t t i n g of P5 i n the language. P2 and P5 must somehow be t i e d together, or the learner may make a choice that i t i s not possible to retreat from. Williams (1987: xi) says of such interconnections: The question i s , how complicated are such contingencies \u00E2\u0080\u0094 i n the worst case, one can imagine the parameters were so paralyzingly interconnected that they a l l had to be set \"at one time\" and the evidence was the union-of a l l the evidence relevant for any of them. Dresher and Kaye do not provide evidence as to how these dependencies are dealt with, but simply note that they e x i s t . Such interdependencies predict that children w i l l remain with the unmarked parameter setting u n t i l a l l the evidence i s i n , then a l l parameters w i l l be reset at once. With regard to the interdependence of default values, i t remains an empirical question how these problems w i l l be sorted out. Wexler and Manzini (1987) i n t h e i r discussion of the parameter associated with anaphors, adopt the L e x i c a l Parameterization Hypothesis (LPH) f i r s t discussed i n Borer (1984). The LPH assumes that parameters are set for i n d i v i d u a l l e x i c a l items, rather than for a construct as a whole. There w i l l be d i f f e r e n t parametric p o s s i b i l i t i e s for 77 each l e x i c a l anaphor. Davis (1987) argues that the adoption of the LPH w i l l lead to \"undergeneralization\" problems, i . e . random scattering of values of a parameter throughout the lexicon. Part of the reasoning behind the development of the parametric model was to capture generalizations that spread through the syntax and the lexicon, and the adoption of the LPH ignores these generalizations. I assume that the fe a t u r a l and rule parameters discussed i n t h i s and subsequent chapters are parameters which once set, apply to a l l e l i g i b l e l e x i c a l and syntactic categories. 2.3.3 Non-parametric Acquis i t i o n While parameters are assumed to account for many aspects of a c q u i s i t i o n , they obviously cannot account for everything. Chomsky (1981a: 7-8) makes a d i s t i n c t i o n between \"core grammar\" and the \"periphery\". Experience -- i n part, a construct based on an i n t e r n a l state given or already attained \u00E2\u0080\u0094 serves to f i x the parameters of UG, providing a core grammar, guided perhaps by a structure of preferences and im p l i c a t i o n a l r e l a t i o n s among the parameters of the core theory... But i t i s hardly to be expected that what are c a l l e d \"languages\" or \" d i a l e c t s \" or even \"ideolects\" w i l l conform p r e c i s e l y or perhaps even very c l o s e l y to the systems determined by f i x i n g the parameters of UG. This could only happen under i d e a l i z e d conditions that are never r e a l i z e d i n fact i n the r e a l world of heterogeneous speech communities. Furthermore, each actual \"language\" w i l l incorporate a periphery of borrowings, h i s t o r i c a l residues, inventions, and so on, which we can hardly expect to \u00E2\u0080\u0094 and indeed would not want to \u00E2\u0080\u0094 incorporate within a p r i n c i p l e d theory of UG. For such reasons as these, i t i s reasonable to suppose that UG determines a set of core grammars and that what i s a c t u a l l y ' represented i n the mind of an i n d i v i d u a l even under the i d e a l i z a t i o n to a homogeneous speech community would be a core grammar with a periphery of marked elements and constructions. 78 L e x i c a l a c q u i s i t i o n , word meaning, subcategorization requirements and exceptions w i l l a l l be aspects of the periphery. Children w i l l have to acquire the form and meaning of l e x i c a l items and af f i x e s by rote, although UG w i l l c e r t a i n l y supply structure and some content to the l e x i c a l e n t r i e s . While t h i s separation of core and periphery i s l o g i c a l and probably necessary, i t has sparked some concern. Williams (1987) worries that t h i s d i v i s i o n may cause non-parametric aspects of a c q u i s i t i o n to be neglected. Fodor (1989) warns that we must be careful i n assuming d i f f e r e n t a c q u i s i t i o n mechanisms for core and peripheral facts since t h i s may r e s u l t i n p o s i t i n g rule-writing mechanisms a l l over again. She suggests that the n u l l hypothesis, that the same devices that account for core grammar also hold i n the periphery, should be maintained as long as possible. In Chapter 4 I w i l l discuss some aspects of phonological a c q u i s i t i o n that I believe to be peripheral to a core system of p r i n c i p l e s and parameters. I t remains an empirical issue whether or not UG w i l l be able to account for a l l remaining aspects of the a c q u i s i t i o n data that w i l l be investigated i n Chapter 5. 2.4 L e a r n a b i l i t y L e a r n a b i l i t y theory i s the f i e l d of inquiry that developed with the conception of a c q u i s i t i o n given i n (1.2) (e.g. Gold 1967, Wexler and Hamburger 1973, Baker 1979, Berwick 1985). L e a r n a b i l i t y attempts to account for how the 79 c h i l d constructs, the adult grammar based on l i m i t e d input. L e a r n a b i l i t y research has focussed on two areas: the p r i n c i p l e s of UG and the type of input available to the c h i l d . While t h i s i s not a homogeneous f i e l d , there are c e r t a i n working hypotheses that are held to by the majority of researchers. In the following sections I discuss three such hypotheses that I assume i n developing the underspecification a c q u i s i t i o n models: the L e a r n a b i l i t y Condition, the Continuity Assumption and the No-negative Evidence Hypothesis. 2.4.1 The L e a r n a b i l i t y Condition The L e a r n a b i l i t y Condition (Pinker 1979, 1984) i s i n s p i r e d by the fact that a l l children are ultimately successful at language a c q u i s i t i o n . It says that any developmental stage must be attainable v i a an a c q u i s i t i o n mechanism that begins with Universal Grammar and ends up with the adult grammar. Furthermore i t must be possible to convert any intermediate rule system into the adult state of grammar by means of the a c q u i s i t i o n process. This condition has been instrumental i n the development of the p r i n c i p l e s and parameters model of grammar, since i f we assume that both a c q u i s i t i o n a l stages and language-specific differences are the r e s u l t of the r e s e t t i n g of parameters, then by d e f i n i t i o n any a c q u i s i t i o n a l stage w i l l be a possible human grammar. While the L e a r n a b i l i t y Condition appears to be an obvious constraint on a c q u i s i t i o n research, only i n the l a s t ten or f i f t e e n years has i t been generally accepted. The 80 L e a r n a b i l i t y Condition would pro h i b i t many of the grammars written for children's speech during the 1960s and 1970s, which were composed of sets of rules that bore absolutely no resemblance to any type of adult grammar 1 4. The L e a r n a b i l i t y Condition t e l l s us that intermediate stages of a c q u i s i t i o n cannot be studied i n a vacuum \u00E2\u0080\u0094 we must be able to account for how they are achieved, and how they develop into the adult system. 2.4.2 The Continuity Condition The Continuity Assumption (Atkinson 1982, Pinker 1984) states that the p r i n c i p l e s and a c q u i s i t i o n mechanisms that are a v a i l a b l e to a c h i l d must be the same over the whole course of development. Within the p r i n c i p l e s and parameters framework the Continuity Assumption says that UG contains a l l the p r i n c i p l e s that are both necessary for a c q u i s i t i o n and for a characterization of the adult grammar. C r o s s - l i n g u i s t i c differences are the r e s u l t of d i f f e r e n t parametric choices. Developmental changes i n the c h i l d ' s grammar are also assumed to be the r e s u l t of parameter switching, and not the r e s u l t of changes i n the c h i l d ' s cognitive makeup. An a l t e r n a t i v e to the Continuity Assumption exists i n the form of the Maturational Hypothesis (Borer and Wexler 1987). This hypothesis assumes that language i s a b i o l o g i c a l mechanism that i s not f u l l y s p e c i f i e d at b i r t h . Certain aspects of UG w i l l \"mature\" at s p e c i f i e d times, and w i l l i n i t i a t e changes i n the c h i l d ' s grammar. Even i f the 81 appropriate evidence i s available to a c h i l d at some e a r l i e r point, a construction w i l l not be \"acquired\" u n t i l the p r i n c i p l e regulating i t appears i n UG. This view of a c q u i s i t i o n i s a much less constrained one than the Continuity Assumption, since i t allows the postulation of new j u s t -matured p r i n c i p l e s to account for more d i f f i c u l t aspects of a c q u i s i t i o n . In t h i s thesis I w i l l assume that the phonological a c q u i s i t i o n i s constrained by the Continuity Assumption, and that maturation does not play a part i n the developmental of a phonological system. 2.4.3 The No-negative Evidence Hypothesis The primary l i n g u i s t i c data (PLD) or input a c h i l d receives i s c r u c i a l to the a c q u i s i t i o n of the grammar of a s p e c i f i c language. Without evidence about the language being acquired the c h i l d would never move on from the set of unmarked parameters provided by UG. The No-negative Evidence Hypothesis (Williams 1976, Baker 1979, Berwick 1985) says that only p o s i t i v e evidence i s available to language l e a r n e r s 1 5 . Research by Brown and Hanlon (1970) has demonstrated that d i r e c t negative evidence i n the form of corrections are rare and Braine (1971) has shown that children do not make use of corrections even i f they are provided. The No-Negative Evidence hypothesis also rules out the a v a i l a b i l i t y of i n d i r e c t negative evidence \u00E2\u0080\u0094 the determination of ungrammaticality based on computations of the p r o b a b i l i t y of occurrence i n a given amount of input. The a c q u i s i t i o n 82 l i t e r a t u r e generally assumes that neither type of negative evidence i s ava i l a b l e , although there have been t h e o r e t i c a l suggestions (e.g. Chomsky 1981, Lasnik 1989) that c h i l d r e n may make use of i n d i r e c t negative evidence. The No-negative Evidence Hypothesis applied to a parameter s e t t i n g theory of grammar makes predictions about markedness and l i n g u i s t i c systems, i n the form of the Subset P r i n c i p l e (Berwick 1985, Wexler and Manzini 1987). If the language being acquired i s a proper subset of a language generated by the i n i t i a l s e tting of a parameter, the c h i l d w i l l never learn on the basis of po s i t i v e evidence that the incorrect grammar has been chosen. Only i f there i s some markedness condition associated to parameters s t a t i n g that the i n i t i a l parameter set t i n g must generate the more s p e c i f i c language w i l l p o s i t i v e evidence from the PLD be enough to t e l l the c h i l d that the marked parameter set t i n g i s required, i f the language being acquired i s the more general one. Negative evidence has been discussed i n phonological development with regard to negative constraints. Negative constraints have been used i n a wide range of work i n phonology (e.g. Paradis 1988, Calabrese 1988) to block c e r t a i n types of structures or feature combinations. In some cases the constraints t r i g g e r repair rules which fix-up the disallowed representation. The question i s , how can the non-occurrence of some phonological item be learned when i t does not occur? Ingram (1990) discusses t h i s l e a r n a b i l i t y issue, arguing that negative constraints can be learned on the basis 83 of p o s i t i v e evidence. He hypothesizes that the child, may f i r s t acquire the r e s t r i c t i o n i n the form of an i f - t h e n condition, which at some point becomes restructured as a negative condition. Ingram suggests that t h i s r e s t r u c t i n g may take place because the negative condition i s less complex than the p o s i t i v e condition. In Chapter 3 two types of negative constraints w i l l be posited for Hungarian. The f i r s t i s a marking condition which i s a formalization of Structure Preservation (see 2.1.1.4), and I show that i n fact t h i s condition cannot be stated i n a p o s i t i v e fashion, given the bounds of a theory of Radical Underspecification. The second i s a surface phonetic constraint which appears to t r i g g e r a repair strategy that fixes-up the disallowed segment so that i t can eventually be r e a l i z e d . 2.5 Parametric Approaches to Underspecification In t h i s section I w i l l combine the p r i n c i p l e s and parameters model of grammar with underspecification theory, i n order to develop a phonological theory which makes predictions about the course of a c q u i s i t i o n . To my knowledge t h i s has been previously attempted only once i n Ingram (1990) 1 S. Ingram's work examines the l o g i c a l l e a r n a b i l i t y of the Wikchamni v o c a l i c system as given i n Archangeli (1985). Ingram concludes that i t i s possible to view the a c q u i s i t i o n of t h i s system as a series of developmental stages leading to a r a d i c a l l y underspecified adult system. My work d i f f e r s from Ingram's i n two important respects. F i r s t , the predictions 84 for the a c q u i s i t i o n of Hungarian and Spanish that w i l l be developed i n Chapter 4 are based e n t i r e l y on the primitives of the theories of Radical and Contrastive Underspecification, without making reference to s p e c i f i c p r i n c i p l e s of a c q u i s i t i o n . Secondly, I w i l l use real-time language a c q u i s i t i o n data to test the parametric underspecification predictions, where Ingram uses hypothetical data to argue his case. The picture of phonological a c q u i s i t i o n that I assume i s the following. UG supplies each c h i l d with the innate aspects of l i n g u i s t i c structure i n the form of a set of p r i n c i p l e s and parameters. Resetting of a parameter can only be accomplished given p o s i t i v e evidence from the PLD that the marked option i s c a l l e d for (No-Negative Evidence Hypothesis, see 2.4.3). Since the UG system forms a template for the l i n g u i s t i c system u n t i l such time as the parameters are reset, at the very e a r l i e s t stages children's phonological systems cross-l i n g u i s t i c a l l y w i l l be characterized by the rules and parameter settings of UG. Given exposure to the input and time to change parameters, children's phonological systems w i l l more c l o s e l y resemble the adult systems being acquired and w i l l look less l i k e the systems supplied by UG. The c h i l d ' s system at any one time w i l l contain a l l aspects of UG that are invariable (the Continuity Assumption, see 2.4.2), and a c q u i s i t i o n can proceed given UG and some exposure to the input (the L e a r n a b i l i t y Condition, see 2.4.1). In the following sections, the theories of Radical and 85 Contrastive Underspecification w i l l be discussed as p r i n c i p l e s and parameters models of phonology. I w i l l focus on the same two problems that have been the centre of research i n l e a r n a b i l i t y theory -- the p r i n c i p l e s of UG that are necessary with the adoption of either CU or RU, and the input that must be a v a i l a b l e to the c h i l d i n order that the underspecification system of a language be determinable. There w i l l be no major changes to the theories as outlined i n 2.2.1 and 2.2.2, although there w i l l be c e r t a i n additions and elaborations that allow these theories to be viewed as parametric models. 2.5.1 Parameters and Radical Underspecification 2.5.1.1 UG i n RU In Archangeli (1984) RU i s investigated as a theory of ac q u i s i t i o n , although t h i s research was c a r r i e d out before the p r i n c i p l e s and parameters approach to grammar was f u l l y developed, and before c e r t a i n c r u c i a l aspects of phonological theory, such as the theory of feature geometry, came to l i g h t . Archangeli's a c q u i s i t i o n model i s given i n (2.31). 86 (2.31) A c q u i s i t i o n - Archangeli (1984) UG Isolating featural oppositions ALPHABET FORMATION ALPHABET Default rules > Feature Min. Principle Matrix (context-free and Feature Value Min. Complement context-sensitive) Principle rules c Input Archangeli assumes that UG supplies the language learner with the knowledge of how to i s o l a t e sounds based on feature oppositions and a set of universal default r u l e s 1 \" 7 . The components of UG, combined with language-specific phonological information serve as input to a procedure c a l l e d Alphabet Formation, which creates the Alphabet or underlying phonological system of a language. Alphabet Formation selects one value of a feature as the underlyingly marked value, with an accompanying redundancy rule f i l l i n g i n the unmarked value. 87 (2.32) Alphabet Formation 1 8 1. Given an opposition [aF] -- [-aF] i n environment Q i n underlying representation, one value \"a\" (where \"-a\" i s the u n i v e r s a l l y marked value) i s selected as the matrix value for F i n Q and the other value i s s p e c i f i e d by an automatically formed complement value: [ ] \u00E2\u0080\u0094> [-aF] / Q 2. In the absence of language i n t e r n a l motivation f o r s e l e c t i n g \"a\" as the matrix value for a feature F, the value \"-a\" i s selected as the matrix value where: [ ] \u00E2\u0080\u0094> [aF] / Q i s a member of the set of default r u l e s . The f i r s t clause of (2.32) says that i f there i s p o s i t i v e evidence i n the language that the u n i v e r s a l l y predictable value of a feature must be present underlyingly, then a complement r u l e w i l l be created to redundantly specify the opposite value supplied by UG. The second clause of (2.32) says that i f there i s no l i n g u i s t i c evidence that a complement value i s required, then the default r u l e holds. Archangeli assumes that Alphabet Formation includes the Feature Minimization P r i n c i p l e : 88 (2.33) Feature Minimization P r i n c i p l e (Archangeli 1984: 50) A grammar i s most highly valued when underlying representations include the minimal number of features necessary to make d i f f e r e n t the phonemes of the language. and a p r i n c i p l e which says minimize the number of feature values s p e c i f i e d i n the matrix component. The Alphabet of a language consists of the set of complement rules arrived at a f t e r Complement Rule Formation and a matrix component. The matrix i s the array of underlyingly marked feature values needed i n a language. The matrix includes only feature markings that are not provided by e i t h e r the default rules of UG or the complement rules of the language. Several additions must be made to the conception of UG given i n (2.31) i f RU i s to be seriously considered as a p r i n c i p l e s and parameters model. The f i r s t i s the addition of the P r i n c i p l e s of Systematization and Minimal Redundancy to UG. Since RU i s based on the notion that minimal redundancy i s an organizing p r i n c i p l e of the grammar, I believe the p r o h i b i t i o n on redundancy i s better stated as a p r i n c i p l e of UG than as s p e c i f i c r e s t r i c t i o n s on the i n c l u s i o n of redundancy i n the learning process as i n (2.34). 89 (2.34) The Minimal Redundancy Condition (MRC) 1 9 a. Underlying representations do not contain redundant information. b. The most highly valued system contains the minimal number of features and feature values needed to d i s t i n g u i s h the inventory of a language. The MRC w i l l t e l l the c h i l d that underlying representations are set up using only non-redundant featural information. The MRC can also be used as a gauge of markedness, where the l e a s t marked segments w i l l be those with the fewest feature markings. In addition to the MRC, we must also take the a c q u i s i t i o n model back one step and assume that there i s a p r i n c i p l e which t e l l s the c h i l d to create a phonological system for the language, i n which feature values have possible binary settings, and c e r t a i n feature values are underlying. This can be stated as the P r i n c i p l e of Systematization. (2.35) The RU P r i n c i p l e of Systematization Feature values that are not predictable are marked. This set of markings forms the underlying matrix of a language. The MRC w i l l then ensure that redundancy rules e x i s t to f i l l i n predictable feature values and that features whose values are wholly predictable w i l l not be a part of the underlying system. The MRC w i l l also lead the c h i l d to r e a l i z e that a 90 segment that i s s p e c i f i e d only by predictable feature values w i l l not take part i n the l e x i c a l phonological rules of the language. ' Archangeli and Pulleyblank (1986) and Archangeli (1988) assume that default rules are the i n i t i a l unmarked parameters of UG, but they do not look at what t h i s assumption means for a c q u i s i t i o n . The set of default rules for vowels that I w i l l use i n t h i s thesis are given i n (2.36). (2.36) Universal Default Rules for Vowels 2 0 Context-free rules FCRs 1. [ ] \u00E2\u0080\u0094> [-low] 5. [+low] \u00E2\u0080\u0094> [-high] 2. [ ] \u00E2\u0080\u0094> [+high] 6. [+low] \u00E2\u0080\u0094> [+back] 3. [ ] --> [-back] 7. [+low] --> [-round] 4\u00C2\u00AB [ 1 \u00E2\u0080\u0094 > [-round] 8. [+back] \u00E2\u0080\u0094> [+round] [-low] 9. [-back] \u00E2\u0080\u0094> [-round] [-low] Rules 1-3 and 5-6 are taken from Archangeli (1988), r u l e 4 i s taken from Archangeli and Pulleyblank (1986) and r u l e 8 from Archangeli (1984) 2 1. Rules 8 and 9 are used i n Archangeli (1984). This p a r t i c u l a r set of rules i s used because 1) they appear to define the majority of the feature redundancies that r e l a t e to v o c a l i c systems (with the exclusion of the features that r e l a t e to [ATR])/ and 2) they allow us to use a comparable set of universal rules i n both theories of underspecification investigated i n t h i s and subsequent 91 chapters. The context-sensitive rules w i l l be c a l l e d feature co-occurrence redundancies (FCRs) since they define redundant values based on the co-occurrence of p a r t i c u l a r feature values. FCRs are often stated i n the format [ ] \u00E2\u0080\u0094> [+F]/[+G] (Archangeli 1984) but Kiparsky (1985)/ Archangeli (1988) and Steriade (1987) adopt the format [+G] \u00E2\u0080\u0094> [+F]. I assume these two formats are notational equivalents, and state the rules using the l a t t e r form. The MRC, the RU P r i n c i p l e of Systematization and the default rules i n (2.36) w i l l t e l l the c h i l d to represent a 3 vowel system /i , a , u / and a 5 vowel system /i,e,a,o,u/ as i n (2.37). The RU P r i n c i p l e of Systematization and the MRC t e l l the c h i l d that feature values that are not predictable are marked underlyingly. If the default rules provide the predictable values, then only those values that are not given by the rules i n (2.36) w i l l be marked underlyingly. (2.37) a. Universal 3 Vowel System b. Universal 5 Vowel System i a u i e a o u high low + back + + round / i / i s the t o t a l l y unspecified vowel i n each system, and the le a s t marked vowel i n the system by the MRC22. The features [high] and [round] are redundant i n the three vowel system and high low + back + round 92 the feature [round] i s redundant i n the f i v e vowel system, since a l l values of these features are t o t a l l y predictable, given the rules i n (2.36). To achieve a f u l l y s p e c i f i e d matrix for the vowel systems i n (2.37) the default rules i n (2.36) apply to.the matrix when they can, governed by the Ordering Constraints i n (2.19) and the EC i n (2.3). I assume that these constraints are also part of UG. Archangeli and Pulleyblank (1986) argue that the default rules as stated i n (2.36) are derivative from the typology of rules given i n (2.21), and therefore are e a s i l y stated i n a parametric framework. I adopt t h i s conception of default r u l e s , although below I w i l l expand on how they w i l l function as parameters. The typology given i n (2.21) i s repeated here as (2.38). (2.38) I. a. ( i n s e r t j d e f a u i t / d e l e t e b. (maximal)c\u00C2\u00ABfa U i t/minimal c. ( c o n t e n t ) d S f a u i t / s t r u c t u r e d. (same d i r e c t i o n ) d e f a u l t / o p p o s i t e d i r e c t i o n / b i d i r e c t i o n a l I I . node or feature(s) I I I . t r i g g e r condition target condition A default rule i s the i n s t a n t i a t i o n of the default settings of the function parameters (2.381), with the argument and/or target condition s p e c i f i e d by UG ((2.38II) and (2.38III)). (2.22), repeated here as (2.39) i s an example of a context-93 free default rule stated i n terms of the parameters i n t h i s typology. (2.39) inserts [-low] as the redundant s p e c i f i c a t i o n of the feature [low]. (2.39) Default [-low] I. a. (insert) c. (content) d. (same direction) I I . [-low] I assume that the target/trigger condition ( i . e . (2.38III)) i s not parameterizable, since i t refers to a feature value that must be present i n order for the r u l e to apply. If p o s i t i v e evidence shows the c h i l d that a context-free default rule does not hold i n the language, then several options are a v a i l a b l e . Any of the 4 function parameters i n (2.381) could be switched to the marked option, with the argument remaining the same. Resetting any one of these parameters would have no e f f e c t s i n the phonology, however, since the argument of the rule i s not an underlying feature that can be deleted or spread, d i r e c t i o n a l i t y i s i r r e l e v a n t , and there i s no target condition to which to r e l a t e the maximal/minimal. The only workable option i s to switch the argument parameter ( i . e . (2.38II) to the opposite value, which w i l l then force the u n i v e r s a l l y predictable value to be used underlyingly. In t h i s view context-free default rules represent binary parameters with two s p e c i f i e d options. The unmarked option i s given by UG, the other w i l l be a r r i v e d at 94 by switching the argument parameter to the opposite value. An implementation of the res e t t i n g of a context-free f e a t u r a l parameter i s given i n Archangeli and Pulleyblank (1989). There i t i s argued that Yoruba underlyingly makes use of [-ATR], the value of [ATR] which i s generally assumed to be predictable. In the parametric model t h i s means that i n Yoruba the parameter for [ATR] has been switched to the marked value. A c h i l d learning Yoruba w i l l i n i t i a l l y assume the default rules of UG where [-ATR] i s predictable. Experience w i l l t e l l the c h i l d the parameter requires r e s e t t i n g , and once t h i s i s accomplished [+ATR] w i l l become predictable. The c h i l d ' s underlying v o c a l i c system w i l l be restructured when the parameter for [ATR] i s switched 2 3, as shown i n (2.40). (2.40a) represents the i n i t i a l system supplied by UG, while (2.40b) represents the system a f t e r the parameter regulating [ATR] has been reset at the marked option (for s i m p l i c i t y ' s sake only the context-free default rules are given). 95 (2.40) a I n i t i a l Default rules: [ ] \u00E2\u0080\u0094> [+high] [ ] --> [-low] [ ] \u00E2\u0080\u0094> [-back] [ ] \u00E2\u0080\u0094> [-ATR] i e E a o 0 u high low back ATR + + + + + + + + b. Yoruba Default r u l e s : [ ] \u00E2\u0080\u0094> [+high] [ ] \u00E2\u0080\u0094> [-low] [ ] --> [-back] Complement r u l e : [ ] --> [+ATR] i e E a o 0 u high - -low + back + + + ATR The c h i l d ' s i n i t i a l hypothesis i s that a l l the default rules of UG hold i n the language being acquired, and the c h i l d acquiring Yoruba w i l l then i n i t i a l l y assume that [+ATR] i s the marked feature value. When the c h i l d learns that [-ATR] must be the l e x i c a l l y marked feature value (how the c h i l d learns t h i s w i l l be discussed i n 2.5.1.2), the context-free f e a t u r a l parameter for [ATR] w i l l be switched to the marked option. The e f f e c t of t h i s parameter switching w i l l be to replace the default r u l e for [ATR] with a complement rule which ins e r t s [+ATR] redundantly, and to restructure the underlying feature markings so that [-ATR] i s the l e x i c a l l y marked value. Archangeli and Pulleyblank (1986) do not discuss how FCRs would be dealt with i n a parametric model, however; Archangeli (1988) b r i e f l y discusses t h i s issue with regard to the v o c a l i c 96 system of Auca. The inventory of Auca has two low vowels /a/ and /*/, and does not have a high back vowel. Archangeli argues that the grammar of Auca must formally p r o h i b i t a p p l i c a t i o n of the default rule [+low] --> [+back] (rule 6 i n (2.36)), because i n t h i s language the rule does not supply the predictable values of both low vowels. This i s equivalent to saying that the unmarked parameter set t i n g of an FCR i s ON or APPLICATION and the marked set t i n g i s SUPPRESSION. If an FCR i s suppressed language-specifically, then the feature value that i s no longer predictable must be given underlyingly by the p r i n c i p l e s i n (2.34) and (2.35). Given these assumptions, the c h i l d ' s i n i t i a l and l a t e r representations of the vowels of Auca would be as i n (2.41) 2 4. (2.41) a. I n i t i a l system b. Auca system a/ae e i o a a e e i o high - - -low + + + back + + + In the i n i t i a l representation, given i n (2.41a), the c h i l d assumes that the default rules ( i . e . those i n (2.36)) hold absolutely. Since rule 6 i n (2.36) t e l l s the c h i l d that [+low] vowels are redundantly [+back], the c h i l d w i l l assume that t h i s holds for both [+low] vowels. Both /a/ and / a e / w i l l be marked s o l e l y as [+low] and there w i l l be d i s t i n c t representations for only 4 vowels 2 5. When the c h i l d learns that there are i n fact two phonologically d i s t i n c t low vowels 97 i n the language (how t h i s i s learned i s discussed i n 2.5.1.2), the context-sensitive featural parameter (FCR) w i l l be reset to the marked option. The e f f e c t of r e s e t t i n g t h i s parameter w i l l be to underlyingly mark the feature value that was made redundant by the FCR, and to eliminate the FCR from the language-specific grammar. Thus i n Auca [+back] w i l l be l e x i c a l l y marked for /a/, since there i s no longer a context-s e n s i t i v e rule to in s e r t [+back] redundantly. The l e x i c a l marking of [+back] i s required by the RU P r i n c i p l e of Systematization i n (2.35), which says that feature values that are not redundant are marked underlyingly. The r e s t r u c t u r i n g that takes place when a context-sensitive parameter i s reset to the marked option requires only the addition of feature values to the phonological system, rather than the removal and replacement of feature values as occurs when a context-free parameter i s reset. An a l t e r n a t i v e conception of the parameterization of FCRs i s that r e s e t t i n g does not eliminate the FCR from the language-specific grammar, but rather forces the s p e c i f i c a t i o n of the marked feature value l a n g u a g e - s p e c i f i c a l l y 2 S . In t h i s view the e f f e c t of resetting a context-sensitive parameter i s not SUPPRESSION of the r u l e , but rather ADD A MARKED FEATURE VALUE UNDERLYINGLY. Given that I assume rule 6 i n (2.36) i s n o t a t i o n a l l y equivalent to a rule which says [ ] \u00E2\u0080\u0094> [+back] /[+low], both rules say 'the unmarked value of [back] i s [+back] for a segment that i s also [+low]'. If t h i s i s the unmarked s e t t i n g of the parameter, then the marked s e t t i n g 98 w i l l be 'the marked value of [back] i s [-back] for a segment that i s also [+low]'. In the case of Auca, when the c h i l d encounters evidence that [+back] i s not redundant for a l l [+low] vowels, the parameter for rule 6 i n (2.36) w i l l be reset to the marked option, which w i l l force [-back] to be marked underlyingly for / a e /. In t h i s conception of parameterization, the default rule w i l l have to remain i n the language-specific grammar, i n order to supply the u n i v e r s a l l y redundant value. Rule 6 i n (2.36) w i l l remain i n the grammar of Auca to provide the redundant value of /a/. Given t h i s conception of the marked option of context-sensitive parameters, the c h i l d ' s i n i t i a l and restructured representations of the vowels of Auca w i l l be as given i n (2.42). (2.42) a. I n i t i a l system b. Auca system a/ae e i o a ae e i o high - - -low + \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 + + back + + The problem with t h i s second conception of the parameterization of context-sensitive featural parameters (FCRs) can be demonstrated i f we assume that Auca has an as s i m i l a t i o n rule which spreads the feature [+back]. Given the conception of parameterization where the marked option of a context-sensitive rule i s ADD A MARKED FEATURE VALUE UNDERLYINGLY, rul e 6 w i l l be a part of the grammar of Auca and 99 w i l l be ordered p r i o r to the rule spreading [+back] by the Redundancy Rule Ordering Constraint i n (2.19b). /a/ and /o/ w i l l then be triggers of the rule, but /a?/, which we would expect to be a target, w i l l not be, since i t i s s p e c i f i e d as [-back]. This i s exactly the case that arises i n Hungarian, as w i l l be discussed i n 3.1.3. In Hungarian i t can be shown that the low front vowel must be a possible target of the a s s i m i l a t i o n r u l e , and therefore cannot be marked underlyingly as [-back]. For t h i s reason I w i l l adopt Archangeli's (1988) conception of context-sensitive parameter r e s e t t i n g , where the marked option i s SUPPRESSION of the rule i t s e l f , with concomitant marking of the u n i v e r s a l l y redundant feature value. In the parametric model of RU outlined above there are two ways that the grammar of a s p e c i f i c language can d i f f e r from the grammar supplied by UG: 1) the opposite value of a universal context-free feature may be marked underlyingly i n an across-the-board fashion, as the r e s u l t of the r e s e t t i n g of a context-free default rule to the marked option; or 2) a u n i v e r s a l l y redundant feature value may be marked i n a s p e c i f i c context, as the r e s u l t of the r e s e t t i n g of an FCR to the marked option. The device which resets a context-free featural parameter i s i d e n t i c a l to Alphabet Formation i n (2.27). Alphabet Formation cannot, however, account for the r e s e t t i n g of an FCR parameter, so I w i l l abandon Alphabet Formation altogether and simply assume that i n a parametric RU theory the learning procedure includes a parameter switching 100 mechanism. The r u l e typology i n (2.38), i n addition to supplying the formal statement of default rules, also supplies the possible phonological rule types for RU, as discussed i n 2.2.1.2. Default rules and rules of Epenthesis are the unmarked rules supplied by UG, since these are the rules that require only the default function parameter settings. Deletion, Insertion of an association l i n e and Spread are s l i g h t l y more marked ru l e s , since they require a function parameter to be reset. In addition, the d i r e c t i o n a l i t y parameter i s assumed i n the default case to be t i e d i n to the d i r e c t i o n a l i t y of the i n i t i a l association of anchors and autosegments shown i n (2.6). If t h i s i n i t i a l association proceeds from L\u00E2\u0080\u0094>R then that w i l l be unmarked d i r e c t i o n of spreading for a phonological r u l e . If i n i t i a l association i s R\u00E2\u0080\u0094>L, then that again w i l l be the unmarked d i r e c t i o n of association for a phonological r u l e . Only i n the marked case w i l l phonological rules and i n i t i a l association operate i n d i f f e r e n t d i r e c t i o n s . Once the RU ac q u i s i t i o n model i n (2.31) i s revised so that UG includes the MRC and Systematization P r i n c i p l e s , the possible parameterization of rule operations and arguments, the Ordering Constraints, the p r i n c i p l e s of Autosegmental and Lex i c a l Phonology discussed i n 2.1 (the OCP (2.8), the EC (2.3), Structure Preservation (in 2.1.1.4), and the Association Conventions (2.6)), i t w i l l resemble (2.43). 101 (2.43) Revised Model of RU Acquisition 2\" 7 UG Features Principles Principles of Autoseg. and Lex. Phonology Ordering Principles Ordering Constraints Elsewhere Condition MRC Systematization Parameters 3\" Rule Functions insert maximal content same direction Rule Arguments 3 9 context-free [+high] [-low] [-back] [-round] FCRs [-high]/[+low] [+back]/[+low] [+rnd]/[+back] [-low] [-rnd]/[+low] [-rnd]/[-back] [-low] j Input] 2.5.1.2 Input i n RU If used to constrain a p r i n c i p l e s and parameters account of grammar, the No-Negative Evidence Hypothesis i n 2.4.3 says that only p o s i t i v e evidence can be used as evidence for the re s e t t i n g of a parameter. In the parametric theory of RU p o s i t i v e evidence w i l l be needed to tr i g g e r the r e s e t t i n g of context-free and context-sensitive featural parameters and f o r the r e s e t t i n g of function parameters c o n t r o l l i n g the possible types of phonological rules. In order to reset a context-free parameter, the input w i l l have to contain alternations which LEARNING MECHANISM Parameter Switching Device ALPHABET Matrix Complement rules 102 demonstrate that a un i v e r s a l l y predictable feature value must be marked underlyingly. In Yoruba, for example (described i n Archangeli and Pulleyblank 1989), the context-free parameter for [ATR] w i l l be reset when the c h i l d encounters evidence that [-ATR] must be the underlyingly marked feature value. Such evidence w i l l come from alternations i n the input showing that high vowels do not have [ATR] r e s t r i c t i o n s , that only /a/, /O/ and /E/ are triggers of [ATR] harmony 3 0, and that / i / acts as a t o t a l l y unspecified vowel i n the language (see Pulleyblank 1988). Evidence that a vowel has no underlying s p e c i f i c a t i o n s w i l l come from i d i o s y n c r a t i c behaviour such as transparency i n harmony processes or the fact that i t regu l a r l y disappears i n ce r t a i n environments. The alternations involved i n [ATR] Spread w i l l lead the c h i l d towards the correct underlying s p e c i f i c a t i o n of the vowels of Yoruba, and to the correct statement of the rule of [ATR] Spread. Thus there i s a great deal of i n t e r a c t i o n i n RU between the determination of how phonological rules operate and the r e s e t t i n g of featural parameters 3 1. In the case of Auca, the FCR which says that [+back] i s a predictable feature of low vowels must be reset before the c h i l d can represent both low vowels d i s t i n c t l y i n the phonological inventory. Evidence t r i g g e r i n g the r e s e t t i n g of t h i s context-sensitive parameter w i l l come from alternations i n the language which demonstrate that /a/ and /ae/ are phonologically d i s t i n c t segments. Evidence for t h i s w i l l come from minimal pairs or from alternations that r e s u l t from the 103 a p p l i c a t i o n of phonological rules. 2.5.2 Parameters and Contrastive Underspecification 2.5.2.1 UG i n CU We can envisage a model/ s i m i l a r i n structure to that i n (2.43) , as a CU parameter se t t i n g model of a c q u i s i t i o n . In order to function as an a c q u i s i t i o n theory t h i s 1 model must have a p r i n c i p l e which t e l l s the c h i l d that only contrastive feature values are present underlyingly, and i t must have a theory of how redundancy rules function as featural parameters. These are additions to the theory as proposed i n Steriade (1987). As a f i r s t step I assume that UG contains a p r i n c i p l e t e l l i n g the c h i l d to create a CU phonological system for the language, just as there was a p r i n c i p l e regulating the establishment of a phonological system i n RU (see (2.35). I state t h i s as the CU P r i n c i p l e of Systematization. (2.44) The CU P r i n c i p l e of Systematization Feature values that are used to contrast segments are marked underlyingly. This set of markings forms the underlying matrix of a language. A p r i n c i p l e p r o h i b i t i n g non-contrastive redundancy i n the system i s also required, since CU assumes that only contrastive n o n - t r i v i a l feature markings e x i s t underlyingly (see 2.2.2.1). This p r i n c i p l e w i l l ensure that only the minimal number of contrastive markings are included i n the 104 matrix, and w i l l lead to a method for determining the markedness of phonological systems. (2.45) The R e s t r i c t i v e Redundancy Condition (RRC) a. Underlying representations do not contain feature values that are not used c o n t r a s t i v e l y . b. The most highly valued system contains the fewest number of features and feature values needed to c o n t r a s t i v e l y d i s t i n g u i s h the inventory of a language. (2.45a) w i l l t e l l the c h i l d to mark only those feature values that are required for contrastive s p e c i f i c a t i o n or that are not given by universal rules, while the second clause says that a segment (or system) with n feature markings w i l l be less marked than a segment (or system) with n+1 markings. In 2.2.2.2 the R-rules of CU are discussed. R-rules are the redundancy rules which f i l l i n feature co-occurrence r e s t r i c t i o n s . Steriade wishes to eliminate language-specific ordering relationships between phonological rules and R-rules, even though i n practice she does not always do t h i s (see the analysis of Hungarian Back Harmony discussed i n 2.2.2.2). She says (Steriade 1987: 357) By deciding that [round] i s single-valued we can also avoid the assumption of language-specific orderings between redundancy rules introducing R-values and D-values. It i s c l e a r l y Steriade's intent that such language-specific orderings (permitted i n RU by the RROC) be prohibited. In addition, i n the theory of CU transparency e f f e c t s can only 105 e x i s t i f a given class of segments lacks redundant feature values i n the phonology, and these transparency e f f e c t s would would be destroyed i f R-rules were permitted to apply p r i o r to the a p p l i c a t i o n of phonological rules. I therefore assume that ordering relationships between phonological rules and redundancy rules are prohibited i n the CU parametric model and consequently that R-rules w i l l always apply l a t e i n the de r i v a t i o n i I state t h i s ordering r e s t r i c t i o n as the CU Ordering P r i n c i p l e . (2.46) CU Ordering P r i n c i p l e R-rules apply as l a t e as possible i n the grammar. Several obstacles are encountered i n attempting to tr a n s l a t e the s p e c i f i c s of CU into a p r i n c i p l e s and parameters model of a c q u i s i t i o n . These problems stem from the fact that i n each analysis i n Steriade (1987) the contrastive s p e c i f i c a t i o n s of only one or two features are given. As a r e s u l t i t i s not always clear which R-rules are needed or what t h e i r exact status i s . I w i l l attempt to resolve some of these problems by examining the f i v e vowel systems of Ainu (described i n Steriade 1987) and Auca (described i n Archangeli 1988) . The symmetrical 5 vowel system of Ainu w i l l be c o n t r a s t i v e l y s p e c i f i e d as i n (2.47) (Steriade 1987 discusses only the s p e c i f i c a t i o n s of [back] for Ainu -- I have supplied the other values). 106 (2.47) Ainu i e a o u high + + low + back + + The s p e c i f i c a t i o n s i n (2.47) are arrived at by determining which segments contrast within the realm of a singl e feature. The pairs / i / and /e/ and /u/ and /o/ contrast with each other i n terms of the feature [high], so each receives a s p e c i f i c a t i o n for that feature, /a/ and to/ are both back non-high vowels which contrast i n lowness, so /a/ i s marked [+low] and /o/ i s marked [-low]. The four non-low vowels contrast i n backness, so the front vowels are marked [-back] and the back vowels [+back]. None of the vowels contrast with regard to the feature [round]. The set of R-rules given i n (2.48) w i l l provide the f u l l y s p e c i f i e d system of Ainu. (2.48) R-rules 1. [+low] > [-high] 2. [+low] > [+back] 3. [+low] > [-round] 4. [+back] > [+round] [-low] 5. [-back] > [-round] [-low] 6. [+high] > [-low] 7. [-high] > [-low] [-back] 107 This set of rules i s made, up of 3 rules given i n Steriade (1987) ( i . e . rules 1, 2 and 5 i n (2.48)), supplemented by rules 3 and 4 which ins e r t the redundant values of [round] and rules 6 and 7 which ins e r t the redundant s p e c i f i c a t i o n s for [ l o w ] 3 2 . Steriade (1987) argues that [round] may be a monovalent feature, but because i t i s argued i n 3.1 that [-round] must be an accessible feature value i n Hungarian, I w i l l assume that [round], l i k e [back], [high] and [low], has binary options. I assume that the rules i n (2.48) are the set of R-rules provided by UG, which w i l l constrain children's e a r l i e s t phonological systems. The f i r s t 5 rules i n (2.48) are i d e n t i c a l to set of universal FCRs given i n (2.36) for RU. In RU the redundant s p e c i f i c a t i o n s for [low] are r e a l i z e d through context-free r u l e 4 i n (2.36), but since CU does not allow for context-free rules, these redundancies must be stated i n a context-sensitive manner, as rules 6 and 7 i n (2.48) . Auca has a f i v e vowel system which i s c o n t r a s t i v e l y s p e c i f i e d i n (2.49). (2.49) Auca i e o a ae high + low - - + + back - + + -round The underlying s p e c i f i c a t i o n s are arrived at as follows, / i / and /e/ contrast i n terms of height, so / i / i s marked [+high] 108 and /e/ [-high], /e/, /o/, /a/ and / a e / contrast i n lowness and backness, and so each receives a s p e c i f i c a t i o n for those features. The feature [round] i s t o t a l l y redundant i n t h i s system. In applying the R-rules i n (2.48) to t h i s system, i t becomes apparent that two additional R-rules must be used to achieve f u l l s p e c i f i c a t i o n of /o/ and / i / . These rules are required because of the asymmetrical system of Auca, so I w i l l assume that they are language-specific r u l e s . The R-rules needed to f i l l i n a l l unspecified values i n (2.49) are those i n (2.50) . (2.50) R-rules of Auca Universal: 1. [+low] -> [-high] --> [+back] \u00E2\u0080\u00A2-> [-round] \u00E2\u0080\u00A2-> [+round] 2. [+low] 3. [+low] 4. [+back] [-low] 5. [-back] > [-round] [-low] 6. [+high] > [-low] 7. [-high] > [-low] [-back] Language-specific: 8. [+back] > [-high] [-low] 9. [+high] > [-back] 109 Steriade (1987) argues that the universal/language-specific d i s t i n c t i o n i s not an important one i n underspecification theory. An asymmetrical system such as that of Auca, however, suggests such a d i s t i n c t i o n must exi s t insofar as R-rules are concerned. Rules 8 and 9 i n (2.50) are e s s e n t i a l to achieve f u l l s p e c i f i c a t i o n of the Auca system i n (2.49), yet i t i s not obvious that we would want to include rules such as these i n a universal core set of R-rules. In applying the universal R-rules to achieve f u l l s p e c i f i c a t i o n of the Auca system, we f i n d that r u l e 2 does not serve a r o l e . Rule 2 says that [+low] vowels are redundantly [+back], and while t h i s holds for /a/, i t i s not true of /ae/. This r u l e i s not used to f i l l i n a the redundant value of [back] f o r e i t h e r /a/ or /ae/, since these two vowels contrast with regard to t h i s feature, and therefore by the CU P r i n c i p l e of Systematization i n (2.44) both segments are underlyingly s p e c i f i e d for backness. As was discussed e a r l i e r , i n a parametric account of underspecification theory the universal redundancy rules are assumed to be the unmarked parameters supplied by UG. In CU t h i s means that the R-rules supplied by UG ( i . e . those i n (2.48)) w i l l apply i n the c h i l d ' s i n i t i a l phonological system, and values not supplied by these rules w i l l be marked underlyingly. When the c h i l d discovers through p o s i t i v e evidence that two segments contrast with regard to a given feature value (when UG predicts that these segments do not contrast), the c h i l d w i l l have to reset an R-rule parameter. 110 The e f f e c t s of the r e s e t t i n g of an R-rule are s l i g h t l y d i f f e r e n t than the e f f e c t s of r e s e t t i n g a context-sensitive f e a t u r a l parameter i n RU. In CU r e s e t t i n g means that by (2.44) the contrastive feature s p e c i f i c a t i o n s w i l l be added underlyingly, and the R-rule may remain i n the language-s p e c i f i c grammar, although i t w i l l no longer have any p a r t i c u l a r function. Thus i n CU we can say that the unmarked set t i n g of an R-rule i s ON or application, while the marked se t t i n g i s simply OFF, with the contrastive values s p e c i f i e d underlyingly by the CU P r i n c i p l e of Systematization i n (2.44). According to t h i s parametric account of CU, i n the i n i t i a l phonological system of the c h i l d acquiring Auca the R-rules supplied by UG w i l l hold absolutely. Feature values that are redundantly supplied by these rules w i l l not be a part of the underlying representation, giving the s p e c i f i c a t i o n s i n (2.51). (2.51) I n i t i a l S p e c i f i c a t i o n of Auca i e o a/ae high + low - + back - + round Since R-rule 2 i n (2.50) gives [+back] as a redundant s p e c i f i c a t i o n for [+low] vowels, neither /a/ nor / a e / w i l l be marked for the feature [back] and the representations of these I l l vowels w i l l be nondistinct. By rule 2 the low vowel w i l l surface as [a]. The contrastive specification of these 4 vowels contrasts /a -ae/ and /o/ for lowness, / i / and /e/ for height and /e/ and /o/ for backness. Positive evidence w i l l be required to t e l l the child that in fact /a/ and / a e / are phonologically distinct vowels. Once such evidence is encountered the parameter giving [+back] as a redundant value on low vowels w i l l be reset, and the contrastive values of the feature [back] w i l l be added to the representations of / a e / and /a/. This in turn triggers the addition of the contrastive specification [-low] for /e/, which now contrasts with / a e / with regard to this feature. We can assume that R-rule 2 may remain in the language-particular grammar of Auca, although i t w i l l have no particular effect. This distinction between what happens to a context-sensitive rule in CU and RU occurs because the underlyingly specifications in CU are determined by which features contrast, whereas in RU they are determined by what is is non-redundant. Once the child has marked the contrastive values of [back] for /a/ and / a e / , and [low] for /e/, the adult specified system given in (2.49) w i l l have been achieved. The child acquiring Ainu w i l l also i n i t i a l l y assume that the R-rules of UG hold absolutely, and as discussed above, the R-rules that we are assuming are the universal core rules, are the set of rules required for the specification of the vowels of Auca. There w i l l therefore be no positive evidence in the input t e l l i n g the child that new feature markings must be 112 s p e c i f i e d , and no parameters w i l l be reset. The c h i l d ' s i n i t i a l contrastive system w i l l be i d e n t i c a l to the adult system ( i . e . the system i n (2.47)). Because of the fact that both values of features are sometimes present underlyingly i n CU, i t i s c r u c i a l that t h i s theory allow for phonological rules that are feature-changing, and for phonological rules to be i n i t i a t e d by both values of a feature. Steriade's r u l e of Hungarian Back Harmony shown i n (2.27) exemplifies both of these c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . The t r i g g e r of BH i s eithe r [+back] or [-back], and the spreading of one of these feature values i s not blocked by a segment s p e c i f i e d by the alternate feature value. In fact Steriade assumes that i t i s just those vowels that are unspecified for anyvalue of [back] which are the transparent or neutral vowels i n t h i s system 3 3. Thus the notion of a possible phonological r u l e i s very d i f f e r e n t i n CU than i n RU, where only a single value of any feature i s ever present within a given context. Since CU does not have a b u i l t - i n theory of rule types, I assume that i n CU phonological rules may spread, delink or i n s e r t as discussed i n 2.1.3. I also assume that phonological rules operate from L-->R, R\u00E2\u0080\u0094>L or b i d i r e c t i o n a l l y and that the unmarked d i r e c t i o n for a p a r t i c u l a r language i s i n the same d i r e c t i o n as i n i t i a l association, as i n (2.6). A parameterized model of CU ac q u i s i t i o n i s given i n (2.52) (I again include the OCP, the EC, the SCC, Structure Preservation and the Association Conventions). 113 (2.52) Parameterized CU Model of A c q u i s i t i o n UG Features Principles Principles of Autoseg. and Lex. Phonology Constraints on Rules Ordering Principle EC RRC LEARNING MECHANISM ALPHABET Systematization > Parameter Switching > Matrix Parameters Device R-rules Input UG i n (2.52) has fewer components than the the RU model i n (2.43), since i t does not allow for the l e x i c a l s p e c i f i c a t i o n of context-free language-particular feature values. The learning mechanisms for both models are e s s e n t i a l l y i d e n t i c a l : both are parameter switching devices. The Alphabet of CU has fewer components than the Alphabet of RU since again i t does not allow for the presence of language-particular context-free r u l e s . 114 2.5.2.2 Input i n CU In CU evidence from the PLD w i l l be necessary to t r i g g e r the r e s e t t i n g of R-rule parameters and for the a c q u i s i t i o n of phonological rules. Just as i n RU, alternations i n the input demonstrating that c e r t a i n feature redundancies do not operate i n the language w i l l be needed i f a parameter i s to be switched to the marked option. In Auca, for example, the ch i l d ' s i n i t i a l representation w i l l not d i s t i n g u i s h the two low vowels of the language. Evidence that /a/ and / a e / are phonologically d i s t i n c t w i l l be required to reset the R-rule parameter [+low] \u00E2\u0080\u0094> [+back], the subsequent markings of [-back] for / a e / , [+back] for /a/ and [-low] for /e/. This type of evidence w i l l come p r i n c i p a l l y from minimal pairs demonstrating that /a/ and / a e / are d i s t i n c t and also from alternations that are the r e s u l t of the ap p l i c a t i o n of phonological r u l e s . There w i l l be less i n t e r a c t i o n i n CU between the c h i l d ' s discovery of how a phonological r u l e operates and the re s e t t i n g of parameters than i n RU, since CU does not allow for language-specific values of underlying features. Languages w i l l vary only i n the classes of segments that are redundant for a s p e c i f i c feature, and thus phonological rules can only be affected to the extent that they manipulate d i f f e r e n t sets of possible segments. In CU i t w i l l never be the case that a rule of the adult phonology cannot be used at a l l by a very young c h i l d because a given feature value i s not yet present underlyingly. It may, however, be the case that a 115 rule used by a c h i l d may apply to an overgeneral or undergeneral set of segments. Because the theory of CU must assume that phonological rules may operate i n a feature-changing fashion and may be i n i t i a t e d by either value of a feature, the c h i l d w i l l have to pay p a r t i c u l a r attention to how a given rule operates i n the language. This theory then predicts that childr e n may have some d i f f i c u l t y i n determining the exact form of a phonological r u l e . This contrasts with the RU theory i n which the mechanisms of rule operation are l a r g e l y given by the theory i t s e l f , and consequently predicts that c h i l d r e n w i l l have l i t t l e d i f f i c u l t y i n determining the exact form of phonological r u l e s . 116 Notes to Chapter 2 1 Shortness or s i m p l i c i t y was assumed to be involved i n the metric, and theories such as the Derivational Theory of Complexity ( M i l l e r 1962) grew out of t h i s assumption. Research, however, demonstrated that \"simpler\" sentences, as defined by the theory of Transformational Grammar (Chomsky 1957) were not necessarily the ones f i r s t understood by childr e n (Fodor and Garrett 1967, Fodor Bever and Garrett 1974). 2 This was the o r i g i n a l view of parameters, as p r i n c i p l e s with chunks l e f t out. The parameters then f i l l e d i n the holes. The more recent view i s that the p r i n c i p l e i t s e l f i s f u l l y s p e c i f i e d innately and represents the unmarked parameter s e t t i n g . The marked parameter se t t i n g i s a d i f f e r e n t but c l o s e l y r e l a t e d version of the unmarked s e t t i n g . 3 Others believe that p a r t i c u l a r phonological rules are assigned to s p e c i f i c s t r a t a , and not to the phonology i n general (Kaisse and Shaw 1985). 4 The feature geometry i n (2.7) i s the model that w i l l be assumed i n t h i s t h e s i s , although I w i l l not be arguing for t h i s p a r t i c u l a r structure. 5 The recent work of E. Pulleyblank (1989) attempts to revise how v o c a l i c features are represented i n the geometry. Archangeli and Pulleyblank (1989) propose a geometry where the feature [ATR] i s dependent upon i t s own a r t i c u l a t o r node, the Tongue Root Node. s Ito and Mester (1986) state that the [f] i n futon i s underlyingly /h/. /h/ becomes [f] before [u] by a r u l e of L a b i a l i z a t i o n and becomes [c*] before [ i ] by P a l a t a l i z a t i o n . 7 Mester and Ito (1989) reanalyze t h i s as support for the fact that [voice] i s a p r i v a t i v e feature i n Japanese. e Redundancy rules of the type [+G] \u00E2\u0080\u0094> [-F] are not i n fact context-sensitive from a l o g i c a l or syntactic perspective (see Chomsky 1968). However, i n phonological research t h i s type of r u l e i s often referred to as a context-sensitive redundancy r u l e , and I w i l l maintain t h i s t r a d i t i o n . 9 Archangeli and Pulleyblank (1986: Appendix A: 352) use the maximal function s e t t i n g i n the statement of Epenthesis; however, since the maximal/minimal function i s supposed to r e l a t e to s p e c i f i e d targets only, I assume i t i s i r r e l e v a n t . 117 1 0 Archangeli and Pulleyblank (1986) do not discuss markedness of feature arguments. If Epenthesis i s the le a s t marked i n s e r t i o n process then a hierarchy of possible arguments i s a necessary addition to the rule typology. 1 1 This i s true as long as one of the redundancy rules i s not ordered p r i o r to Epenthesis by the RROC. 1 2 Rules (2.26-1 and -2) and (2.26-4 and -5) have the function given i n (2.25b), while rule (2.26-3) has function (2.25a). 1 3 This parameter was supposed to account for a c l u s t e r i n g of properties, such as n u l l subjects and a u x i l i a r y behaviour. 1 4 Braine (1963), for example, describes children's e a r l y word combinations as consisting of Pivots (frequently occurring words) and X-class (infrequently occurring) words. Bloom (1970) l i s t s one sentence type for Kathryn as S \u00E2\u0080\u0094> Pivot + N, where the sentence lacks a VP altogether. 1 5 See C a r r o l l and Roberge (1988) for some i n t e r e s t i n g suggestions on differences between LI and L2 language learners i n the u t i l i z a t i o n of negative evidence. 1 S There have been several recent attempts to use the tools of current phonological theory to describe a c q u i s i t i o n data (e.g. Spenser 1986, Sandanandan 1987, and Iverson and Wheeler 1988). 1 7 Later works i n the RU framework (e.g. Archangeli 1986, Pulleyblank 1988, Archangeli and Pulleyblank 1986) assume other p r i n c i p l e s of UG, and these are discussed i n 2.1. 1 8 In Archangeli (1984) a complement rule i s a redundancy r u l e i n s e r t i n g a predictable value of a feature created on the basis of language-specific evidence, and default rules are a l l other redundancy rules. Complement rules may therefore i n s e r t the same predictable value as a default r u l e . Archangeli (1984:65) states Alphabet Formation as: 1. Given an opposition [a F] \u00E2\u0080\u0094 [ - a F] i n environment Q i n underlying representation, one value \"b\" i s selected as the matrix value for F i n Q and the other value i s sp e c i f i e d by an automatically formed complement value: [ ] -> [-b F] / Q 2. In the absence of language in t e r n a l motivation for sel e c t i n g a value as the matrix value for a feature F, the value \"b\" i s selected as the matrix value where: [ ] \u00E2\u0080\u0094> [-b F] / Q i s a member of the set of default rules. 118 The statement of Alphabet Formation I give i n (2.32) i s a r e v i s i o n of Alphabet Formation which corresponds to the Archangeli and Pulleyblank (1986) d e f i n i t i o n of complement and default r u l e s . In Archangeli and Pulleyblank (1986) and i n subsequent works complement rules are default rules that i n s e r t the opposite predictable value from the default r u l e , rather than rules that are learned from language-specific evidence ( i f the only property of a complement ru l e i s that i t be learned then i t i s possible that i t w i l l be i d e n t i c a l to a default r u l e ; while i n Archangeli and Pulleyblank (1986) a complement ru l e must redundantly i n s e r t the opposite value from a default r u l e ) . I prefer the l a t e r version of complement rules because i t allows us to d i s t i n g u i s h between u n i v e r s a l l y supplied and language-particular feature values. 1 9 I have taken t h i s name from Pulleyblank (1988). 2 0 I do not include a default rule for [ATR] since i t i s not required for the analyses i n Section 3. FCR 5 i s r e a l l y a d i f f e r e n t type of rule from FCRs 6 and 7 since i t represents an i n v i o l a b l e dependency, whereas 6 and 7 represent unmarked dependencies. As pointed out i n Spenser (1986) the r e s t r i c t i o n given by rule 5 might be better captured by a r e v i s i o n of feature geometry. In Chapter 6 I w i l l show that from an a c q u i s i t i o n perspective, i t appears that the context-free r u l e for [high] (rule 2 i n (2.36)) should be [ ] \u00E2\u0080\u0094> [-high]. 2 1 Actual statements of default rules are rare i n the l i t e r a t u r e , probably because no one wishes to commit themselves to a set of rules that may prove to be wrong. Archangeli and Pulleyblank (1986) give a set of context-free rules i n Appendix A, but the context-sensitive rules are conspicuously absent. I have had to put together a set of rules i n order to perform complete analyses of the v o c a l i c systems of Hungarian and Spanish and to develop predictions that w i l l follow from these analyses. If one or some of these rules prove to be incorrect (as I argue may be the case for the context-free rule for [high] i n Chapter 5) t h i s does not argue against the theory i t s e l f . 2 2 This does not by i t s e l f imply that / i / w i l l be the f i r s t vowel acquired because the parametric theory of RU predicts that a l l 5 vowels should be present given the default rules of UG. However, I w i l l show i n Chapter 5 that t h i s i s not i n fact what happens i n a c q u i s i t i o n . 2 3 Unconstrained restructuring means that a c q u i s i t i o n data w i l l have l i t t l e import on issues r e l a t i n g to l i n g u i s t i c theory. The parametric theories of RU and CU discussed i n Chapter 2 predict that only c e r t a i n r e s t r i c t e d types of res t r u c t u r i n g based on parameter switching w i l l occur (see White 1981 and Ingram 1989 for views on the r e s t r u c t u r i n g debate i n a c q u i s i t i o n ) . 119 2 4 This i s a s i m i l a r to the representation of Auca given i n Archangeli (1988), except that I have not marked [-high] on the [+low] vowels. Archangeli also shows that a language-s p e c i f i c redundancy rule i s needed i n Auca to eliminate /u/ from the system. I w i l l not be discuss rules such as t h i s that eliminate segments from inventories, but w i l l focus on redundancy rules that achieve f u l l s p e c i f i c a t i o n of a given set of segments. 2 5 The d e f i n i t i o n of \"distinctness\" needed for underspecification theory i s d i f f e r e n t from the d e f i n i t i o n given i n Chomsky and Halle (1968), where two segments are d i s t i n c t only i f they have opposite values for a given feature. If one adopts RU then the lack of a s p e c i f i c a t i o n for [F] must be enough to make that segment underlyingly d i s t i n c t from a segment s p e c i f i e d as [+F] or [-F]. 2 6 This alternate hypothesis was suggested to me by P.A. Shaw and i s perhaps more feasi b l e from a markedness point of view, since / a e / w i l l have a greater number of feature markings that /a/. However, markedness and feature markings are not unequivocally related i n the theory of RU, as w i l l be shown i n Chapter 3, where I argue that /B/ i s the t o t a l l y unspecified vowel i n the Hungarian v o c a l i c system i n the RU framework. 2 7 I include only v o c a l i c featural parameters i n (2.42) and l a t e r i n (2.50) since these are the parameters required for the analyses of the v o c a l i c systems i n Chapter 3. 2 8 Several of the p r i n c i p l e s of Autosegmental and L e x i c a l Phonology ( e s p e c i a l l y the OCP and the Association Conventions) may be parameterizable, but I ignore t h i s hypothesis here and l i s t only featural parameters under the category \"parameters\". 2 9 When combined with the rule functions these w i l l produce redundancy rules such as [ ] \u00E2\u0080\u0094> [+high], [+low] \u00E2\u0080\u0094> [+back], etc. 3 0 Archangeli and Pulleyblank (1989) argue that [-ATR] i s inserted on /a/ by a context-sensitive redundancy ru l e [+low] \u00E2\u0080\u0094> [-ATR] before the rule of ATR Spread. 3 1 Calabrese (1988) discusses t h i s i n t e r a c t i o n i n some d e t a i l . 3 2 I again assume these rules are notationally equivalent to [ ] \u00E2\u0080\u0094> [+F]/[+G]. 3 3 For these reasons CU can never contain a p r i n c i p l e such as the RROC i n (2.19b) because i t would completely negate these transparency f a c t s . 120 CHAPTER 3 The Vocalic Systems of Hungarian and Spanish In t h i s chapter I w i l l discuss a number of phonological processes which operate i n the v o c a l i c systems of Hungarian, a Finno-Ugric language and Spanish, a Romance language. These facts w i l l be analyzed according to the parametric theories of Radical Underspecification (RU) and Contrastive Underspecification (CU) described i n 2.5.1 and 2.5.2, i n most cases drawing from previous analyses of these f a c t s . In Chapter 4 I outline the predictions that these analyses make for the a c q u i s i t i o n of Hungarian and Spanish, and l a t e r i n Chapter 6 these predictions w i l l be examined i n l i g h t of a c q u i s i t i o n data from both Hungarian and Spanish. The analyses of the v o c a l i c systems of Hungarian and Spanish presented here are useful for two reasons. F i r s t , they help to demonstrate how the theories of RU and CU d i f f e r . Hungarian has a large vowel system, with front rounded and unrounded vowels, with both a long and short vowel s e r i e s . The analyses i n t h i s chapter focus on harmony processes which spread values of [back] and [round] throughout a word. Both the RU and CU analyses of Hungarian use the p r i n c i p l e of Structure Preservation (Kiparsky 1982, 1985) to explain why cert a i n segments are transparent to Harmony, although the generality and s i g n i f i c a n c e of t h i s constraint d i f f e r s considerably i n the two analyses. 121 The Spanish vowel system i s a symmetrical 5 vowel system, which also permits c e r t a i n types of diphthongs. The Spanish data presented here focus mainly on alternations that take place within verbs. One set of alternations involves a vowel which surfaces as high i n some contexts and mid i n others, and the second involves a vowel which surfaces i n some contexts as a monophthong and i n other contexts as a diphthong. The RU and CU analyses of Spanish do not d i f f e r as much as the Hungarian analyses, since the RU account of Spanish does not force the early application of redundancy rules within the l e x i c a l component. [high] proves to be a p a r t i c u l a r l y important feature i n Spanish i n both analyses, and i t s marked values are manipulated by several phonological r u l e s . The majority of rules posited for Spanish by both the RU and CU analyses are sensi t i v e to stress. The second reason for the existence of the analyses i n t h i s chapter i s to argue for s p e c i f i c underspecified vowel inventories. This i s p a r t i c u l a r l y important i n the theory of Radical Underspecification, where either value of a feature may be present i n underlying representations. On the basis of the analyses of Hungarian and Spanish I argue that c e r t a i n f e a t u r a l and rule parameters must be reset by a c h i l d acquiring these languages. When a featural parameter i s reset from the unmarked option provided by Universal Grammar, the underlyingly marked values i n that language w i l l also d i f f e r from those provided by UG. The unmarked option of phonological rules i s generally assumed to be OFF, although a 122 language may choose to make use of a p a r t i c u l a r rule and reset i t to ON. In the analyses which follow, I argue that c e r t a i n language-particular feature markings, and c e r t a i n phonological rules are required to explain c e r t a i n types of data i n Hungarian and Spanish. One of the most important difference between the RU and CU treatments of Hungarian harmony i s i n the ordering of redundancy rules and other phonological processes. The theory of RU assumes the Redundancy Rule Ordering Constraint (RROC), which orders a redundancy rule before a phonological ru l e which makes reference to that redundant value. The e f f e c t of t h i s constraint i n Hungarian i s to interweave redundancy rules and harmony rules. The theory of CU that i s being developed i n t h i s thesis does not adopt an ordering p r i n c i p l e such as the RROC (although see the discussion of t h i s question i n 2.5.2), and a l l redundancy rules apply l a t e i n the phonology, a f t e r harmony rules. This chapter w i l l be organized as follows. In 3.1 I present and analyze the Hungarian data within the parametric theories of RU and CU. In 3.2 the same w i l l be done for the Spanish data. Each section concludes with a summary of the language-specific aspects of the phonology ( i . e . those aspects of the phonology that must be learned) given each underspecification account, a schema of how the l e x i c a l and p o s t l e x i c a l components must be organized according to these analyses, and a comparison of the two analyses. In each case my goal i s to determine which analysis presents a more 123 coherent account of the data, assuming that the l e a r n a b i l i t y of a p a r t i c u l a r theory should i n part be re l a t e d to i t s a b i l i t y to account for a set of data i n an elegant and non-s t i p u l a t i v e fashion. 3.1 Harmony Systems i n Hungarian In t h i s section I examine how Back and Round Harmony operate i n Hungarian, and develop analyses of these facts based on the parametric theories of RU and CU. Although both types of Harmony do operate within loanword vocabulary, there i s l i t t l e agreement about the facts ( p a r t i c u l a r l y with regard to Back Harmony), and for t h i s reason I r e s t r i c t myself to native words. The expectation i s that the loanword facts may be analyzeable using the same mechanisms once the facts are better known. In 3.1.1 the v o c a l i c system of Hungarian i s discussed. I pay p a r t i c u l a r attention to the asymmetries that e x i s t between the short and long vowel system, and show how configuration constraints can be used to describe these asymmetries. In 3.1.2 the RU analysis of the Hungarian data are presented, and i n 3.1.3 the CU analysis of these facts i s given. In 3.1.4 the analyses are summarized, and a b r i e f comparison of the RU and CU analyses i s made. 3.1.1 Hungarian Vowels The Hungarian vowel system (Standard Budapest d i a l e c t ) as described i n Ringen (1988) i s given i n (3.1). The vowels are 124 given both i n t h e i r orthographic and phonetic forms. (3.1) Short Long i [ i ] tl[y] u[u] i [ i : ] ] o[o] e[e:] #[<\u00C2\u00A3:] 6[o: ] e[c] a[D] a[a:] Phonetically, the short low back vowel i s [o] and the short low front vowel [e]. The rounding of [a] i s assumed i n Vago (1980), Kornai (1987) and Ringen (1988) to be a purely phonetic r u l e , and the l i n k i n g vowel ef f e c t s discussed i n 3.1.2.2 provide evidence that t h i s i s true. H i s t o r i c a l l y the language contained both mid and low front vowels, but these have been merged i n most d i a l e c t s , including the Standard. The facts of Back Harmony and Round Harmony to be presented i n (3.9) and (3.13) demonstrate that the short low front vowel and the long mid front vowel have d i s t i n c t vowel heights. The low vowel [e] alternates with [a] i n Back Harmony, while the mid vowel [e] i s transparent to t h i s process. The long mid vowel alternates with the mid back and mid front rounded vowels i n Round Harmony, while the low vowel does not p a r t i c i p a t e i n t h i s process. Stress i n Hungarian i s rule-governed and always f a l l s on the i n i t i a l s y l l a b l e i n a word (Kontra and Ringen 1986). In standard autosegmental theory long vowels d i f f e r from short vowels i n that long vowels are associated to two s k e l e t a l s l o t s and short vowels to only a single s l o t 1 . In the analyses which are to follow I assume there i s a s i n g l e 125 set of feature s p e c i f i c a t i o n s for the 8 vowels / i / , l u l , l e i , l o l , l e i , /a/, /u7 and IQI, and that Hungarian has chosen a marked s y l l a b i f i c a t i o n option which allows for complex or branching nuclei (see (2.10Aib)). Following Ringen (1988) and Jensen and Stong-Jensen (1989) I assume there are two d i s t i n c t non-high unrounded front vowels i n Hungarian: /e/ and l e i . lei alternates with /a/ i n the Back Harmony system, while /e/ alternates with /o/ and 161 i n the Round Harmony system, /e/ surfaces as [e] only when i t i s associated with two s k e l e t a l s l o t s dominated by a branching nucleus, which I assume, following Levin (1985), i s the representation of a long vowel (see discussion i n 2.1.2.4). l e i , on the other hand, can surface only when associated to a single s k e l e t a l s l o t dominated by a nucleus, i . e . when i t i s a short vowel. These p a r t i c u l a r constraints are not a function of Structure Preservation, since s y l l a b i c structure i n Hungarian w i l l be derived during the course of the l e x i c a l phonology (see 2.1.2.4) and since there are underlying feature sets that correspond to these vowels. I therefore assume that the constraints on /e/ and lei hold at surface structure a f t e r redundancy rules have applied, and that they can be stated as i n (3.2) . 126 (3.2) * N * N / \ I X X X \ / I [-high] [-high] [+low] [-low] [-back] [-back] [-round] [-round] *[\u00C2\u00A3:] *[e] Domain: p o s t - l e x i c a l In t h i s and following chapters, Hungarian data w i l l be given i n orthographic form, with the phonetic form of a vowel also provided i f i t i s long or [\u00C2\u00A3]. 3.1.2 Parametric RU Analysis of Hungarian The components of UG that I assume must be part of a parametric RU theory of a c q u i s i t i o n are discussed i n 2.5.1, and a schematized model i s given i n (2.43). The most basic p r i n c i p l e of UG i s the Minimal Redundancy Condition, discussed i n 2.5.1.1. This condition, repeated here as (3.3), t e l l s the c h i l d that only non-redundant information i s present i n underlying representations. 127 (3.3) The Minimal Redundancy Condition (MRC) a. Underlying representations do not contain redundant information. b. The most highly valued system contains the minimal number of features and feature values needed to d i s t i n g u i s h the inventory of a language. Redundant information i s provided by a set of universal redundancy ru l e s , or default rules, which may be e i t h e r context-free or context-sensitive. In 2.5.1.1 i t i s argued that these rules function as featural parameters. UG supplies the unmarked form of the r u l e , but a p a r t i c u l a r language may choose to reset a featural parameter to the marked option. If a context-free parameter i s reset at the marked option, a complement rule w i l l be created to i n s e r t the opposite feature value supplied by UG. The default r u l e w i l l be l o s t i n the language-particular grammar, and the complement ru l e w i l l take i t s place. If a context-sensitive parameter (FCR) i s reset at the marked option, the r u l e w i l l again be eliminated from the language-particular system, although i n t h i s case i t w i l l not be replaced. This means that the feature value supplied by that r u l e w i l l no longer be redundant and by the MRC i t must be added as a marked feature value. In RU i t i s assumed that because redundancy rules are one type of phonological rule, they are subject to the Elsewhere Condition (EC, see (2.3)), which orders s p e c i f i c rules before 128 more general ones. RU also assumes that redundancy rules are subject to the ordering constraints i n (2.19), repeated here as (3.4). (3.4) Ordering Constraints (Archangeli and Pulleyblank 1986) a. Redundancy rules apply as la t e as possible i n the grammar. b. A redundancy rule must apply at the l e v e l at which reference i s made to the feature value being inserted (the Redundancy Rule Ordering Constraint or RROC) c. A redundancy rule applies as early as possible at the l e v e l dictated by the RROC. By these constraints redundancy rules w i l l apply as l a t e i n the grammar as possible ( i . e . p o s t - l e x i c a l l y ) unless a phonological rule makes reference to a p a r t i c u l a r redundant feature value, i n which case the redundancy rule w i l l be ordered before the phonological ru l e . These ordering constraints are c r u c i a l to the analysis of the Hungarian v o c a l i c system. The set of universal default rules that I assume are given i n (3.5) (repeated from (2.36). 129 (3.5) Universal Default Rules Context-free rules FCRs 1. [ ] \" --> [-low] 5. [+low] - - > [-high] 2. [ ] ---> [+high] 6. [+low] \u00E2\u0080\u0094 > [+back] 3. [ ] ---> [-back] 7. [+low] - - > [-round] 4. [ ] ---> [-round] 8. [+back] --> [+round] [-low] 9. [-back] --> [-round] [-low] In the following sections I argue, on the basis of facts of Hungarian Back and Round harmony, that the following redundancy rules from (3.5) have been reset to the marked option i n Hungarian: (3.6) Marked Hungarian Featural Parameters Context-free rules FCRs 2. [ ] --> [+high] 6. [+low] --> [+back] 4\u00C2\u00AB [ ] \u00E2\u0080\u0094 > [-round] 9. [-back] \u00E2\u0080\u0094> [-round] [-low] The fact that 4 default rules of UG must be reset i n Hungarian i s not p a r t i c u l a r l y s u r p r i s i n g , since the system i s marked, containing front rounded vowels and a front low vowel. According to the parametric view of redundancy rules developed i n 2.5.1, the rules i n (3.6) w i l l not be a part of the language-particular grammar of Hungarian. The context-s e n s i t i v e r u l e parameters w i l l not be replaced, but the 130 context-free parameters w i l l be replaced by complement rules i n s e r t i n g [-high] and [+round]. This w i l l produce the system of redundancy rules for Hungarian shown i n (3.7). (3.7) Hungarian Redundancy Rules Default Rules 1. [ ] --> [-low] 5. [+low] \u00E2\u0080\u0094> [-high] 3. [ ] --> [-back] 7. [+low] --> [-round] 8. [+back] \u00E2\u0080\u0094> [+round] [-low] Complement Rules 2a. [ ] \u00E2\u0080\u0094> [-high] 4a. [ ] \u00E2\u0080\u0094> [+round] Applied to the set of rules given i n (3.7) the EC w i l l order rul e 8 before 4a and rule 5 before 2a. If the rules i n (3.7) are used to i n s e r t the redundant values of Hungarian vowels, the marked ( i . e . non-redundant) feature values w i l l be those i n (3.8). (3.8) Parametric RU Vocalic System of Hungarian 2 i e e u o a t l O high + + + low + + back + + + round This system i s i d e n t i c a l to the r a d i c a l l y underspecified system argued for by Jensen and Stong-Jensen (1989). 131 The underspecified vowel array i n (3.8) i s not the system of s p e c i f i c a t i o n s that w i l l be provided for the c h i l d by Universal Grammar, and a discussion of how these two systems d i f f e r i s provided i n Chapter 4. In the following sections I use arguments from several aspects of the vo c a l i c system of Hungarian to show that the system i n (3.8) i s the r a d i c a l l y underspecified system that i s required for t h i s language. These arguments focus on demonstrating that the feature values [+back] and [-round] are phonologically active feature values i n Hungarian, and more s p e c i f i c a l l y , that these feature values must be l e x i c a l l y s p e c i f i e d . In addition, I argue that /oY, represented as the t o t a l l y unspecified vowel i n (3.8), i s the epenthetic vowel i n Hungarian, and the vowel that w i l l surface i f neither Back nor Round Harmony applies i n that context. 3.1.2.1 Back Harmony (BH) Hungarian BH operates both within roots and across c e r t a i n s u f f i x e s . Native Hungarian roots may contain a l l back vowels, a l l front vowels, a mixed set of back vowels co-occurring with the neutral vowels / i / or /e/, or neutral vowels only. The majority of neutral-vowel-only roots are followed by suffixes containing front vowels, but c e r t a i n roots l i k e hid and eel take back vowel s u f f i x e s 3 . 132 (3.9) Back Harmony4 a. Back vowels u [ u: ] t 'road\u00E2\u0080\u00A2 ha[a:]z 'house' va[a:]ros ' c i t y ' b. Non-neutral front vowels Ot ' f i v e ' be[e]tU ' l e t t e r ' Orom 'joy' c. Back or front non-neutral r a d l [ l : ] r 'eraser' kavics 'pebble', ta[a;]nye[e:]r 'plate' id6 /[o: ] 'time' d. Neutral vowels only i . f i l l e [ e : ] r 'penny' s z l [ i : ] n 'colour' i i . hi.[i:]d 'bridge' c e [ e : ] l 'goal' Dative Ablative utna[o]k u t t o [ o : ] l haznak hazt61 varosnak varostol Otne[e]k ott\u00C2\u00AB[o:]l bettlnek betut01 OrOmnek orflmto'l vowel and neutral vowel radirnak r a d f r t d l kavicsnak k a v i c s t d l tanyernak tanyert61 ido'nek iddto^l f i l l e r n e k f i l l e r t 6 l szlnnek szinto 7! hidnak h i d t d l celnak c e l t o l BH i s also found i n loanword phonology, although I w i l l concentrate excl u s i v e l y on the facts as they pertain to native words 5. There i s a lack of agreement i n the l i t e r a t u r e over the status of [e] i n the BH system. [e] i s sometimes found i n roots with back vowels (cefeIruza 'pencil' and krape\e1k 'chap') and therefore appears to be a neutral vowel, yet i t 133 alternates with [a] i n the dative s u f f i x nak/nek. Vago (1980) assumes [e] i s a neutral vowel, receiving i d e n t i c a l treatment to the vowels [ i ] , [1] and [e]. Ringen (1988) and Kontra and Ringen (1986) treat [e] as a harmonic vowel, belonging to the same class as the back vowels and the front rounded vowels. I w i l l show that the chameleon-like behaviour of [e] can be explained by assuming that [e] has two d i s t i n c t sources \u00E2\u0080\u0094 /e/ and l e i . The facts i n (3.9) show cle a r evidence that there are two phonologically d i s t i n c t low vowels i n Hungarian: /a/ and l e i . The declensions of 'house' i n (3.9a) demonstrate that r o o t - i n i t i a l /a/ i s followed by a back vowel, while those of 'pebble' show that r o o t - i n i t i a l lal may also be followed by a neutral vowel ( [ i ] , [1] or [6]). R o o t - i n i t i a l l e i , as shown by the declensions of ' l e t t e r ' i n (3.9b) may be followed by a front non-neutral vowel, and l i k e a l l vowels may also be followed by a neutral vowel. The fact that the nak variant of the Dative s u f f i x always follows back non-neutral vowels while the nek variant always follows front non-neutral vowels also demonstrates that phonologically lal and lei are d i s t i n c t segments. If lal and lei are to have d i s t i n c t underlying representations then the universal context-sensitive rule [+low] \u00E2\u0080\u0094> [+back] (rule 6 i n (3.5)) cannot hold i n Hungarian. Only when t h i s rule i s suppressed from the language-particular grammar can the two vowels lal and lei have d i s t i n c t s p e c i f i c a t i o n s for [back]. This conceptualization of how context-sensitive redundancy 134 rules (FCRs) are parameterized i n the theory of RU i s discussed i n d e t a i l i n 2.5.1.1s. The BH data i n (3.9) also demonstrate that the front unrounded vowels / i / and /e/ must be phonologically d i s t i n c t from the rounded vowels /u7 and 16/. / i / and /e/ can co-occur with eit h e r front or back vowels, while /u/ and /O/ co-occur only with other front rounded vowels or with neutral vowels. This demonstrates that these two pairs of vowels must be distinguished using the feature [round], and therefore that context-sensitive rule 9 i n (3.5) must also be eliminated from the grammar of Hungarian (see 2.5.1.1). Once t h i s r u l e i s eliminated from the grammar, one member of each p a i r w i l l be s p e c i f i e d for a value of [round], while the other member w i l l be unspecified. The marked value of [round] w i l l depend upon the context-sensitive r u l e for t h i s feature that the language employs. I w i l l return to the marked s p e c i f i c a t i o n for [round] i n 3.1.2.2. The basic RU analysis of BH proposed here i s taken from Jensen and Stong-Jensen (1989). The default rules of UG, given i n (3.5), suggest that i n the unmarked case [-back] w i l l be a redundant feature feature value i n Hungarian and [+back] the l e x i c a l l y marked, phonologically active value. There i s no evidence i n the harmony systems of t h i s language to suggest that t h i s UG s p e c i f i c a t i o n should be overturned, and i n fa c t , there i s evidence from the BH system to support the assumption that [+back] must be the l e x i c a l l y s p e c i f i e d value. This evidence w i l l be discussed i n conjunction with 135 the marking condition given i n (3.11). Following Jensen and Stong-Jensen I assume that [+back] i s a property of the root, rather than of i n d i v i d u a l segments, and exists i n underlying representations as a f l o a t i n g autosegment. Root and s u f f i x a l vowels (at l e a s t those s u f f i x e s which take part i n BH) w i l l be underlyingly unspecified for backness. Association of f l o a t i n g [+back] i accomplished by the Association Conventions of UG (see (2.6)), which map t h i s f l o a t i n g feature onto the leftmost e l i g i b l e target. The Association Conventions apply c y c l i c a l l y , and therefore can reapply once morphological material i s added to the stem. BH i s a rule which spreads [+back] from l e f t to r i g h t , the same d i r e c t i o n as i n i t i a l association\" 7. (3.10) Back Harmony Spread [+back] L \u00E2\u0080\u0094> R Domain: l e x i c a l ( c y c l i c ) The tr i g g e r s of BH w i l l be /u/, /of and /a/ \u00E2\u0080\u0094 those vowels that are l e x i c a l l y marked as [+back]. How then do we block the application of BH to the neutral vowels [ i ] , [ i : ] and [e:]? Again following Jensen and Stong-Jensen I assume that the vowels given as / i / and /e/ i n (3.8) are prohibited from undergoing BH by Structure Preservation. The underlying system of Hungarian does not contain non-low back unrounded vowels, so by Structure Preservation these vowels cannot be derived. As discussed 136 i n 2.1.1.4, and following Kiparsky (1985), the formal work of Structure Preservation i s performed by marking conditions which hold i n the lexicon. The formal p r o h i b i t i o n against back non-low unrounded vowels i n Hungarian can be stated using the language-specific marking condition i n (3.11). (3.11) *[+back] [-low] [-round] (3.11) does not require any added learning for the c h i l d (once these p a r t i c u l a r feature s p e c i f i c a t i o n s are acquired), since i t i s simply a formalization of Structure Preservation, a p r i n c i p l e of UG. (3.11) i s a checking mechanism which constrains the type of feature combinations that are permitted i n underlying representations and throughout the l e x i c a l phonology, and i t w i l l block association or spread of [+back] to vowels which are s p e c i f i e d at that point i n the d e r i v a t i o n as [-low] and [-round]. We would not expect the neutral vowels to be underlyingly s p e c i f i e d as [-low] i f , as shown i n (3.8), [+low] i s the l e x i c a l l y marked feature value. Following Jensen and Stong-Jensen, however, I assume that the marking condition i n (3.11) i s an active part of the phonology, and therefore w i l l be subject to the RROC (see (2.19). Although (3.11) holds of URs, the MRC, given i n (3.3), prohibits redundant s p e c i f i c a t i o n s at t h i s l e v e l , and therefore (3.11) w i l l have no active role at t h i s point. During the l e x i c a l 137 phonology, however, (3.11) w i l l come into play to check the outputs of rules such as BH or RH. The e f f e c t of t h i s condition w i l l be to force the redundant values mentioned i n t h i s condition to be inserted p r i o r to the operation of the r u l e . The condition i n (3.11), the RROC, and the phonological rules of Hungarian which manipulate the feature [+back] are re l a t e d i n the following fashion. (3.11) acts as a condition on the ouput of BH, given i n (3.10), and the Association Conventions, which provide the i n i t i a l association of f l o a t i n g [+back] features. (3.11) w i l l t r i g g e r the e a r l y a p p l i c a t i o n of the context-free rule i n s e r t i n g [-low] (rule 1 i n (3.5)) and the context-sensitive rule p r e d i c t i n g [-round] for [+low] vowels (rule 7 i n (3.5)), before BH and before Association of [+back], since these values are s p e c i f i c a l l y mentioned i n the statement of the condition. Once these redundancy rules have applied, the vowels / i / and /e/ w i l l be s p e c i f i e d as [-low] and [-round] and by (3.11) [+back] w i l l not be permitted to spread or l i n k to them. Floa t i n g [+back] w i l l , however, s t i l l be available to associate or spread to another vowel i n the stem or s u f f i x . Vowels that are not s p e c i f i e d as [+back] either through the i n i t i a l association of [+back] or through BH w i l l receive t h e i r s p e c i f i c a t i o n s for [-back] by rule 3 i n (3.5). The fact that (3.11) contains the s p e c i f i c a t i o n [+back] supports our assumption that the l e x i c a l l y s p e c i f i e d value of [back] i n Hungarian i s that provided by UG. (3.11) i s a 138 condition which blocks the derivation of back non-low unrounded vowels, and consequently requires the use of the feature [+back]. If we were to suppose that [-back] was the phonologically active value of [back], [+back] would s t i l l have to be present i n the statement of (3.11), suggesting that the redundancy rules i n s e r t i n g [+back] are ordered p r i o r to (3.11) and the rule of BH. These [+back] s p e c i f i c a t i o n s would then block a l l applications of BH, and there would be no a l t e r n a t i n g vowels, such as those shown i n (3.9). I therefore take t h i s as confirming evidence that [+back] i s the l e x i c a l l y s p e c i f i e d value i n t h i s language. BH, as shown i n (3.9) i s a rule which applies both within roots and a f t e r morpheme concatenation. The r u l e i s obviously l e x i c a l , since i t has exceptions and applies only within words. Jensen and Stong-Jensen argue that BH i s a p o s t c y c l i c r u l e because i t must apply a f t e r Epenthesis (which they also argue i s postcyclic) and because i t applies within roots. They argue that there i s no s p e c i f i c evidence that BH must apply both c y c l i c a l l y and p o s t c y c l i c a l l y , so by the P r i n c i p l e s of Domain Assignment (Halle and Mohanan 1985) i t w i l l be p o s t c y c l i c . I depart from Jensen and Stong-Jensen's analysis on the issue of domain assignment. Following Levergood (1984), Pulleyblank (1986) and Archangeli and Pulleyblank (1989) I assume that the applicatio n of the Association Conventions to l i n k [+back] to a root vowel w i l l create a derived environment r o o t - i n t e r n a l l y so that the SCC w i l l not block 139 the a p p l i c a t i o n of BH. Thus BH can apply c y c l i c a l l y , and w i l l follow the Association of [+back] and the redundancy ru l e s , which are a l l structure-building r u l e s . In t h i s way the SCC i s maintained and BH can be l e x i c a l and s t i l l apply within roots. Neutral-vowel-only roots which surface with back s u f f i x a l vowels ( i . e . the forms i n (3.9dii)) can be analyzed as having a f l o a t i n g [+back] autosegment which i s prohibited from attaching to the root vowel by (3.11). This autosegment w i l l remain f l o a t i n g u n t i l a s u f f i x i s added, and [+back] can then be associated to the s u f f i x a l vowel. The derivation of the native words bettinek, radirt61 and celnak w i l l take place as shown i n (3.12). For the purposes of these derivations I assume the underlying feature s p e c i f i c a t i o n s given i n (3.8) although I have not yet argued for the l e x i c a l l y marked values of [round] and [high]. I ignore a l l Round Harmony ef f e c t s u n t i l 3.1.1.2. 140 (3.12) BH i n native words' Underlying [ ] - > [ - l o ] [ + l o ] \u00E2\u0080\u0094 >[-rd] b c t tl X X X X [+lo] [+hi] b \u00C2\u00A3 t tl X X X X / 1 [+lo] [-lo] [+hi] [-rd] [-rd] r \u00C2\u00A3 d i r X X X X X X [+bk] [+lo] [-lo] [+hi] I [-rd] [-rd] e e l X X X X [+bk] [-rd] e e l X X X X [+bk] [-lo] [-rd] Association of [+back] BH n/a n/a r a d i r X X X X X X [+bk] [+lo] [-lo] [ j h i ] [-rd] [-rd] Prohibited by (3.11) prohibited by (3.11) n/a 141 Morphology, betil + nek XXXX XXX [+lo][-lo][+lo] I [+hi] [-rd] radi r + t6 1 XXXXXX XXXX [+bi] I [+lo][-lo] I [+hi] I [-rd][-rd] ce 1 + nek XXXX XXX [+bk; [-lo] [+lo] [-rd] [ ] \u00E2\u0080\u0094 > [ - l o ] [+lo]\u00E2\u0080\u0094>[-rd] betu + nek XXXX XXX [+lo][-lo][+lo] [+hi] [-rd] [-rd] radi r + t& 1 XXXXXX XXXX / [+bk] [+lo][-lo] [-lo] [+hi] [-rd][-rd] ce 1 + nek XXXX XXX [+bJ [-lo] [+lo] [-rd] [-rd] Association of [+back] n/a n/a BH n/a ce 1 + nak XXXX XXX [+bk^\" [-lo] [+lo] [-rd] [-rd] n/a 142 None of the vowels i n these forms have underlying linked values for the feature [back], although r a d l r and eel have a f l o a t i n g [+back] feature. In r a d l r the f l o a t i n g feature w i l l associate to the i n i t i a l vowel by the Association Conventions, but i n eel association w i l l be blocked by the marking condition i n (3.11). (3.11) w i l l t r i g g e r e a r l y a p p l i c a t i o n of the redundancy rules [ ] --> [-low] and [+low] \u00E2\u0080\u0094> [-round], shown as rules 1 and 7 i n (3.5). Once [+back] i s associated BH can operate, although i t i s inapplicable i n betti and eel and i t i s blocked i n r a d l r by (3.11). When the suffixes are added Association of [+back] can reapply, and w i l l act to associate the f l o a t i n g feature to the s u f f i x a l vowel i n the form celnak, with redundancy rules 1 and 7 i n (3.5) applying f i r s t . BH can then reapply, and i t w i l l spread the [+back] feature linked to the i n i t i a l root vowel i n r a d l r to the s u f f i x a l vowel. Although i t could be argued that BH should not apply from the i n i t i a l root vowel i n r a d l r to the s u f f i x a l vowel because t h i s operation does not respect the adjacency of target and t r i g g e r , Ringen (1988) argues that adjacency (or the L o c a l i t y Condition as i t i s c a l l e d i n Archangeli and Pulleyblank 1987) i s not relevant i n t h i s case. By the marking condition i n (3.11) the second root vowel i n r a d l r i s not a possible target of BH, and we can then assume that the i n i t i a l root vowel and the s u f f i x a l vowel are adjacent for the purposes of t h i s r u l e . BH i s inapplicable i n betllnek because there i s no [+back] 143 feature to spread, and also i n celnak, since the [+back] feature l i n k s to the s u f f i x . 3.1.2.2 Round Harmony (RH) Suffixes such as the Dative and Ablative have one alternant containing a back vowel, and one containing a front vowel, but those with short mid vowels generally have three a l t e r n a n t s 9 . In these ternary suffixes [o] follows a back vowel, [0] follows a front rounded vowel, and [e] follows a front unrounded vowel. The forms i n (3.13) show the agreement i n rounding between root and s u f f i x a l vowels i n the 2nd person p l u r a l , a l l a t i v e and p l u r a l forms. (3.13) Round Harmony a. hoz ftf[o:]z ne[e:]z f e [ e ] j s z f [ i : ] n b. f o l d f e [ \u00C2\u00A3 ] j c. gerezd Orom 'bring' 'cook' ' see * 'head' \u00E2\u0080\u00A2colour' 'earth' 'head' ' s l i c e ' 'joy' 2PL hoztok fcYztok nezte[e]k fejtek szintek A l l a t i v e ('toward') foldhoz fejhez P l u r a l gerezdek oromok The forms i n (3.14) demonstrate that low root vowels do 144 not t r i g g e r RH. (3.14) va[a:]ros ' c i t y ' la[a:]nchoz 'chain' haz 'house' A l l a t i v e varoshoz lanchoz hazhoz If [+low] vowels were triggers of RH we would expect the root and s u f f i x a l vowels following the i n i t i a l root vowels i n the forms i n (3.14) to surface as [-round], but t h i s i s not the case. Neither short [a], nor long [a:] triggers RH. RH also appears to be more lim i t e d than BH i n that i t a f f e c t s only short vowels. As noted by Kornai (1987) and Jensen and Stong-Jensen (1989) suffixes which demonstrate the ternary a l t e r n a t i o n between o/o/e always contain short vowels. Suffixes such as the Ablative, which have long mid (3.15) have only the alternants [o] and [6]. Ablative a. e[e]mbe[e]r ' man' embert6[o:]1 s z i [ i : ] n ' colour' s z i n t o l f i l l e [ e : ] r 'penny' f i l l e r t t f l b. bab 'bean' babtd[o:]1 hu[u: ] r 'chord * hurtol ce[e: ]1 \u00E2\u0080\u00A2goal' celtc-l If RH does not operate i n these forms, and we wish to maintain that the value of roundness of s u f f i x a l vowels i s supplied either by the root vowels or by redundancy r u l e s , 145 t h i s suggests that Hungarian must have a redundancy ru l e supplying [+round] for the Ablative s u f f i x a l vowels. The rounding of the s u f f i x a l vowels i n the forms for 'bean* and 'chord' i s possibly supplied by a redundancy ru l e which rounds back vowels (these forms do p a r t i c i p a t e i n BH); however, t h i s r u l e cannot supply the roundness values for the other forms. It i s then possible that the rounding of these vowels i s supplied by a general r u l e [ ] \u00E2\u0080\u0094> [+round]. If such a ru l e i s to e x i s t i n the grammar of Hungarian, then the universal default rule 4 i n (3.5) must have been suppressed, and [-round] w i l l be the l e x i c a l l y marked value. If we assume that [-round] i s the l e x i c a l l y s p e c i f i e d value i n Hungarian, a form such as szl n t f f l can be represented as i n (3.16). (3.16) N N / \ / \ x x x x + x x x x \ / [+hi] [-rd] sz i n t V 1 Both the vowel of the root and the s u f f i x are long, and I assume that the s u f f i x a l vowel i s underlyingly unspecified for the features [round] and [back]. The root vowel i s s p e c i f i e d as [-round] underlyingly, and i s therefore a possible t r i g g e r of RH. RH does not appply i n t h i s form, 146 however, because the s u f f i x a l vowel i s l o n g 1 0 . Jensen and Stong-Jensen (1988) account for the fact that long vowels do not p a r t i c i p a t e i n RH by constraining t h i s r u l e to apply to adjacent moras. They argue that s p e c i f y i n g adjacency at the l e v e l of the nucleus does not d i s t i n g u i s h long from short vowels. Given that I am adopting the s y l l a b i c framework of Levin (1985) which assumes that nuclei (and not moras) are primitives, and given that metrical theory recognizes the notion of branching (see 2.1.2.4), I assume that the constraint on the operation of RH can be stated as holding of branching n u c l e i . Returning to the question of the l e x i c a l s p e c i f i c a t i o n of [round], a second argument that [-round] may be the s p e c i f i e d value i n Hungarian comes from the marking condition i n (3.11). This condition i s used to block the d e r i v a t i o n of back unrounded non-low vowels by BH, and as we w i l l see, by RH. I t i s not possible to state (3.11) using [+round], since the p r o h i b i t i o n i s against the presence of the back counterparts of / i / and /e/, i . e . the set of back unrounded vowels. Given that (3.11) must include the feature value [-round], there are two t h e o r e t i c a l p o s s i b i l i t i e s within the theory of RU that could account for the presence of t h i s feature value. The f i r s t i s that [-round] i s the l e x i c a l l y s p e c i f i e d value i n Hungarian, which i n turn means that the context-free default rule for [round], given i n (3.5), must be changed to a rule i n s e r t i n g [+round] redundantly. 147 The second p o s s i b i l i t y i n the theory of RU i s that [-round] i s not a l e x i c a l l y s p e c i f i e d value, but rather that [+round] i s the l e x i c a l l y s p e c i f i e d value and [-round] i s a redundant value inserted p r i o r to (3.11) by the RROC. I believe that there are two reasons to r e j e c t t h i s option. The f i r s t i s that (3.11) i s a condition which holds both of URs and throughout the l e x i c a l phonology, and i f [-round] were a redundant feature value inserted p r i o r to (3.11) t h i s value would have to be inserted p r i o r to the UR. The MRC, given i n (3.3), s p e c i f i c a l l y rules out t h i s p o s s i b i l i t y . The second reason for r e j e c t i n g the option that the [-round] value used i n (3.11) i s a redundant value r e l a t e s to the blocking e f f e c t s of s p e c i f i e d feature values i n the theory of RU. The only possible redundancy r u l e i n (3.5) which could f i l l i n redundant [round] i s r u l e 4 i n (3.5) (rule 9 i n (3.5) inserts [-round] only on non-back non-low vowels). If rule 4 were ordered p r i o r to (3.11), a l l vowels underlyingly unspecified for [+round] would become [-round] p r i o r to (3.11) and consequently p r i o r to RH, and RH would have no e f f e c t i n the language. I therefore assume that the fact that the marking condition i n (3.11) requires the use of [-round] i s one further piece of evidence that t h i s i s the l e x i c a l l y marked feature value i n Hungarian. At t h i s point i t i s necessary to b r i e f l y examine the epenthesis facts of Hungarian. MacWhinney (1974) notes the presence of a 'linking vowel' which surfaces as [o], [e] or [0], exactly l i k e the vowels of the ternary s u f f i x e s i n 148 (3.13). Vago (1980) argues that t h i s l i n k i n g vowel does not e x i s t underlyingly, but rather i s inserted before consonant i n i t i a l s u f f i x e s , such as the accusative H b or the p l u r a l -k, and i n the f i n a l s y l l a b l e of ce r t a i n r o o t s 1 1 . (3.17) Linking Vowel P l u r a l a. v i r a f a : ] g * flower' viragok bo[o:]r 'skin' borok ke[e]nye[e:]r 'bread' kenyere[e]k bab * bean' babok Accusative b. te[\u00C2\u00A3]le[\u00C2\u00A3]k 'plot' teleke[\u00C2\u00A3]t z i r a [ a : ] f ' g i r a f f e ' z i r a f o t te[\u00C2\u00A3]he[e:]n 'cow' tehene[\u00C2\u00A3]t x c. /bokr/ * shrub' bokor /tehr/ 'load' te[\u00C2\u00A3]he[\u00C2\u00A3]r The forms i n (3.17a) show the addition of the l i n k i n g vowel before the p l u r a l s u f f i x H\u00C2\u00A3 and those i n (3.17b) show the addition of t h i s vowel before the accusative s u f f i x ^ t . The forms i n (3.17c) demonstrate the presence of t h i s l i n k i n g vowel r o o t - i n t e r n a l l y . Vago (1980) argues that the best analysis of the i n f l e c t i o n a l paradigms of nouns stems such as 'shrub' and 'load' assumes that underlyingly these roots contain only a single vowel and that the surface forms are derived through epenthesis. The q u a l i t y of the epenthetic vowel w i l l i n part be determined by the rules of BH and RH. 149 In RU i t i s claimed that the simplest account of an epenthetic vowel i s the i n s e r t i o n of a bare s k e l e t a l s l o t (see 2.2.1.2), with a l l surface feature s p e c i f i c a t i o n s provided by the redundancy rules of the language. In 2.5.1.1 I discuss Epenthesis i n the context of RU, arguing that t h i s r u l e can be assumed to be an automatic r e s u l t of s y l l a b i f i c a t i o n p r i n c i p l e s . An empty s k e l e t a l s l o t w i l l be added to the representation i f c e r t a i n segments remain u n s y l l a b i f i a b l e , and the empty s k e l e t a l s l o t w i l l be interpreted as a s y l l a b l e head ( i . e . a vowel). Since 2 of the 3 vowels that surface i n the epenthetic vowel p o s i t i o n i n (3.18) are mid, I assume, following Jensen and Stong-Jensen (1989) and Vago (1980), that the vowel that underlies t h i s a l t e r n a t i o n i s both [-low] and [-high]. If the i n i t i a l feature s p e c i f i c a t i o n s of t h i s vowel are to be supplied by the redundancy rules of the language, then we must assume that i n Hungarian the context-free parameter for the feature [high] has been reset, and the language possesses a complement rul e which inserts the feature value [-high]. The q u a l i t y of the epenthetic vowels i n (3.18) provide the strongest source of evidence for the l e x i c a l s p e c i f i c a t i o n of [-round] i n Hungarian. The epenthetic vowel and the mid front unrounded vowel cannot be the same vowel since the epenthetic vowel i s a target of both BH and RH, while the mid front unrounded vowel i s neutral to the BH process. While i t could be suggested that the rounding of the l i n k i n g vowel following a root such as bab i n (3.18) i s 150 supplied by the surface rounding of /a/ (see (3.1)), i t i s just as true that the l i n k i n g vowel following a root such as v i r a g , where the long low vowel i s never rounded, also surfaces as a round vowel. These facts then suggest that the epenthetic vowel must underlyingly be eit h e r /o/ or /o7, both of which are [+round]. Given the assumption that the feature s p e c i f i c a t i o n s of epenthetic segments are supplied by redundancy r u l e s , one such r u l e w i l l have to be [ ] --> [+round]. Following the analysis of RH i n Jensen and Stong-Jensen (1989), RH can be stated as i n (3.18). (3.18) Round Harmony Spread [-round] L \u00E2\u0080\u0094> R Target condition: [-high] Nucleus may not branch Domain: l e x i c a l ( c y c l i c ) Like the feature [+back], [-round] w i l l be l e x i c a l l y unassociated i n Hungarian, and w i l l be linked by the Association Conventions p r i o r to the operation of RH. The [-high] target condition i s necessary so that only mid and low vowels w i l l be affected by RH. The marking condition given i n (3.11) w i l l operate to check the outputs of (3.18), to make c e r t a i n the back non-low unrounded vowels are not derived. Redundancy rules 1 and 7 i n (3.7) must be ordered p r i o r to RH, since these rules i n s e r t redundant values that 151 are mentioned i n the marking condition (see the discussion i n 3.1.2.1 regarding the rel a t i o n s h i p of (3.11) and the rul e of BH) . If [-high] i s a redundant value i n Hungarian, as the l i n k i n g vowel facts suggest, and RH mentions [-high] as a target condition, then the RROC w i l l order a l l redundancy rules which make reference to [-high] before the operation of (3.17). The triggers of RH w i l l be only those vowels s p e c i f i e d as [-round], / i / and /e/ w i l l be l e x i c a l l y s p e c i f i e d as [-round], while the low vowels /a/ and /e/ w i l l become s p e c i f i e d as [-round] by redundancy ru l e 7 i n (3.7), which w i l l also be ordered p r i o r to (3.18) by the RROC. Low vowels need not be s p e c i f i c a l l y excluded from undergoing RH, since both /a/ and /e/ are redundantly [-round], and therefore would not be changed by the r u l e . The operation of RH i s shown i n (3.19) i n the derivations of nezhez and fejhez from (3.13). I assume the s u f f i x a l vowel i s underlyingly unspecified, as the l i n k i n g vowel would be. The derivation of these forms begins with the addition of the A l l a t i v e s u f f i x , a f t e r redundancy rules 2a, 5 and 7 from (3.7) have applied within the root. 152 (3.19) Morphology n e z + h O z f e j + h O z X X X X X X X X X X X X X V i [-rd] [-rd] I I [-hi] [-hi] [+lo] BH n/a n/a [ ]\u00E2\u0080\u0094>[-hi] n e z + h 0 z X X X X X X X V [-rd] [-hi] [-hi] f e j X X X I [-rd] [-hi] I [+lo] h o z X X X [-hi] X X X X V\u00E2\u0080\u0094 [-rd] [-hi] RH n e z + h e z f e j + h e z X X X X X X X X X [-rd~f I [-hi] [-hi] [-hi] [+lo] BH does not apply i n either of these forms, since neither root has a [+back] autosegment. In both forms the [-round] s p e c i f i c a t i o n of the root vowel spreads to the s u f f i x a l vowel by RH, a f t e r the redundancy rule [ ] \u00E2\u0080\u0094> [-high] has applied ([+low] \u00E2\u0080\u0094> [-high] i s inapplicable here). The [back] and [low] s p e c i f i c a t i o n s w i l l be f i l l e d i n la t e i n the der i v a t i o n 153 by redundancy rules 1 and 3 i n (3.7). Following Jensen and Stong-Jensen (1989), I assume that RH must be e x t r i n s i c a l l y ordered a f t e r BH, i n order to achieve the correct r e s u l t with forms such as lanchoz i n (3.14). The i n i t i a l root vowel i n t h i s form i s both a t r i g g e r of BH and a t r i g g e r of RH (although /a/ i s not underlyingly s p e c i f i e d as [-round] i t receives t h i s redundant s p e c i f i c a t i o n by rule 7 i n (3.5) before the operation of the r u l e ) . The correct derivation of lanchoz i s shown i n (3.2). (3.20) 1 \u00C2\u00A3 n c + h o z X X X X X X X X [+bk] [+low] [ ] --> [-lo] l \u00C2\u00A3 n c + h o z [+low]\u00E2\u0080\u0094>[-rd] x x x x x x x x [+bk] \j | [+low] [-lo] [-rd] Association of [+bk] 1 a n c + h o z x x x x x x x x V [+bk] I [+low] I [-rd] [-lo] 154 BH 1 a n c + h o z x x x x x x x x [+bk] [+low] [-lo] [-rd] RH blocked by (3.11) lanchoz In t h i s derivation RH i s ordered a f t e r BH (and therefore by default a f t e r the Association of [+back]. Redundancy rules 1 and 7 i n (3.7) are ordered p r i o r to the Association of [+back] (they are triggered by the marking condition i n (3.11) which serves as a f i l t e r on the output of t h i s a s s o c i a t i o n ) . [+back] i s linked to the root vowel and then BH operates to spread [+back] to the s u f f i x a l vowel. RH i s consequently blocked by (3.11), for i t s a p p l i c a t i o n would derive an unrounded non-low back vowel. If RH were to apply before BH and the Association Conventions (after the application of redundancy rules 1 and 7 from (3.7)), the s u f f i x a l vowel would become [-round] and BH would be blocked from applying by (3.11). The output would then be the ungrammatical lanchez. Although e x t r i n s i c ordering among phonological rules i s not desirable, i t appears to be required i n t h i s p a r t i c u l a r instance. 155 3.1.2.3 Low Front Vowel Formation As discussed i n 3.1 I have assumed that Hungarian contains the configuration constraints shown i n (3.2). A mid short unrounded vowel can be derived through the operation of BH or RH. One such vowel arises i n the course of the derivation of nezhez given i n (3.19). We must assume that there i s a ru l e of Low Front Vowel Formation, as given i n (3.21), which w i l l change a short mid front unrounded vowel into a low front unrounded vowel. (3.21) Low Front Vowel Formation Insert: [+low] Target condition: [-low] [-high] [-back] [-round] Non-branching nucleus Domain: p o s t l e x i c a l (3.21) changes the value of [low] of a non-low, non-high front unrounded vowel. It i s a purely phonetic r u l e which applies a f t e r a l l redundant s p e c i f i c a t i o n s have been assigned and may apply to the output of both BH and RH. (3.21) appears to be a d i r e c t consequence of the surface constraint given i n (3.2) on *[e] and (3.2) may then be an example of a dynamic constraint, as has been discussed by Pulleyblank and Archangeli (1990) and LaCharite (1990). 156 3.1.3 Parametric CU Analysis of Hungarian The components of UG that I assume are part of a parametric CU theory of a c q u i s i t i o n are discussed i n 2.5.2 and a schematized model i s given i n (2.52). The most basic p r i n c i p l e of t h i s theory i s the R e s t r i c t i v e Redundancy Condition or RRC, given i n (2.45) and repeated here i n (3.22). (3.22) The R e s t r i c t i v e Redundancy Condition (RRC) a. Underlying representations do not contain feature values that are not used c o n t r a s t i v e l y . b. The most highly valued system contains the fewest number of features and feature values needed to co n t r a s t i v e l y d i s t i n g u i s h the inventory of a language. In CU D-values of features are those values that contrast within a s p e c i f i c class of segments. D-values are always present underlyingly, while R-values or redundant feature values are provided by R-rules. Contrastively s p e c i f y i n g the v o c a l i c system of Hungarian produces the system i n ( 3 . 2 3 ) 1 3 . (3.23) Parametric CU Vowel System of Hungarian i e s u o a t l B high + - + - + -low - + - + back - + + + - -round - - + + 157 The contrastive s p e c i f i c a t i o n s are a r r i v e d at as follows, / i / , /il/ and /u/ contrast with /e/, /oV and /of with regard to the feature [high], and so are each s p e c i f i e d for one value of t h i s feature, /e/ and /e/ and /a/ and /o/ contrast with regard to the feature [low] and are therefore each s p e c i f i e d for a value of [low], /u/, /o/ and /a/ are each paired for backness with /il/, /oY and /e/, and so are s p e c i f i e d as [+back] or [-back], / i / and /e/ contrast i n roundness with /il/ and /0/, and so each one of these segments i s s p e c i f i e d as either [+round] or [-round]. In the system i n (3.23) /a/ and /o/ also contrast with regard to the feature [round] at a phonological l e v e l , even though [a] i s [+round] phonetically. I have chosen to represent these segments as contrasting only with regard to the feature [low] for two reasons. F i r s t , /a/ does not p a r t i c i p a t e i n the RH process, as shown by the forms i n (3.14), which we would expect i t to i f i t were s p e c i f i e d as [-round]. Secondly, the low vowels /a/ and /e/ p a r t i c i p a t e i n a process of Low Vowel Lengthening (MacWhinney 1974, Vago 1980), which does not a f f e c t lo/. I w i l l not discuss t h i s process here, but simply assume that i t i s required i n the grammar of Hungarian, and that i t requires that /a/ be s p e c i f i e d as [+low]. The fact that there i s some indeterminacy i n the types of contrastive s p e c i f i c a t i o n s that can be posited for a given language suggests that there may be some l e a r n a b i l i t y problems associated with t h i s type of theory. This issue 158 w i l l be addressed at length i n Chapter 6. As with the RU analysis presented i n 3.1.3, the system i n (3.23) assumes that /e/ and /e/ have d i f f e r e n t sets of feature s p e c i f i c a t i o n s , /e/ only surfaces when i t i s associated with two sk e l e t a l s l o t s dominated by a branching nucleus, while fcl can only surface when associated to a single s k e l e t a l s l o t dominated by a nucleus. These r e s t r i c t i o n s are formalized i n (3.2), as phonetic constraints which do not block the derivation of [e] or [e:] during the l e x i c a l phonology. As i s discussed i n 2.5.2.1, i n a parametric theory of CU R-rules are the unmarked featural parameters supplied by UG. These rules i n s e r t feature values that are not l e x i c a l l y s p e c i f i e d . The set of universal R-rules given i n (2.48) i s repeated here i n (3.24). (3.24) Universal R-rules: 1. [+low] \u00E2\u0080\u0094 > [-high] 2. [+low] \u00E2\u0080\u0094 > [+back] 3. [+low] - - > [-round] 4. [+back] - - > [+round] [-low] 5. [-back] - - > [-round] [-low] 6. [+high] - - > [-low] 7. [-high] \u00E2\u0080\u0094 > [-low] [-back] 159 Resetting a featural parameter to the marked s e t t i n g i s allowed f o r , and means that c e r t a i n s p e c i f i c a t i o n s that are provided u n i v e r s a l l y by UG must be marked underlyingly because they are contrastive. In RU, when a context-sensitive r u l e parameter i s reset, by the MRC that rule must be eliminated from the language-specific grammar (see discussion i n 3.1.3). In CU, however, the R-rule need not be eliminated from the language-particular grammar, because there i s not the same re l a t i o n s h i p between redundant information and redundancy rul e s , and because redundancy rules play no part i n the active phonology (this issue i s discussed i n 2.2.2.2 and 2.5.2.1). Every language w i l l therefore have the same core set of R-rules i n (3.23), regardless of the underlying markings i n the language. As shown i n 2.5.2.1, i t i s possible that language-s p e c i f i c R-rules w i l l have to be added to the grammar of the language i n order to achieve f u l l s p e c i f i c a t i o n of the system. The data showing BH i n (3.9) and RH i n (3.13) demonstrate that Hungarian has d i s t i n c t front and back low vowels and front round and unround vowels. This means that R-rules 2 and 5 i n (3.24) have been reset to the marked option i n t h i s language. (3.25) Marked Featural Parameters of Hungarian *2. [+low] --> [+back] *5. [-back] \u00E2\u0080\u0094> [-round] [-low] The r e s u l t of the resetting of these featural parameters 160 w i l l be that the c h i l d c ontrastively s p e c i f i e s the low vowels for the feature [back] and the front non-low vowels for the feature [round]. When t h i s i s done the system shown i n (3.23) w i l l be achieved. In (3.23) / i / and /e/ are not s p e c i f i e d for backness since they do not contrast with back vowels, and the R-rules i n (3.24) do not supply the [-back] s p e c i f i c a t i o n s for these vowels. Consequently, the language-specific r u l e i n (3.26) must be added to the core set of rules to provide these s p e c i f i c a t i o n s . (3.26) Hungarian Language-Specific R-rule: 8. [-low] \u00E2\u0080\u0094> [-back] [-round] Given that CU assumes that both values of a feature are l e x i c a l l y marked where these values are used c o n t r a s t i v e l y , there i s no requirement i n t h i s theory for a set of context-free redundancy rules as i n the theory of RU. The c h i l d acquiring Hungarian must learn that the featural parameters i n (3.25) must be reset, with the r e s u l t that the contrastive s p e c i f i c a t i o n s of [back] for low vowels and the contrastive s p e c i f i c a t i o n s of [round] for front vowels are marked underlyingly. In Steriade (1987) i t i s shown that i n CU phonological rules may be feature-changing, may be blocked when a segment i s encountered that i s s p e c i f i e d for some value of the spreading feature, and may be i n i t i a t e d by both values of a 161 feature. In order to further constrain the number and types of phonological rules allowed by t h i s theory, i n 2.5.2.1 I assume that the parameteric theory of CU allows only for rules of spreading, delinking, fusion or i n s e r t i o n . These can be viewed as rule parameters, with the unmarked value set at OFF. If there i s p o s i t i v e evidence i n a language that a ru l e i s operative, then the value of that rule parameter w i l l be set to ON. In the statement of phonological rules i n the theory of CU I state the function of the rule ( i . e . spread, delete), the argument (i.e.. [+back]) and the t r i g g e r / t a r g e t conditions, as well as the domain of the rule ( i . e . l e x i c a l ( c y c l i c / p o s t c y c l i c ) , p o s t l e x i c a l ) . In the following sections I present analyses of Hungarian Back and Round Harmony, and also of several more peripheral rules which manipulate vowels i n t h i s language. Unlike i n the RU analyses, I do not attempt to argue for p a r t i c u l a r l e x i c a l values of features. Rather, I focus on the feature-changing aspects of these rules, and on demonstrating how these rules can account for the data using a set of contrastive s p e c i f i c a t i o n s . 3.1.3.1 Back Harmony The parametric CU analysis of BH presented here follows that i n Steriade (1987) 1 4. The major problem associated with Steriade's (1987) CU analysis of Hungarian, discussed i n 2.2.2.2, can be resolved given the parametric theory of CU 162 and the assumption that short and long vowels i n Hungarian have i d e n t i c a l feature matrices. In Steriade's analysis the redundancy rule [+low] \u00E2\u0080\u0094> [+back] i s ordered p r i o r to the r u l e of BH, so that /a/ [a:] can t r i g g e r BH. This ordering r e l a t i o n s h i p i s not necessary i n the parametric theory, given the system i n (3.23) i n which i t i s assumed that /a/ contrasts with /\u00C2\u00A3/ i n backness and i s underlyingly marked as [+back]. Steriade's analysis focusses p a r t i c u l a r l y on the operation of BH i n loanwords, while mine deals almost exc l u s i v e l y with native words. BH i s an i t e r a t i v e , feature-changing rule which spreads [+back]. (3.27) Back Harmony Spread [+back] L \u00E2\u0080\u0094> R Feature-changing Domain: l e x i c a l ( c y c l i c ) (3.27) i s a c y c l i c l e x i c a l r u l e , and may therefore have exceptions. In her analysis, Steriade claims that Structure Preservation prohibits BH from spreading [back] to the vowels / i / and /e/, since they are underlyingly unspecified for the feature [back], and therefore may not l e x i c a l l y be associated with t h i s feature. I assume, as i n the RU analysis, that the conditions encompassed by Structure Preservation are formally given by a set of marking conditions. The p r o h i b i t i o n on back non-low rounded vowels can be stated as i n (3.28). 163 (3.28) * [+back] [-round] (3.28), l i k e the RU condition given i n (3.11), holds throughout the lexicon, and w i l l therefore be i n e f f e c t when BH applies. This condition must be turned o f f p o s t l e x i c a l l y , i n order for [a] to receive a phonetic s p e c i f i c a t i o n for [-round]. The marking condition i n (3.28) d i f f e r s from the RU condition i n (3.11) i n that the RU condition also includes the feature value [-low]. This difference arises because of the feature s p e c i f i c a t i o n s required by these two theories. (3.28), the CU condition, does not include the feature [-low] because then only /e/, and not / i / , would be subject to t h i s condition (see (3.23)). (3.11), the RU condition, requires the presence of [-low] so that /e/ i s not included as one of the segments that does not have a back counterpart (see (3.8)). Steriade argues, following Ringen (1980), that i t i s the SCC (given i n (2.2)) which stops BH from operating root-i n t e r n a l l y i n loanwords. Ringen (1980) argues that only the i n i t i a l root vowel of harmonic roots i s s p e c i f i e d for the feature [back], while i n disharmonic roots (e.g. loanwords), a l l root vowels are underlyingly s p e c i f i e d for a value of [back]. The SCC (or the Revised Alternation Condition as discussed i n Ringen 1980) w i l l prevent BH from applying within disharmonic roots, since i t could only operate i n a 164 n e u t r a l i z i n g fashion, while i t would permit BH to apply i n harmonic roots because these applications would not be n e u t r a l i z i n g . I therefore assume that i n native roots (the a p p l i c a t i o n of BH i n loanwords w i l l not be dealt with here) [back] i s s p e c i f i e d only for the i n i t i a l v owel 1 3. The d i f f i c u l t y that arises i f we assume that only i n i t i a l vowels i n native words are s p e c i f i e d for [back] i s that n o n - i n i t i a l root vowels may underlyingly have d i f f e r e n t feature s p e c i f i c a t i o n s than those provided i n (3.23). For example, a n o n - i n i t i a l vowel which surfaces as [il] a f t e r BH, w i l l be underlyingly s p e c i f i e d only as [+high] and [+round]. There i s no vowel given i n (3.23) which corresponds to t h i s p a r t i c u l a r set of feature combinations. We w i l l then have to assume that i n CU Structure Preservation prohibits only those feature combinations that have associated marking conditions such as (3.28), and that there i s no condition associated with a feature combination such as [+high] and [+round]. This p a r t i c u l a r i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of Structure Preservation contrasts sharply with that given for RU. As discussed i n 3.1.2.1, Structure Preservation i n RU permits only the sets of underlying feature s p e c i f i c a t i o n s to e x i s t throughout the L e x i c a l Phonology, and marking conditions (such as (3.11)) w i l l e x i s t to s p e c i f i c a l l y rule out a l l other feature combinations. In the CU analyses which follow I specify vowels that do not correspond to an underlying feature matrix i n (3.23) as 'V. Steriade claims that i n the unmarked case, s u f f i x a l 165 vowels i n Hungarian are s p e c i f i e d as [-back]. This i s c r u c i a l i n order to account for the neutral-vowel-only words given i n (3.9di). In these forms the root vowel i s one of the two neutral vowels, which are unspecified for the feature [back], and therefore do not act as triggers of BH; and yet the s u f f i x a l vowel surfaces as [-back]. It i s then c r u c i a l to assume that s u f f i x a l vowels are l e x i c a l l y s p e c i f i e d as [-back]. The fact that s u f f i x a l vowels must be s p e c i f i e d as [-back] then rules out the p o s s i b i l i t y of p o s i t i n g [back] as a f l o a t i n g autosegment which associates to the i n i t i a l root vowel. In order to account for neutral-vowel-only forms which take back vowel suffixes (shown i n ( 3 . 9 d i i ) , we would then have to assume that the Association Conventions, which would l i n k a f l o a t i n g autosegment to a s u f f i x a l vowel, operate i n a feature-changing manner. This i s e n t i r e l y at odds with our conception of the Association Conventions as simple l i n k i n g mechanisms. I therefore assume that i n native roots the i n i t i a l vowel i s l e x i c a l l y linked to some s p e c i f i c a t i o n for the feature [back]. Steriade d i d not attempt to account for the neutral-vowel-only roots i n (3.9dii) which take back vowel s u f f i x e s . I assume that these roots t r i g g e r a rule which adds [+back] to the r e p r e s e n t a t i o n 1 6 . This rule, l i k e BH, w i l l have to be feature-changing, and w i l l be triggered by a small f i x e d -class set of native roots. 166 (3.29) Insert [+back] Insert: [+back] Trigger Condition: only in roots marked * Domain: lexical (cyclic) Feature-changing The [+back] feature cannot link to the root vowel (by (3.28)), but w i l l be able to link to a suffixal vowel. We now have a l l the components necessary to describe the functioning of BH in the forms in (3.9). Derivations of native words betunek, r a d l r t 6 l and celnak are shown in (3.30) (ignoring for the moment the effects of RH). In this derivation I have ordered the rule Insert [+back] after BH, although the rules may apply in either order. (3.30) BH in native words Underlying b c t V r a d i r * c e l X X X X X X X X X X X X X X [-bk] [+bk] [+lo] [+lo] [-lo] [+hi] [+hi] [-hi] [+rd] [-rd] [-rd] 167 BH b e t i i X X X X [-bk] [+lo] [+hi] [+rd] Prohibited by (3.28) n/a Morphology beta XXXX [-bk] nek [+16] [+hi] t+rd] XXX I I [-bk] [+bk] I I [+lo] [+lo] radi r XXXXXX to 1 XXXX V [-bk] [-hi] BH betti XXXX \A [-bk] [+lo] nek XXX radi r + to 1 [+hi] [+rd] XXXXXX \"\ L [-bk] [+bk] I I [+lo] [+lo] XXXX [-bk] [-hi] n/a Insert [+back] n/a n/a *ce 1 XXXX + nak XXX [+bk][-bk] [-lo] [+lo] [-hi] [-rd] 168 BH can apply i n a structure-building fashion i n betti to spread [-back] to the second root vowel from the i n i t i a l vowel. BH i s blocked i n r a d l r by (3.28) since / i / i s underlyingly s p e c i f i e d as [-round]. BH i s not applicable i n e e l . The s u f f i x e s nek and t f l l are then added, i n which the s u f f i x vowels are both s p e c i f i e d as [-back]. BH then reapplies to spread [-back] i n bettl and [+back] i n r a d l r to the s u f f i x . In bettlnek I assume that BH applies vacuously, while i n radlrnak i t applies i n a feature-changing fashion. The f i n a l step i s for [+back] to be added to the s u f f i x a l vowel i n celnak by (3.29), delinking the o r i g i n a l [-back] s p e c i f i c a t i o n . In the derivation of radlrnak i n (3.30) the [+back] feature of the i n i t i a l vowel i s prohibited from associating to the neutral vowel of the root by (3.28). BH can reapply once the Dative s u f f i x i s added, and the [+back] feature of the i n i t i a l vowel w i l l spread over the neutral vowel to l i n k to the s u f f i x . This spreading w i l l not v i o l a t e the L o c a l i t y Condition (Archangeli and Pulleyblank 1987) i f fx/ and /e/ are assumed to be i n e l i g i b l e targets as a r e s u l t of (3.28). The i n i t i a l root vowel and the target s u f f i x a l vowel i n radlrnak can be adjacent, i f the intervening nucleus node i s ignored for the purposes of the rule of BH. In a neutral-vowel-only root which does not belong to the exceptional class ( i . e . those forms i n (3.9di)), the s u f f i x a l vowel surfaces as [-back]. This i s e a s i l y accounted 169 for i f the s u f f i x a l vowel i s underlyingly s p e c i f i e d as [-back] and the i n i t i a l vowel has no s p e c i f i c a t i o n for backness. (3.31) Underlying sz i n X X X X V [+hi] [-rd] BH n/a Morphology sz i n + n e k X x x x [-bk] [+lo] BH n/a 3.1.3.2 Round Harmony Steriade (1987) does not attempt to account for the RH facts of Hungarian, but i t i s possible to develop an analysis using the parametric theory of CU. The three vowels that alternate through RH are [e], [o] and [0], which are a l l [-high] and [-low]. The forms i n (3.14) demonstrate that the 170 s u f f i x a l vowel i n the '2nd person p l u r a l ' , ' a l l a t i v e ' and ' p l u r a l ' must be unspecified for roundness, or BH to the s u f f i x a l vowel w i l l be blocked by the marking condition i n (3.28). And f i n a l l y , the neutral-vowel-only form szlntek i n (3.13) demonstrates that the s u f f i x a l vowel i n these forms must be unspecified for backness, or (3.28) would block the operation of RH to the s u f f i x a l vowel i n these forms. Given that none of the three vowels e/o/tt i s unspecified for both [round] and [back], we must assume, as was also necessary i n the discussion of BH i n 3.1.3.1, that the s u f f i x a l vowel underlying the RH alternations i s not represented by one of the feature sets shown i n (3.23). Again i t i s necessary to assume that t h i s vowel can e x i s t because i t i s not s p e c i f i c a l l y ruled out by a marking condition such as (3.28). We could also entertain the proposal that the s u f f i x a l vowels which p a r t i c i p a t e i n RH are completely unspecified, as i n the RU analysis. Given that we must assume that sets of feature s p e c i f i c a t i o n s can e x i s t which are not s p e c i f i c a l l y l i s t e d i n (3.23), i t could also follow that one possible vowel representation i s the absence of any features. This proposal, however, can be seen to be untenable, i n l i g h t of a form such as foldhOz, which would undergo both BH and RH. Assuming that both [-back] and [+round] spread from the root vowel to a t o t a l l y unspecified s u f f i x a l vowel, we then f i n d that there are no redundancy rules given i n (3.24) or (3.26) which could add the [-high] and [-low] s p e c i f i c a t i o n s of the 171 s u f f i x a l vowel. A rule i s given i n (3.36) which adds p r e c i s e l y these feature s p e c i f i c a t i o n s ; however, t h i s p a r t i c u l a r r u l e contains a target condition r e s t r i c t i n g i t s a p p l i c a t i o n to empty s k e l e t a l s l o t s ; This r u l e w i l l then not be able to target a vowel previously s p e c i f i e d as [-back] and [+round]. The suffixes which undergo ternary alternations between e, o and 0 w i l l then d i f f e r from those that undergo only binary alternations involving BH i n that the ternary s u f f i x e s are unspecified for both backness and roundness, while the binary s u f f i x e s are unspecified only for roundness. RH i s a l e x i c a l rule which can have exceptions. I assume that i n general [round] i s linked only to the i n i t i a l root vowel (as [back] i s ) . The representation of vowels i n (3.23) shows that the possible triggers of RH are / i / , /e/, / t i / and /0/, with the f i r s t two s p e c i f i e d as [-round] and the second two [+round]. According to t h i s set of s p e c i f i c a t i o n s the back non-low vowels /u/ and /of w i l l not be t r i g g e r s of RH. Being s p e c i f i e d as [+back], these two vowels w i l l t r i g g e r only BH, spreading [+back] to a s u f f i x a l vowel, which w i l l then become [+round] by R-rule 4 i n (3.24). [-round] w i l l be prohibited from associating to a vowel s p e c i f i e d as [+back] by the marking condition i n (3.28), and since we know that only mid vowels p a r t i c i p a t e i n RH, a target condition must indicate that only [-high] vowels p a r t i c i p a t e ([a] w i l l be prohibited from p a r t i c i p a t i n g because of (3.28)). As i n the RU analysis, RH w i l l also be 172 blocked from applying to long vowels. The rule of RH i s given i n (3.32). (3.32) Round Harmony Spread [+round] L --> R Target condition: [-high] Nucleus may not branch Domain: l e x i c a l ( c y c l i c ) Feature-changing Derivations for hazhoz, fffztflk and fejtek from (3.13) are given i n (3.33). (3.33) Round Harmony Morphology h a z + h V z BH X X X X V [+bk] [+lo] [+lo] X X X [-lo] I [-hi] h o z X X X X X X X [+bk] [-lo] [-hi] f 0 z + t V k X X X X X X X V [-bk] [-hi] [+rd]' f o [-hi] [+rd] [-lo] [-hi] t o k X X X X X X X [-bk] [-lo] I [-hi] f e j + t V k X X X X X X [-bk] [+lo] [-lo] I [-hi] f e j t V k X X X X X X [-bk] [+lo] [ j l o ] [-hi] 173 RH n/a [-hi/ [-hi] 1/ [+rd] n/a R-rules 4 and 5 i n (3.24) z + h o z x x x [-lo] [-hi] I [+rd] n/a The vowels i n the 2nd person p l u r a l and A l l a t i v e s u f f i x e s are underlyingly s p e c i f i e d as [-high] and [-low]. BH and RH may apply i n any order. BH applies i n a l l three forms to give the s u f f i x a l vowel a s p e c i f i c a t i o n for backness. RH operates only i n fcYztok to specify the s u f f i x a l vowel as [+round]. The s u f f i x a l vowels i n hazhoz and fejhez receive t h e i r surface s p e c i f i c a t i o n s for roundness l a t e i n the der i v a t i o n by R-rules 4 and 5 from (3.24). The f i n a l step i n the deri v a t i o n of fejhez i s the lowering of the s u f f i x a l vowel to [e]. This rule w i l l be discussed i n 3.1.3.3. In a neutral-vowel-only root such as szfntek, shown i n (3.13a)/ RH w i l l operate as shown i n (3.34). 174 (3.34) Morphology sz i n + t V k x V x [+hi] [-rd] x x x I [-hi] [-lo] BH n/a RH sz i n + t V k X X X X V [+hi] X X X ' [-hi] [-lo] [-rd] ru l e 9 i n (3.26) BH i s inapplicable i n t h i s form. RH w i l l spread [-round] to the s u f f i x a l vowel, and the language-particular R-rule i n (3.26) w i l l supply the [-back] surface value for t h i s vowel. There i s no reason to posit any ordering r e l a t i o n s h i p between BH and RH as i s required i n the RU analysis. Each 175 ru l e may apply whenever possible, because of the fact that we have assumed that the s u f f i x a l vowels are unspecified for eit h e r [round] or [back]. 3.1.3.3 Peripheral Rules As discussed i n 3.1.2 I assume that there are two d i s t i n c t non-high unrounded front vowels i n Hungarian: /e/ and /e/. /e/ surfaces as [e] only when i t i s associated with two s k e l e t a l s l o t s dominated by a branching nucleus, which I assume, following Levin (1985), i s the representation of a long vowel (see discussion i n 2.1.2.4). /c/, on the other hand, can surface only when associated to a single s k e l e t a l s l o t dominated by a nucleus, i . e . when i t i s a short vowel. These constraints are given i n (3.2). When a short front mid vowel i s derived through the operation of BH or RH (e.g. fejtek i n (3.33)) the constraint on [e] w i l l t r i g g e r a rule of Low Front Vowel Formation, given i n (3.35). (3.35) Low Front Vowel Formation Insert: [+low] Target condition: [-low] [-high] [-back] [-round] Non-branching nucleus Domain: p o s t l e x i c a l 176 (3.35) changes the value of [low] of a mid front unrounded vowel. It i s a purely phonetic rule which applies a f t e r a l l redundant s p e c i f i c a t i o n s have been assigned, and can apply to the outputs of both BH and RH. The f i n a l rule that i s necessary for t h i s CU analysis of Hungarian harmony i s a rule i n s e r t i n g the features for an epenthetic vowel s l o t . If we are to maintain that Epenthesis ins e r t s a vowel s l o t automatically when s y l l a b i f i c a t i o n requires i t , i n the CU analysis i t w i l l also be necessary to have a rule providing some feature s p e c i f i c a t i o n s for t h i s empty s l o t . Such a rul e i s not necessary i n the RU analysis, since the redundancy rules of the language i n s e r t the feature s p e c i f i c a t i o n s of the epenthetic vowel. In CU, however, redundancy rules are only context-sensitive, and i t i s therefore impossible to add features to an empty s k e l e t a l s l o t . Since the l i n k i n g vowel facts i n (3.18) show that the epenthetic vowel undergoes the same e/o/B al t e r n a t i o n as vowels affected by RH, I assume that the features that must be inserted are just those required for the s u f f i x a l vowels shown i n (3.33) and (3.34). This r u l e can then be stated as i n (3.36). (3.36) Epenthetic Vowel S p e c i f i c a t i o n Insert: [-high] [-low] Target Condition: an empty s k e l e t a l s l o t Domain: l e x i c a l ( c y c l i c ) 177 This rule w i l l i n s e r t the features [-high] and [-low] onto a s k e l e t a l s l o t which has no other feature s p e c i f i c a t i o n s . A vowel which has undergone (3.36) w i l l then be e l i g i b l e to p a r t i c i p a t e i n RH and BH. Since a l l three of these rules are c y c l i c l e x i c a l rules, there i s no s p e c i f i c ordering required between them. 3.1.4 Summary and Comparisons Following the analyses of BH and RH i n 3.1.2 the language-specific information that i s required i n the grammar of Hungarian, given the RU analysis, i s as follows: (3.37) Marked parameter settings: FCRs: *[+low] \u00E2\u0080\u0094> [+back] *[-back] \u00E2\u0080\u0094> [-round] [-low] Context-free: [ ] \u00E2\u0080\u0094> [-high] [ ] \u00E2\u0080\u0094> [+round] S y l l a b i f i c a t i o n : Complex N - ON Phonological rules: Back Harmony Round Harmony Low Front Vowel Formation Ordering: BH before RH Surface Constraints: */e/ */e:] 178 There are two marked context-free featural parameters required i n Hungarian, and two marked context-sensitive featural parameters. The language also requires that the s y l l a b i f i c a t i o n option allowing for complex nuclei be set to the marked option, so that long vowels can e x i s t . Three phonological rules are also present i n Hungarian. It i s not necessary to state the Association of [+back] as a s p e c i f i c r u l e of Hungarian, since i t i s an a p p l i c a t i o n of the Association Conventions, which are themselves a part of UG. Back Harmony i s a r e l a t i v e l y simple rule i n that i t does not involve the statement of any target conditions, while RH requires several. Low Vowel Formation i s an unmarked ru l e i n the sense that i t inserts content l i k e a redundancy r u l e ; however, i t has a complex target condition. The grammar of Hungarian requires a statement that BH must be ordered p r i o r to RH. The grammar of Hungarian also contains a marking condition, which i s a formalization of Structure Preservation, p r o h i b i t i n g the derivation of a back unrounded non-low vowel. This condition w i l l hold throughout the lexicon, and i n fact there i s no reason to believe that i t i s ever turned o f f . I have not s p e c i f i c a l l y stated t h i s condition since i t i s a d i r e c t r e s u l t of a p r i n c i p l e of UG. The two constraints stated i n (3.36) p r o h i b i t the feature s p e c i f i c a t i o n s of /e/ attached to a single non-branching nucleus, and the feature s p e c i f i c a t i o n s of /e/ attached to a 179 branching nucleus. While these p a r t i c u l a r feature combinations do e x i s t , they do not e x i s t i n combination with a p a r t i c u l a r s y l l a b i c structure. These constraints cannot hold of the lexicon as shown by the fact that they do not block the derivation of [e]. The fact that these two configuration constraints e x i s t i n Hungarian helps to explain the i d i o s y n c r a t i c behaviour of orthographic e. While e alternates with [a] i n the Dative s u f f i x through BH, i t sometimes appears to v i o l a t e BH constraints i n forms such as ceruza and krapek. If we assume that e i s underlying /e/ i n these words (allowed by the fact that the constraint on *[e] i s phonetic), and that a f l o a t i n g [+back] autosegment i s prohibited from associating to /e/ by the constraint i n (3.28), then i n fact these forms do not v i o l a t e BH r e s t r i c t i o n s . The i n t e r a c t i o n of the redundancy rules i n (3.7) and the phonological rules and constraints of the language that are dictate d by the RROC produce produce the following picture of the phonology of Hungarian: 180 (3.38) Parametric RU Grammar of Hungarian LEXICON Rules 1, 2a, 5 and 7 i n (3.7) Association of [+bk] Marking BH Condition RH J (3.11) POSTLEXICON Rules 3, 4a and 8 i n (3.7) Constraints on /e/ and lex/ Low Front Vowel Formation The only e x t r i n s i c ordering r e l a t i o n s h i p required i s that between BH and RH. A l l other rules apply when and where they can i n conjunction with the Ordering Constraints (see 2.5.1.1) and Universal Grammar. In the CU analysis of BH and RH the following language-s p e c i f i c information i s required: 181 (3.39) Marked parameter settings: *[+low] \u00E2\u0080\u0094> [+back] *[-back] \u00E2\u0080\u0094> [-round] [-low] S y l l a b i f i c a t i o n : complex N - ON Language-specific R-rule: [-low] \u00E2\u0080\u0094> [-back] [-round] Phonological Rules: Back Harmony Round Harmony Epenthetic Vowel S p e c i f i c a t i o n Insert [+back] Low Front Vowel Formation Lex i c a l Markings: Certain native roots are marked * to undergo Insert [+back] *[+back] - Holds only i n lexicon [-round] Constraints: *[e] *[\u00C2\u00A3\u00E2\u0080\u00A2] Holds at surface structure A l l the phonological rules require r e s e t t i n g of a r u l e parameter to ON. RH i s more complex than BH because i t requires a target condition, as does Low Front Vowel Formation. Insert [+back] i s probably the most complex ru l e because i t applies only to a small r e s t r i c t e d class of words. 182 In t h i s analysis i t i s not necessary that RH and BH be e x t r i n s i c a l l y ordered, as i s required i n the RU analysis of Hungarian. The constraints on [e] and [e:] prevent the surfacing of [e] and [ c : ] . In addition Hungarian also has the constraint given i n (3.28) which i s supplied by Structure Preservation, but there must be a statement i n the phonology of Hungarian that t h i s constraint turns o f f p o s t l e x i c a l l y . The behaviour of the vowel which surfaces as [e] can be explained by the in t e r a c t i o n of these two types of constraints. Orthographic e may be underlyingly e i t h e r /e/ or /e/. If i t i s derived from /e/, the marking condition i n (3.28) w i l l prevent i t from p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n the l e x i c a l rules of BH and RH, while i f i t i s derived from /e/, i t w i l l alternate with /a/ through the application of BH. Because t h i s theory does not adopt the RROC redundancy rules cannot be ordered among the phonological rules of a language. The only rule of Hungarian which applies a f t e r (or at the same time as) the R-rules i s the phonetic r u l e of Low Front Vowel Formation, giving the following picture of the phonology of Hungarian. 183 (3.40) Parametric CU Phonology of Hungarian LEXICON Back Harmony Round Harmony Marking Insert [+back] Condition Epenthetic Vowel S p e c i f i c a t i o n (3.28) POSTLEXICON R-rules Low Front Vowel Formation *[e] *[\u00C2\u00A3:] Comparing the language-specific information required by the RU and CU analyses of Hungarian harmony, we see that the RU analysis posits that 4 featural parameters require r e s e t t i n g i n t h i s language, while the CU analysis posits that only 2 featural parameters must be reset. I f , however, we compare the phonological r u l e systems required by these two analyses, I believe the RU analysis proves to be the superior one. The CU analysis requires a larger number of phonological rules than the RU analysis, since i t requires a rule of Insert [+back] i n order to account for the small class of neutral-vowel-only roots which take back s u f f i x a l vowels, and a rule providing the feature s p e c i f i c a t i o n s of epenthetic vowels. The exceptional behaviour of the subclass of neutral-vowel-only roots i s 184 accounted for i n the RU analysis by assuming that [+back] i s a f l o a t i n g autosegment, and that Structure Preservation p r o h i b i t s t h i s f l o a t i n g feature from associating to neutral vowels. The feature s p e c i f i c a t i o n s of epenthetic vowels are provided automatically by the redundancy rules of the language. The CU analysis of Hungarian harmony has one added problem i n that these analyses simply do not work unless we assume that c e r t a i n vowel combinations not present i n the basic underlying inventory of the language are permitted to e x i s t . I have hypothesized that c e r t a i n feature combinations, not s p e c i f i c a l l y outlawed by marking constraints, may be allowed, and supplement the basic contrastive system. Undoubtedly t h i s w i l l add to the load of a language learner. 3.2 Spanish Vocalic Alternations In the following sections I present analyses of several processes which operate i n the verbal system of Spanish. One set of alternations appears i n a subclass of 3rd conjugation class verbs, where a root vowel alternates between a mid and high front vowel. The other alternation, which takes place across a l l 3 conjugation classes, shows v a r i a t i o n between a f a l l i n g diphthong and a simple vowel. These alternations are found i n the C a s t i l i a n d i a l e c t of Spanish, the prevalent d i a l e c t spoken i n Spain. In 3.2.1 I discuss the Spanish vocalic inventory and 185 present an analysis of stress. In 3.2.2 I present the RU analysis of the Spanish v o c a l i c alternations, arguing that [+high] must be a l e x i c a l l y s p e c i f i e d feature value i n t h i s language. These analyses demonstrate that stress and s y l l a b i f i c a t i o n are i n t e g r a l i n the statement of the phonological rules which control vowel/diphthong and high/mid vowel alternations. In 3.2.3 I present the CU analysis of these f a c t s , and here the focus again i s on the importance of the feature [high] i n t h i s system, and the i n t e r a c t i o n of s y l l a b i f i c a t i o n and stress with the other phonological r u l e s . As i n the analyses of Hungarian, the CU analysis does not require the same types of argumentation for underlying feature values as i n the RU analysis, since both values of the feature [high] are assumed to be marked underlyingly. Spanish data w i l l i n general be given i n orthographic form, which, p a r t i c u l a r l y for vowels, corresponds quite c l o s e l y to the phonological system i t s e l f . Phonetic representations w i l l sometimes be used for the representation of diphthongs. 3.2.1 Spanish Vowels and Stress The Spanish vowel system ( C a s t i l i a n d i a l e c t ) i s given i n (3.41). (3.41) Spanish Vowels i u e o a 186 Phonetically, /e/ varies between [e] and [e] and /o/ between [o] and [3] (Macpherson (1985). There are no long vowels i n the language, although both r i s i n g and f a l l i n g diphthongs are f r e q u e n t 1 7 . Harris (1983) notes that i n Spanish rhymes only f a l l i n g diphthongs may be followed by a l i q u i d , nasal, g l i d e or s, which comprises the set of segments permitted i n coda p o s i t i o n i n Spanish (e.g. siempre, muerte). Rising diphthongs are not permitted to be followed by consonants. I take t h i s as evidence that only f a l l i n g diphthongs are representative of complex nuclei and that r i s i n g diphthongs must be analyzed as nucleus-coda sequences 1 8. The component elements of a diphthong must come from the set of vowels shown i n (3.41). In order to permit complex nuclei Spanish has chosen the marked parameter se t t i n g of the Complex N parameter, as discussed i n 2.1.2.4. The s y l l a b i f i c a t i o n mechanisms of Spanish w i l l be discussed i n 3.2.2.2. Stress i n Spanish f a l l s on one of the l a s t 3 s y l l a b l e s . Penultimate stress i s unmarked on vowel-final words, while f i n a l stress i s the unmarked pattern i n consonant-final forms. Halle, Harris and Vergnaud (1991) demonstrate that the r e l a t i v e l y complex stress patterns of Spanish can be dealt with by assuming that word stress i n Spanish i s assigned both c y c l i c a l l y and p o s t c y c l i c a l l y , and that the Stress Erasure Convention (Halle 1990) applies. The Stress Erasure Convention (SEC) i s a universal p r i n c i p l e which says 187 that a l l metrical structure i s erased at the beginning of each l e v e l . Halle, Harris and Vergnaud (1991) argue that the language-particular aspects of stress assignment i n Spanish are as given i n (3.42). (3.42) a. word-final vowels are extrametrical b. the rightmost v i s i b l e s y l l a b l e receives an accent mark c. Left-headed feet are constructed i n binary fashion from r i g h t to l e f t d. Main stress i s assigned to the rightmost foot by constructing an unbounded right-headed constituent. Using the rules i n (3.41) and the SEC, Halle, Harris and Vergnaud demonstrate that stress i n Spanish i s rule-governed. Forms that demonstrate exceptional antepenultimate stress (for vowel-final words) or penultimate stress (for consonant-f i n a l forms) rather than the more unmarked penultimate or ultimate stress patterns are treated as being exceptional with regard to the rule i n (3.42b). In the following analysis of Spanish I adopt the stress account of Halle, Harris and Vergnaud (1991), with some elaborations for the verbal forms that I discuss. Stress i s p a r t i c u l a r l y important i n the analyses of the imperfective forms discussed i n conjunction with the high/mid a l t e r n a t i o n f a c t s . 188 3.2.2 Parametric RU Analyses of Spanish Vocalic Alternations The components of UG that are assumed i n the parametric RU model are given i n 3.1.2. These include the MRC, Ordering Constraints, and Universal Default Rules. In the following sections I demonstrate that [+high] must be the l e x i c a l l y marked value of [high] i n Spanish, contrary to the universal markedness considerations that have been assumed i n e a r l i e r chapters. If [+high] i s l e x i c a l l y marked i n Spanish, then the context-free parameter for [high] (rule 2 i n (3.5)) has been reset at the marked option, and a complement ru l e has been created to f i l l i n [-high] as the redundant value. Assuming that the other redundancy rules are unchanged from UG, the redundancy rules necessary for Spanish are those i n (3.43). 189 (3.43) Spanish Redundancy Rules Default Rules 1. [ ] \u00E2\u0080\u0094> [-low] 5. [+low] - - > [-high] 3. [ ] \u00E2\u0080\u0094> [-back] 6. [+low] --> [+back] 4. [ ] \u00E2\u0080\u0094> [-round] 7. [+low] - - > [-round] 8. [+back] [-low] \u00E2\u0080\u0094 > [+round] 9. [-back] [-low] - - > [-round] Complement Rule 2a.[ ] --> [-high] If the rules i n (3.43) supply the redundant feature values i n Spanish the marked values w i l l be those i n (3.44) 1 9. (3.44) Parametric RU Spanish Vowel System i e . a o u high + + low + back + + [round] i s a t o t a l l y redundant feature i n t h i s system, and /e/ i s t o t a l l y unspecified. This system i s s i m i l a r to the universal 5 vowel system given i n (2.37), except for the l e x i c a l l y marked values of [high]. If Spanish requires only one featural parameter to be reset at the marked option i t i s a much less complex system than that of Hungarian (discussed i n 3.1), since Hungarian 190 requires that 4 such parameters be reset. The l e x i c a l marking of [+high] i n Spanish i s demonstrated by c e r t a i n facts r e l a t i n g to verb paradigms, and therefore some general issues regarding the formation of Spanish verbs are f i r s t discussed. F i r s t person present i n d i c a t i v e amo como pienso pierdo avanzo muevo compro valgo 3rd conjugation theme vowel - / i / 3.2.2.1 Spanish Verbal Classes There are three verb conjugation classes i n Spanish. Representative paradigms are given for each class i n (3.45). (3.45) Spanish verb classes 1st conjugation 2nd conjugation theme vowel - /a/ theme vowel - /e/ I n f i n i t i v e s amar comer pensar perder avanzar mover comprar valer Past P a r t i c i p l e amado comido pensado perdido avanzado movido comprado valido v i v i r pedir concebir p a r t i r v i v i d o pedido concebido partido vivo pido concibo parto 191 Spanish i n f i n i t i v e s are composed of a root, a theme vowel (/a/ i n 1st conjugation, /e/ i n 2nd conjugation, and / i / i n 3rd conjugation), and the i n f i n i t i v e marker - r . Harris (1969) argues that a theme vowel i s underlyingly present i n the verb paradigms for a l l tenses and aspects, but i f the tense/aspect marker which follows i s v o w e l - i n i t i a l , the theme vowel i s deleted, t h i s assumption produces the following underlying forms for the present i n d i c a t i v e and imperfective of the verbs amar, temer and v i v i r , of the 1st, 2nd and 3rd conjugation classes, respectively (stressed vowels are shown i n c a p i t a l s ) . 192 (3.46) Underlying Representations of Verbal Conjugations Present Indicative Surface Imperfect Surface a. 1st conjugation amar 'to l i k e ' yo am + a + o Amo am + a + a + amAba tu am + a + s Amas am + a + a + s amAbas e l am + a + Ama am + a + a + amAba nosotros am + a + mos amAmos am + a + a + mos amAbamos e l l o s am + a + n Aman am + a + a + n amAban b. 2nd conjugation temer 'to fear' yo tem + e + o tEmo tem + e + a + temla til tern + e + s tEmes tem + e + a + s temlas e l tem + e + 0 tEme tem + e + a + temla nosotros tem + e + mos temEmos tem + e + a + mos temlamos e l l o s tem + e + n tEmen tem + e + a + n temlan c. 3rd conjugation v i v i r 'to l i v e ' yo v i v + i + o vivo viv + i + a + 0 v i v l a tu v i v + i + s vlves v i v + i + a + s v i v l a s e l v i v + i + vlve viv + i + a + v i v l a nosotros v i v + i + mos vivlmos viv + i + a + mos vivlamos e l l o s v i v + i + n vlven v i v + i + a + n v i v l a n The person endings for the present i n d i c a t i v e of a l l three conjugation classes are underlyingly i d e n t i c a l , however, we must assume that a /b/ i s inserted between the theme vowel 193 and the person/number marker i n 1st conjugation forms. I w i l l not attempt to motivate t h i s i n s e r t i o n rule here. I adopt t h i s p a r t i c u l a r analysis of verbs, and assume, following Harris (1969), that a rule of Vowel Deletion accounts for the deletion of the theme vowel i n the '1st person singular present i n d i c a t i v e ' forms. The theme vowel i s l e f t i n t a c t i n a l l other persons shown i n (3.46). Vowel Deletion w i l l delink the leftmost of two adjacent vowels brought together by morphological concatenation, i f that vowel i s not stressed. The statement of t h i s r u l e i s c r u c i a l l y concerned with stress, as the stressed theme vowel i n the imperfective forms i s not deleted, while the unstressed theme vowel i n the 1st person singular i n d i c a t i v e i s . In analyzing the stress patterns of Spanish verbs, I assume, as do Halle, Harris and Vergnaud (1991), that the theme vowel i s a c y c l i c a f f i x , while the imperfective and number/person markers shown i n (3.46) are non-cyclic a f f i x e s . In addition, I assume that the number/person markers are a f f i x e s which are exceptions with regard to (3.42b). Verb stems which contain consonant-final number/person markers w i l l then generally demonstrate penultimate stress, rather than the more unmarked ultimate pattern, since the f i n a l v i s i b l e s y l l a b l e w i l l not be marked with an accent and stress w i l l be assigned v i a (3.42c). Stress w i l l then be assigned i n the 1st person singular i n d i c a t i v e form tEmo as shown i n (3.47). 194 (3.47) a. x x x + x + x t e m e o root theme 1st pers vowel sing ind. Stress rules: b. x x x + x + x t e r n e (o) c. / \ / \ s w X X X + X + X t e r n e (o) d. Vowel Deletion: s I X X X X t e m o This form i s made up of the root and the c y c l i c theme vowel a f f i x /e/, followed by the non-cyclic number/person marker. The f i n a l vowel i s extrametrical by (3.42a), and since the number/person marker i s an exception to (3.42b), a l e f t -headed foot w i l l be erected supplying stress to the root vowel. If Vowel Deletion applies a f t e r stress assignment to 195 delete the unstressed theme vowel, then the surface form tEmo Is explained. Stress i s assigned i n the 1st person p l u r a l i n d i c a t i v e form temEmos as shown i n (3.48). . (3.48) a. Morphology x x x + x + X X X t e m e m o s root theme 1st pers vowel p i . ind. Stress rules b. / \ / s X X X + X + t e m e w x x x m o s This word i s consonant-final, so (3.42a) w i l l not apply. Since the number/person marker i s exceptional with regard to (3.42b), a left-headed foot w i l l be erected over the f i n a l two vowels, giving the theme vowel primary stress. If a rul e of Vowel Deletion i s prohibited from applying to stressed vowels, t h i s w i l l explain why the theme vowel remains i n t h i s form. In the imperfective forms shown i n (3.46) we see that 196 stress i s always fixed on the theme vowel. Halle, Harris and Vergnaud (1991) discuss only the 3rd person singular imperfective forms of 1st conjugation verbs, and they assume that the f i n a l vowel ( f i n a l [a] i n amAba) i s extrametrical (by (3.42a)), accounting for the penultimate stress pattern. In contrast, I assume that these forms can be explained by reference to the fact that the number/person markers i n general are exceptional with regard to (3.42b). If we assume that a l l imperfect forms also have a number/person a f f i x following the imperfective marker (even i f the number/person marker i s phonologically empty, as i t i s i n the 1st and 3rd person s i n g u l a r ) , then we can explain the stress patterns i n the majority of imperfective forms. This analysis can then account for imperfective verb forms i n a l l three conjugation classes, whereas the Halle, Harris and Vergnaud account i s only able to account for c e r t a i n forms i n the 1st conjugation c l a s s . My account i s more consistent with the facts of Spanish, i n that i t assumes that imperfectives, l i k e other verbal paradigms, always contain person/number markers. The 1st person singular imperfective v i v l a can be explained as shown i n (3.49). 197 (3.49) a. Morphology: X X X + X + X + 0 v i v i a root theme imp. 1st pers vowel sg. ind. b. Stress rules: A / \ s w X X X + X + X + v i v i a This form i s made up of a root, a theme vowel ( / i / ) , the imperfective marker (/a/) and the empty 1st person singular marker 2 0. The number/person marker i s exceptional to (3.42b), so the f i n a l vowel i n the form i s not accented, and a l e f t -headed foot i s erected over the f i n a l two vowels, s t r e s s i n g the theme vowel. The theme vowel w i l l then not be e l i g i b l e for Vowel Deletion. The stress pattern of the 1st person p l u r a l imperfectives (e.g. vivlamos) i s s t i l l r e c a l c i t r a n t given t h i s analysis, as i t i s i n the Halle, Harris and Vergnaud anal y s i s . I w i l l not attempt to develop an analysis of these forms here, although i t i s expected that one can be provided. Vowel Deletion (which I c a l l Vowel Delinking) can now be 198 stated as i n (3.50). (3.50) Vowel Delinking Delink: s k e l e t a l s l o t from the nucleus Target Condition: the leftmost unstressed N of two adjacent N*s Domain: l e x i c a l ( c y c l i c ) This rule delinks the s k e l e t a l s l o t of the leftmost vowel from a nucleus when two vowels become immediately adjacent due to morphological concatenation. It must be a c y c l i c l e x i c a l r u l e because i t never deletes a vowel i n t r a -morphemically. The operation of (3.50) i n the present i n d i c a t i v e and imperfective forms vivo and v i v l a are compared i n (3.51). 199 (3.51) a. N X X X N I X I I [+hi] [+hi] N x [+bk] o ] [ [ [ v i v ] i ] root theme 1st pers vowel sg. ind. Present Indicative [vivo] b. s N N I I x I I [+hi] [+hi] N X X X I [+bk] [[[ v i v ] i ] a ] ). S y l l a b i f i c a t i o n i n Spanish w i l l be ordered p r i o r to the other phonological rules that are to be discussed, since these rules a l l have target conditions which specify s y l l a b i f i c a t i o n or stress requirements. Stress i s assigned to the root vowel i n (3.51a) (see (3.47)) and to the theme vowel i n (3.51b) (see (3.49)). Only the theme vowel i n (3.51a) w i l l therefore be a target of Vowel Delinking, since the leftmost of the two adjacent nuclei i n (3.51b) i s stressed. Vowel Delinking w i l l be discussed further with regard to the high/mid vo c a l i c alternations examined i n 3<~2\u00C2\u00AB2o3\u00C2\u00BB 3.2.2.2 Alternating Vowel/Diphthongs In c e r t a i n 1st, 2nd or 3rd conjugation verbs an unstressed mid or high vowel ( [ i ] , [ e ] , [ o ] or [u]) varies with a stressed f a l l i n g diphthong (shown here as phonetic [ye] for orthographic i e and [we] for orthographic u e ) 2 1 . The second member of such as diphthong i s always [e]. 201 (3.52) Alternating vowel/diphthongs a. Front vowels t[e]ndEmos t[yE]nden adqu[i]riO n[e]gO b. Back vowels c[o]ntO c[wE]nto j[u]gAmos j[wE]ga 'we/they tend' - 2nd conj. adqu[yE]re *he acquired/he acquires' - 3rd conj n[y E]\u00C2\u00B0J a 'he denied/he denies* - 1st conj. \u00E2\u0080\u00A2he told/I t e l l * - 1st conj. 'we play/he plays' - 1st conj. The most common alternations are those found i n forms such as tendemos/tienden and conto/cuento, where a f a l l i n g diphthong alternates with a mid front or back vowel. Alternations between a f a l l i n g diphthong and a high front or back vowel, such as those found i n juqamos/jueqa and adquirio/adquiere, are r e l a t i v e l y rare. In some 3rd conjugation verbs there i s a ternary a l t e r n a t i o n pattern between a high vowel, a mid vowel, and a f a l l i n g diphthong. This pattern i s shown i n (3.53) with the verb mentir. (3.53) \"to l i e \" I n f i n i t i v e mentir Past P a r t i c i p l e mentldo Gerund mintiEndo Present Indicative Present Subjunctive miEnto mentlmos miEnta mintAmos miEntes mentis miEntas mintAis miEnte miEnten miEnta miEntan 202 The root diphthong always appears under stress, but e i t h e r the high or mid vowel may appear i n unstressed positions \u00E2\u0080\u0094 the high vowel when followed by a diphthong or by a morpheme beginning with [a], and the mid vowel when followed by [ i ] . These alternations have been discussed at great length i n the Spanish l i t e r a t u r e . The vowel underlying t h i s a l t e r n a t i o n has been described as a simple vowel /e/ which undergoes diphthongization under c e r t a i n conditions (Harris 1969, Brame and Bordelois 1973), as an underlying diphthong / i e / (or /ue/) that i s sometimes changed to a monophthong (Norman and Sanders 1977), or as a complex l e x i c a l entry which includes both a simple vowel and a diphthong (Hooper 1976). I assume; following Harris (1985), that a l t e r n a t i n g vowel/diphthongs are underlyingly represented as two s k e l e t a l s l o t s , the f i r s t of which may or may not have associated v o c a l i c features, and the second of which i s t o t a l l y unspecified. The underlying representation of the roots 'deny' and 'play' from (3.52) are compared to the representations of the roots peg 'beat' and mont 'climb' of the non-alternating class i n (3.54). 203 (3.54) a. Alternating vowel/diphthong forms X X X X X X X X I I I I I I n e g j u g b. Non-alternating forms X X X X X X X I I I I I I I p e g m o n t In both neg/nieq and juq/jueq the root vowel i s represented as two s k e l e t a l s l o t s , while the root vowels i n the non-al t e r n a t i n g forms are represented as single s k e l e t a l s l o t s . In o u t l i n i n g how s y l l a b i f i c a t i o n of the underlying forms i n (3.54) w i l l proceed, I adopt the s y l l a b i f i c a t i o n algorithm of Levin (1985) discussed e a r l i e r i n 2.1.2.4. The universal components of t h i s theory are repeated here as (3.55). 204 X-bar theory i . Categorial Component a. N-Placement b. Complex-N i i . Projection a. Project N\" b. Project N' i i i . Incorporation a. Incorporate into N\" b. Incorporate into N' i v . Adjunction (to N\") Condition on Structure-Dependent Rules Sonority Hierarchy Vowels project N (by N-placement); N\" (onset position) i s projected by picking up the segment immediately to the l e f t of N (by Project N\"); and N' i s projected to pick up remaining post-nuclear elements (by Project N'). In Levin's framework s y l l a b i c i t y i s derived through the operation of redundancy or phonological rules, or i t may be s p e c i f i e d l e x i c a l l y . In Spanish, the only segments that may be s y l l a b i c are the vowels shown i n (3.40) and diphthongs composed of combinations of these vowels, and therefore s y l l a b i c i t y i s a redundant phenomenon i n the language. I assume that the redundancy rule projecting N i n Spanish i s as shown i n (3.56). (3.55) A. B. C, 205 (3.56) N-Placement - Spanish N I x > x I I [-cons] [-cons] If consonants are underlyingly marked [+cons], then vowels w i l l be underlyingly unspecified for the feature [cons]. Since (3.56) makes reference to the feature value [-cons], the redundancy rule i n s e r t i n g [-cons] on vowels w i l l be inserted p r i o r to application of (3.56) by the RROC. The fact that Spanish permits diphthongs demonstrates that i t has chosen the marked parameter s e t t i n g permitting complex nuclei (Complex-N i n (3.55)). As discussed i n 3.2.1 I assume that the only type of complex N allowed i n Spanish i s a f a l l i n g diphthong, and t h i s p a r t i c u l a r type of diphthong only appears morpheme-internally. A l l other sequences of vowels w i l l be analyzed as complex rhymes or two adjacent s y l l a b l e heads. Spanish requires the language-specific statement i n (3.57) to indicate when a complex N can be formed. 206 (3.57) Complex N Formation When two sk e l e t a l s l o t s (X) marked as [-cons] are adjacent: If X 2 i s equal to or more sonorous than X x then X i X 2 i s s y l l a b i f i e d as a branching N. The rightmost member i s designated as the head of N 2 2. Since t h i s rule again makes reference to the feature [-cons], the redundancy rule i n s e r t i n g that feature value w i l l be ordered p r i o r to t h i s process, by the RROC. (3.57) w i l l j o i n two adjacent s k e l e t a l s l o t s into a branching N, provided that the second s l o t i s at least as sonorous as the f i r s t . N Placement and Complex N Formation cannot destroy previously erected s y l l a b l e structures i n Spanish, which accounts for the fact that complex nuclei a r i s e only within morphemes i n t h i s language. A theme vowel followed by a v o w e l - i n i t i a l s u f f i x i s always r e a l i z e d as two d i s t i n c t s y l l a b l e s , suggesting that N-Placement and not Complex-N Formation i s responsible for the placement of the n u c l e i . If Complex N Formation were able to create new structure, then we would expect that these vowel sequences could also become diphthongs -- a r e s u l t that i s not borne out i n the data. (3.55C) i s the sonority hierarchy, which helps to determine how s y l l a b i f i c a t i o n proceeds. Levin, following Steriade (1982), assumes that the hierarchy of features which p a r t i c i p a t e i n sonority are fixed u n i v e r s a l l y , as i s the sonority difference between the two values of any feature. 207 The sonority properties of languages d i f f e r only i n the i n c l u s i o n of features i n the language-particular sonority scale, and i n the Minimal Sonority Distance required between segments i n c l u s t e r s . Levin (1985: 77-78) discusses how a theory of underspecification, where feature values are not f u l l y s p e c i f i e d , can be reconciled with a sonority scale such as that proposed i n Steriade (1982). Levin suggests that feature combinations be matched to positions i n the sonority hierarchy only i f they have i d e n t i c a l feature s p e c i f i c a t i o n s . If features or feature values change during the course of the derivation then they w i l l automatically be reassessed against the sonority scale. Following Levin's p r i n c i p l e s , a sonority scale for Spanish vowels i s given i n (3.58). (3.58) Spanish Sonority Scale - Vowels 1. [-cons], [+high] 2. [-cons] 3. [-cons], [+low] The l e a s t sonorous vowels are those s p e c i f i e d as [-cons] and [+high] and the most sonorous are those s p e c i f i e d as [-cons] and [+low]. A vowel s p e c i f i e d only as [-cons] (by the context-free redundancy rule) w i l l be more sonorous than a [+high] vowel, but less sonorous than a [+low] vowel. Only the features [cons], [low] and [high] are relevant to t h i s scale \u00E2\u0080\u0094 other feature s p e c i f i c a t i o n s w i l l be ignored i n the 208 matching algorithm. Given two morpheme-internal vowel sequences / i e / and / a i / we can see the e f f e c t s of (3.57) and (3.58) as follows: (3.59) a. x x b. x x I I [-cons] [-cons] I [+lo] [+hi] /a/ / i / [-cons] [-cons] [+hi] / i / /e/ Pos i t i o n i n sonority scale 1 2 3 1 S y l l a b i f i c a t i o n N N N / \ I I X X X X I I I I [-cons] [-cons] [-cons] [-cons] [+lo] [+hi] [+hi] I assume that underlyingly vowels are not s p e c i f i e d for the feature [cons]; however, [-cons] i s added to the representations by a context-free redundancy ru l e immediately p r i o r to N-Placement and Complex N Formation. Each vowel w i l l be matched against the sonority scale i n (3.55), which 209 w i l l specify that / i / i s less sonorous than /e/, while /a/ i s more sonorous than / i / . Given the r e s t r i c t i o n s on sonority i n (3.58) only the vowel sequence i n (3.59a) w i l l be s y l l a b i f i e d as a complex N. In (3.59b) both vowels w i l l be s y l l a b i f i e d separately, and w i l l most l i k e l y surface as two d i s t i n c t s y l l a b l e s . The derivation of the forms juqamos and nieqa from (3.51) u n t i l the assignment of stress are shown i n (3.60) 2 3; (3.60) [ 1 \u00E2\u0080\u0094 > [-cons] n g a X X X X + X I I I [-C][-C] [-C] 3 u g X X X X I I [-CH-C] I [+hi] [+bk] a \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 x + I [-C] m o s x x x I [-c] [+bk] [+lo] [+lo] Project N Complex N Formation N N / I I n g a x x x x x I I I [-C][-C] [-C] x N / I u X X I I g X N I a x I m x [ -c][-c] [-c] [+hi] i N I o x I [-C] [+bk] [+bk] [+lo] [+lo] 210 Project N\" N\" N\" N\" N\" N\" N N / I I n g a x x x x x I I I [-CJ[-C] [-C] N N N / I I I j u g a m o s X X X x x x x x I I I [-C][-C] [-C] I [+hi] [+bk] I [+bk] [+lo] [+lo] Project N' N\" N\" N\" n/a / I I I N I N' I N j u g a m o s x x x x x x x x I I I [-CH-C] [-C] [+hi] I [+bk] [+lo] [-C] [+bk] 211 Stress Assignment s N\" N\" I I N N / I I n g a X X X X X I I I [-C][-C] [-C] N\" s I N' I I N / I N I N\" I N' I N I [+lo] j u g a m o s x x x x x x x x I I I I [-C][-C] [-C] [-C] I [+hi] I [+bk] [+bk] [+lo] The root vowels are underlyingly represented with two sk e l e t a l s l o t s , i n d i c a t i n g that these vowels are of the alte r n a t i n g type. In my analysis of these facts the i n i t i a l s l o t i n the underlying diphthong i n juqamos w i l l be s p e c i f i e d as [+high] and [+back], while the second s l o t w i l l be t o t a l l y unspecified. The [+high] s p e c i f i c a t i o n of the i n i t i a l member of the diphthong i s required since t h i s vowel surfaces as a high vowel when i t i s reduced to a monophthong (juqamos). The i n i t i a l s l o t i n the diphthong i n nieqa w i l l not be s p e c i f i e d as [+high] since t h i s vowel i s r e a l i z e d as a mid vowel when i t i s reduced to a monophthong (nego). The second 212 member of t h i s diphthong w i l l also have no underlying s p e c i f i c a t i o n s . Complex N Formation w i l l apply to create a branching N over these vowels, while a single N w i l l be placed over the remaining vowels. Project N\" and Project N' w i l l then apply to s y l l a b i f y the remaining segments. Stress i s assigned to the penultimate s y l l a b l e i n both forms: i n both cases because the number/person markers do not tri g g e r (3.42b). Harris (1985) posits three rules to account for the surface r e a l i z a t i o n of the alternating vowel/diphthongs shown i n (3.54). Diphthongization i s a rule which adds the feature [-cons] to a s k e l e t a l s l o t with no associated f e a t u r a l material i n a branching rhyme of a stressed s y l l a b l e . Default i s a rule (or rules) which adds the default features to a vowel s p e c i f i e d as [-cons] through Diphthongization. The f i n a l r u l e , High-Glide Formation, inserts [+high] on the non-head member of a branching rhyme, making the i n i t i a l member a g l i d e . I adopt Harris' analysis i n s p i r i t , although my formulation of these rules i s s l i g h t l y d i f f e r e n t . Given that I have already assumed that a default rule f i l l s i n the feature [-consonantal] before N-Placement, there i s no reason to p o s i t an additional rule of Diphthongization. The rule of High-Glide Formation w i l l supply the [+high] feature value for the i n i t i a l member of a stressed diphthong, such as that i n nieqa. 213 (3.61) High-Glide Formation Insert [+high] Target condition: non-head member of a branching stressed N Domain: p o s t c y c l i c High-Glide Formation must apply a f t e r stress i s assigned and since stress i s both c y c l i c and p o s t c y c l i c I assume (3.61) belongs to the po s t c y c l i c component. Continuing the derivation from (3.60), I show the operation of High-Glide Formation i n the forms nieqa and juqamos (nuclear s l o t s are underlined). (3.62) s s / I I n g a j u g a m o X X X X X X X X X X X X I [+hi] I I | [+bk] | [+bk] [+lo] [+lo] High-Glide Formation s / I n g a n/a X X X X X [+hi] [+lo] 214 High-Glide Formation w i l l apply only to the al t e r n a t i n g vowel/diphthong i n niega, since the alternating vowel i n juqamos does not receive stress. High-Glide Formation w i l l add [+high] to the i n i t i a l member of the al t e r n a t i n g vowel i n niega and i t w i l l be r e a l i z e d as a front g l i d e . The surface r e a l i z a t i o n of the alternating vowel/diphthongs i n these forms require two further operations. In juqamos the second s l o t of the al t e r n a t i n g vowel must be deleted, so that t h i s vowel surfaces as simple [u]. This rule w i l l be discussed i n 3.2.2.4. The second member of an alte r n a t i n g vowel/diphthong always surfaces as [e], as shown i n (3.52). If we assume that [+high] i s the l e x i c a l l y marked feature s p e c i f i c a t i o n i n Spanish, then the redundancy rules of the language w i l l be as given i n (3.43), and w i l l provide a l l the surface s p e c i f i c a t i o n s f or [e]. The redundancy rules w i l l apply l a t e i n the derivation to f i l l i n the feature values of the second member of a stressed al t e r n a t i n g vowel/diphthong. The alternating vowel/diphthongs examined i n t h i s section then provide two sources of evidence that [+high] must be a l e x i c a l l y marked feature value i n Spanish, and that consequently the context-free featural parameter for [high] must be reset to the marked option i n t h i s language. Given that only one feature value i s s p e c i f i e d underlyingly i n the theory of RU, the rule of High-Glide Formation, which adds [+high] to the i n i t i a l member of an alte r n a t i n g 215 vowel/diphthong, demonstrates that [+high] must be the l e x i c a l l y marked value of Spanish. In addition, i f a t o t a l l y unspecified vowel i n Spanish surfaces with the surface s p e c i f i c a t i o n s for [e], then again t h i s demonstrates that the redundant s p e c i f i c a t i o n s must be as shown i n (3.43), and consequently that [+high] must be a l e x i c a l value i n t h i s language. 3.2.2.3 High/Mid Alternating Vowels Many researchers, such as Malkiel (1966), Harris (1969), Montgomery (1975) and Hooper (1976) note that there are several d i f f e r e n t types of 3rd conjugation class verbs. V i v i r , shown i n (3.63), i s representative of the most standard type. (3.63) \"to l i v e \" I n f i n i t i v e v i v i r Past P a r t i c i p l e v ivldo Gerund viviEndo Present Indicative Imperfect vivO vivlmos v i v l a vivlamos vivEs v i v l a s vivE vivEn v i v l a v i v l a n The root vowel i n these forms never varies: i t i s always [ i ] . The theme vowel / i / transparently surfaces i n the i n f i n i t i v e , past p a r t i c i p l e , imperfect, and i n the 1st person p l u r a l present i n d i c a t i v e forms. I assume, following Harris (1969), that the theme vowel also surfaces i n a l l other 216 i n d i c a t i v e forms except the 1st person singular, and that i t i s subsequently lowered by ru l e . This rule of F i n a l Vowel Lowering w i l l be discussed i n 3.2.2.4. While the majority of 3rd conjugation verbs behave l i k e v i v i r i n (3.63), i n a subclass of these verbs the root vowel surfaces as [+high] when stressed or followed by a diphthong, and as a mid vowel when unstressed. Some examples of t h i s type of verb are given i n (3.64). (3.64) Alternating High/Mid 3rd Conjugation Verbs \"to conceive\" I n f i n i t i v e conc[e]bIr Past P a r t i c i p l e conc[e]bIdo Gerund conc[i]biEndo Present Indicative Imperfect conc[I]bo conc[e]bImos conc[e]bIa conc[e]bIamos conc[I]bes conc[e]bIas conc[I]be conc[I]ben conc[e]bIa conc[e]bIan Examples of other verbs i n t h i s subclass: s e r v i r \"to serve\" p r e f e r i r \"to prefer\" r e p e t i r \"to ask\" e l e g i r \"to e l e c t \" pedir \"to ask\" The root vowel surfaces as [e] i f the following vowel i s simple [ i ] (as opposed to a diphthong containing [ i ] ) and surfaces as [ i ] everywhere else. In the majority of cases a 217 root vowel surfacing as [ i ] i s stressed; however, forms such as conciblendo demonstrate that the r e a l i z a t i o n of a root vowel as [ i ] and stress are not always coextensive. We can use the rule of Vowel Delinking i n (3.50) to help explain these high/mid v o c a l i c alternations. We know that the theme vowel i n 3rd conjugation verbs i s / i / , and also that the root vowel only surfaces as [ i ] i f the theme vowel does not surface. As stated i n (3.50) Vowel Delinking delinks the s k e l e t a l s l o t from a unstressed nucleus, leaving everything below the nucleus f l o a t i n g . If we assume that the 3rd conjugation theme vowel i s underlyingly s p e c i f i e d simply as [+high], then a [+high] feature w i l l be a v a i l a b l e to r e l i n k to a root vowel. Given the feature s p e c i f i c a t i o n s i n (3.44), i f the root vowel i n these forms i s underlyingly /e/ i t w i l l have no underlyingly feature s p e c i f i c a t i o n s and w i l l be a v a i l a b l e for the f l o a t i n g [+high] to l i n k to. This high/mid a l t e r n a t i o n w i l l then take place only i n a context where a 3rd conjugation theme vowel i s delinked, and then i s able to reassociate to a root vowel unspecified for the feature [high]. Assuming that / i / i s s p e c i f i e d as [+high] and /e/ i s underlyingly unspecified, the representation of the 1st person present i n d i c a t i v e concibo from the a l t e r n a t i n g high/mid class w i l l be as shown i n (3.65). 218 (3.65) Underlying N X X X I [+bk] [ k o n p r e f i x s I N I X X X N I N I x I [+bk] [+hi] [ s V b ] i ] o ] root theme 1st pers . vowel sg. ind. /conceb+i+o/ Vowel Delinking N I X X X s I N I . X X X N I X [+bk] | [+hi] [ k o n [ s V b ] i ] N I x I [+bk] o ] The stress rules w i l l apply to t h i s form to stress the root vowel, since the f i n a l vowel i s extrametrical and a l e f t -headed foot w i l l be erected over the f i n a l two v i s i b l e s y l l a b l e s . The theme vowel then meets the s t r u c t u r a l 219 des c r i p t i o n of Vowel Delinking i n (3.50)/ and w i l l be delinked, leaving a s k e l e t a l s l o t and the feature [+high] f l o a t i n g . The root vowel i n ceb i s t o t a l l y unspecified, and the f l o a t i n g [+high] s p e c i f i c a t i o n that i s l e f t a f t e r Vowel Delinking can reassociate to the root vowel. Reassociation i s performed by the Association Conventions given i n (2.6), and w i l l associate the f l o a t i n g feature to a s k e l e t a l s l o t dominated by N. As discussed i n 2.1.2.1, the unmarked d i r e c t i o n of association i s assumed to be l e f t - t o - r i g h t , predicting that i n (3.65) the p r e f i x a l vowel should surface as [u]. Since t h i s i s c l e a r l y not the correct output, we must ask why [+high] reassociates to the root vowel rather than to the p r e f i x a l vowel? One possible solution to t h i s problem i s that i n Spanish, as i n P o l i s h (Czaykowska-Higgins 1988, Szpyra 1989) or Indonesian (Cohn 1989), prefixes behave as d i s t i n c t phonological words, and are never affected by within-word processes. In t h i s view the p r e f i x con w i l l not be a part of the representation of the root ceb plus i t s s u f f i x e s , and consequently the vowel of the p r e f i x w i l l never be a possible landing s i t e for the f l o a t i n g [+high] f e a t u r e 2 4 . A second explanation for the fact that f l o a t i n g [+high] does not reassociate to the p r e f i x a l vowel i s that the Association Conventions are r e s t r i c t e d to the c y c l i c domain, and prefixes are added at a p o s t - c y c l i c l e v e l . This p a r t i c u l a r r e s t r i c t i o n on the application of the Association Conventions i s discussed again i n 3.2.2.4 i n conjunction with 220 the rule of F i n a l Vowel Lowering. Halle, Harris and Vergnaud (1991) assume that Spanish prefixes are p o s t - c y c l i c a f f i x e s , although t h e i r t h e o r e t i c a l orientation i s not that of L e x i c a l Phonology. I w i l l not attempt to choose between these two possible explanations for why Spanish prefixes do not provide a landing s i t e for a f l o a t i n g [+high] feature, but simply assume that the p r e f i x (for some reason) i s not v i s i b l e at the time that the reassociation of [+high] takes place. The operation of the Association of [+high] to the form i n (3.64) i s shown i n (3.65). (3.65) Association of [+high] s I N N I I X X X X I I I [+bk] [+hl] [ s i b o ] 221 Pr e f i x a t i o n s N N N X X X x x x X [+bk] [+bk] [+hi] [ k o n s i b o ] concibo We have discussed the consequences of a [+high] theme vowel deleting a f t e r a [+high] root vowel (vivo) and a f t e r a vowel unspecified for height (concibo). The data i n (3.45) show that 3rd conjugation verbs can also have root vowels that are [+low]. A form such as parto, however, demonstrates that the deletion of the [+high] theme vowel has no e f f e c t on a [+low] vowel. I assume that the [+low] s p e c i f i c a t i o n of the root vowel precludes the reassociation of [+high], because redundancy rule 5 i n (3.43) prohibits Association of [+high] from applying to a low vowel 2 5. This analysis predicts that root vowels of verbs i n the al t e r n a t i n g high/mid class w i l l only surface as [+high] i f the theme vowel i s deleted. The data i n (3.64) demonstrate that a root vowel can also surface as [ i ] when the tense/aspect marker begins with a f a l l i n g diphthong, suggesting that Vowel Deletion also occurs i n t h i s case. The 222 derivation of the form concibiendo i s given i n (3.67) (again assuming that the p r e f i x i s not a relevant part of the representation). (3.67) root theme Present V p a r t i c i p l e Morphology s b i i e n d o X X X + x + x x x x x I I I I I [+bk] [+hi] [+hi] s S y l l a b i f i c a t i o n & | Stress rules N\" N\" N\" N\" I I I I N\" | N | I I I I N N N N i i /I i s i b i i n d o x x x x x x x x x I I I I I [+bk] [+hi][+hi] 223 Vowel s b i n d o Delinking x x x x x x x x x [+bk] [+hl][+hl] Association s i b i n d o of [+hi] x x x x x x x x [+bk] [+hl][+hi] This form i s composed of a p r e f i x , root, theme vowel (/i/) and the present p a r t i c i p l e marker. When the stress rules apply the f i n a l vowel w i l l be marked as extrametrical, and an accent w i l l be added to the l a s t v i s i b l e vowel, which i n t h i s case w i l l be the underlying diphthong of the present p a r t i c i p l e . This vowel w i l l carry the primary word st r e s s . The theme vowel i s not stressed, and w i l l therefore meet the s t r u c t u r a l description of Vowel Delinking, a f t e r which the delinked [+high] value of the theme vowel can reassociate to the t o t a l l y unspecified root vowel. The surface s p e c i f i c a t i o n s of the diphthong w i l l be provided by High-Glide Formation i n (3.61) and the redundancy rules of the language. The f i n a l forms that are l e f t to be accounted for are those with three root vowel alternants, shown i n (3.53). The 224 derivations of mentir, mintiendo and miento are compared i n (3.68) (for brevity I omit s y l l a b i f i c a t i o n information, but nuclear s l o t s are underlined). (3.68) m nt + i + r XXXXX X X I [+hi] Stress rules s I m nt + i + r XXXXX X X I Vowel Delinking [+hi] n/a m nt + i + i ndo XXXXX X XXXXX I I [+hi][+hi] s /I m nt +i + i ndo XXXXX X XXXXX I I [+hi][+hi] m n t i n d o x x x x x x x x x x m nt + i + o XXXXX X X I I [+hi] I [+bk] s /I m nt + i + o XXXXX X X I I [+hi] I [+bk] m n t o X X X X X X [+hi][+hi] [+hi] [+bk] Association of [+high] n/a m n t i n d o x x x x x x x x x x I [+hi] [+hi] m n t o X X X X X X I I [+hi] I [+bk] 225 In the i n f i n i t i v e mentir stress w i l l be assigned to the f i n a l s y l l a b l e (because there i s no f i n a l vowel to be extrametrical) and Vowel Delinking i s not applicable (because the i n f i n i t i v e marker i - s a consonant and therefore i t does not f i t the s t r u c t u r a l description of the r u l e ) . The r u l e of Unstressed N Reduction, which w i l l be discussed i n 3.2.2.4, w i l l delink the second s k e l e t a l s l o t of the unstressed root diphthong to give the surface form mentir. In the present i n d i c a t i v e miento stress w i l l be assigned to the root vowel (the number/person marker i s both extrametrical and exceptional to (3.42b)) and Vowel Delinking w i l l apply to delete the theme vowel before the v o w e l - i n i t i a l i n d i c a t i v e ending. It i s d i f f i c u l t to determine whether the [+high] s p e c i f i c a t i o n of the deleted theme vowel reassociates to the i n i t i a l portion of the r o o t - i n t e r n a l diphthong or not, because by High-Glide Formation the diphthong would also surface with a high g l i d e . The present p a r t i c i p l e mintiendo, however, demonstrates that [+high] does reassociate even to a diphthongal root vowel. If the i n i t i a l half of the root diphthong i n ment/mient/mint were s p e c i f i e d as [+high], then we would expect that when the root vowel i s unstressed i t would surface as [ i ] . This i s not the case, however, as shown by the i n f i n i t i v a l form mentir. It must then be the [+high] s p e c i f i c a t i o n of the deleted theme vowel that provides the root vowel s p e c i f i c a t i o n i n mintiendo. I assume the f l o a t i n g 226 [+high] associates to the f i r s t member of the r o o t - i n t e r n a l diphthong, since t h i s vowel i s dominated by a branching N, and the sonority of the complex N would be v i o l a t e d i f [+high] were to be added to the second member26. Given that the second member of the root-internal diphthong i s not s p e c i f i e d for the feature [high], there w i l l be no crossing of association l i n e s i f the f l o a t i n g feature docks onto the f i r s t member. Again these high/mid alternations provide evidence that i n Spanish [+high] i s a l e x i c a l l y marked value, and that the feature s p e c i f i c a t i o n s of the Spanish vowels are as given i n (3.44). If [-high] were the l e x i c a l l y s p e c i f i e d value of the feature [high], there would be no explanation for the fact that we f i n d these alternating high/mid vowels only i n a subclass of 3rd conjugation verbs, and that the root vowels i n these forms surface as [+high] just i n the case that the theme vowel has been delinked. 3.2.2.4 Peripheral Rules Two additional rules are required to account for the verbal alternations that have been discussed i n 3.2.2.2 and 3.2.2.3. In order to produce the correct surface vowels when an underlying diphthong i s unstressed, we must assume a rul e of Unstressed Vowel Deletion. This rule accounts for the r e a l i z a t i o n of the root vowels as monophthongs i n juqamos i n (3.60) and mintiendo i n (3.68). 227 I assume the Branching Condition from Harris (1983: 111) t r i g g e r s the deletion of the second s k e l e t a l s l o t of the unstressed diphthong i n these forms. This condition i s a restatement of Hayes' condition on the branching of recessive nodes given i n (2.13c). (3.69) Branching Condition Foot-nodes l a b e l l e d w(eak) cannot branch. This constraint, which I assume i s part of UG, w i l l force the delinking of one s k e l e t a l s l o t from a branching N i f the N i s i n an unstressed s y l l a b l e . The deletion r u l e i s given i n (3.70) . (3.70) Unstressed N Reduction Delink: s k e l e t a l s l o t Target Condition: head of a branching unstressed N Domain: p o s t c y c l i c Unstressed N Reduction w i l l delink the second s k e l e t a l s l o t i n the underlying vowel/diphthong i n the root portion of juqamos, since i t does not receive stress. (3.70) w i l l apply a f t e r the stress rules have taken place because of i t s target condition. In order to account for the fact that a l l word-final unstressed vowels i n Spanish are non-high, we must pos i t a r u l e of F i n a l Vowel Lowering. The data i n (3.46) and (3.53) demonstrate that such a process i s pervasive within the verbal paradigms of the language, and Harris (1969) 228 demonstrates that t h i s process i n fact operates across a l l l e x i c a l c l a s s e s 2 7 . Given the representation of Spanish vowels i n (3.44), F i n a l Vowel Lowering can be stated as i n (3.71). (3.71) F i n a l Vowel Lowering Delink: [+high] Target Condition: from a vowel i n an unstressed f i open s y l l a b l e Domain: p o s t c y c l i c This r u l e w i l l delete the [+high] s p e c i f i c a t i o n from a vowel that i s i n unstressed word-final p o s i t i o n . Since t h i s i s a rule that applies only to words and must follow stress assignment, I assume that i t i s p o s t c y c l i c . There i s no evidence that the [+high] feature which i s delinked by (3.71) can ever reassociate. If we assume that the Association Conventions which l i n k a f l o a t i n g [+high] feature do not operate p o s t - c y c l i c a l l y , then we can explain why reassociation cannot occur a f t e r delinking by (3.71). Pulleyblank (1985) argues that i n Tiv the Association Conventions must be c y c l i c , although he does not r u l e out the p o s s i b i l i t y that they also apply p o s t - l e x i c a l l y . Since rules may be r e s t r i c t e d to apply i n only a single component of the phonology (see 2.1.1.1) I assume that the same r e s t r i c t i o n s can hold of the Association Conventions. In Spanish, i f the conventions which apply to l i n k a f l o a t i n g [+high] autosegment are c y c l i c and operate only i n 229 the l e x i c a l component then they w i l l then apply to reassociate a [+high] autosegment created by Vowel Delinking (a c y c l i c r u l e ) , but w i l l not apply to reassociate a [+high] autosegment created by (3.71). This p a r t i c u l a r r e s t r i c t i o n on the Association Conventions can also account for the f a c t that [+high] never li n k s to a p r e f i x a l vowel, as discussed i n 3*2\u00C2\u00AB2\u00C2\u00AB3* F i n a l Vowel Lowering i n (3.71) accounts for the height of the f i n a l vowel (which i s underlyingly the theme vowel / i / ) i n 3rd conjugation present i n d i c a t i v e forms such as vive and viven, shown i n (3.46). This rule provides one more piece of evidence that [+high] must be a l e x i c a l l y marked feature value i n Spanish, and therefore that the context-free featural parameter for [high] has been reset i n t h i s language 2 8. 3.2.3 Parametric CU Analyses of Spanish Vocalic Alternations The components of a parametric theory of CU are outlined i n 2.5.2, and summarized e a r l i e r i n t h i s chapter i n 3.1.3. The contrastive s p e c i f i c a t i o n s of the vowels of Spanish are given i n (3.72). (3.72) CU Spanish Vowel System i e a o u high + - - + low + -back - - + + In t h i s symmetrical 5 vowel system / i / and /u/ contrast with 230 /e/ and /o/ with regard to the feature [high], so each of these vowels i s s p e c i f i e d for a value of [high]. /a/ and /o/ contrast with regard to the feature [low], so /a/ i s marked [+low] and lo/ [-low], /u/ and /o/ contrast with / i / and /e/ i n backness, so each i s s p e c i f i e d for a value of the feature [back]. Since [back] i s a marked feature value, [round] becomes t o t a l l y redundant. The system i n (3.72) i s i d e n t i c a l to the Ainu system given i n (2.47), since both languages have the same inventories. F u l l s p e c i f i c a t i o n of t h i s system i s achieved by the set of universal R-rules, given e a r l i e r i n (3.24), repeated as (3.73). (3.73) Universal R-rules: 1. [+low] \u00E2\u0080\u0094> [-high] 2. [+low] --> [+back] 3. [+low] --> [-round] 4. [+back] --> [+round] [-low] 5. [-back] \u00E2\u0080\u0094> [-round] [-low] 6. [+high] --> [-low] 7. [-high] - - > [-low] [-back] Unlike Hungarian, there are no language-particular R-rules required i n t h i s language to achieve t o t a l s p e c i f i c a t i o n of the system i n (3.72). Because the system i n (3.72) i s the 231 system predicted by UG, and because a l l the universal R-rules hold absolutely i n Spanish, none of the R-rule parameters i n (3.73) require r e s e t t i n g . In the following sections I w i l l demonstrate how the high/mid and vowel/diphthong alternations of Spanish can be captured i n the theory of CU. 3.2.3.1 High/Mid Vowel Alternations In the analysis of the high/mid alternations given i n (3.64) I again assume, following Harris (1969), that a l l verb paradigms include a root, a theme vowel, and a tense/aspect marker. As i n the RU analysis a rule of Vowel Delinking i s e s s e n t i a l i n order to explain these alternations: (3.74) Vowel Delinking Delink: s k e l e t a l s l o t Target Condition: the leftmost unstressed N of two adjacent N's Domain: l e x i c a l ( c y c l i c ) (3.74) w i l l delete a theme vowel i f i t i s unstressed, and i s immediately adjacent to a following v o w e l - i n i t i a l s u f f i x . This r u l e w i l l account for the lack of a surface theme vowel i n forms such as amo, temo and vivo. In the RU analysis i t i s assumed that i f the theme vowel that i s delinked i s / i / , i t s [+high] feature would reassociate to a t o t a l l y unspecified root vowel i n a form such as concibo, and that reassociation would be achieved by 232 the universal Association Conventions. In CU, however, both high and mid vowels are s p e c i f i e d for height, so the reassociation mechanism that we use must be feature-changing. I therefore assume that l i n k i n g cannot be performed by the Universal Association Conventions, but rather must be performed by a rule such as (3.75). (3.75) Reassociation of [+high] Insert: association l i n e from [+high] Target Condition: an N-dominated s k e l e t a l marked as [-high] Domain: l e x i c a l ( c y c l i c ) Feature-changing (3.75) i s a c y c l i c l e x i c a l rule that w i l l add an association l i n e between a f l o a t i n g [+high] feature and a segment s p e c i f i e d as [-high]. Reassociation w i l l only occur i f the root vowel i s /e/ or lo/ (and not /a/), since these are the only vowels i n (3.72) s p e c i f i e d as [-high]. If we also assume, as was discussed i n 3.2.2.3, that prefixes i n Spanish either form separate phonological words from the root and i t s s u f f i x e s , or are added to roots at a p o s t - c y c l i c l e v e l , then we can explain why f l o a t i n g [+high] always associates to the root vowel and not to the p r e f i x a l vowel i n the forms such as concibo. If the morpheme following the theme vowel i s not vowel-i n i t i a l , Vowel Delinking w i l l not apply, and the root vowel w i l l surface as a [-high] vowel. Derivations of pedlr (see 233 (3.45)) and concibiendo (bef are compared i n (3.76). (3.76) root theme i n f . V Morphology p e d + i + r X X X X X I I [-hi] [+hi] [-bk] [-bk] e the addition of the prefix) root theme present V p a r t i c i p l e s e b + i + i e n d o x x x X X X X X X I I I I I [-hi] [+hi][+hi][-hi][-hi] I I I I [-bk] [-bk][-bk][-bk][+bk] I [-lo] Stress r u l e s , s s Vowel | / \ Delinking p e d i r s i b i e n d o and x x x x x x x x x x x x x Reassociation | | | | | | of [+high] [-hi][+hi] [+hi][-hi][+hi][-hi] [-hi] I I I I I i | [-bk][-bk] [-bk][-bk][-bk][-bk] [+bk] [-lo] I assume again that the present p a r t i c i p l e i s diphthong-i n i t i a l . Vowel Delinking applies i n concibiendo/ because the theme vowel i s not stressed and the present p a r t i c i p l e i s v o w e l - i n i t i a l . The s k e l e t a l s l o t of the theme vowel w i l l be delinked, and the features [+high] and [-back] w i l l remain f l o a t i n g . Vowel Delinking i s inapplicable i n pedir, since the theme vowel receives primary stress. Reassociation of 234 [+high] can apply i n concibiendo to reassociate the f l o a t i n g [+high] feature to the root vowel, delinking the underlying [-high] s p e c i f i c a t i o n of that vowel. Neither t h i s feature nor the [-back] feature from the delinked theme vowel ever reassociates, and consequently neither one i s phonetically r e a l i z e d . 3.2.3.2 Vowel/Diphthong Alternations In the CU account of Diphthongization I again follow Harris' (1985) analysis i n p r i n c i p l e . In stems where the vowel alternates between a simple vowel and a diphthong the vowel w i l l underlyingly be represented as a diphthong, the second member of which i s associated with the features [-high] and [-back] (the s p e c i f i c a t i o n s for /e/ i n (3.72)), and the f i r s t member represented as / i / , /u/, /o/ or / e / 2 9 . The algorithm for N-Placement, given i n (3.56), w i l l s pecify that any [-cons] segment w i l l project N. In the theory of CU, however, vowels, which contrast with consonants, w i l l be underlyingly s p e c i f i e d as [-cons]. The Complex-N parameter w i l l be reset to ON, and Complex N Formation w i l l be stated as i n (3.57). The sonority scale for Spanish vowels i s given i n (3.77), and again vowels w i l l be matched to positions i n t h i s hierarchy to determine i f a complex N i s possible. (3.77) Spanish Sonority Scale - Vowels 1. [-cons], [+high] 2. [-cons], [-high] 3. [-cons], [+low] 235 As i n the RU analysis, features or feature values not mentioned i n the scale are irr e l e v a n t and can be ignored for matching purposes. Given the contrastive s p e c i f i c a t i o n of vowels i n (3.72) /a/ w i l l be more sonorous than a l l the other vowels, while /e/ and /o/ w i l l be more sonorous than / i / and /u/. I assume again that the stress rules of Spanish are as given i n (3.42). If stress i s assigned to a diphthong, High-Glide Formation w i l l add the feature [+high] to the non-head member. High-Glide Formation applies vacuously i f / i / or /u/ i s the i n i t i a l member of the diphthong, but applies i n a feature-changing fashion i f the i n i t i a l member i s /o/ or /e/. (3.78) High-Glide Formation Insert [+high] Target: non-head member of a branching stressed N p May be feature-changing Domain: po s t c y c l i c (3.78) applies only a f t e r s y l l a b i f i c a t i o n and stress assignment have taken place, since the target must be part of a branching rhyme. Since I follow Halle, Harris and Vergnaud (1991) i n assuming that stress i n Spanish i s both c y c l i c and p o s t c y c l i c , High-Glide Formation w i l l also be p o s t c y c l i c . The operation of Complex N Formation and High-glide Formation i n niEga and juqAmos from (3.52) i s given i n (3.79). 236 (3.79) Morphology root theme 3rd pers. root theme 1st pers V sg. n V p l u r a l n e e g a j u e g a m o s X X X X + X + 0 x x x x + x + x x x \/ [-hi] [-bk] I [+lo] I I I [+hi][-hi] I [+bk][-bk] I [-hi] [+lo] [-lo] I [+bk] S y l l a b i f i c a t i o n and Stress Rules s I N' N' N' s N* N\" N N / I I n e e g a x x x x x \/ I [-hi] I [-bk] I [+lo] I-N 7 I I N I I I [+hi][-hi] | I I [+bk][-bk] | N' N j u e g a m o s x x x x x x x x [+lo] [-hi] [+bk] I [-lo] 237 High-Glide s Formation | N N I I N\" N\" I I N N / | | n/a n i e g a x x x x x I I I [+hi][-hi] I I I [-bk][-bk] I [+lo] Surface niEga jugAmos Both forms have underlying diphthongs r o o t - i n t e r n a l l y . Stress i s assigned to the penultimate s y l l a b l e i n each form, since each contains a number/person marker which i s an exception to (3.42b). High-Glide Formation w i l l provide the [+high] s p e c i f i c a t i o n of the gl i d e i n nieqa (I assume that when the geminate i s s p l i t up both components are s p e c i f i e d as [-back]). A r u l e of Unstressed Vowel Deletion w i l l be required to delete the second member of an unstressed diphthong, i n order to achieve the surface s p e c i f i c a t i o n for juqamos i n (3.78). Since t h i s rule i s somewhat peripheral to the analyses at 238 hand, i t w i l l be discussed l a t e r i n 3.2.3.3. We might expect that High-Glide Formation would be blocked from applying to the diphthong i n niega because of geminate blockage or i n a l t e r a b i l i t y (Hayes 1986, Schein and Steriade 1986). In Spanish, however, long vowels are not permitted and the root vowel i n niega w i l l be ruled out unless some operation applies to change i t to a diphthong. I therefore assume that High-Glide Formation acts as a repair strategy for representations i n which a single set of vowel features are associated to two s k e l e t a l s l o t s . The R-rules w i l l provide the redundant surface s p e c i f i c a t i o n s of these forms. In the class of 3rd conjugation verbs exemplified by mentir i n (3.53), Vowel Delinking and High-Glide Formation w i l l i n t e r a c t , both i n the root, and i n c e r t a i n of the tense/aspect markers. The derivations of miEnto and mintiEndo are compared i n (3.80). 239 (3.80) Morphology m e e n t + i + o X X X X X X X V I I [-hi] [+hi] | I I [-bk] [-bk] [+bk] m e e n t + i + e e n d o X X X X X X X X X X X v l \/ I [-hi] [+hi] [-hi] I I I i [-bk] [-bk] [-bk] [+bk] Stress s rules | N /I m e e n t + i + o X X X X X X X \/ I I [-hi] [+hi] I I I [-bk] [-bk] [+bk] N /I m e e n t + i + i e n d o X X X X X X X X X X X \/ I I I I [-hi] [+hi][-hi][-hi] I ! I l l [-bk] [-bk][-bk][-bk][+bk] Vowel Delinking m e e n t o x X X X \/ I [-hi] [+hi] I I [-bk] [-bk] [+bk] m e e n t i e n d o X X X X X X x x x x \/ I [-hi] [+hi][+hi][-hi] I I I I [-bk] [-bk][-bk][-bk] [+bk] 240 Reassociation of [+high] m i e n t o m i e n t i e n d o X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X I I I I I I I I [+hi][-hi] I [+hi][-hi] [-hi][-hi] I I I I I I I [-bk][-bk][-bk][+bk] [-bk][-bk][-bk][-bk][-bk] [+bk] Each form i s made up of a root, a theme vowel, and a f i n a l s u f f i x . In /meent+i+o/ stress i s assigned to the root vowel and to the underlying diphthong i n the present p a r t i c i p l e . Vowel Delinking can then operate i n both forms to delink the theme vowel, leaving the [+high] and [-back] features f l o a t i n g . The [+high] feature w i l l reassociate to the root vowels, delinking i t s underlying [-high] s p e c i f i c a t i o n . The [-back] s p e c i f i c a t i o n w i l l never reassociate, and so w i l l not surface phonetically. When [+high] reassociates to the root vowels i n (3.80), i t i s relinked to a long vowel. I assume that as i n the case of r e l i n k i n g to a short vowel (see (3.76)), the underlying [-high] s p e c i f i c a t i o n of the root vowel i s delinked to become a f l o a t i n g feature. What i s d i f f e r e n t about the short and long vowel cases i s that the delinked [-high] s p e c i f i c a t i o n never reassociates i n the short vowel cases (since there i s no possible target that i s not s p e c i f i e d f o r [high]), while i n the case of a long vowel root the f l o a t i n g [-high] can reassociate to second element i n the surface diphthong. Since surface long vowels are not permitted i n Spanish, Vowel Delinking and the eventual reassociation of the 241 f l o a t i n g [+high] serve to repair a prohibited segment type. The diphthong i s formed by s p l i t t i n g the long vowel i n two, and given the r e s t r i c t i o n s on complex nuclei i n (3.57), the [+high] s p e c i f i c a t i o n (coming o r i g i n a l l y from the theme vowel) w i l l become part of the f i r s t member of the diphthong, and the f l o a t i n g [-high] s p e c i f i c a t i o n (coming o r i g i n a l l y from the long root vowel) w i l l be linked to the second member of the diphthong. We can further assume that both members of the diphthong can either share the [-back] underlying s p e c i f i c a t i o n , or that that [-back] w i l l become a part of both halves of the diphthong. There i s no crossing of association l i n e s involved i n the creation of the root diphthongs i n (3.80) since the underlying long root vowels are i n i t i a l l y linked to only a single [-high] s p e c i f i c a t i o n . 3.2.3.3 Peripheral Rules If stress i s not assigned to an alt e r n a t i n g vowel/diphthong a rule of Unstressed N Reduction w i l l apply to remove one s k e l e t a l s l o t from the diphthong. A form such as juqAmos from (3.59) shows that the monophthong w i l l r e t a i n the features of the i n i t i a l member of the diphthong, so we can specify that Unstressed N Reduction must delete the second member, or the head. 242 (3.81) Unstressed N Reduction Delink: x I [-high] [-back] Target Condition: head of a branching unstressed N Domain: po s t c y c l i c Unstressed N Reduction can only apply a f t e r both s y l l a b i f i c a t i o n and stress assignment have taken place, since the target i s s p e c i f i e d as the head of a branching unstressed nucleus. This rule can again be thought of as a d i r e c t consequence of the Branching Condition i n (3.69). The second rule that w i l l be required to achieve the surface s p e c i f i c a t i o n s of 3rd conjugation verbs i s a r u l e of F i n a l Vowel Lowering. This i s given i n (3.82). (3.82) F i n a l Vowel Lowering Insert: [-high] Target Condition: a vowel i n a f i n a l unstressed open s y l l a b l e Domain: p o s t c y c l i c May be feature-changing (3.82) w i l l i n s e r t the feature value [-high] onto an unstressed f i n a l vowel p o s t c y c l i c a l l y . F i n a l Vowel Lowering w i l l apply to any unstressed f i n a l vowel, and i f that vowel i s underlyingly [+high] i t w i l l apply i n a feature-changing 243 fashion. If the vowel i s a mid vowel, ap p l i c a t i o n of (3.82) w i l l be vacuous, and i f a low vowel, t h i s rule w i l l i n s e r t the value [-high] that would o r d i n a r i l y be inserted redundantly by R-rule 1 i n (3.73). As i n the RU analysis, we must assume that the Association Conventions, which could r e l i n k a [+high] feature value delinked through the operation of (3.82), are r e s t r i c t e d to the c y c l i c l e x i c a l domain. When a 2nd conjugation theme vowel deletes, the features [-high] and [-back] w i l l be l e f t f l o a t i n g , given the s p e c i f i c a t i o n of /e/ i n (3.72). If we again assume that the feature [back] cannot reassociate, only [-high] w i l l be l e f t , and t h i s feature value cannot change the height of ei t h e r a mid or low vowel. In the case of a 1st conjugation theme vowel deletion, the feature [+low] w i l l be l e f t f l o a t i n g , and as i n the RU analysis, some s t i p u l a t i o n w i l l be required to explain why t h i s feature value cannot associate to the root vowel. 3.2.4 Summary and Comparisons Following the RU analyses of vocalic alternations presented i n 3.2.2 the language-specific aspects of the grammar of Spanish are as given i n (3.82) (I do not include rules of stress assignment): 244 (3.83) Language-specific aspects of an RU grammar of Spanish Marked parameter setting: Context-free: [ ] \u00E2\u0080\u0094> [-high] Complex N - ON Phonological rules: Unstressed N Reduction Vowel Delinking High-Glide Formation F i n a l Vowel Lowering Complex N Formation There i s only one featural parameter that requires r e s e t t i n g i n Spanish, and t h i s i s the context-free rule for the feature [high]. Spanish also requires the res e t t i n g of the parameter that controls the formation of complex n u c l e i . With t h i s parameter set to ON, the language w i l l allow two d i f f e r e n t vowels to f a l l under a single branching nucleus. There i s also evidence that 4 phonological rules have an e f f e c t on the vowels of Spanish. Unstressed N Reduction, Vowel Delinking and F i n a l Vowel Lowering are delinking r u l e s , while High-Glide Formation i s an i n s e r t i o n r u l e . High-Glide Formation and F i n a l Vowel Lowering both manipulate the feature value [+high]. Spanish also requires the language-245 s p e c i f i c Complex N Formation statement given i n (3.57) to show that complex nuclei can only be derived i n c e r t a i n configurations. Prominence re l a t i o n s play a very important r o l e i n the phonology of Spanish. High-Glide Formation applies only to a stressed target vowel. Unstressed N Reduction, F i n a l Vowel Lowering and Vowel Delinking a l l apply to a target vowel that i s unstressed. The only c y c l i c l e x i c a l rule of Spanish that arises from t h i s analysis i s Vowel Delinking. The other rules \u00E2\u0080\u0094 Unstressed N Reduction, High-Glide Formation, and F i n a l Vowel Lowering -- apply i n the p o s t c y c l i c l e x i c a l component. This gives the following picture of the phonology of Spanish: (3.84) RU Phonology of Spanish Vowel Delinking C y c l i c LEXICON Unstressed Vowel Reduction High-Glide Formation P o s t c y c l i c F i n a l Vowel Lowering Redundancy rules POSTLEXICON Unlike Hungarian, Spanish does not require that redundancy rules be ordered among the phonological r u l e s . None of the phonological rules given i n (3.83) and (3.84) make reference to redundant feature values, so the RROC w i l l not be invoked, and redundancy rules w i l l apply i n a block l a t e i n the 246 derivation (the only exception i s the context-free r u l e [ 1 \u00E2\u0080\u0094 > [-cons], which i s ordered p r i o r to s y l l a b i f i c a t i o n processes). The CU analyses of Spanish presented i n 3.2.3 predict that the following language-specific information w i l l be part of the grammar of Spanish: (3.85) Language-specific aspects of a CU grammar of Spanish No marked featural parameter settings Marked s y l l a b i f i c a t i o n mechanism: Complex N - ON Phonological rules: Unstressed N Reduction Vowel Delinking High-Glide Formation F i n a l Vowel Lowering Reassociation of [+high] Complex N Formation Each of the phonological rules shown here represents a marked parameter s e t t i n g . The CU analysis requires an extra r u l e that i s not required i n the RU analysis \u00E2\u0080\u0094 Reassociation of [+high]. This rule must be stated as a language-particular aspect of the grammar, because i t i s feature-changing, and therefore i t s e f f e c t s cannot be attributed to the universal Association Conventions. This analysis, l i k e the RU one, assumes that Spanish also requires the language-specific statement of Complex N Formation given i n (3.57) to indicate 247 where complex nuclei may be formed. In t h i s analysis, as i n the RU analysis, stress plays an important r o l e . Vowel Delinking, Unstressed N Reduction, F i n a l Vowel Lowering and High-Glide Formation are each se n s i t i v e to rule-assigned stress. The only c y c l i c l e x i c a l phonological rules i n t h i s analysis are Vowel Delinking and Reassociation of [+high]. Unstressed Vowel Deletion, High-Glide Formation and F i n a l Vowel Lowering are a l l p o s t c y c l i c rules. This suggests that the phonology of Spanish i s organized i n the following manner: (3.86) CU Phonology of Spanish Vowel Delinking ^ C y c l i c Reassociation of [+hi] LEXICON Unstressed Vowel High-Glide Format] F i n a l Vowel Lowering Reduction] Redundancy rules POSTLEXICON Comparing the RU and CU analyses of the Spanish alternations presented here, we f i n d that the RU analysis predicts that one featural parameter requires r e s e t t i n g to the marked option while the CU analysis predicts no such r e s e t t i n g . Looking at the rule, parameters, however, we f i n d that the CU analysis requires one extra rule \u00E2\u0080\u0094 Reassociation 248 of [+high] \u00E2\u0080\u0094 which i s not required i n the RU account. This i s because t h i s reassociation i s performed i n the RU analysis by the universal Association Conventions, since t h i s operation i s not feature-changing. Several aspects of the CU account appear to make i t more s t i p u l a t i v e and less explanatory than the RU one. F i r s t , the r u l e of Reassociation of [+high] must specify both that i t i s feature-changing and that the rule only target vowels that are [-high]. While t h i s captures the facts, i t can only do so by s i n g l i n g out one s p e c i f i c type of vowel and d e l e t i n g pre-existing feature values. In the RU account of the same phenomenon, reassociation to a mid root vowel need not be s t i p u l a t e d , but rather occurs only i f an adjacent root vowel i s unspecified for the feature [high]. The explanation f o r why reassociation occurs i n just t h i s environment i s achieved both by the r a d i c a l l y underspecified feature s p e c i f i c a t i o n s assumed for Spanish, and i n the assumptions regarding how rules operate i n t h i s theory. A second s t i p u l a t i v e aspect of the CU account e x i s t s i n the fact that a 3rd conjugation theme vowel, s p e c i f i e d underlyingly as [-high] and [-back], i s delinked by Vowel Delinking, but only the [-high] feature reassociates to a preceding root vowel. This analysis provides no explanation for why [-back] i s l e f t unassociated. In the RU account the 3rd conjugation vowel i s s p e c i f i e d only as [+high], so only t h i s one feature value i s available for reassociation. 249 Notes to Chapter 3 1 Hayes (1986) shows that t h i s can be derived from the OCP (see (2.8)). 2 In both the RU and CU analyses of Hungarian I t r e a t lei as a [+low] vowel. The possible features that d i s t i n g u i s h /e/ from lei are [low] and [ATR], and I have chosen [low], as i s done i n most current analyses of the Hungarian f a c t s . 3 Ringen (1978) says there are approximately 50 roots i n t h i s exceptional c l a s s . Vago (1980) l i s t s 52 roots of t h i s type. * I am indebted to my informant, Katalin Hegedtls, for her assistance with the data. She i s a native speaker of the standard Budapest d i a l e c t . 5 The loanword facts are complex. They have been discussed i n many places, including Kontra and Ringen (1986), Steriade (1987), Ringen (1988) and Jensen and Stong-Jensen (1989). 6 An a l t e r n a t i v e conception of what could happen when context-s e n s i t i v e parameters are reset to the marked option i s also presented i n 2.5.1.1, although i t i s discarded as being inconsistent with the way phonological rules are assumed to operate i n the theory of Radical Underspecification. 7 Since BH i s a rule which applies only to vowels i t must be considered a maximal rule i n the sense described i n 2.2.1.2. Archangeli and Pulleyblank (1987) discuss cases where transparency e f f e c t s within harmony systems can be accounted for by assuming that a rule applies i n a minimal fashion, i . e . i t scans for adjacent targets at the l e v e l of the node or feature which contains the spreading feature or node. For example, the transparency of Khalka Mongolian / i / i n both Back and Round Harmony processes of t h i s language i s accounted for by assuming that / i / i s a t o t a l l y unspecified segment i n Khalka, and therefore has no structure on the (Secondary Place) t i e r which i s scanned i n the operation of these r u l e s . It i s impossible to account for the transparency e f f e c t s of / i / and /e/ i n the Back Harmony system of Hungarian i n the same fashion as i n Khalka because there are two vowels which are both transparent. Two d i s t i n c t vowels cannot both be t o t a l l y unspecified, and i n fact the arguments l a i d out i n 3.1.2 regarding the feature s p e c i f i c a t i o n s required i n Hungarian suggest that / i / must be s p e c i f i e d for the Dorsal feature [+high] and both HI and /e/ must be s p e c i f i e d for the L a b i a l feature [-round]. 8 In t h i s and subsequent derivations I assume [e] i s underlyingly lei unless there i s evidence to the contrary. 250 9 Kornai (1987) discusses several quaternary s u f f i x e s as well, which have the vowel alternants [a], [e], [o] and [&]. This type of s u f f i x i s beyond the scope of the analysis here. 1 0 Archangeli and Pulleyblank (1987) argue that blocking e f f e c t s should follow from the fact that a rule i s maximal. However, t h i s does not work i n Hungarian since both BH and RH are \"maximal\" rules ( i . e . are rules which scan for targets at the highest l e v e l of structure providing access to the spreading feature) a f f e c t i n g only vowels, yet long vowels are possible targets of BH and not of RH. 1 1 MacWhinney (1974) says that the exact placement of the l i n k i n g vowel \"requires detailed research across various i d i o l e c t s \" (136). However, i t appears that the l i n k i n g vowel i s used to break up consonant clusters which would f a l l i n coda p o s i t i o n , unless they are composed of a l i q u i d , s i b i l a n t or a p i c a l nasal followed by another a p i c a l . Thus [ld] and [zd] are permitted i n coda po s i t i o n , while [ k r ] , [hr], [gk] [rk] etc. are not. 1 2 This i s a phonological alternation between a long and short vowel that I do not discuss. 1 3 Steriade (1987) assumes that short and long /a/ are s p e c i f i e d d i f f e r e n t l y with regard to the feature [back]. This v i o l a t e s current views of how these two types of vowels are represented and i t i s problematic since i t leads to many d i f f e r e n t feature s p e c i f i c a t i o n s for short and long vowel p a i r s . For example / i / w i l l not have a contrastive s p e c i f i c a t i o n for the feature [high], since i t does not contrast i n height with any other front unrounded vowels, yet /Jt/[i:] w i l l be marked as [+high], i n contrast to /e/[e:] which i s [-high]. /o7 w i l l not be marked co n t r a s t i v e l y for the feature [round], yet /67[tt:] w i l l be [+round], i n contrast with /e/ which i s [-round]. 1 4 Steriade's analysis i s very b r i e f and lacks d e t a i l s , so much of the CU analysis proposed here i s based on conjecture. 1 5 If one objects to the assumption that some segments are underspecified for [back] i n the CU analysis then i t would be possible to assume that underlyingly a l l vowels are s p e c i f i e d for the harmonic features and then before BH and RH operate some rul e delinks a l l but the r o o t - i n i t i a l s p e c i f i c a t i o n s . I have not used t h i s p a r t i c u l a r analysis since the backness s p e c i f i c a t i o n s for n o n - i n i t i a l root vowels would have to be a r b i t r a r i l y chosen, since on the surface a l l non-neutral vowels agree i n backness with the i n i t i a l vowel. 1 S A second p o s s i b i l i t y i s that these roots are accompanied by a f l o a t i n g [+back] autosegment, but given the fac t that s u f f i x a l vowels must be assumed to be s p e c i f i e d underlyingly as [-back], we would then have to assume that the l i n k i n g conventions operated i n a feature-changing fashion. 251 1 7 Diphthongs can be made up of a l l possible combinations of two d i f f e r e n t vowels. 1 8 Rising diphthongs followed by a l i q u i d , nasal, g l i d e or s would involve ternary branching of the rhyme, which would be prohibited. 1 9 This i s s i m i l a r to the RU underspecification system proposed i n Archangeli (1984) for Spanish, except that she uses the feature [round] rather than [back]. The default rules I use suggest that [round] i s dependent upon [back] rather than vice versa. 2 0 Another p o s s i b i l i t y i s that t h i s '1st person singular' marker i s i n fact /o/ as i t i s i n the present and that another rul e of Vowel Delinking operates i n t h i s context. 2 1 I use [y] for the high front g l i d e since orthographic j i n Spanish i s the voiceless f r i c a t i v e [x] (see MacPherson 1975). 2 2 Headship or headedness i n phonology has been discussed as an issue i n feature hierarchitecture i n Shaw (1987). 2 3 I w i l l show i n 3.2.3.3 that i n fact a process of Vowel Delinking also applies i n these forms. 2 4 In attempting to test the v a l i d i t y of t h i s p a r t i c u l a r analysis I performed an examination of a l l 1st, 2nd and 3rd conjugation verbs provided i n the 1986 Webster's Third International Dictionary and Britannica World Language Dictionary. I found no examples of b i s y l l a b i c mohomorphemic roots. A l l b i s y l l a b i c roots that were found contained one of the prefixes: a-, con-, des-, d i - , i n - , pre- or re-. 2 5 The 1st conjugation verbs forms shown i n (3.45) suggest that when the 1st conjugation theme vowel i s deleted, the feature [+low] does not have the same a b i l i t y to reassociate to the root vowel as does the feature [+high]. This may be because of some s p e c i f i c r e s t r i c t i o n on these root vowels, or i t may be because the feature [high] has some sp e c i a l status i n Spanish. When a 2nd conjugation theme vowel deletes there w i l l be no features to reassociate to the root vowel since /e/ i s the t o t a l l y unspecified vowel. 2 e It i s possible that the sonority scale i n (3.58) also acts l i k e a f i l t e r . Levin (1985: 78) assumes that sonority scales can be used as f i l t e r i n g devices. 2 7 The exceptions to t h i s rule pointed out i n Harris (1969: 68 footnote 6) are the c l i t i c s mi, tu, su and c a s i , some words of Greek o r i g i n such as enfasis and dosis, the L a t i n words e s p l r i t u , t r i b u and impetu, and a f f e c t i v e words such as mami, papi and f u c h i . 252 2 3 I have not accounted for the high theme vowel i n past forms of 2nd conjugation verbs. Harris (1969) accounts for the height of t h i s theme vowel by a Raising r u l e , which applies only i n 2nd conjugation forms, and only i n the past tense. 2 9 Exactly the same processes w i l l be applicable to diphthongs which are phonetically r e a l i z e d as [ya] and [wa]. These diphthongs are not included i n the analyses since they never alternate with simple vowels. 253 CHAPTER 4 Parametric Acqui s i t i o n Theories In t h e i r exploration of l e a r n a b i l i t y theory, Wexler and Culicover (1983) state that an obvious extension of t h i s area of research i s to use a s p e c i f i c l i n g u i s t i c theory to account for real-time developmental data. Developing a theory of a c q u i s i t i o n i s a laborious undertaking: the i n t r i c a c i e s of the developmental data must be worked out with regard to a p a r t i c u l a r l i n g u i s t i c theory and then viewed i n l i g h t of the l e a r n a b i l i t y constraints. There have been several attempts to develop a c q u i s i t i o n theories i n syntax, and several more recent attempts to develop theories of phonological a c q u i s i t i o n . Pinker (1984) i s generally viewed as the f i r s t s y ntactic theory of a c q u i s i t i o n . Pinker's theory i s based on L e x i c a l Functional Grammar (Bresnan 1978, 1982) and i s constrained by both the the l e a r n a b i l i t y and continuity conditions, discussed i n 2.4. One of the main focusses of Pinker's work i s to show that semantic categories are the building blocks that c h i l d r e n use to develop syntactic categories. 0'Grady (1987) performs a s i m i l a r enterprise employing the Categorial Grammar framework (Ajdukiewicz 1935, Dowty, Wall and Peters 1982). The p r i n c i p l e s and categories 0'Grady at t r i b u t e s to the c h i l d are general cognitive a b i l i t i e s , not p r i n c i p l e s of a s p e c i f i c l i n g u i s t i c faculty. O'Grady shows that grammatical categories can p l a u s i b l y be constructed from 254 general cognitive p r i n c i p l e s such as adjacency and dependency. Davis (1987) uses the Government and Binding framework to examine parametric aspects of the a c q u i s i t i o n of a u x i l i a r y systems. This study i s s i m i l a r to Pinker's i n that i t adopts the constraints of l e a r n a b i l i t y theory, but Davis also assumes that an a c q u i s i t i o n theory must adhere to Chomsky's requirement of epistemological p r i o r i t y (Chomsky 1981a). A theory which i s epistemologically p r i o r i s one which i s based on p r i n c i p l e s and concepts that w i l l p l a u s i b l y allow the c h i l d to map p r e l i n g u i s t i c systems onto l i n g u i s t i c systems. Perhaps the f i r s t attempt at combining phonological theory, l e a r n a b i l i t y constraints and empirical data i s Dresher and Kaye (1988), who develop a learning model for metrical theory, with a focus on the parameters that are involved i n stress systems. This i s a computational model, rather than a model of real-time a c q u i s i t i o n , but nevertheless many of the issues surrounding human language a c q u i s i t i o n are explored. Dresher and Kaye look at the nature of the Primary L i n g u i s t i c Data (PLD), the types of learning procedures that can be att r i b u t e d to learners and several other issues that r e l a t e s p e c i f i c a l l y to parsing mechanisms. There have been two recent examinations of the l e a r n a b i l i t y of underspecification, although neither one attempts to account for real-time a c q u i s i t i o n data. Calabrese (1988) proposes that UG provides the language learner with a set of phonological f i l t e r s which are h i e r a r c h i c a l l y ordered. F i l t e r s are s i m i l a r to redundancy rules, i n that they help determine the feature values that w i l l be underlyingly 255 s p e c i f i e d , although they are not a c t i v e l y able to f i l l i n feature values. A marked segment w i l l v i o l a t e f i l t e r s up to a ce r t a i n point i n the hierarchy, while a less marked segment w i l l v i o l a t e f i l t e r s lower down the hierachy, or w i l l not v i o l a t e f i l t e r s at a l l . The f i l t e r hierarchy i s used to account for some general findings regarding the markedness of phonological systems, a c q u i s i t i o n order and language d i s s o l u t i o n . Ingram (1989b) attempts to integrate some general l e a r n a b i l i t y questions into a theory of phonological a c q u i s i t i o n , with p a r t i c u l a r emphasis on the theory of underspecification. The l e a r n a b i l i t y of three possible types of underlying representations are examined: f u l l y s p e c i f i e d representations, r a d i c a l l y underspecified representations and con t r a s t i v e l y s p e c i f i e d representations. Ingram's study uses mainly hypothetical data i n charting the development of children's representations. A c q u i s i t i o n theories such as these require three components: 1) a l i n g u i s t i c theory, 2) a set of l e a r n a b i l i t y constraints, and 3) a set of assumptions about how a c q u i s i t i o n proceeds i n real-time. The f i r s t two components of a theory of a c q u i s i t i o n based on a parametric theory of underspecification have been outlined i n Chapter 2. There, the theories of Radical and Contrastive Underspecification as outlined i n Archangeli and Pulleyblank (1986) and Steriade (1987) were discussed, and l a t e r reanalyzed as being representative of a p r i n c i p l e s and parameters model of phonology. In Chapter 3 the parametric theories of RU and CU 256 were used to develop analyses of the v o c a l i c systems of Hungarian and Spanish. In t h i s chapter I w i l l develop a set of assumptions regarding how real-time phonological development proceeds, given previous a c q u i s i t i o n research and the parametric theories of underspecification outlined i n Chapter 2. In 4.1 I w i l l describe some of the general findings of phonological a c q u i s i t i o n research over the l a s t 20 years. In 4.2 I w i l l o u t l i n e the assumptions for early phonological a c q u i s i t i o n that I believe follow from the research presented i n 4.1. 4.3 w i l l o u tline the s p e c i f i c predictions that the parametric theories of Radical and Contrastive Underspecification make for the a c q u i s i t i o n of the v o c a l i c systems of Hungarian and Spanish. In doing so I w i l l attempt to show where the predictions of these two theories are s i m i l a r , and where they d i f f e r . 4.1 Aspects of Phonological Development 4.1.1 Speech Perception Infant speech perception research shows that from as early as three or four months of age children demonstrate ca t e g o r i c a l perception of sounds. Using d i f f e r e n t research techniques, such as the High Amplitude Sucking (HAS) technique or the V i s u a l l y Reinforced Infant Speech Discrimination (VRISD) paradigm, i t can be shown that infants can make judgments on whether sounds are the \"same\" or \" d i f f e r e n t \" 1 . The c a t e g o r i c a l aspect of perception refers to the fact that children's judgments are most robust when the acoustics of the 257 sound tested do not f a l l on or near a phoneme boundary. There i s some argument i n the l i t e r a t u r e over whether ch i l d r e n require exposure to the input language before c e r t a i n sounds are c o r r e c t l y perceived (see E i l e r s , Gavin and O i l e r 1982 vs. Jusczyk, Shea and A s l i n 1984) but most researchers agree that by several months of age children can perceive a vast number of speech sounds, including many not present i n t h e i r native language. Recent work by Werker and Tees (1984) demonstrates that by approximately 10 months of age children begin to lose the a b i l i t y to discriminate sounds not present i n the language being acquired. Infants acquiring English who previously had been able to perceive d i s t i n c t i o n s between Hindi r e t r o f l e x and alveolar stops were not able to perceive t h i s difference when they reached 10 to 12 months of age. There are s i m i l a r r e s u l t s involving differences i n Voice Onset Time 2 (Lisker & Abramson 1970, Singh and Black 1966), and c e r t a i n places and manners of a r t i c u l a t i o n (Goto 1971, MacKain, Best and Strange 1980, Werker and Tees 1984). Even though perception research has shown that c h i l d r e n have astounding perceptual a b i l i t y at an early age, i t generally does not address the issue of the c h i l d ' s a b i l i t y to perceive l i n g u i s t i c s t i m u l i , i . e . to c l a s s i f y the perceived sounds phonologically. It i s not enough to be able to perceive the differences between two speech sounds; those sounds must be integrated into a phonological system based on how the sounds d i f f e r from each other. The one major study on t h i s aspect of perception was performed by the Russian 258 l i n g u i s t Shvachkin (1948/73). Shvachkin tested Russian children's a b i l i t i e s to perceive phonemic contrasts between approximately one and two years of age. He taught c h i l d r e n nonsense words for objects, and then tested minimal contrasts between those words. It was found that during the period from one to two Russian children gradually acquire phonemic perception, passing through an orderly set of stages. Contrasts between vowels are perceived f i r s t . The f i r s t , most general consonantal contrasts are between the presence and absence of a consonant or between a sonorant and an obstruent. Later more s p e c i f i c contrasts include l a b i a l s versus non-l a b i a l s and voiced versus voiceless obstruents. By 2;0 childr e n have acquired a l l the Russian contrasts i n simple CVC or VC s y l l a b l e s . Shvachkin's study has been re p l i c a t e d for English by Garnica (1973) and Edwards (1974) with s i m i l a r findings, although i t was found that the stages of perception were not as well-defined as Shvachkin found i n Russian. Edwards found that the perception of a given sound generally precedes production of that same sound, and the orders of development i n production and perception are roughly equivalent. 4.1.2 Speech Production 4.1.2.1 Stages of Phonological Development In Ingram (1976, 1989a) early phonological a c q u i s i t i o n i s divided into four stages: 1) the p r e l i n g u i s t i c period, 2) the a c q u i s i t i o n of the f i r s t 50 words, 3) the phonology of s i n g l e morphemes, and 4) l a t e r developments. The p r e l i n g u i s t i c 259 period begins at b i r t h and l a s t s u n t i l approximately 1;0. During t h i s period children progress from cooing to canonical babbling ( O i l e r 1974). O i l e r argues that many factors influence l i n g u i s t i c development i n t h i s period, including i n t e n t i o n a l l i n g u i s t i c exploration, maturation and the l i n g u i s t i c environment. Jakobson (1941/68) claims that there i s an abrupt d i s c o n t i n u i t y between the babbling stage and l a t e r l i n g u i s t i c a c q u i s i t i o n . He suggests that c h i l d r e n use a l l the sounds of the languages of the world i n t h e i r babbling repertoires and that many of these sounds are l o s t when the c h i l d begins to acquire \" r e a l \" words. However, av a i l a b l e studies of the babbling period demonstrate that there probably i s no such discontinuity; that i n fact the repertoire of sounds used during babbling i s quite s i m i l a r to the repertoire used i n the f i r s t words (Lewis 1936, Irwin 1951). The period during which the f i r s t 50 words are acquired l a s t s from about 1;0 to 1;6 and spans the time when ch i l d r e n are producing mainly single word utterances. Vocabulary development during t h i s period i s r e l a t i v e l y slow, and the c h i l d ' s words tend to be more i d i o s y n c r a t i c than during the l a t e r stages. During t h i s period some children avoid producing adult targets containing p a r t i c u l a r sounds or classes of sounds (Schwartz and Leonard 1982). Beginning at about 1;6 most children demonstrate a rapid increase i n t h e i r vocabularies and begin to combine words into utterances. Afte r approximately 4;0 children may s t i l l have to acquire or perfect the more d i f f i c u l t sounds, i n the language and acquire morphophonemic variants. 260 Jakobson's u n i v e r s a l i s t theory of phonological a c q u i s i t i o n (Jakobson 1941/68) i s probably the most widely known account of the early stages of phonological development. Jakobson examined diary studies of children from d i f f e r e n t l i n g u i s t i c backgrounds as well as phonological systems from many d i f f e r e n t languages. He proposed two stages of phonological development: an early stage during which a l l childre n produce approximately the same sounds, and a l a t e r stage where children of d i f f e r e n t l i n g u i s t i c communities have d i f f e r e n t phonological systems. Jakobson (1941/68: 50) says: the c h i l d possesses i n the beginning only those sounds which are common to a l l the languages of the world, while those phonemes which d i s t i n g u i s h the mother tongue from the other languages of the world appear only l a t e r . The early stage begins with the cessation of babbling and ends when the c h i l d has achieved the minimal consonantal and v o c a l i c systems ([p,t,k] and [i,u,a]) and appears to roughly correspond to the period when the c h i l d acquires the f i r s t 50 words. During t h i s period children's s y l l a b l e s are CV or reduplicated CVCV's. The f i r s t consonant i s usually a forward a r t i c u l a t e d one and the f i r s t vowel a wide one such as [a]. The f i r s t consonantal opposition i s between nasal and o r a l stops, followed by l a b i a l s and dentals. Once contrasts develop i n the c h i l d ' s v o c a l i c system, the system develops into the t r i a n g u l a r systems fx/, /u/ and /a/, or / i / , /e/ and /a/. The f i r s t contrasts i n the consonantal system are between a nasal and an o r a l stop (e.g. /m/ vs. /p/), followed by further contrasts between l a b i a l s and dentals (e.g. /m/ vs. /n/ and /p/ vs. / t / ) . 261 Jakobson's l a t e r period of phonological development i s characterized by further contrasts, a l l which follow the \"laws of i r r e v e r s i b l e s o l i d a r i t y \" . These laws are a set of impli c a t i o n a l universals determined through an examination of the phonological systems of d i f f e r e n t languages. The predictions made by the laws of i r r e v e r s i b l e s o l i d a r i t y f or phonological a c q u i s i t i o n , as discussed i n Jakobson (1941/68), are given i n (4.1) 3. (4.1) Jakobson\"s Predictions for Acq u i s i t i o n a. the a c q u i s i t i o n of f r i c a t i v e s presupposes the ac q u i s i t i o n of stops. b. the a c q u i s i t i o n of back consonants presupposes the ac q u i s i t i o n of front consonants. c. a f f r i c a t e s are acquired only a f t e r f r i c a t i v e s of the same s e r i e s . d. a vo c a l i c opposition of a narrow degree of aperture i s acquired before an opposition between two vowels of a wider degree of aperture, /a/ vs. /e/ i s acquired before /a/ vs. /as/. e. an opposition between unrounded vowels according to the degree of aperture i s acquired before the same opposition between rounded vowels, i . e . / i / vs. /e/ i s acquired before /u/ vs. /o/. f. rounded secondary vowels (/y/, /

[kae] an unstressed s y l l a b l e i s e.g. banana --> [naenA] a consonant c l u s t e r becomes a single consonant e.g. clothes --> [koz] a CV target s y l l a b l e becomes C XV 1C 1V 1 e.g. Patrick --> [baebae] a CV target s y l l a b l e becomes d V i d V j or d V i C a V i e.g. Peter --> [biba] Andrea \u00E2\u0080\u0094> [aejae] F i n a l consonant deletion (4.6a) i s a f a i r l y common s y l l a b l e structure s i m p l i f i c a t i o n process that i s l o s t between 1;6 and 3;0 (Ingram 1976). The deletion of unstressed s y l l a b l e s (4.6b) may a f f e c t either pretonic s y l l a b l e s or post-tonic unstressed s y l l a b l e s , and may p e r s i s t i n longer words for years. In c l u s t e r reduction (4.6c) i t i s often d i f f i c u l t to predict which member of a c l u s t e r w i l l surface. Ingram (1976) discusses some c l u s t e r s i m p l i f i c a t i o n s from Smith (1973), showing that Smith's son A would most often delete the /s/ i n an /s/-obstruent c l u s t e r , the l i q u i d i n a l i q u i d + obstruent 270 c l u s t e r , and the nasal i n a nasal + obstruent c l u s t e r . He also shows, however, that there are examples i n the data of opposite member of the c l u s t e r being deleted. Reduplication (4.6d) i s one of the most discussed s y l l a b l e structure s i m p l i f i c a t i o n processes. 'Reduplication* i s the term used to describe p a r t i a l or t o t a l agreement between the q u a l i t y of s y l l a b l e s i n children's productions. It i s not a morphological process, as i t i s i n adult speech. Vihman (1978) examined the types of p a r t i a l or f u l l r e d uplication found i n data from 13 children acquiring 6 d i f f e r e n t languages, focussing on s i m i l a r consonants. She hypothesized that reduplication occurs to provide a s u b s t i t u t i o n for a sound the c h i l d cannot pronounce, or to reduce the o v e r a l l complexity of a word form. She concludes that reduplication i s not a universal innate process, since i t occurs very frequently i n the speech of some children and only r a r e l y i n the speech of others. Fee and Ingram (1980) examined both p a r t i a l and f u l l r e d uplication i n the speech of 24 children from d i f f e r e n t l i n g u i s t i c backgrounds. The r e s u l t s show that r e d u p l i c a t i o n i s a developmental phenomenon used to some degree by a l l c h i l d r e n , but used most frequently by younger ch i l d r e n . Their findings also show that reduplication i s a strategy used by c h i l d r e n attempting to acquire m u l t i s y l l a b i c forms. Children who are frequent reduplicators tend to have more d i f f i c u l t y producing f i n a l consonants than children who are not frequent reduplicators. 271 4.1.3 Some General Issues Certain t h e o r e t i c a l complications a r i s e i n any attempt to account for a c q u i s i t i o n data. These problems w i l l be encountered regardless of the researcher's t h e o r e t i c a l bias or the type of data being examined. In t h i s section I w i l l discuss three such issues: v a r i a b i l i t y , l e v e l s of representation, and units of organization, and I w i l l o utline the assumptions I w i l l make with regard to these issues. 4.1.3.1 V a r i a b i l i t y An extremely s a l i e n t c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of young children's productive speech i s v a r i a b i l i t y . Two possible types of v a r i a b i l i t y are found: inter-subject and intra-subject. Inter-subject v a r i a b i l i t y occurs when i n d i v i d u a l c h i l d r e n d i f f e r i n t h e i r renditions of an adult target. Intra-subject v a r i a b i l i t y occurs when a ch i l d ' s version of a target varies across a l e x i c a l item (token v a r i a b i l i t y ) , or when the rend i t i o n of a p a r t i c u l a r sound or rule varies across l e x i c a l items (type v a r i a b i l i t y ) . Type v a r i a b i l i t y can occur i n the form of \"phonological idioms\" (Moskowitz 1971), which are c h i l d words that appear to be highly advanced i n r e l a t i o n to the bulk of the ch i l d ' s productions, or i n the form of c h i l d words which appear to be phonologically less complex than the ch i l d ' s system at a given time. The important question that must be answered with regard to v a r i a b i l i t y i s whether i t i s a r e f l e c t i o n of the ch i l d ' s competence ( i . e . UG) or whether i t i s due to performance factors. In the 'cognitive model' developed by Ferguson and 272 Farwell (1975) and Macken and Ferguson (1983) i t i s assumed that a l l tokens of l e x i c a l items are representative of the c h i l d ' s phonological system at any one time. This means that a great deal of i n t r a - and inter-subject v a r i a t i o n w i l l have to be accounted f o r . S i m i l a r i t i e s between childre n are assumed to be due to the physiology of the speech apparatus or ease of a r t i c u l a t i o n . Goad and Ingram (1987), i n contrast, argue for a u n i v e r s a l i s t model of a c q u i s i t i o n where i n t r a -subject v a r i a b i l i t y i s mostly due to phonetic, rather than phonological factors. They claim that once intra-subject v a r i a t i o n i s eliminated (using the methodology developed i n Ingram 1981, 1989a) i t can be shown that English-speaking childr e n have very s i m i l a r phonological systems (as i n (4.2)). In t h i s thesis I assume (as do Goad and Ingram) that much of the v a r i a b i l i t y that i s found i n children's speech i s the r e s u l t of performance or phonetic factors, and therefore should be ignored i n an account of phonological a c q u i s i t i o n . In t h i s thesis I w i l l use the methodology developed i n Ingram (1981, 1989a) which eliminates a great deal of v a r i a b i l i t y normally found i n the a c q u i s i t i o n samples. This methodology sets up c r i t e r i a for deciding when a c h i l d uses a sound systematically, making comparisons across c h i l d r e n and across languages possible. It i s further possible to eliminate v a r i a b i l i t y from phonological consideration i f we remember that many of the variable c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of children's speech occur at the very onset of phonological development, during the a c q u i s i t i o n of the f i r s t 50 words. It i s possible that at t h i s very early stage, children have not yet acquired enough 273 words to force them to systematize the sounds being used. These early words may be learned by rote, perhaps as whole units rather than as combinations of feature bundles. Ingram (1976: 22) says of t h i s period: The word appears to play an important r o l e i n a c q u i s i t i o n here, and contrasts seem to occur more between words than sound classes. The c h i l d does not seem to have a productive sound system, a development that becomes the major part of the next stage of a c q u i s i t i o n , when the c h i l d begins the active process of a c q u i s i t i o n of a complex set of l i n g u i s t i c r u l e s . 4.1.3.2 Levels of Organization U n t i l f a i r l y recently, many a c q u i s i t i o n researchers assumed that the c h i l d ' s system was a unique one which bore no r e l a t i o n s h i p to a system of adult phonology. This led to a number of d i f f e r e n t proposals for how the c h i l d eventually achieves an adult system. Menn (1978) proposes a f o u r - l e v e l model of phonological organization where the underlying representations hypothesized by the c h i l d and the c h i l d ' s intended pronunciation are mediated by an input lexicon. 274 (4.7) Menn's (1978) Two-Lexicon Model of Phonological Organization B Abstracted underlying forms true phonological rules Input lexicon (recognition store) reduction rules Output lexicon (production store) production rules A r t i c u l a t o r y instructions C o l l e c t i o n of i d e n t i f i e d adult words Levels A and B w i l l i n i t i a l l y coincide, u n t i l such time as the c h i l d has determined some of the phonological rules of the language. Levels B and D are separated by a set of reduction rules or output constraints, which are of 4 types: consonant harmony constraints, consonant sequence constraints, r e l a t i v e -275 p o s i t i o n constraints and absolute-position constraints. Of these four, the f i r s t three are processes which operate across words. Only the absolute-position constraints describe processes which delete i n d i v i d u a l segments, or substitute one segment for another. Levels D and E are mediated by a set of production rules or performance constraints that Menn claims may be quite severe when the c h i l d i s very young. A second type of mu l t i - l e v e l model i s discussed i n Ingram (1989) as being representative of the analyses assumed i n Velten (1947), Jakobson (1968) and Ingram (1976). In t h i s model the mediating l e v e l i s a s t r i c t l y organizational one, separate from the ch i l d ' s output and the c h i l d ' s perception of the adult form. (4.8) Three-Level Model of Phonological Organization A Underlying Perceptual representation B Organizational representation C Child's intended output Ingram exemplifies the working of t h i s model i n a discussion of a c h i l d ' s a c q u i s i t i o n of alveolar stops. If a c h i l d can c o r r e c t l y perceive voicing d i s t i n c t i o n s within the stop 276 s e r i e s , yet does not produce them, voicing w i l l be present at Level A but not at Level B. Level B, where voicing i s not represented, represents the c h i l d ' s phonological system at any one time. In t h i s t h esis, I assume a two-level model of phonological organization, s i m i l a r to that assumed for adult phonology. This two l e v e l model contains an underlying l e v e l based on the hypothesized adult forms, and an output l e v e l , which r e f l e c t s the c h i l d ' s intended output, without performance factors taken into account. (4.9) Two-Level Model of Phonological Organization Underlying representation Phonological rules Child's intended output I n i t i a l l y , the two lev e l s i n (4.9) w i l l be very s i m i l a r or w i l l coincide since the c h i l d w i l l know l i t t l e or nothing about the phonological rules of the language. These l e v e l s w i l l become d i f f e r e n t i a t e d as the c h i l d determines the rules of the language, and resets the appropriate r u l e parameters. The c h i l d ' s URs w i l l change as the c h i l d determines how the 277 fe a t u r a l parameters supplied by UG must be changed or eliminated. The reason I adopt the model i n (4.9) rather than Menn's model i n (4.7) i s because of the Continuity Assumption, discussed i n 2.4.2. The parametric model of a c q u i s i t i o n does not allow for reduction rules that are s p e c i f i c to the c h i l d ' s phonology, but rather must assume that they are somehow due to the c h i l d ' s i n i t i a l parameter settings. I w i l l assume that the type of processes that Menn c a l l s \"reduction r u l e s \" w i l l be r e f l e c t e d i n the model i n (4.9) as differences between the c h i l d ' s hypothesized underlying representation and the true underlying representation. I adopt the model i n (4.9) over Ingram's model i n (4.8) because I assume that only when phonological knowledge i s r e f l e c t e d i n both the c h i l d ' s perception and production w i l l i t be represented at the underlying l e v e l . An example from a related f i e l d might elucidate t h i s assumption. While a second language learner may be able to perceive or process c e r t a i n syntactic constructions i n the language being acquired, I would argue that these constructions are not necessarily a part of the learner's grammar u n t i l they can be accessed and used i n some fashion. 4.1.3.3 Units of Organization The f i n a l t h e o r e t i c a l issue to be addressed i s the basic unit of phonological organization. I w i l l assume, following most current work i n non-linear phonology, that t h i s unit i s the f e a t u r e 5 . Most researchers working i n the f i e l d of 278 phonological a c q u i s i t i o n have assumed that the unit of a c q u i s i t i o n i s the segment. Some notable exceptions to t h i s are Moskowitz (1970), who assumes the s y l l a b l e i s the basic unit of sound f i r s t acquired, and Ferguson and Farwell (1975) who argue that the word i s the f i r s t unit of organization. Macken (1979) argues that the organizational unit i s f i r s t the word, then the phoneme, and only l a t e r the feature. Each of these authors was working within the research model prevalent i n the l a t e 1960s and 1970s (and unfortunately, s t i l l held to by some researchers today) that can be characterized by the statement: C h i l d language i s a form of l i n g u i s t i c communication, but i t i s not a form of adult language. (Menn 1978: 157) C h i l d phonology was a subject unto i t s e l f , and researchers i n the f i e l d f e l t no need to be bound by the constraints and primitives of phonological theory. Again, i n adopting the Continuity Assumption I am compelled to assume that the primitives of a theory of a c q u i s i t i o n are the same as for phonological theory i n general. The question of 'epistemological p r i o r i t y * (Chomsky 1981, Davis 1987), or the innate p l a u s i b i l i t y of l i n g u i s t i c mechanisms, must be looked at i n a theory of phonological a c q u i s i t i o n , just as i n any theory of a c q u i s i t i o n . Research on infant speech perception (presented i n 4.1.1) and infant vocalizations (presented i n 4.1.2.1) demonstrates that childr e n know from b i r t h (or from a very early age) what features are and how they operate. I w i l l therefore not attempt to argue for the epistemological p r i o r i t y of the 279 feature: I w i l l simply assume i t . In practice i t may be d i f f i c u l t to t a l k about a c q u i s i t i o n i n featural terms since the phonetic r e a l i t y that seems to be most accessible i s a bundle of features, i . e . the segment. The methodology described i n 5.1 looks at the productivity of segments rather than features, and so much of the discussion of phonological a c q u i s i t i o n i n Hungarian and Spanish w i l l be presented i n segmental terms. 4.1.3.4 Phonological Rules In the l i t e r a t u r e on c h i l d phonology \"rules\" generally r e f e r to natural processes such as those given i n (4.4) and (4.6). There has been very l i t t l e discussion of how the rules of adult phonology are manifested i n children's speech. One notable exception i s MacWhinney (1974, 1978), who presents data from several longitudinal d i a r i e s and experimental studies on the a c q u i s i t i o n of Hungarian morphophonology. MacWhinney (1974) examined errors i n the use of Hungarian Back Harmony6 (see 3.1.1.1) reported i n the Hungarian a c q u i s i t i o n l i t e r a t u r e and found that v i o l a t i o n s of BH are very rare. MacWhinney suggests that a Back Harmony rule i s productive i n the speech of Hungarian children r e l a t i v e l y early, and i n the case of one p a r t i c u l a r subject by 1;8. MacWhinney (1978) presents a series of experimental studies which examine the a c q u i s i t i o n of Hungarian morphonology i n 4 age groups of children aged 2;6 to 7;5. The r e s u l t s show that the a b i l i t y to i n s e r t the appropriate 280 l i n k i n g vowel (see the forms i n (3.5)) varied with the type of s u f f i x . At 2;6 there were at most 17% omissions of the l i n k i n g vowel before the Superessive s u f f i x j^ n and 18% omissions before the P l u r a l H\u00C2\u00A3, but these omissions increased to as much as 53% before the Accusative - t . The use of Round Harmony (see the forms i n (3.4)) was tested using the A l l a t i v e S u f f i x (-hoz/-hez/-hOz) and the l i n k i n g vowel. The re s u l t s show that errors were r e l a t i v e l y frequent i n the speech of the younger subjects. A s i g n i f i c a n t increase i n the overgeneralization of Round Harmony to i r r e g u l a r or inapplicable suffixes was found between 3;8 and 4;9. This suggests that a rule of Round Harmony i s being used around t h i s time, and i t i s being applied i n an across-the-board fashion. MacWhinney's (1978) findings on Back Harmony facts substantiate the e a r l i e r findings that t h i s p a r t i c u l a r r u l e i s acquired s i g n i f i c a n t l y e a r l i e r . There were very few omissions or errors i n the backness values of s u f f i x a l vowels, even i n the speech of the youngest children at 2;6. MacWhinney concludes that Back Harmony i s a f u l l y productive r u l e by the middle of the t h i r d year, but he does not speculate how e a r l y i t might f i r s t be used. Unfortunately, I know of no comparable studies on the a c q u i s i t i o n of Spanish vowels. Studies on Spanish phonological a c q u i s i t i o n have generally focussed on consonantal a c q u i s i t i o n (e.g. Macken 1975, 1979; Stoel 1974). 281 4.1.4 Implications for the A c q u i s i t i o n of Vocalic Systems A number of findings i n both perception and production research r e l a t e d i r e c t l y to the a c q u i s i t i o n of v o c a l i c systems. F i r s t , i n Russian, Shvachkin (1948/73) found that v o c a l i c d i s t i n c t i o n s were generally perceived before consonantal ones, and since the order of a c q u i s i t i o n i n both perception and production are s i m i l a r , these findings predict that vowels should be acquired early i n production. A study by Templin (1957) suggests that t h i s i s true. In an a r t i c u l a t i o n t e s t given to 480 English-speaking c h i l d r e n Templin found that the English vowels were produced c o r r e c t l y by c h i l d r e n at 3;0, while a number of consonants were not productively acquired u n t i l 6;0 or 7;0. Jakobson (1941/68) argues that during the a c q u i s i t i o n of the f i r s t 50 words, the minimal v o c a l i c system / i / , /u/(or /e/), /a/ i s acquired. After the f i r s t 50 words, the laws of i r r e v e r s i b l e s o l i d a r i t y (see (4.1)) make predictions about the order of a c q u i s i t i o n of vowels. These predictions say that the opposition /a/ vs. /ae/ w i l l only be acquired a f t e r the contrast /a/ vs. /e/; and /u/ vs. /o/ or /y/ vs. /

[-low] 2. [ ] \u00E2\u0080\u0094> [+high] 3. [ ] \u00E2\u0080\u0094> [-back] 4. [ ] \u00E2\u0080\u0094> [-round] FCRs 5. [+low] 6. [+low] 7. [+low] 8. [+back] [-low] 9. [-back] [-low] --> [-high] \u00E2\u0080\u0094> [+back] \u00E2\u0080\u0094> [-round] \u00E2\u0080\u0094> [+round] --> [-round] These are the rules that children i n i t i a l l y assume hold of t h e i r language. At the i n t i a l point of phonological a c q u i s i t i o n the c h i l d w i l l have phonetic representations for the vowels of the language being acquired, but the i n i t i a l hypotheses about which vowels are phonologically d i s t i n c t w i l l be made on the basis of the rules i n (4.18). Given that the rules i n (4.18) supply redundant feature values, the c h i l d w i l l assume that a l l other values are to.be marked underlyingly. 306 4.3.1.1 Hungarian I assume that the c h i l d acquiring Hungarian has phonetic representations for the 8 vowels / i , u, u, 6, o, a, e and e/, as discussed i n 3.1.2. The long/short d i s t i n c t i o n w i l l be worked out independently of the phonetic representations, i n conjunction with the parameter settings for the Complex N Parameter (see (2.10)). The Hungarian c h i l d w i l l also have to learn the surface constraints that p r o h i b i t [e:] and [e]. Given the redundant values supplied by the default rules i n (4.18) the c h i l d w i l l i n i t i a l l y specify the 8 phonetic segments as i n (4.19). (4.19) I n i t i a l Representation of Hungarian Vowels - RU i / t l e/o a/e u o high - -low + back + + \ In the i n i t i a l system / i / and /uY and /e/ and 16/ w i l l have i d e n t i c a l representations, because FCR 9 i n (4.18) predicts [-round] as a redundant feature of front non-low vowels. The low front and back vowels w i l l also have i d e n t i c a l representations, since FCR 6 i n (4.18) predicts [+back] as a redundant feature on [+low] vowels. In t h i s system there are d i s t i n c t phonological representations for 5 vowels, with [+round], [-high] and [+low] being the marked feature values. The redundant values provided by the rules i n (4.18) w i l l make the 5 vowels i n (4.19) surface as [ i ] , [e], [a], [u] and [o]. 307 In (4.19) the vowel which surfaces as [ i ] has no underlying feature s p e c i f i c a t i o n s . According to the RU concept of Epenthesis, t h i s i s the vowel that a c h i l d w i l l use epenthetically. The epenthetic or l i n k i n g vowel of adult Hungarian i s /tt/, as discussed i n 3.1.3.1. In order to achieve t o t a l underspecification of /tt/ several f e a t u r a l parameters must be reset, and the system i n (4.19) must be restructured. The evidence from MacWhinney (1978) suggests that the l i n k i n g vowel i s probably not i n f u l l use at t h i s e a r l y period of a c q u i s i t i o n , and so there may not be empirical evidence as to which vowel i n the c h i l d ' s early system i s t o t a l l y unspecified. I t i s possible that a t o t a l l y unspecified vowel may be used i n some i d i o s y n c r a t i c fashion, f o r example as a su b s t i t u t i o n for a vowel not yet i n the c h i l d ' s phonological inventory, or as a place holder for some p a r t i a l l y unspecified template. According to the RU analysis of Hungarian given i n 3.1.2, three phonological rules control the vo c a l i c alternations of the language. These rules, as well as examples for each, are given i n (4.20). 308 (4.20) Phonological Rules of Hungarian - RU X 4 a. Back Harmony (BH) (see (3.10)) Spread [+back] L --> R Domain: l e x i c a l ( c y c l i c ) e.g. ut-nak 'road, dat.' ot-nek 1 f i v e , dat.\u00E2\u0080\u00A2 radir-nak 'eraser, dat.' b. Round Harmony (RH) (see (3.17)) Spread: [-round] L --> R Target condition: [-high] Nucleus may not branch Domain: l e x i c a l ( c y c l i c ) e.g. hoztok 'bring, 2nd p i . ' ftfztok 'cook', 2nd p i . ' neztek 'see, 2nd p i . ' c. Low Front Vowel Formation (see (3.21)) Insert: [+low] Target condition: [-low] [-high] [-back] [-round] Non-branching nucleus Domain: p o s t l e x i c a l e.g. fejtek [fejtek] neztek [ne:ztck] 309 BH i s a spreading rule which spreads [+back] l e x i c a l l y from l e f t to r i g h t , and requires the marked ON parameter s e t t i n g . Forms such as hldnak and fltnek i n (3.9) demonstrate that front rounded and unrounded vowels can behave d i f f e r e n t l y with respect to the BH system, /e/ and / i / are neutral vowels i n the BH system (and therefore can sometimes t r i g g e r a s u f f i x a l back vowel even i f the root vowel i s f r o n t ) , while /o7 and / t l / both t r i g g e r and undergo BH (and w i l l therefore never be followed by a back s u f f i x a l vowel). Alternations l i k e these should be enough to t e l l the c h i l d that / i / and / t l / and /e/ and /07 are d i s t i n c t segments, and consequently that the redundancy rule predicting [-round] on [-back] and [-low] vowels i s not part of the grammar of the language. In the BH system /e/ and /a/ both t r i g g e r BH, and both are possible targets. A low s u f f i x a l vowel w i l l surface as [e] when the preceding root vowel i s front, and as [a] when the preceding root vowel i s back. These differences should t e l l the Hungarian c h i l d that /e/ and /a/ are d i s t i n c t , and that the redundancy rule predicting [+back] on [+low] vowels must be reset. This w i l l force the marking of /a/ as [+back] and w i l l eliminate the redundancy rule from the grammar of Hungarian. The RU analysis of Hungarian assumes that the vowels / i / and /e/ are neutral with regard to the BH system because of a marking condition which prohibits the derivation of back non-low unrounded vowels. This p r o h i b i t i o n i s not a learned 310 aspect of the grammar, but rather one that i s supplied by Structure Preservation, a p r i n c i p l e of UG. Structure Preservation (see 2.1.1.4) says that feature matrices which are not underlying may not. ,be derived i n the course of a derivation, and t h i s w i l l outlaw the back unrounded vowels. The formal statement of t h i s marking condition (given i n (3.11)) w i l l a i d the c h i l d i n the r e a l i z a t i o n that [-round] must be a marked feature value i n Hungarian. Given the assumption that i t i s a p r i n c i p l e of UG which stops the neutral vowels from p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n BH, we would not expect that BH would ever be overgenerated to include / i / and /e/ as possible targets, which we might expect i f a language-specific aspect of the grammar excluded these vowels as targets. RH i s another spreading rule which spreads [-round] to short non-high vowels, and also requires the marked ON parameter s e t t i n g . UG predicts that [+round] i s the marked feature value, but i f [+round] i s the l e x i c a l l y marked value i n Hungarian, neither the BH or RH facts can be captured. The arguments for the l e x i c a l s p e c i f i c a t i o n of [-round] i n Hungarian are presented i n 3.1.2.2. These arguments come from the marking condition i n (3.11), the q u a l i t y of the l i n k i n g vowel, and c e r t a i n forms with long s u f f i x a l vowels. This evidence w i l l t e l l the c h i l d aquiring Hungarian that the context-free parameter for [high] must be switched to the marked option, and t h i s w i l l automatically create a complement rule to i n s e r t [+round] as the predictable feature value. The RH alternations (shown i n (3.13)) w i l l 311 provide additional evidence for the r e s e t t i n g of FCR 9 i n (4.19). S u f f i x a l vowels following / t l / and /oV are [+round] (fflldhOz), while those following /e/ and / i / w i l l be [-round] (neztek), demonstrating again that these p a r t i c u l a r vowels have d i s t i n c t phonological representations. Low Front Vowel Formation i s a feature-changing r u l e which lowers a mid front unrounded vowel derived i n c e r t a i n BH and RH contexts. This rule requires the marked ON parameter se t t i n g , and also requires the statement of a target condition. This rule must take place i n the phonetic component of the grammar since i t appears that [e] can be derived through BH and RH. Low Vowel Formation w i l l not be learned u n t i l the c h i l d has acquired the constraint given i n (3.2) on the surface appearance of [e]. Ingram (1990) has discussed the l e a r n a b i l i t y of negative constraints, p a r t i c u l a r l y constraints which t r i g g e r repair rules such as Low Vowel Formation (see 2.4.3). He concludes that such constraints are learned i n i t i a l l y as i f - t h e n conditions, and are only l a t e r translated into negative conditions. If t h i s i s the case, then both the constraint and the r u l e of Low Vowel Formation may be l a t e a c q u i s i t i o n s . These phonological rules w i l l lead the c h i l d acquiring Hungarian to the r e a l i z a t i o n that the featural parameters i n (4.21) must be reset at the marked option. 312 (4.21) FCRS [+low] \u00E2\u0080\u0094> [+back] [-back] \u00E2\u0080\u0094> [-round] [-low] Context-free [ ] \u00E2\u0080\u0094> [-high] [ ] \u00E2\u0080\u0094 > [+round] A l l four parameters w i l l be eliminated from the grammar of Hungarian, although the context-free rules w i l l be replaced by complement rules which redundantly supply the opposite feature value from that provided by UG. Since there are four featural parameters i n Hungarian which require r e s e t t i n g , there are four possible stages of restructuring which may show up developmentally. It i s predicted that at one stage children acquiring Hungarian w i l l make no d i s t i n c t i o n between back and front [+low] vowels, and only at a l a t e r stage w i l l learn to suppress the FCR [+low] \u00E2\u0080\u0094> [+back] and therefore have d i s t i n c t representations for both types of low vowels. In a s i m i l a r fashion, these c h i l d r e n w i l l i n i t i a l l y represent a l l front non-low vowels as [-round], and only at a l a t e r stage w i l l suppress the FCR [-back], [-low] \u00E2\u0080\u0094> [-round] and have d i s t i n c t representations for front non-low rounded and unrounded vowels. The fact that two context-free parameters require r e s e t t i n g i n Hungarian suggest that there should be an i n i t i a l stage (or stages) where [+high] and [-round] are the l e x i c a l l y 313 s p e c i f i e d features, and only at some l a t e r stage (or stages) w i l l these children use the correct l e x i c a l s p e c i f i c a t i o n s for Hungarian: [-high] and [+round]. The 4 parameters i n (4.21) may or may not be reset one at a time, so i t i s possible that fewer than four stages may a c t u a l l y be apparent i n the ac q u i s i t i o n data from t h i s language. The phonological rules of the language w i l l not be used at a l l or w i l l be i n c o r r e c t l y used u n t i l the re l a t e d fe a t u r a l parameters have been c o r r e c t l y switched by the c h i l d . 4.3.1.2 Spanish The set of universal default rules i n (4.18) w i l l give the i n i t i a l s p e c i f i c a t i o n of the 5 vowels of Spanish i n (4.22). (4.22) I n i t i a l Spanish Vowel System - RU i e a o u high low + back + + Each of the f i v e vowels has a d i s t i n c t representation i n t h i s system, and the surface r e a l i z a t i o n s of these vowels w i l l be [ i ] , [e], [a], [o] and [u]. The features [high], [low] and [back] are the operative underlying features, and / i / i s the t o t a l l y unspecified vowel, since [+high], [-low] and [-back] are the redundant values given by UG. This system d i f f e r s from the adult system of Spanish shown i n (3.44) only i n the 314 l e x i c a l l y marked value of [high]. The RU analysis of the Spanish v o c a l i c alternations i s given i n 3.2.2. The rules which are assumed to apply i n Spanish and examples of each are l i s t e d i n (4.23). (4.23) Phonological Rules of Spanish - RU a. Unstressed N Reduction (see (3.70)) Delink: s k e l e t a l s l o t Target: head of a branching unstressed N Domain: l e x i c a l (postcyclic) e.g. t[e]ndEmos t[yE]nden c[o]ntO c[wE]nto b. High-Glide Formation (see (3.61)) Insert: [+high] Target: non-head member of a branching stressed N Domain: l e x i c a l (postcyclic) e.g. t[e]ndEmos t[yE]nden c[o]ntO c[wE]nto c. Vowel Delinking (see (3.50)) Delink: s k e l e t a l s l o t Target Condition: the leftmost unstressed N of two adjacent N's Domain: l e x i c a l ( c y c l i c ) e.g. am + a + o \u00E2\u0080\u0094> amo tem + e + o \u00E2\u0080\u0094> temo vi v + i + o \u00E2\u0080\u0094> vivo 315 d. F i n a l Vowel Lowering (see (3.71)) Delink: [+high] Target condition: from a vowel i n an unstressed f i n a l open s y l l a b l e Domain: l e x i c a l (postcyclic) e.g. v i v + i +

vive v i v + i + n \u00E2\u0080\u0094> viven Unstressed N Reduction deletes a s k e l e t a l s l o t i n an unstressed s y l l a b l e . This rule appears to be a d i r e c t consequence of the Branching Condition given i n (3.69)/ which says that weak nodes may not branch. This r u l e uses the delink r u l e option (deletion of an association l i n e ) , and requires the statement of a target condition. High-Glide Formation i s again an i n s e r t i o n r u l e , i n s e r t i n g the feature [+high] p o s t c y c l i c a l l y . This r u l e applies only to the i n i t i a l non-head member of a branching rhyme, and w i l l apply vacuously i f that segment i s underlyingly s p e c i f i e d as [+high], High-Glide Formation provides further evidence that [+high] must be an operative feature value i n the adult grammar, and t h i s r u l e w i l l not be used by a c h i l d u n t i l such time as the context-free parameter for [high] i s reset at the marked option. Vowel Delinking i s another deletion r u l e , removing the s k e l e t a l s l o t of a vowel when two vowels become adjacent through morphological concatenation. Only the s k e l e t a l s l o t i s deleted, so any associated features w i l l be l e f t f l o a t i n g 316 and w i l l be reassociated through the Association Conventions to an unspecified root vowel. The f i n a l rule assumed for Spanish i s F i n a l Vowel Lowering, which deletes the [+high] s p e c i f i c a t i o n of a f i n a l unstressed vowel. This rule again provides evidence that [+high] must be a l e x i c a l l y marked feature value i n Spanish, and w i l l not be possible u n t i l the context-free parameter for [high] i s reset. When t h i s parameter i s reset, r u l e 2 i n (4.18) w i l l be eliminated from the grammar of Spanish, and the complement ru l e i n (4.24) w i l l be added. (4.24) Marked featural parameter i n Spanish [ ] \u00E2\u0080\u0094> [-high] At t h i s point [+high] w i l l be the l e x i c a l l y marked feature value and [e] w i l l become the unspecified vowel i n the system. The RU analysis of Spanish predicts that stress w i l l c r u c i a l l y i n t e r a c t with the development of the phonological system, since i t i s present i n the target conditions of Unstressed N Reduction, High-Glide Formation, Vowel Delinking and F i n a l Vowel Lowering. Spanish children w i l l have to determine how stress operates i n t h e i r language before they can use these 4 rules i n an appropriate fashion. The exceptional aspects of the stress system (e.g. which a f f i x e s are exceptional with regard to the a p p l i c a t i o n of the stress rules) w i l l have be to learned before the stress rules w i l l be acquired c o r r e c t l y . The Complex N parameter must also be reset to the marked 317 option i n Spanish. This parameter controls the number of s k e l e t a l s l o t s that a nucleus may dominate. The unmarked option i s that a nucleus may dominate only a s i n g l e s k e l e t a l s l o t , while the marked option says that the nucleus may branch. There f i n a l aspect of the phonology of Spanish that must be learned by the c h i l d i s the statement i n (3.57) which outlines the conditions under which a branching n u c l e i may be formed i n Spanish. This type of statement i s not required f o r Hungarian, since Hungarian allows only for long vowels, where a branching nucleus dominates a single feature matrix. 4.3.2 CU Predictions In the theory of CU, the guiding p r i n c i p l e s of a c q u i s i t i o n are the CU P r i n c i p l e of Systematization i n (2.44) and the R e s t r i c t i v e Redundancy Condition, o r i g i n a l l y given i n (2.45) and repeated i n (4.25). (4.25) The R e s t r i c t i v e Redundancy Condition (RRC) a. Underlying representations do not contain feature values that are not used c o n t r a s t i v e l y . b. The most highly valued system contains the fewest number of features and feature values needed to con t r a s t i v e l y d i s t i n g u i s h the inventory of a language. The RRC t e l l s the c h i l d that feature values not used to contrast the segments of a language are omitted form 318 underlying representions. In the a c q u i s i t i o n of a language a c h i l d w i l l have to work out which segments i n a language are i n fact contrastive, and the i n i t i a l hypotheses towards t h i s end are provided by the universal R-rules. These rules were o r i g i n a l l y given i n (2.48) and are repeated here i n (4.26). (4.26) Universal R-rules 1. [+low] -\u00E2\u0080\u0094 > [-high] 2. [+low] -\u00E2\u0080\u0094 > [+back] 3. [+low] \u00E2\u0080\u0094 > [-round] 4. [+back] -\u00E2\u0080\u0094 > [+round] [-low] 5. [-back] -\u00E2\u0080\u0094 > [-round] [-low] 6. [+high] -\u00E2\u0080\u0094 > [-low] 7. [-high] -\u00E2\u0080\u0094 > [-low] [-back] If a c h i l d discovers that a p a r t i c u l a r set of feature markings that are provided redundantly by the rules i n (4.26) are contrastive i n the language, a featural parameter (one of the R-rules) w i l l be reset at the marked option. The RRC t e l l s the c h i l d that i f a set of segments contrast with regard to a p a r t i c u l a r feature then those feature values must be l e x i c a l l y marked. When a featural parameter i s reset, the universal R-r u l e need not be eliminated from the language-particular grammar. This i s i n d i r e c t contrast to what occurs i n the parametric theory of RU. Every language w i l l have the core 319 set of R-rules i n (4.26), and may have additional language-s p e c i f i c R-rules to provide non-contrastive feature s p e c i f i c a t i o n s . 4.3.2.1 Hungarian If we assume that the Hungarian c h i l d has phonetic representations for the 8 vowels / i , 11, u, 0, o, a, e and e/, and that the rules i n (4.26) provide the i n i t i a l hypothesis concerning which feature values must be marked underlyingly, these 8 sounds w i l l be s p e c i f i e d as shown i n (4.27). (4.27) I n i t i a l Representation of Hungarian Vowels - CU i/tt e/o a/e u o high + - + -low + back - + + In t h i s system [round] i s a t o t a l l y redundant feature, given R-rules 3, 4 and 5. This i n i t i a l system has 5 vowels, exactly as i n RU. Based on R-rule 2, which predicts that low vowels w i l l be redundantly [+back], /a/ and /e/ w i l l have i d e n t i c a l representations. R-rule 7 predicts that front non-low vowels w i l l be unround, and following t h i s hypothesis / i / and /II/ and /e/ and /o7 w i l l have i d e n t i c a l representations. Given that the rules i n (4.26) provide the redundant feature s p e c i f i c a t i o n s of the marked system i n (4.27), the underlying vowels i n (4.27) w i l l surface as [ i ] , [e], [a], [u] and [o]. The CU analysis of Hungarian i n 3.1.4 shows that the 320 rules i n (4.28) must be part of the grammar of Hungarian (examples are given only i f the rule was not given i n (4.20)). (4.28) Phonological Rules of Hungarian - CU a. Back Harmony (BH) (see (3.27)) Spread [+back] L \u00E2\u0080\u0094> R Feature-changing Domain: l e x i c a l ( c y c l i c ) b. Round Harmony (RH) (see (3.32)) Spread [+round] L --> R Target condition: [-high] Nucleus may not branch May be feature-changing Domain: l e x i c a l ( c y c l i c ) c. Low Front Vowel Formation (see (3.35)) Insert: [+low] Target condition: [-low] [-high] [-back] [-round] Non-branching nucleus Domain: p o s t l e x i c a l 321 d. Insert [+back] (see (3.29)) Insert: [+back] Trigger condition: only i n roots marked * Domain: l e x i c a l ( c y c l i c ) Feature-changing e.g. hi[i:]d-nak 'bridge, dat.' ce[e:]l-nak 'goal, dat.' e. Epenthetic Vowel S p e c i f i c a t i o n (see (3.36)) Insert: [-high] [-low] Target Condition: an empty s k e l e t a l s l o t Domain: l e x i c a l ( c y c l i c ) BH i s a c y c l i c l e x i c a l rule that spreads e i t h e r value of [back] from l e f t to r i g h t , and i t may change feature values. This r u l e requires, the marked ON parametric option i n order to apply. In the i n i t i a l phonological inventory i n (4.27) the vowels i / u , e/tt, /u/ and /o/ are marked as e i t h e r [+back] or [-back] so only these 4 vowels w i l l act as t r i g g e r s of BH. /a/, / t i / and /6/, which are triggers i n the adult Hungarian BH system, w i l l not be triggers at t h i s i n i t i a l stage i n the phonology. The BH data i n the input, such as that shown i n (3.9) w i l l t e l l the c h i l d that / i / and / t i / and /e/ and /0/ are d i s t i n c t segments i n Hungarian, and that /a/, / t i / and /0/ do take part i n BH. This w i l l lead to the correct contrastive feature markings. The vowels / i / and /e/ are neutral with respect to BH i n 322 Hungarian. This fact i s explained by the marking condition given i n (3.28), which i s not a learned aspect of the grammar, but rather a d i r e c t consequence of the p r i n c i p l e of Structure Preservation. Again, as discussed i n 4.3.1.1, i f i t t r u l y i s a p r i n c i p l e of UG that r e s t r i c t s the possible targets of BH, then we would not expect the c h i l d to ever derive back unrounded vowels through t h i s r u l e . RH i s also a spreading rule that applies c y c l i c a l l y i n the l e x i c a l component. RH spreads either value of the feature [round] to a short vowel target that i s [-high]. In the i n i t i a l system shown i n (4.27) [round] i s not an operative underlying feature, and therefore a rule of RH w i l l be impossible at t h i s stage. Alternations such as those i n (3.13) - (3.15) w i l l demonstrate for the c h i l d that [round] i s an operative feature value i n the language, and that / i / and /il/ and /e/ and /o7 must be c o n t r a s t i v e l y s p e c i f i e d for t h i s feature. RH must be e x t r i n s i c a l l y ordered a f t e r BH, i n order to achieve the correct output with forms possessing a low back root vowel. While the ramifications of e x t r i n s i c ordering are not e n t i r e l y c l e a r , i t i s possible that the c h i l d learning Hungarian might f i r s t use the incorrect ordering of these two r u l e s , producing incorrect forms. We would probably expect that the correct ordering would be a l a t e a c q u i s i t i o n . Low Vowel Formation i s a late p o s t l e x i c a l r u l e that forces a mid front unrounded vowel to surface as [\u00C2\u00A3]. As i n 323 the RU analysis, t h i s rule cannot be acquired u n t i l the constraints on long and short unrounded front vowels are acquired, and therefore should be a late a c q u i s i t i o n . Insert [+back] inserts a [+back] feature value into the representation of c e r t a i n neutral-vowel-only roots. This feature cannot associate to the root vowel by Structure Preservation ( i . e . the marking condition i n (3.28)), but w i l l associate, i n a feature-changing fashion, to a following s u f f i x a l vowel. Because t h i s rule applies only to a small class of roots, i t should be a l a t e a q u i s i t i o n . The f i n a l r u l e posited for Hungarian i s Epenthetic Vowel S p e c i f i c a t i o n , which provides the features required for an empty s k e l e t a l s l o t that i s inserted by Epenthesis. In the RU analysis t h i s rule i s not required because the features of the epenthetic vowel are supplied by the redundancy rules of the language. In CU, however, R-rules are only context-sensitive, so redundant features cannot be supplied for a s l o t that i s underlyingly t o t a l l y unspecified. The alternations involved i n the rules of BH and RH w i l l lead the c h i l d learning Hungarian to the r e a l i z a t i o n that c e r t a i n feature markings predictable by the R-rules i n (4.26) must be marked i n the language. (4.29) Marked featural parameters of Hungarian *[+low] \u00E2\u0080\u0094> [+back] \u00E2\u0080\u00A2[-back] \u00E2\u0080\u0094> [-round] [-low] 324 The f i r s t R-rule parameter i n (4.29) i s a c r u c i a l one for the c h i l d . U n t i l the c h i l d r e a l i z e s that t h i s r u l e does not hold, the representations of /a/ and /e/ w i l l be collapsed, and neither vowel w i l l p a r t i c i p a t e i n BH ( i f indeed the c h i l d uses such rules at t h i s time). U n t i l the second r u l e i s reset, the representations of the non-low front unrounded and rounded vowels w i l l be collapsed, and [round] w i l l be an inoperative feature. At t h i s i n i t i a l stage a rule of RH w i l l be impossible. The second parameter i n (4.29) w i l l be reset once the PLD demonstrates that front rounded and unrounded vowels behave i n a phonologically d i s t i n c t fashion. The f i n a l parameter that must be reset i n Hungarian i s the Complex N parameter. This w i l l allow branching n u c l e i , making possible the presence of long vowels. According to the CU analysis of Hungarian there are some aspects of t h i s grammar which must be learned without the benefit of parameters. These include the language-specific R-r u l e given i n (3.26), the constraints on [e] and [e:], the knowledge that i n c e r t a i n neutral-vowel-only roots the r u l e of Insert [+back] must apply, and the knowledge that the marking condition i n (3.28) must be turned o f f p o s t - l e x i c a l l y . 4.3.2.2 Spanish Given that the universal R-rules i n (4.26) provide the i n i t i a l hypotheses that children make about the phonological s p e c i f i c a t i o n of t h e i r language, the c h i l d ' s i n i t i a l system of Spanish w i l l be as given i n (4.30). 325 (4.30) I n i t i a l Spanish Vowel System - CU i e a o u high ' + - - + low + back - - .+ + This i s i d e n t i c a l to the adult contrastive system given i n (3.72). Since the systems are i d e n t i c a l , there w i l l be no fe a t u r a l parameters to be reset, and no parameter-related stages i n the a c q u i s i t i o n of Spanish. The phonological rules used i n the CU analysis of Spanish i n 3.2.3 are given i n (4.31). (4.31) Phonological Rules of Spanish - CU a. High-Glide Formation (see (3.78)) Insert: [+high] target: non-head member of a branching stressed N May be feature-changing Domain: p o s t c y c l i c b. Unstressed N Reduction (see (3.81)i) Delink: x I [-high] [-back] Target condition: head of a branching unstressed N Domain: po s t c y c l i c 326 c. Vowel Delinking (see (3.74)) Delink: s k e l e t a l s l o t Target condition: non-head member of a branching unstressed N Domain: l e x i c a l ( c y c l i c ) d. Reassociation of [+high] (see (3.75) Insert: association l i n e from [+high] Target condition: an immediately adjacent s k e l e t a l s l o t on the l e f t marked as [-cons], [-high] Feature-changing Domain: l e x i c a l ( c y c l i c ) e.g. conc[e]bir conc[i]bo conc[e]bia conc[i]biendo e. F i n a l Vowel Lowering (see (3.82)) Insert: [-high] Target condition: an unstressed f i n a l vowel Domain: p o s t c y c l i c May be feature-changing High-Glide Formation, which adds [+high] to a branching N, may be a feature-changing rule i n CU, since both values of [high] w i l l be present underlyingly. This rule adds the feature [+high] to the non-head member of a diphthong so i t w i l l be r e a l i z e d as a g l i d e . High-Glide Formation i s a r e l a t i v e l y complex rule as i t requires the statement of a target condition. 327 Unstressed N Reduction deletes the s k e l e t a l s l o t of the head of an unstressed diphthong, causing the vowel to surface as a monophthong. This rule applies p o s t c y c l i c a l l y , and i t must apply a f t e r the stress rules of the language. In order to apply i t requires the marked ON s e t t i n g , and also a target condition. Vowel Delinking i s a c y c l i c l e x i c a l rule which deletes the leftmost vowel when two vowels become adjacent a f t e r a morphological operation. This rule delinks the s k e l e t a l s l o t of the vowel from the nucleus, leaving the features free to reassociate elsewhere. Again, Vowel Delinking i s a f a i r l y marked r u l e , since i t involves a target condition. Reassociation of [+high] i s a c y c l i c l e x i c a l r u l e that reassociates the [+high] feature l e f t behind by Vowel Delinking. The ordering of these two rules need not be stated, since Reassociation w i l l not apply u n t i l a feature value i s f l o a t i n g . For t h i s rule to apply the r u l e parameter must be set of ON, and the [-high] target condition must be acquired. The l a s t rule posited for Spanish i s F i n a l Vowel Lowering which I assume applies p o s t c y c l i c a l l y to replace the [+high] s p e c i f i c a t i o n of a f i n a l unstressed vowel with [-high]. This r u l e applies only to the final.unstressed s y l l a b l e i n a word and i s therefore a l e x i c a l r u l e . It requires both the ON parameter set t i n g , and a target condition statement. The CU analysis predicts that there w i l l be no developmental stages r e l a t i n g to the r e s e t t i n g of featural 328 parameters. One f i n a l aspect of the grammar of Spanish that must be learned are the exceptional aspects of the stress system. While stress appears to be rule governed, there are c e r t a i n types of a f f i x e s which are exceptional with regard to the a p p l i c a t i o n of these r u l e s . 4.3.3 Comparison of RU and CU Predictions 4.3.3.1 Hungarian For the c h i l d acquiring Hungarian, RU predicts that the i n i t i a l UG phonological system, present at the time the c h i l d has approximately 50 words productively, w i l l have the following c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s : (4.32) Child's i n i t i a l system of Hungarian - RU a. The c h i l d ' s phonological system w i l l consist of 5 d i s t i n c t vowels r e a l i z e d as [ i ] , [u], [a], [o] and [e]. b. I n i t i a l l y , only the features values [+back], [+low] and [-high] w i l l be avail a b l e for phonological manipulation. c. [ i ] may occur as a substitute for /II/, [e] may occur as a substitute for /oV and [a] may occur as a substitute for /e/. I n i t i a l l y short vowels w i l l be substituted for long vowels. d. The epenthetic vowel w i l l be / i / . e. Since [round] i s a t o t a l l y redundant feature, a rule of RH w i l l not be possible. 329 f. If a rule parameter for BH has been reset to ON, the i n i t i a l triggers w i l l be /u/ and lo/, and not /a/. CU predicts the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s i n (4.33) for t h i s e a r l y UG-constrained system: (4.33) Child's i n i t i a l system of Hungarian - CU a. The c h i l d ' s phonological system w i l l consist of 5 d i s t i n c t vowels r e a l i z e d as [ i ] , [u], [a], [o] and [e]. b. I n i t i a l l y , only the feature values [+high], [+low] and [+back] are available for phonological manipulation. c. [ i ] may occur as a substitute for / t l / , [e] may occur as a substitute for /o/ and [a] may occur as a substitute for /e/. I n i t i a l l y short vowels w i l l be substituted for long vowels. d. If the rule parameter for Epenthesis has been reset to ON, any vowel w i l l be a possible epenthetic vowel, u n t i l such time as the c h i l d learns the appropriate vowel. e. Since [round] i s a t o t a l l y redundant feature, a rule of RH w i l l not be possible. f. /a/, / t l / and /o7 w i l l not be marked for backness and therefore w i l l not i n i t i a l l y act as t r i g g e r s of Back Harmony. 330 These two i n i t i a l systems are very s i m i l a r . They both assume that there w i l l be 5 phonologically d i s t i n c t vowels, and they both predict that the representations of / i / and /u7, /e/ and /o7, and /a/ and /e/ w i l l be collapsed. Given the assumptions outlined i n 4.2.3, these two theories predict the same types of i n i t i a l paradigmatic substitutions. As the redundancy rules i n both RU and CU give [+back] as the redundant feature value of low vowels and [-round] as the redundant feature value of front non-low vowels, t h i s predicts that [ i ] may act as a substitute for / t i / , [e] may act as a substitute for /B/ and [a] may act as a substitute for /c/. These s u b s t i t u t i o n patterns are predicted to p e r s i s t u n t i l the featural parameters of the language are reset. Both theories also predict that short vowels w i l l be substituted for long vowels u n t i l such time as the Complex N parameter i s reset. The marked parameters of Hungarian required by the RU and CU analyses are compared i n (4.34). 331 (4.34) Marked Parameters i n Hungarian RU CU Featural Parameters *[+low] \u00E2\u0080\u0094> [+back] *[+low] \u00E2\u0080\u0094> [+back] *[-back] \u00E2\u0080\u0094> [-round] *[-back] \u00E2\u0080\u0094> [-round] [-low] [-low] [ ] \u00E2\u0080\u0094> [-high] [ ] \u00E2\u0080\u0094> [+round] Rule Parameters Back Harmony Round Harmony Low Front Vowel Formation Back Harmony Round Harmony Low Front Vowel Formation Insert [+back] Epenthetic Vowel S p e c i f i c a t i o n Other Complex N Complex N The RU analysis of Hungarian predicts that 4 fe a t u r a l parameters w i l l have to be switched from the i n i t i a l system provided by UG to the adult system. Two of these rules are context-sensitive and two are context-free. The CU analysis predicts that 2 featural parameters require r e s e t t i n g to achieve the adult grammar of Hungarian, and these are both context-sensitive rules. The CU analysis therefore posits fewer restructuring stages than does the RU analysis. Evidence for the rese t t i n g of the context-sensitive parameters w i l l come from data that demonstrates that the 332 segments i n i t i a l l y collapsed by the context-sensitive rules are i n fact phonologically d i s t i n c t . Evidence for the r e s e t t i n g of context-free parameters w i l l come from other sources, i n p a r t i c u l a r the operation of phonological r u l e s . The rule parameters required by the RU and CU analyses are also given i n (4.34). In the RU analysis 3 rules are required, while i n the CU analysis 5 rules are required. In CU each of the 5 rules represents the ON marked option of a r u l e parameter, suggesting that at some i n i t i a l stage, none of these 5 rules w i l l be used by children. In RU each of the 3 rules represents the ON marked option of a parameter. RU also requires that an ordering r e l a t i o n s h i p between Back Harmony and Round Harmony be learned, while CU does not require t h i s s p e c i f i e d order. Both RU and CU also assume that the Complex N parameter must be reset i n Hungarian i n order to permit long vowels. The fact that t h i s i s a parameter predicts that i n i t i a l l y c h i l d r e n w i l l not make a phonological d i s t i n c t i o n between long and short vowels. As discussed i n 4.2.2.3 I assume that once t h i s parameter i s reset, the c h i l d w i l l be capable of representing a l l phonologically d i s t i n c t vowels i n e i t h e r long or short format. 4.3.3.2 Spanish Within the theory of RU, i t i s predicted that the i n i t i a l phonological representation of Spanish vowels, at the time that the c h i l d has approximately 50 words productively, w i l l 333 have the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s i n (4.35). (4.35) Child's i n i t i a l system of Spanish - RU a. The system represents the 5 vowels Ix, u, e, o, al as d i s t i n c t segments. b. The features [high], [low] and [back] w i l l be operative. c. There w i l l be no paradigmatic substitutions r e l a t i n g to the r e s e t t i n g of context-sensitive redundancy rules, but short simple vowels w i l l be used i n place of diphthongs u n t i l the Complex N parameter i s reset. d. [-high] w i l l be the l e x i c a l l y marked value. e. The epenthetic vowel w i l l be HI. This system d i f f e r s from the adult system of Spanish (shown i n (3.44)) only i n terms of the l e x i c a l l y marked value of the feature [high]. This difference predicts that i n i t i a l l y the c h i l d w i l l not be able to use rules such as High-Glide Formation and F i n a l Vowel Lowering which require the use of [+high], since t h i s w i l l be a redundant feature i n the system. It also predicts that i f a c h i l d uses an epenthetic vowel, i t w i l l be HI. Since there are no FCRs that require r e s e t t i n g i n t h i s language, there w i l l not be any i n i t i a l c o l l a p s i n g of phonological elements, and t h i s predicts that no paradigmatic substitutions should occur at the i n i t i a l period. CU predicts that the i n i t i a l system w i l l have the 334 c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s i n (4.36). (4.36) Child's i n i t i a l system of Spanish - CU a. The system represents the 5 vowels / i , u, e, o, a/ as d i s t i n c t segments. b. The features [high], [low] and [back] w i l l be operative. c. There w i l l be no paradigmatic substitutions r e l a t i n g to the rese t t i n g of context-sensitive redundancy rules, but short simple vowels w i l l be used i n place of diphthongs u n t i l the Complex N parameter i s reset. d. Both [+high] and [-high] w i l l be l e x i c a l l y marked. e. If a rule of Epenthesis i s i n use, the vowel that surfaces i n epenthetic positions can be any one of the 5 vowels i n the system. The i n i t i a l and adult featural representations w i l l be i d e n t i c a l i n the theory of CU. This means that no fea t u r a l parameters w i l l require resetting, and a l l features and feature values necessary i n the adult system w i l l be av a i l a b l e to the c h i l d i n the f i r s t phonological system. This again predicts that Spanish children should not make any sub s t i t u t i o n errors that are due to the i n i t i a l c o l l a p s i n g of feature matrices, although they w i l l replace underlying diphthongs with simple vowels. The marked parameters assumed by RU and CU for Spanish are given i n (4.37). 335 (4.37) Marked Parameters i n Spanish RU CU Featural Parameters [ ] --> [-high] none Rule Parameters Unstressed N Reduction Unstressed N Reduction High-Glide Formation High-Glide Formation Vowel Delinking Vowel Delinking F i n a l Vowel Lowering F i n a l Vowel Lowering Reassociation of [+high] Others Complex N Complex N In RU i t i s assumed that the context-free parameter regulating the feature [high] must be reset i n Spanish, producing a complement rule which gives [-high] as the predictable feature value. In Spanish there are no fe a t u r a l parameters to be reset between the c h i l d ' s i n i t i a l system and the adult system, and consequently no developmental restructuring stages. In the RU analysis 4 ru l e parameters must be reset to the ON option to achieve the adult system, while the ru l e of Epenthesis i s provided by UG. In the CU analysis 5 rules must be reset to the marked ON option to achieve the adult phonological system. In RU i t i s predicted that High-Glide Formation and F i n a l Vowel Lowering w i l l not be possible rules u n t i l the featural parameter for [high] has 336 been reset. Both theories also assume that the Complex N parameter requires r e s e t t i n g i n Spanish, allowing for underlying diphthongs. Since complex nuclei can only r e s u l t from the marked s e t t i n g of t h i s parameter, i t i s predicted that i n i t i a l l y c hildren w i l l not be able to use diphthongs i n a phonologically d i s t i n c t manner. 4.3.3.3 Summary The i n i t i a l phonological inventories predicted for both Hungarian and Spanish by the parametric theories of RU and CU are i d e n t i c a l , although the marked s p e c i f i c a t i o n s of the RU and CU systems are quite d i f f e r e n t . Both theories predict that the phonological inventories provided by the default rules of UG w i l l contain 5 segments that w i l l be r e a l i z e d as [ i ] , [e], [u], [o] and [a]. Both predict that i n the a c q u i s i t i o n of Hungarian [ i ] w i l l occur as a paradigmatic s u b s t i t u t i o n for / t i / , [e] w i l l be used as a paradigmatic s u b s t i t u t i o n for /67, and [a] w i l l be used a substitute for /\u00C2\u00A3/. The l e x i c a l markings of the RU system are those that are not provided by the universal default r u l e s . In the Hungarian system, shown i n (4.19), and the Spanish system, shown i n (4.22), [ i ] i s the t o t a l l y unspecified vowel, [a] i s marked [+low], [u] [+back], [e] and [-high], and [o] i s marked as both [-high] and [+back]. The MRC i n (4.17), interpreted as a statement of a c q u i s i t i o n a l markedness, predicts that [ i ] 337 should be the f i r s t vowel acquired, and [o] the l a s t , based on the number of feature markings these segments have. In CU, the representation of the i n i t i a l phonological system of Hungarian i s supplied by the RRC i n (4.25) and the universal R-rules. In the Hungarian system, given i n (4.29), and the Spanish system, given i n (4.30), [a] i s the l e a s t marked member of t h i s set, as i t i s s p e c i f i e d only as [+low], while [o] i s the most marked, since i t i s s p e c i f i e d as [-high], [-low] and [+back]. Given the RRC interpreted as a a predictor of a c q u i s i t i o n a l markedness, [a] should be the f i r s t vowel acquired, and [o] the l a s t . Where the two parametric theories of underspecification d i f f e r i s i n t h e i r predictions for a c q u i s i t i o n a f t e r the i n i t i a l stage provided by UG. In Hungarian, the RU theory predicts that 4 featural parameters \u00E2\u0080\u0094 two context-sensitive and two context-free \u00E2\u0080\u0094 w i l l have to be reset to the marked option to achieve the adult system of Hungarian. In contrast, the CU system predicts that only two context-sensitive rules w i l l be reset. RU then predicts that there may be up to 4 restructuring stages i n the a c q u i s i t i o n of the v o c a l i c system of Hungarian. CU, on the other hand, predicts that only two stages of phonological reorganization w i l l occur i n the a c q u i s i t i o n of Hungarian. In Spanish RU predicts that a sing l e context-free featural parameter w i l l require r e s e t t i n g to achieve the adult system of Hungarian, while CU predicts that there w i l l be no changes between the i n t i a l system hypothesized by the c h i l d and the adult phonological system. 338 RU then predicts at least one developmental reorganization of the phonological system, while CU predicts no such reorganization. The rule systems for Hungarian and Spanish assumed by both RU and CU are si m i l a r , with the CU system u t i l i z i n g at lea s t one extra r u l e for each language. It i s assumed i n both theories that i n order for these rules to apply, the rul e parameters must be switched to ON. I wish to make several comments concerning how the predictions made by the two parametric theories of underspecification r e l a t e to previous research on phonological development. Both theories of underspecification predict an i n i t i a l 5 vowel system, while the research outlined i n 4.1.2 and 4.1.4 show that the i n i t i a l v o c a l i c inventories used productively by children are small two or three segment systems. Jakobson, for example, proposed that the t r i a n g u l a r / i / , /a/, /u/ (or /e/, / i / , /a/) system i s the universal v o c a l i c inventory. How then do we reconcile a predicted 5 vowel system with an observed smaller system? Calabrese (1988) attempts to solve t h i s p a r t i c u l a r question using a hierarchy of UG f i l t e r s . These f i l t e r s are s i m i l a r to redundancy r u l e s , except that they are stated i n a negative fashion. Calabrese proposes that i n i t i a l l y children are not able to v i o l a t e any of the f i l t e r s , and t h i s w i l l produce a tri a n g u l a r 3 vowel system. In Chapter 5 I w i l l make a s l i g h t l y d i f f e r e n t claim -- that phonological theory must incorporate a theory of 339 feature a v a i l a b i l i t y which w i l l impose a universal order on how features are added to a phonological system. This i s not an o r i g i n a l claim, but one that was made i n Jakobson and Halle (1956). It i s possible that t h i s theory of feature a v a i l a b i l i t y can be incorporated into a theory of feature geometry. The reason I have chosen t h i s s o l ution, rather than one l i k e Calabrese*s, i s that i t can be integrated into a theory of underspecification without having to t o t a l l y revise the theory. The parametric underspecification model developed i n Chapter 2 and discussed i n t h i s chapter predicts that r e s e t t i n g of a phonological parameter should be an instantaneous event. A c q u i s i t i o n research discussed i n 4.1 shows that i n fact real-time a c q u i s i t i o n i s not instantaneous. Children learn rules and structures i n a gradual fashion, over a period of time. Previous research has demonstrated that child r e n learn new segments (or features) slowly, sometimes integrating them into new l e x i c a l items one at a time. Davis (1987) argues that i t i s not inconceivable that the parameter-switching device also operates i n t h i s fashion. He proposes that parametric learning can proceed as i n the p a r a l l e l d i s t r i b u t e d processing (PDP) model discussed i n McLelland and Rumelhart (1986). The PDP model shows how learning can follow a U-shaped learning curve, how i t can occur an item at a time, and how i t w i l l i n i t i a l l y lead.to overgeneralization and l a t e r to r e t r e a t . While I w i l l not argue for a PDP model of parameter-switching, I w i l l simply assume that some such model 340 can explain non-instantaneous learning. Gradual a c q u i s i t i o n w i l l then be a function of the learning mechanism, and does not represent an inadequacy of the parametric model i t s e l f . 341 Notes to Chapter 4 1 The High Amplitude Sucking paradigm and the V i s u a l l y Reinforced Infant Speech Discrimination paradigm are decribed i n E i l e r s (1980). 2 Voice Onset Time (VOT) i s the measurement of the lag between the release of a prevocalic consonant and the moment at which voicing begins. 3 This i s i n part taken from Ingram (1989a). * K'iche children appear to be l a t e r language learners than English-speaking children. See Pye (1985) for some suggestions on why t h i s might be true. s This question i s discussed i n Archangeli (1988). Archangeli argues that the feature i s the basic unit i n Radical Underspecification, but that because contrastive s p e c i f i c a t i o n s must be determined on the basis of segmental contrasts, the segment and not the feature i s the basic u n i t i n Contrastive Underspecification. I would argue that i f we assume that the universal R-rules i n i t i a l l y constrain the c h i l d ' s i n i t i a l s p e c i f i c a t i o n of a phonological inventory, then i n fact the feature i s the basic unit of organization. 6 MacWhinney (1978) c a l l s t h i s process Fronting Harmony. 7 My statement of the Acoustic Feature Hypothesis i s based on the Acoustic Representation Hypothesis given i n Ingram (1989: 10). His hypothesis says: Children f i r s t represent t h e i r early vocabulary i n the form of f u l l y s p e c i f i e d phonetic features matrices. I have revised t h i s hypothesis because I do not wish to commit myself to the view that a phonetic/acoustic representation i s f u l l y s p e c i f i e d . There i s evidence from phonetic research that t h i s may not be so (Keating 1985), and i t seems to me that i f one assumes underspecification for phonological representations, then the same should be true of other representations. 342 8 Although I w i l l specify these templates using CV notation, I do not mean to suggest that these C*s and V s represent s k e l e t a l s l o t s that have inherent melodic information. Rather, I assume the theory of s y l l a b i f i c a t i o n given i n Levin (1985) where s k e l e t a l s l o t s are bare timing u n i t s . The CV notation I use i s simply an abbreviatory device to represent the difference between s k e l e t a l s l o t s that w i l l project nuclei and those that w i l l not. The hypothesis about the e a r l i e s t templates being CV or CVCV w i l l involve some basic r e v i s i o n s of Levin's X-bar theory presented i n (2.10). If we assume that the unmarked s y l l a b l e (or word) template i s CV, then we must also assume that Project N\" and Incorporation are more marked mechanisms than Project N\" and N-Placement. Since t h i s i s not the focus of t h i s thesis I w i l l not attempt these r e v i s i o n s , but merely assume that they e x i s t . 9 McCarthy and Prince (1986) assume that the \"elements\" i n (4.12) cannot be s k e l e t a l s l o t s ; however, I assume that they may be. 1 0 Since I w i l l investigate only vowel phenomena i n subsequent chapters, I w i l l not attempt to account for p a r t i a l reduplications involving consonants i n any d e t a i l . 1 1 Presumably t h i s empty consonantal s l o t w i l l be phonetically f i l l e d by a g l o t t a l stop. 1 2 As w i l l be seen i n Chapter 5, sometimes the unspecified s y l l a b l e i s the i n i t i a l s y l l a b l e , and sometimes i t i s the f i n a l s y l l a b l e . 1 3 Calabrese (1988) suggests that there may be a parameter which allows languages to choose between a r a d i c a l l y underspecified phonological system and a c o n t r a s t i v e l y underspecified system. I do not allow for t h i s p o s s i b i l i t y . 1 4 In general I w i l l c i t e Hungarian examples using orthographic form, however, i n the case of long vowels and [e], I w i l l give both the orthographic and phonetic forms. 343 CHAPTER 5 Vocalic A c q u i s i t i o n i n Hungarian and Spanish In Chapter 4 a parametric model of phonological a c q u i s i t i o n i s outlined. This theory assumes that Universal Grammar provides the c h i l d with the set of p r i n c i p l e s and parameters that provide structure for the i n i t i a l phonological system. This p a r t i c u l a r theory of a c q u i s i t i o n adopts the basic premise that underlying representations lack c e r t a i n types of redundant information. Two variants of t h i s theory are outlined: one based on the theory of Radical Underspecification (RU), as outlined i n Archangeli and Pulleyblank (1986), and the other based on the theory of Contrastive Underspecification (CU), outlined i n Steriade (1987). RU assumes that only non-predictable information i s present i n underlying representations, while CU assumes that only contrastive non-redundant information i s present underlyingly. In 4.3 the predictions made by these theories for the a c q u i s i t i o n of the voc a l i c systems of Spanish and Hungarian are outlined, based on the analyses presented i n Chapter 3. In t h i s chapter I w i l l look at early phonological a c q u i s i t i o n i n the two languages discussed i n Chapter 3: Hungarian and Spanish. The data come from previously published a c q u i s i t i o n studies of 4 Hungarian childr e n and 3 Spanish children. The samples were organized into two sets: 344 one at an early period (Time 1) between 1;0 and 1;6 representing the c h i l d ' s e a r l i e s t phonological system, and a second at a l a t e r period (Time 2) 4 to 6 months l a t e r . Based on the assumptions of the parametric model of a c q u i s i t i o n given i n 4.2, the c h i l d ' s phonological system at the e a r l i e r time should be highly constrained by the p r i n c i p l e s and parameters of UG, while the l a t e r system should have been restructured to more c l o s e l y resemble the language-particular system ( i f restructuring i s predicted). Two c r i t e r i a had to be met i n order for an a c q u i s i t i o n sample to be included i n t h i s study. The most c r u c i a l was that data had to be presented i n phonetic form. A second, less c r u c i a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c was that there had to be some in d i c a t i o n that the data had been systematically c o l l e c t e d . If only anecdotal utterances are recorded by an investigator, there i s no guarantee that the sounds used by the c h i l d w i l l be representative of t h e i r phonological system. I o r i g i n a l l y intended to use only longitudinal data from i n d i v i d u a l children; however, t h i s did not prove to be possible for a l l ch i l d r e n . The data presented i n t h i s chapter are i n i t i a l l y analyzed using the Phonetic Inventory and Phonological Contrasts methodology (Ingram 1981, 1989a). This i s the only systematic method of analysis that has been developed to analyze data on normal phonological a c q u i s i t i o n . It provides a set of w e l l -defined steps for determining which of the c h i l d ' s forms w i l l be included i n the analysis, and eliminates much of the 345 v a r i a b i l i t y i n production data that may be due to performance errors or phonetic d e t a i l s . As such, i t leads to a r e l a t i v e l y c l e a r picture of the ch i l d ' s phonological system, and makes cross-subject and c r o s s - l i n g u i s t i c comparisons possible. The only drawback to the PIPC methodology i s that i t i s based on the assumption that children acquire segments or segment contrasts, rather than features. The analyses w i l l show, however, that when combined with a theory of parametric a c q u i s i t i o n , many of the res u l t s produced by the PIPC can be translated into a featural account. Two p a r t i c u l a r aspects of the a c q u i s i t i o n data are focussed on: the phonological inventories used by Hungarian and Spanish children at two r e l a t i v e l y e arly periods of phonological development, and the substitutions or mismatches used by these same children. These data demonstrate that both Hungarian and Spanish children generally acquire the vowels /a/, /e/ and /o/ f i r s t , that /u/ i s the l a s t of the core 5 vowels to be used productively, and that simple vowels are acquired i n advance of long vowels or diphthongs. In Chapter 6 I attempt to account for the development of these v o c a l i c inventories using the parametric theories of Radical and Contrastive Underspecification developed i n Chapter 2. The systematic substitutions or mismatches that occur between adult targets and c h i l d forms i n both Hungarian and Spanish are examined i n some d e t a i l . These mismatches are important, since as discussed i n 4.2.3, they can help to provide i n t e r e s t i n g insights into the organization of the 346 c h i l d ' s phonological system. In Chapter 4 two types of su b s t i t u t i o n processes were predicted to occur: paradigmatic substitutions, which are those that are the r e s u l t of the unmarked featural parameters of UG applying i n the c h i l d ' s system, and syntagmatic substitutions, which are the r e s u l t of the rules of UG operating i n the c h i l d ' s system. Almost half of the v o c a l i c errors that were found i n both sets of a c q u i s i t i o n data were due to the paradigmatic substitutions of a simple vowel for a complex one. Of the remaining errors, the majority could be accounted for by a syntagmatic process of Spread, where the features of e i t h e r a singl e vowel or an entire s y l l a b l e are spread across the c h i l d ' s word form. One surprising difference between the two sets of a c q u i s i t i o n data i s that i n Spanish the vowel or s y l l a b l e which spreads i s generally the stressed one, while i n Hungarian t h i s generalization does not hold true. These sub s t i t u t i o n patterns, and the differences them, are discussed i n more d e t a i l i n Chapter 6. This chapter w i l l be organized as follows. In 5.1 I outline the Phonetic Inventories and Phonological Contrasts methodology, and then present the results of the PIPC analyses for Hungarian and Spanish. In 5.2 the types of s u b s t i t u t i o n patterns used by the two groups of children w i l l be investigated. A detailed analysis of these s u b s t i t u t i o n patterns and t h e i r r e l a t i o n s h i p to the theories of RU and CU w i l l be l e f t u n t i l Chapter 6. 347 5.1 Phonetic Inventories and Phonological Contrasts Methodology In the following sections I w i l l outline the methodology developed by Ingram (1981, 1989a) with i l l u s t r a t i v e examples from small subsets of data from Borzone de Manrique and Massone (1985) and Alatorre (1976). In some cases the methodology has been revised s l i g h t l y to deal with v o c a l i c systems, and I w i l l indicate where these changes have been made. 5.1.1 Phonetic Inventories Step 1 i s the determination of the c h i l d ' s phonetic inventory. The c h i l d ' s forms are given i n a broad phonetic t r a n s c r i p t i o n , paired with a corresponding adult target. Variable pronunciations of a single adult target are phonetic tokens and the adult targets are l e x i c a l types. A t y p i c a l phonetic type for each l e x i c a l type i s then chosen, following the rules i n (5.1) (this step i s only necessary i f a number of phonetic tokens are given for a single l e x i c a l type). The examples are taken from a set of data provided i n Alatorre (1976) for her Spanish-speaking son at 2:9. t 348 (5.1) Rules for choosing phonetic types (Ingram 1989a: 204) a. If a phonetic type occurs i n a majority of the phonetic tokens, select i t 1 . e.g. moco [pete] 3x [bete] lx [Bete] lx choose [pete] b. If there are three or more phonetic types, s e l e c t the one that shares the most segments with the others. e.g. Gerardo [xelala] [xelaldo] [xeldaldo] choose [xelaldo] c. If there are two phonetic types, se l e c t the one that i s not pronounced c o r r e c t l y . e.g. bata [pata] [bata] choose [pata] d. If none of the above work, select the f i r s t phonetic type l i s t e d . e.g. carne [xanen] [kanen] choose [xanen] (5.1a) says that i f a single phonetic token occurs i n over 50% of the t o t a l attempts, then that token w i l l become the phonetic type. (5.1b) comes into play when no token i s more 349 frequent than a l l others. In t h i s s i t u a t i o n the phonetic type w i l l be the token that contains the most representative set of segments. In the example given, 3 phonetic tokens have been used for the target Gerardo, each one occurring only once. In two of these forms the onset of the t h i r d s y l l a b l e i s [d], and i n two the second s y l l a b l e i s [ l a ] . By (5.1b) the form [xelaldo] w i l l be chosen as the phonetic type since i t s second s y l l a b l e i s [ l a ] , and the onset of the t h i r d s y l l a b l e i s [d], and neither of the other phonetic tokens has both these c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . (5.1c) i s used when neither (5.1a) nor (5.1b) i s applicable. This c r i t e r i o n says that given a choice between two tokens, one which i s correct, and one which i s not, choose the incorrect form. This p a r t i c u l a r c r i t e r i o n helps keep the claims about the ch i l d ' s speech as conservative as possible. The f i n a l c r i t e r i o n i n (5.Id) i s used only when none of the previous rules works, and i t simply says that when a l l else f a i l s , choose the f i r s t phonetic type l i s t e d . While t h i s rule i s obviously a r b i t r a r y , i t makes a decision that w i l l be consistently applied i n a l l cases. The sample that i s achieved a f t e r applying the c r i t e r i a i n (5.1) i s c a l l e d the phonological lexicon. The phonetic inventory i s arrived at using the phonological lexicon. Ingram suggests that phonetic inventories be determined separately for i n i t i a l and f i n a l consonants, and for single consonants and consonant c l u s t e r s . The r a t i o n a l e behind t h i s i s that i t has been shown that consonants are f i r s t acquired i n i n i t i a l p o s i t i o n , and l a s t l y 350 i n f i n a l p o s i t i o n , and that clusters are l a t e r a c q u i s i t i o n s than single consonants (Templin 1957). The f i r s t step i n determining the phonological inventory i s to c a l c u l a t e the t o t a l number of phonetic forms that a given phone occurs i n . This i s done separately for each po s i t i o n (e.g. i n i t i a l , medial, f i n a l ) and for each sample. In (5.2) a phonological lexicon from a small set of data from Ignacio at 2;0 (Borzone de Manrique and Massone 1985) i s given, sorted according to the vowels found i n the i n i t i a l s y l l a b l e of each phonetic type 2. (5.2) Ignacio's i n i t i a l vowels at 2;0 3 I n i t i a l Vowel Phonetic forms Total i t i , t i l a 2 o ota, l o r 2 e pepe, cela, pelo, meja, eo, perta 6 a aka, awa, mame, tato, kata 5 u upa,lu 2 The next step i n the analysis i s to apply a frequency analysis to the sounds i n the phonetic inventory. Ingram uses a set of frequency c r i t e r a to class sounds as marginal, used or frequent according to the sample s i z e . Ingram's analyses are based on consonantal data, and since s p e c i f i c vowels tend to occur more frequently than consonants, I have made these c r i t e r i a s l i g h t l y more stringent for the v o c a l i c data presented i n t h i s chapter. The frequency c r i t e r i a for a sample of 68-87 l e x i c a l types given i n Ingram (1981) are 2 351 (marginal), 3-5 (used) and 6 and up (frequent), while these numbers are increased by one i n my c r i t e r i a / shown i n (5.3). (5.3) C r i t e r i a of frequency No. of l e x i c a l types Marginal Used Frequent samples ( ) * 1-25 1 2/3 4 and up 26-37 2 3/4 5 and up 38-67 2 3-5 6 and up 68-87 3 4-6 7 and up 88-112 3 4-7 8 and up 113 and up 4 5-8 9 and up These c r i t e r i a say that i n a sample with 70 l e x i c a l types ( i . e . adult targets), a vowel must occur a minimum of 3 times i n order to be classed as marginal, 4, 5 or 6 times i n order to be classed as used, and a minimum of 7 times to be classed as frequent. The c r i t e r i a increase with sample s i z e , since presumably the more l e x i c a l types, the greater the chance a sound w i l l occur. According to the c r i t e r i a i n (5.3) the data given i n (5.2) w i l l be assigned the following phonetic inventory, based on a sample siz e of 29 l e x i c a l types. (5.4) Phonetic inventory for Ignacio's i n i t i a l vowels at 2;0 (i) (u) *e (o) 352 [ i ] , [u] and [o] appear i n parentheses, which indicates that they are marginal sounds. Each of these sounds occurs twice i n the mini-sample, and by the c r i t e r i a i n (5.3) t h i s makes them marginal. Asterisks indicate that /e/ and /a/ are frequent, since they both occur at least 6 times i n the sample. Sounds without d i a c r i t i c s of any sort are classed as used, although there are no such sounds i n t h i s sample. 5.1.2 Substitutions Step 2 i s the determination of the c h i l d ' s s u b s t i t u t i o n s . These are found by comparing the adult targets with the c h i l d ' s phonetic types and noting whether the c h i l d produces the sound c o r r e c t l y or i n c o r r e c t l y . If incorrect, the substitute i s given, or i t i s shown to be deleted. The proportion correct for each segment i s determined by d i v i d i n g the number of correct segments by the number of l e x i c a l types that contain that segment. The substitution patterns and proportions correct for each phonetic sound i n Ignacio's sample at 2;0 are given i n (5.5). Syllables i n parentheses are those omitted by the c h i l d . 353 (5.5) I n i t i a l Vowels - Ignacio at 2;0 Lex i c a l Types Correct Substitution Proportion Correct u upa c 2/2 luz c a aca c 5/6 agua c dame c (za)pato e nacho c casa c i s i c 2/2 t i r a c e media c 2/2 (Al)fredo c o otra c 2/2 f l o r c The c h i l d ' s matches are determined from the proportion correct for each sound. If the proportion correct i s over 50%, then i t i s a match. A marginal match occurs when the c h i l d attempts a sound only once, and the attempt i s correct. For the data i n (5.5) there are f i v e matches ([u], [a], [ i ] , [e] and [o]) and no marginal matches. 5.1.3 Phonological Inventories The f i n a l step i n the analysis i s to determine the ch i l d ' s phonological inventory. A sound i s considered part of 354 the c h i l d ' s phonological system when the c r i t e r i a i n (5.6) are met: (5.6) a) i t i s frequent, or b) i t i s used, and i t appears as a match, or a substitute. (Ingram 1989a: 207) Looking at Ignacio's phonetic inventory i n (5.4) we see that [e] and [a] are frequent, while [ i ] , [u] and [o] are marginal, [ i ] , [u] and [o] are also matches as shown i n (5.5), but since matches are only relevant i f a sound i s classed as used, they w i l l not be part of the phonological inventory. Only [e] and [a], which are frequent i n (5.4) and matches i n (5.5) w i l l be included i n a phonological inventory. (5.7) Ignacio's phonological inventory of i n i t i a l vowels at 2;0 e a Composite phonological inventories can also be determined for several children acquiring the same language following the previously outlined steps. A composite consonantal inventory i s given i n Ingram (1981) for English and i n Pye, Ingram and L i s t (1987) for K'iche. Composites are obtained by using just those sounds that occur i n the samples of a majority of the subjects. In t h i s way i t i s possible to a r r i v e at a standard phonological inventory for a given age group of children acquiring the same language. Longitudinal samples provide the best evidence for the 355 emergence of phonological contrasts. Each sample i s submitted to the PIPC method of analysis although Ingram suggests that phonetic types from previous sessions be included i n the phonological lexicon of a l a t e r sample, provided that the c h i l d does not produce a new phonetic type for the same target i n the l a t e r sample. In adapting the PIPC methodology for use with vowels, I determined separate inventories for the vowels found i n i n i t i a l and n o n - i n i t i a l s y l l a b l e s i n each phonetic type. Samples were treated l o n g i t u d i n a l l y , i . e . l a t e r samples included phonetic forms from e a r l i e r sessions as long as they were not altered by the c h i l d at the l a t e r sample. If an entire s y l l a b l e was omitted by the c h i l d , then the vowel i n that s y l l a b l e was ignored. I f , however, only the vowel and not the consonant was omitted, then the vowel was considered to have been deleted i n some fashion. F i n a l l y , i n determining matches, a marginal match was assumed to occur i f the sound was c o r r e c t l y produced each time, but the sound only occurred a marginal number of times as determined by the c r i t e r i a of frequency given i n (5.3). 5.2 Vocalic Ac q u i s i t i o n i n Hungarian I w i l l f i r s t outline the Hungarian a c q u i s i t i o n samples used, and then present a summary of the vowel system of Hungarian. I w i l l then present the res u l t s of the PIPC analyses of the voc a l i c systems at Times 1 and 2, and some data on the mismatches and vocalic substitution patterns that 356 occur i n the Hungarian children's word forms. 5.2.1 Samples The Hungarian a c q u i s i t i o n data used i n t h i s study are outlined i n (5.8) 4 . (5.8) Hungarian Samples Child's Name Time 1 T.A. Jolan Laci Time 2 T.A. M. Sex M F M M F Source Gosy (1978) Meggyes (1971) Age G6sy (1978) 1;2-1;5 Endrei (1913) i n 1;2-1;5 (MacWhinney 1974) Balassa (1893) i n 1;1-1;3 (MacWhinney 1974.) No. of Lex i c a l Types 37 26 1;6-1;10 1;8-1;11 26 142 144 The f i r s t sample for T.A. and the samples from Jolan and La c i w i l l be used to represent Time 1. For a l l 3 ch i l d r e n Time 1 occurred between 1;1 and 1;5. The f i r s t a v a i l a b l e data from M. are at 1;8, so M.'s data w i l l represent Time 2, along with the second sample from T.A.5. The data from a l l 4 Hungarian chi l d r e n come from diary studies, where parents or researchers followed the children and recorded t h e i r utterances. Data for a l l c h i l d r e n were given i n r e l a t i v e l y broad phonetic t r a n s c r i p t i o n . 357 The main dialectal difference that affects the vocalic system of Hungarian is in the surface realization of the vowels that I w i l l c a l l /e/ and /e/, a mid front unrounded vowel and a low front unrounded vowel, respectively (Vago 1980). In many dialects, including the Standard Budapest dialect, both phonemes are realized as [e]. In Chapter 3 I have discussed this issue at length, and I assume that a phonetic rule of Front Vowel Lowering, given in (3.22) accounts for the surface realization of the mid front unrounded vowel as the low vowel [e]. Presumably in dialects where both [e] and [e] exist, the rule of Front Vowel Lowering does not. The studies outlined in (5.8) do not indicate which dialects of Hungarian are being acquired by these children, and I w i l l simply assume that in each case i t i s the Standard. 5.2.2 Hungarian Vowels The adult vocalic system of Hungarian (Standard Budapest dialect) f i r s t given in (3.1) is repeated in (5.9). Vowels are given in both their orthographic and phonetic forms. (5.9) Hungarian vowel system Short Long i [ i ] u[y] o[0] o[o] u[u] i [ i : ] u^y:] e[e:] 6[ a i \u00E2\u0080\u0094> o i --> (1 o \u00E2\u0080\u0094> -Jolan u \u00E2\u0080\u0094> a: u --> o Laci o \u00E2\u0080\u0094> a Example magno --> [magna] cipo \u00E2\u0080\u0094> [popo] vi z - - > [zus] toronj --> [tanjo] guritsd --> [ga: ] pucol --> [pojts] hoppa - - > [appa:] N o n - i n i t i a l Vowels Ch i l d Mismatch Example T.A. o --> - auto \u00E2\u0080\u0094> [aut] ti \u00E2\u0080\u0094> - csticstil \u00E2\u0080\u0094> [t^titS] Several of these forms are ' p a r t i a l reduplications', which as discussed i n 4.2.3.2 can be accounted for by a r u l e of Spread which operates across words. In T.A.'s speech the word maqno becomes [magna] with the second vowel changing to agree with the i n i t i a l vowel. In Laci's speech the word hoppa becomes [appa:] with the i n i t i a l vowel taking on the q u a l i t y of the f i n a l vowel. T.A.'s word for cipo i s a reduplicated form, where the vowels i n both s y l l a b l e s are i d e n t i c a l , although the q u a l i t y of both vowels d i f f e r s from the vowels i n the target. The only examples of apparent deletions or omissions of vowels from the target are shown i n the speech of T.A. In both cases the vowel that i s deleted i s a n o n - i n i t i a l one. The analysis of vowels attempted and proportion of mismatches for T.A. and M. at Time 2 are given i n (5.20). (5.20) Mismatches - Time 2 Vowels attempted Mismatches Prop, of Prop, due I n i t i a l N o n - i n i t i a l Total vowels to long/short C h i l d No. Prop. No. Prop. No. attempted confusions T.A. 145 .53 129 .47 274 .15 .33 M. 147 .41 207 .59 354 .12 .66 370 T.A. produced only s l i g h t l y more i n i t i a l vowels than non-i n i t i a l ones, while M. produced proportionately more non-i n i t i a l vowels than i n i t i a l ones. Both children at t h i s stage produce a greater proportion of n o n - i n i t i a l vowels than the chi l d r e n at Time 1, shown by comparing (5.20) to (5.18). The proportions of mismatches to t o t a l vowels attempted are s i m i l a r at both times. In M.'s speech twice as many mismatches occur that are due to long/short vowel as i n the speech of T.A. The mismatches that are not related to long/short vowel confusions for T.A. and M. at Time 2 are provided i n (5.21). (5.21) Individual Mismatches - Time 2 I n i t i a l Vowels C h i l d Mismatches Example u \u00E2\u0080\u0094 > a ce[e]ruza --> [saga] huszar --> [hasa] 6 --> a 6ra --> [aga] u --> i bugyi --> [ b i d j i ] u --> o uborka \u00E2\u0080\u0094> [obojka] i --> o cipo \u00E2\u0080\u0094> [posi] i --> o: irogep - - > [o:jig] a \u00E2\u0080\u0094 > \u00C2\u00A3 bacsi \u00E2\u0080\u0094 > [be$] \u00C2\u00A3 \u00E2\u0080\u0094 > a e[\u00C2\u00A3]szik --> [ a t s i ] e --> i ene[\u00C2\u00A3]el --> [ik\u00C2\u00A3j] tl --> \u00C2\u00A3 f t l t y i - - > [sepi] 6 \u00E2\u0080\u0094 > - 16ci \u00E2\u0080\u0094 > [ l a t s i ] 371 M. e --> a e o u a --> i \u00E2\u0080\u0094 > a \u00E2\u0080\u0094> o \u00E2\u0080\u0094 > u ce[e]ruzat me[e]nj kere[\u00C2\u00A3]m dolgozni kukurit panesipancsi \u00E2\u0080\u00A2-> [talusa:t] \u00E2\u0080\u00A2-> [maj] \u00E2\u0080\u0094> [kij\u00C2\u00A3in] \u00E2\u0080\u00A2-> [takosni] \u00E2\u0080\u0094> [kokulit] \u00E2\u0080\u00A2-> [punt^ipunt^l] N o n - i n i t i a l Vowels T.A. a \u00E2\u0080\u0094> i c i c a \u00E2\u0080\u0094> [ t s i s t s i s ] 6 \u00E2\u0080\u0094> i piskota \u00E2\u0080\u0094> [pi$pi5] 0 --> e csiicsfilok --> [t$tit5ul\u00C2\u00A3k] 1 --> - baci --> [b\u00C2\u00A3$] njus i \u00E2\u0080\u0094> [nus] 0 --> - auto \u00E2\u0080\u0094> [aut] M. tl \u00E2\u0080\u0094> \u00C2\u00A3 ke[\u00C2\u00A3]sztyu \u00E2\u0080\u0094> [k\u00C2\u00A3st\u00C2\u00A3] ke[\u00C2\u00A3]sztytlt --> [k\u00C2\u00A3St\u00C2\u00A3t] u --> o rdkaurat \u00E2\u0080\u0094> [ro:kaolat] 1 \u00E2\u0080\u0094> - figye[\u00C2\u00A3]li \u00E2\u0080\u0094> [sid\u00C2\u00A3j] \u00C2\u00A3 \u00E2\u0080\u0094> i minde[\u00C2\u00A3]nke[\u00C2\u00A3] --> [mind\u00C2\u00A3kki] Several of the mismatches that occur i n T.A.'s speech are \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 p a r t i a l ' or 'to t a l reduplications' (e.g. [saga], [aga], [hasa], [obojka], [ t s i s t s i s ] , [pi$pi$]), while there are only two such forms i n M.'s speech ([keste], [k\u00C2\u00A3St\u00C2\u00A3t]). The majority of T.A.'s substitution patterns can be explained as examples of Spread, or the omission of target sound. In a 372 large number of cases the target vowel that i s affected by Spread i s one which i s not i n the c h i l d ' s repertoire, or i s a vowel that i s only added to the repertoire at Time 2. In T.A.'s form [aga], for example, long /6/[o:], which as shown i n (5.12) i s not i n the c h i l d ' s repertoire at Time 1, i s replaced by /a/, which i s . In M.'s form for kesztyu, / ( l / , which only becomes part of the Hungarian c h i l d ' s repertoire at Time 2, i s replaced by [e] which i s an e a r l i e r acquired sound. These patterns w i l l be discussed further i n 5.2.1. 5.2.5 Substitution Patterns The two types of substitution patterns that w i l l be discussed i n t h i s section and i n 5.3.5 are given i n (5.16). Paradigmatic substitutions occur when an unmarked parameter se t t i n g supplies a substitution for a sound that i s not i n the c h i l d ' s phonological inventory, and syntagmatic substitutions occur when the replacement sounds or features are supplied from elsewhere i n the word. In t h i s section I w i l l focus on substitutions which do not involve the Complex N parameter, i . e . those that do not involve long/short vowels confusions i n Hungarian and diphthong reductions i n Spanish. 5.1.5.1 Syntagmatic Substitutions Representative samples of the errors which do not involve confusions between long and short vowels at Times 1 and 2 i n Hungarian are given i n (5.19) and (5.21). Almost half of these remaining errors can be c a l l e d ' p a r t i a l ' or ' t o t a l ' 373 reduplications, which, as discussed i n 4.2.3.2, can be accounted for by a rule of Spread operating i n a c h i l d ' s m u l t i s y l l a b i c forms. In (5.22) the proportion of m u l t i s y l l a b i c forms used i n d i v i d u a l l y and o v e r a l l by Hungarian chi l d r e n at Times 1 and 2, as well as the proportion of m u l t i s y l l a b i c forms containing d i f f e r e n t i a t e d vowels are given. (5.22) M u l t i s y l l a b i c Phonetic Types - Hungarian Proportion of Proportion containing m u l t i s y l l a b i c types d i f f e r e n t i a t e d vowels Time 1 T.A. .68 .24 Laci .73 .26 Jolan .59 .35 Mean .67 .28 Time 2 T.A. .78 .53 M. .88 .62 Mean .83 .58 At Time 1 approximately two-thirds of the children's phonetic types are m u l t i s y l l a b i c , although only about one-quarter of those contain d i f f e r e n t i a t e d vowels, i . e . two vowels with d i f f e r e n t q u a l i t i e s . This means that i n almost three-quarters of children's m u l t i s y l l a b i c forms the s p e c i f i c a t i o n of one of the vowels can be accounted for by a rule of Spread 9. At 374 Time 2 the proportion of m u l t i s y l l a b i c forms increases to a mean of .83, and the proportion of forms containing d i f f e r e n t i a t e d vowels increases to .58. Less than half of children's m u l t i s y l l a b i c forms at Time 2 are affected by Spread 1 0. The i n d i v i d u a l examples of Spread that appear i n the speech of the Hungarian children at Times 1 and 2 are given i n (5.23). These are divided up into two categories: those where two s y l l a b l e s i n a chi l d ' s form are i d e n t i c a l , and those where only the vowels are i d e n t i c a l . The f i r s t w i l l be referred to as CV Spread, and the l a t t e r as V Spread. (5.23) Syntagmatic Substitutions i n Hungarian CV Spread V Spread c i c a \u00E2\u0080\u0094> [ t s i s t s i s ] ce[e]ruza \u00E2\u0080\u0094> [saga] piskota \u00E2\u0080\u0094> [pi$pi$] ora --> [aga] cipo \u00E2\u0080\u0094> [popo] bugyi \u00E2\u0080\u0094> [ b i d j i ] pancsipancsi \u00E2\u0080\u0094> [punt$ipunt$i] hoppa --> [appa:] huszar --> [hasa] uborka --> [obojka] ke[\u00C2\u00A3]sztyti \u00E2\u0080\u0094> [k\u00C2\u00A3St\u00C2\u00A3] ke[\u00C2\u00A3]sztytlt --> [k\u00C2\u00A3St\u00C2\u00A3t] minde[\u00C2\u00A3]nke[\u00C2\u00A3] --> [mind\u00C2\u00A3kki] magno --> [magna] Only 4 of these forms represent 'to t a l reduplication' or CV Spread, while a possible 9 are examples of V Spread. In 2 of 3 forms undergoing CV Spread the i n i t i a l vowel i s spread onto 375 a following s y l l a b l e (in the fourth case the adult form i s also a reduplication). In the forms which undergo V Spread, i n 4 of the 9 the features of the vowel i n the i n i t i a l s y l l a b l e are spread onto a vowel i n a n o n - i n i t i a l s y l l a b l e , while i n 5 cases the reverse i s true. These processes then appear to operate i n any d i r e c t i o n that they can. If the s p e c i f i e d vowel i s i n i t i a l , then they w i l l operate from l e f t -t o - r i g h t , and i f the s p e c i f i e d vowel i s f i n a l , they w i l l operate from r i g h t - t o - l e f t . The target vowels whose features are provided by V Spread are /6/, /o/, /u/, /ii/ and [e], /6/ i s not part of the Hungarian c h i l d ' s repertoire at Time 2, as shown i n (5.15), while /u/ and /ii/ are added to the repertoire between Times 1 and 2. The one form which targets /o/ contains a geminate consonant, and the target of [mindekki] i s t r i s y l l a b i c . The vowels whose feature s p e c i f i c a t i o n s are provided by CV Spread are /o7[8:], /o/ and /a/. The data i n (5.23) seem to support the assumptions i n 4.2 that syntagmatic substitutions occur when 1) a vowel i n the target i s not present i n the c h i l d ' s phonological repertoire at that time, or 2) the target i s complex i n some fashion. 5.1.5.2 Paradigmatic Substitutions Approximately one-half of the mismatches that occur i n the Hungarian data cannot be explained as syntagmatic substitutions, and therefore are possible paradigmatic substitutions. Since these i n d i v i d u a l mismatches have not 376 been subjected to any frequency c r i t e r i a , I w i l l a r b i t r a r i l y assume that a substitution must occur 3 times before i t can be c a l l e d systematic. The substitutions that occur at lea s t 3 times i n the Hungarian data at Times 1 and 2 are given i n (5.24). (5.24) Paradigmatic Substitutions e[e]szik --> [at s i ] e --> a ce[e]ruzat \u00E2\u0080\u0094> [talusa:t] me[c]nj \u00E2\u0080\u0094> [maj] kukurit \u00E2\u0080\u0094> [kokulit] u \u00E2\u0080\u0094> o rdkaurat \u00E2\u0080\u0094> [rorkaolat] pucol \u00E2\u0080\u0094> [pojts] The two substitutions that are frequent (and hence can be c a l l e d patterns) are the replacement of /u/ with [o], and /e/ with [a]. The l a t t e r pattern i s predicted both by RU and CU, as discussed i n 4.3.3.1, since i t i s assumed that the context-s e n s i t i v e rules of UG give /a/ as the low vowel unmarked f o r backness. The pattern /u/ \u00E2\u0080\u0094> [o] i s not predicted by ei t h e r theory. What i s int e r e s t i n g i s that both patterns involve the replacement of a sound which i s acquired only at Time 2 with a sound acquired at Time 1 (see (5.13) and (5.15)). The fact that the substitution of [a] for /e/ occurs even at Time 2 (see [ a t s i ] and [talusa:t] i n (5.21)), when both /e/ and /a/ have been acquired according to the PIPC analysis, suggests that these paradigmatic substitutions may continue even once 377 the c h i l d uses a sound productively. The i n i t i a l RU and CU systems of Hungarian, as discussed i n 4.3, predict that / t l / should be r e a l i z e d as [ i ] and that /o7 should be r e a l i z e d as [e]. There i s no evidence for these su b s t i t u t i o n patterns i n the Hungarian data. One possible explanation for t h e i r non-occurrence i s that syntagmatic process such as CV and V Spread are somehow more powerful, and destroy the possible contexts for these processes. 5.3 Vocalic Ac q u i s i t i o n i n Spanish As i n the previous section, I w i l l f i r s t o u t l i n e the Spanish a c q u i s i t i o n samples used, then I w i l l present the r e s u l t s of the PIPC analyses and the mismatch data. 5.3.1 Samples The Spanish a c q u i s i t i o n data are outlined i n ( 5 . 2 5 ) 1 1 . 378 (5.25) Spanish Samples Child's Name Sex Source Time 1 Claudio Time 2 Age L e x i c a l types Florencia F Borzone de Manrique 1;0-1;5 35 & Massone (1985) Ignacio M Borzone de Manrique 1;5-1;7 28 & Massone (1985) M Alatorre (1976) 2;0-2;5 16 Florencia F Borzone de Manrique l;6-2;0 67 & Massone (1985) Ignacio M Borzone de Manrique l;8-2;0 57 & Massone (1985) Claudio M Alatorre (1976) 2;6-2;11 75 Claudio i s Mexican, while Florencia and Ignacio are Argentinian. The f i r s t samples from a l l 3 c h i l d r e n w i l l be used to represent Time 1, and the second samples Time 2. Alatorre (1976) states that Claudio's phonological development was slow and l a t e , and at 2;0 he appears to be at a comparable stage to Ignacio and Florencia i n the f i r s t half of the f i r s t year. The samples from Claudio are part of a diary study, while Ignacio and Florencia were taperecorded weekly i n n a t u r a l i s t i c play sessions for 1-1\ hour periods. The L a t i n American d i a l e c t s of Spanish d i f f e r p r i m a r i l y from C a s t i l i a n Spanish i n the phenomenon known as seseo, i n 379 which the interdental f r i c a t i v e i s replaced by /s/ i n a l l positions (Macpherson 1975). I w i l l then assume that there are no major differences between the vo c a l i c systems being acquired by these children and that of C a s t i l i a n Spanish, discussed i n the next section. 5.3.2. Spanish Vowels The 5 vowel Spanish system, f i r s t given i n (3.41), i s repeated here i n (5.26). (5.26) Spanish Vocalic System i u e o a In addition to these 5 simple vowels, Spanish has a set of diphthongs. Following the reasoning given i n 3.2.1 I assume that f a l l i n g diphthongs, such as those i n camion and puerta, whose f i r s t member i s a high g l i d e , are the only complex nuclei possible i n Spanish. Other vowel sequences may form eithe r a branching rhyme (heavy diphthong) or two separate s y l l a b l e s . The creation of branching nucleus over a f a l l i n g diphthong w i l l be governed by the Complex N parameter, discussed i n 2.1.2.4. In t h i s section data for f a l l i n g diphthongs (hereafter c a l l e d diphthongs) w i l l be presented along with data from.simple vowels. Diphthongs w i l l be grouped together into sets represented as [wV] for those whose i n i t i a l member i s a high back gli d e and as [jV] for those whose 380 i n i t i a l member i s a high front g l i d e . A de t a i l e d analysis of the Spanish vowels i s given i n 3.2. In Spanish complex onsets are permitted only i f the second member i s a l i q u i d , and complex consonantal rhymes are permitted only i f the second member i s s (Harris 1983). The preferred s y l l a b l e type i s CV and consequently words are most often vowel f i n a l . Stress i n Spanish i s i n general r u l e -governed, as i s discussed i n 3.2.1, although there are c e r t a i n roots and suffixes which are exceptional with regard to the stress rules of the language. The stressed s y l l a b l e i s always one of the l a s t 3 s y l l a b l e s i n a word. Penultimate stress i s unmarked on vowel-final words, while f i n a l stress i s the unmarked pattern i n consonant-final forms (Harris 1983, Halle, Harris and Vergnaud 1991). The categories of vowels found i n i n i t i a l and n o n - i n i t i a l s y l l a b l e s were collapsed i n the PIPC analysis i n Spanish, as i n Hungarian, since l i t t l e q u a l i t a t i v e difference was found between the two sets. N o n - i n i t i a l vowels were less frequent than i n i t i a l vowels at Time 1, while the reverse was true at Time 2 (Time 1 - 7 9 ( i n i t i a l ) , 7 6 ( n o n - i n i t i a l ) ; Time 2 -2 1 2 ( i n i t i a l ) , 219(non-initial). 5.3.3 Phonological Inventories The phonetic inventories, matches and phonological contrasts data for 3 Spanish children at Time 1 are given i n (5.27). 381 (5.27) Spanish - Time 1 Phonetic Inventory Matches Phonological Inventory Florencia * i a,e,o,u,i,(wV) i *e *o e o *a a Ignacio * i a,e,o,u,i,(wV) i u *e *o e o *a a Claudio (i ) (u) a *e *o e o *a a At t h i s i n i t i a l time none of the children are able to consistently produce diphthongs, although Ignacio made some correct attempts. Claudio makes more production errors than Ignacio or Florencia, which i s r e f l e c t e d i n the fact that he has fewer matches. The composite phonological inventory for Spanish at Time 1, assuming that sounds must exis t i n the phonological inventories of 2 out of 3 children, i s given i n (5.28). 382 (5.28) Composite Phonological Inventory for Spanish at Time 1 i e o a This composite i s i d e n t i c a l to the inventories of Claudio and Florencia i n t h e i r f i r s t samples, and lacks the high back vowel and the diphthongs of the adult system. The phonetic inventories, matches and phonological contrasts data for 3 Spanish children at Time 2 i s given i n (5.29) . (5.29) Spanish - Time 2 Phonetic Inventory Matches Phonological Inventory Florencia * i u a,e,o,u,i,(wv) i u *e *o e o *a (wV)(jV) a Ignacio #2 * i *u a,e,o,u,i,(jV) i u *e *o e o *a (wv) jV a jV Claudio #2 i a,e,o,i i *e *o e o *a a 383 Florencia and Ignacio increase t h e i r phonological inventory by one member (/u/) from Times 1 to 2, while Claudio's matches have increased since Time 1 but his system s t i l l lacks the high back vowel. Both Ignacio and Florencia have diphthongs i n t h e i r phonetic inventories, although only Ignacio has a diphthong i n his phonological inventory. The composite phonological inventory for Time 2, assuming that 2 out of 3 children have a segment i n t h e i r phonological inventories, i s given i n (5.30). (5.30) Composite Phonological Inventory for Spanish at Time 2 i u e o a (5.30) represents the f u l l phonological inventory of the language excluding the diphthongs. 5.3.4 Mismatches The number of vowels attempted, number and proportion of attempted vowels that are mismatched, and proportion of mismatches that involve the reduction of a diphthong to a single vowel at Times 1 and 2 i n the Spanish data are given i n (5.31) . 384 (5.31) Mismatches at Times 1 and 2 - Spanish Vowels attempted Prop, due I n i t i a l N o n - i n i t i a l Mismatches to diphthong No. Prop. No. Prop. Total No. Prop. reduction Time 1 79 .51 76 .49 155 19 .12 .37 Time 2 212 .49 219 .51 431 59 .13 .34 At Time 1 the Spanish children produce s l i g h t l y more i n i t i a l vowels than subsequent ones, and t h i s r e l a t i o n s h i p i s reversed at Time 2. Approximately the same proportion of vowels attempted i n Spanish as i n Hungarian are mismatches (cf. (5.31) and (5.17)). Of the t o t a l s u b stitution errors approximately one-third are due to a diphthong being reduced to a simple vowel at both Times 1 and 2. Of the remaining mismatches (involving simple vowels) none represent omissions from the adult target. As i n Hungarian, the mismatches of i n d i v i d u a l Spanish ch i l d r e n vary to a large degree. The i n d i v i d u a l patterns of attempted vowels and mismatches for 3 Spanish c h i l d r e n are provided i n (5.32). 385 (5.32) Mismatches - Time 1 Vowels attempted Mismatches Prop, of Prop, due I n i t i a l N o n - i n i t i a l vowels to diphthong C h i l d No. Prop. No. Prop. Total attempted reduction Florencia 35 .47 38 .52 73 .05 .75 Ignacio 28 .55 23 .45 51 .04 .50 Claudio 16 .52 15 .48 31 .42 .24 A l l 3 chil d r e n produce s i m i l a r proportions of i n i t i a l and subsequent vowels at Time 1, although only Florencia produced a larger proportion of n o n - i n i t i a l vowels than i n i t i a l ones. Ignacio and Florencia at t h i s early stage made few mismatches, while almost half of Claudio's productions were mismatches. Claudio made r e l a t i v e l y few mismatches when the target was a diphthong, while Ignacio and Florencia's mismatches with diphthongs were more frequent. In the Spanish data, the types of mismatches that occur for i n i t i a l and n o n - i n i t i a l vowels are very s i m i l a r , since n o n - i n i t i a l vowels were never omitted. No d i s t i n c t i o n w i l l therefore be made between these two classes of vowels. Mismatches from 3 Spanish children at Time 1 that do not involve the reduction of a diphthong to a simple vowel are given i n (5.33). 386 (5.33) Individual Mismatches - Time 1 Ch i l d Mismatch Example Florencia e --> a de nada --> [nanana] Ignacio o --> a pato - - > [papa] Claudio e \u00E2\u0080\u0094> a perro - - > [wawa] o --> a banco \u00E2\u0080\u0094> [mamna] mango --> [mamna] mano --> [mama] u --> e dulce --> [eBi] columpio \u00E2\u0080\u0094> [eBje] we \u00E2\u0080\u0094> o huevo \u00E2\u0080\u0094> [oBo] a \u00E2\u0080\u0094> e t o a l l a --> [eja] i --> e meti --> [pete] At t h i s early stage a l l but two of the su b s t i t u t i o n patterns that occur with simple vowels are ' p a r t i a l ' or ' t o t a l reduplications' and can be accounted for by a rule of Spread. The exceptions are [eBi] 'dulce' and [eja] ' t o a l l a ' . In some cases the vowel which spreads i s the vowel of the i n i t i a l s y l l a b l e (e.g. [mamna], [papa]), while i n other cases i t seems to be the vowel of the n o n - i n i t i a l s y l l a b l e which spreads (e.g. [oBo]). The analysis of vowels attempted and proportions of errors for i n d i v i d u a l Spanish children at Time 2 are given i n (5.34). 387 (5.34) Mismatches - Time 2 Vowels attempted Mismatches Prop, of Prop, due I n i t i a l N o n - i n i t i a l vowels to diphthong C h i l d No. Prop. No. Prop. Total attempted reduction Florencia 67 .45 81 .55 148 .08 .38 Ignacio 59 .53 53 .47 112 .09 .40 Claudio 86 .50 85 .50 171 .19 .30 Each c h i l d produces approximately the same proportion of i n i t i a l and n o n - i n i t i a l vowels as at Time 1. Claudio makes r e l a t i v e l y fewer mismatches than at Time 1, while Ignacio and Florencia make more. The proportion of mismatches due to the reduction of a diphthong to a simple vowel varies from .30 to .40. The mismatches made by these children at Time 2 that are not due to diphthong reductions are given i n (5.35). 388 (5.35) Individual Mismatches - Time 2 Ch i l d Mismatch Example Florencia Ignacio Claudio e \u00E2\u0080\u0094> I e a a a o \u00E2\u0080\u00A2> a \u00E2\u0080\u00A2> o \u00E2\u0080\u00A2> e \u00E2\u0080\u00A2> e \u00E2\u0080\u00A2> a colectivo \u00E2\u0080\u0094> tren \u00E2\u0080\u0094> e l s o l \u00E2\u0080\u0094> pantalon --> sala zapata zapato quiero --> --> --> --> a \u00E2\u0080\u0094> e zapato --> [pepe] pastel \u00E2\u0080\u0094 > [peste] pate --> [pete] e --> a cerada \u00E2\u0080\u0094> [sayaya] e \u00E2\u0080\u0094> o espejo \u00E2\u0080\u0094> [poxo] o \u00E2\u0080\u0094 > e conejo --> [nenexo] o - - > a lado --> [jaja] moxado --> [maxaxo] u --> e dulce \u00E2\u0080\u0094 > [eBle] i \u00E2\u0080\u0094> e l i b r o --> [eBle] jardinero --> [nenexo] pipiBo] t i n ] a5ol] palolon] sale] pepe] papa] kela] As at Time 1 a l l 3 children use Place Spread i n t h e i r m u l t i s y l l a b i c forms, although Claudio makes use of these 389 processes most often. The vowel which i s spread, as i s the case at Time 1, i s sometimes the vowel of the i n i t i a l s y l l a b l e , as i n Claudio's form for lado; and sometimes the vowel of the n o n - i n i t i a l s y l l a b l e , as i n Claudio*s form for p a s t e l . These forms w i l l be further discussed i n 5.3.5.1. 5.3.5 Substitution Patterns 5.3.5.1 Syntagmatic Substitutions The Spanish substitutions which do not r e f l e c t d i f f i c u l t i e s with complex nuclei are given i n (5.33) and (5.35). The two syntagmatic substitution patterns which appear to operate i n these data are CV and V Spread, which account for almost f o u r - f i f t h s of t h i s type of mismatch. Since these processes are ones a f f e c t i n g m u l t i s y l l a b i c forms the frequency of m u l t i s y l l a b i c phonetic types was investigated. The proportions of m u l t i s y l l a b i c types found each time for each c h i l d and the proportion of these forms which contain d i f f e r e n t i a t e d vowels are presented i n (5.36). 390 (5.36) M u l t i s y l l a b i c Phonetic Types - Spanish Proportion of Proportion containing m u l t i s y l l a b i c types d i f f e r e n t i a t e d vowels Time 1 Florencia .97 .50 Ignacio .82 .52 Claudio 1.00 .38 Mean .93 .47 Time 2 Florencia .95 .61 Ignacio .88 .56 Claudio .97 .52 Mean .93 .56 The mean proportions of m u l t i s y l l a b i c forms are i d e n t i c a l at Times 1 and 2, although the proportion of m u l t i s y l l a b i c forms containing d i f f e r e n t i a t e d vowels increases from one time to the next. This means that the proportion of vowels affected by Spread decreases from Time 1 to Time 2. Claudio has the largest proportion of multi s y l l a b l e s and the lowest proportion of d i f f e r e n t i a t e d vowels at both times. Although the proportions of m u l t i s y l l a b i c forms at both sessions are the same, forms containing 3 or more s y l l a b l e s are more frequent at Time 2 1 2 . Spanish-speaking children produce a higher proportion of mul t i s y l l a b l e s than Hungarian children, shown by 391 comparing the data i n (5.36) and (5.33). This i s probably a r e f l e c t i o n of the s y l l a b l e structures of the languages. The Spanish forms affected by CV and V Spread are presented i n (5.37). Stress i s indicated i n the adult targets by c a p i t a l l e t t e r s . (5.37) Syntagmatic Substitutions i n Spanish CV Spread V Spread de nAda - - > [nanana] bAnco - - > [mamna] pAto \u00E2\u0080\u0094 > [papa] mAngo \u00E2\u0080\u0094 > [mamna] pErro \u00E2\u0080\u0094 > [wawa] huEvo \u00E2\u0080\u0094 > [oBo] c o l e c t l v o - - > [pipiBo] mEti \u00E2\u0080\u0094 > [pete] zapAta --> [pepe] pastEl - - > [peste] zapAto - - > [papa] patE - - > [pete] lAdo \u00E2\u0080\u0094 > [jaja] cerAda - - > [sayaya] jardinEro \u00E2\u0080\u0094 > [nenexo] espEjo --> [poxo] There are equal numbers of forms affected by CV and V Spread. The vowel which i s spread i s either /a/, / i / or /e/. The triggers of V Spread are /a/, /o/ and /e/ while the vowels which receive t h e i r feature s p e c i f i c a t i o n s are /at, tot, f i t and /e/ i n the adult targets. It does not seem to be the case then that either of these processes f i l l s i n feature values of vowels not i n the ch i l d ' s repertoire, as seems to be the case i n Hungarian. I f , however, we look at the stress patterns of forms undergoing CV and V Spread, we f i n d that i n almost every case the vowel that spreads i s the stressed one. 392 The exceptions are zapato where i t i s not e n t i r e l y c l e a r which s y l l a b l e i s reduplicated, huevo and espejo. It i s possible then that stress i s a complex matter i n Spanish and adds to the complexity of a target. At t h i s early point i n ac q u i s i t i o n , Spanish children may only pay attention to stressed vowels, and ignore unstressed ones. These sub s t i t u t i o n patterns w i l l be discussed further i n Chapter 6. 5.3.5.2 Paradigmatic Substitutions The systematic substitutions found i n the Spanish data which are not the r e s u l t of diphthong reductions or a syntagmatic su b s t i t u t i o n process are given i n (5.38). (5.38) Paradigmatic Substitutions i n Spanish t o a l l a \u00E2\u0080\u0094> [eja] a \u00E2\u0080\u0094> e zapato \u00E2\u0080\u0094> [pepe] sala \u00E2\u0080\u0094> [sale] While there are other substitutions, the only pattern which occurs 3 or more times i n these data i s the su b s t i t u t i o n of [e] for /a/. This pattern i s not predicted by ei t h e r variant of the a c q u i s i t i o n theory, since neither theory predicts that any context-sensitive rules require r e s e t t i n g i n the ac q u i s i t i o n of Spanish. I w i l l return to the problem of the sub s t i t u t i o n of [e] for /a/ i n 6.2.2. 5.4 Summary The data presented i n the preceding sections show some 393 remarkable similarities in the phonological systems of the children acquiring both Hungarian and Spanish at Time 1. The inventories for both languages at the early time contain 4 vowels. In Hungarian this inventory is / i / , /e/, /a/ and /o/ 1 3/ while in Spanish i t is / i / , /e/, /a/ and /o/. At this early stage there is very l i t t l e evidence that children can represent complex nuclei/ and consequently long vowels in Hungarian and diphthongs in Spanish do not appear to be productive. The long vowel /a/ is the only long vowel used systematically in Hungarian at this early period. This is an interesting fact in i t s e l f , since we would expect that i f a child is able to form complex nuclei then a l l vowels in the child's phonological inventory would be productive in both long and short configurations. This does not appear to be the case. The mismatch data for both Hungarian and Spanish are also quite similar. In both languages syntagmatic substitutions, provided by the operation of CV or V Spread, represent a large proportion of the mismatches found in these data. One major difference between Hungarian and Spanish appears to be that in Hungarian empty skeletal slots exist in the child's form either because a sound is not present in the child's phonological repertoire or because the form i t s e l f is too complex, while in Spanish they exist only because of the complexities associated with stress. In many of the Spanish child's forms, only the stressed syllable or vowel has underlying feature specifications, while the other syllables 394 or vowels are l e f t to acquire t h e i r s p e c i f i c a t i o n s through the operation of Spread. In (5.17) i t i s shown that of a l l v o c a l i c errors made by Hungarian children, almost half are due to long/short vowel confusions, where a short vowel generally replaces a long vowel. (5.31) shows that approximately one-third of a l l errors made by Spanish children are due to the reduction of a diphthong to a simple vowel. These errors r e s u l t from the ch i l d ' s i n a b i l i t y to deal with the structures associated with complex vowels. In a parametric theory they can be at t r i b u t e d to the unmarked parameter set t i n g of the Complex N parameter, and are therefore a s p e c i f i c type of paradigmatic s u b s t i t u t i o n . Long vowels and Spanish diphthongs w i l l have the representations i n (5.39). (5.39) Complex Vowels Hungarian Spanish N N / \ / \ x x X X \ / [+F] [+F] [+G] [+G] In Hungarian both s k e l e t a l s l o t s w i l l be associated to the same set of features, while i n Spanish each segment may have i t s own set of feature s p e c i f i c a t i o n s . At the point i n 395 a c q u i s i t i o n investigated i n t h i s chapter Hungarian and Spanish childre n have not yet reset the Complex N parameter permitting the structures i n (5.39)/ and they w i l l map a l l v o c a l i c feature s p e c i f i c a t i o n s to a s k e l e t a l s l o t dominated by a non-branching nucleus. Two paradigmatic substitution patterns, not r e l a t i n g to the Complex N parameter, were found i n the Hungarian data. These are the substitution of [a] for /e/ and [o] for /u/. Only the f i r s t pattern i s predicted i n 4.3.3.1 by the theories of RU and CU as being due to the functioning of the unmarked se t t i n g of a context-sensitive featural parameter. In Spanish only one sub s t i t u t i o n pattern that did not r e l a t e to the Complex N parameter was found. This i s the s u b s t i t u t i o n of [e] for /a/, and again t h i s pattern i s not predicted i n 4.3.3.2 by the opposing theories of underspecification. 396 Notes to Chapter 5 1 The symbol [B] i s used to represent IPA 2 I w i l l c a l l these i n i t i a l vowels throughout Chapters 5 and 6 even though they are generally not w o r d - i n i t i a l , but rather occur i n the i n i t i a l s y l l a b l e of a chi l d ' s phonetic type. 3 F a l l i n g diphthongs are also analyzed i n the Spanish data; however, for s i m p l i c i t y ' s sake I have omitted diphthongs i n the discussion i n 5.1.1. 4 MacWhinney (1974) also presents data from a Hungarian c h i l d named Z o l i . I have not used these data because only a small number of examples for each session are a c t u a l l y provided. 5 This, unfortunately, i s one of the problems that a c q u i s i t i o n researchers, l i k e any f i e l d l i n g u i s t s , have to contend with. Using published data solves some of the many problems associated with data c o l l e c t i o n , but i t i s not always possible to f i n d appropriate samples. In the case of M. I must assume that her early phonological system i s comparable to that of the other Hungarian children. 6 To my knowledge the differences between long and short vowels i n a c q u i s i t i o n has never been systematically studied. 7 These, and a l l other mismatch data that w i l l be discussed involved only vowels. There are many other examples of mismatches between adult and c h i l d forms that involve only consonants. 8 Adult l e x i c a l types are given i n Hungarian orthography. The correspondences are as follows: Orthographic IPA s [$] c [ts] cs [t$] gy [<*3] sz [s ] Y [j] zs [j] 8 Macken (1979) discusses data from a Spanish-speaking c h i l d , but these are not used i n t h i s study because she does not provide the entire sample. 9 The re s u l t s given i n (5.22) and (5.36) support the findings i n Fee and Ingram (1980) that children's reduplications decrease developmentally. 397 1 0 Florencia i s the only Spanish c h i l d to produce t r i s y l l a b i c phonetic types at Time 1. At Time 2 phonetic types larger than 2 s y l l a b l e s account for 25%, 9% and 15% of a l l m u l t i s y l l a b i c forms for Florencia, Ignacio and Claudio, respectively. 1 1 I t i s possible that i t i s just coincidence that two vowels i n a word .are i d e n t i c a l , but according to the OCP, discussed i n 2.1.2.3, adjacent i d e n t i c a l representation are prohibited. The OCP would eithe r outlaw the representation e n t i r e l y , or force a phonological operation to delete one of the feature matrices associated with one of the i d e n t i c a l vowels, and spread or fuse the remaining feature matrix to both vowels. 1 2 Although t h i s may not be j u s t i f i e d I assume the c h i l d ' s phonetic [e] i s underlyingly /e/ and not /e/. Short [e] and [e] are not d i f f e r e n t i a t e d i n the phonetic data given for these children, and so i t i s impossible to determine i f the c h i l d i n fact makes a d i s t i n c t i o n between these two short vowels. 398 CHAPTER 6 Testing the Predictions In 4.3 two sets of predictions for the a c q u i s i t i o n of the vo c a l i c systems of Hungarian and Spanish are outlined: one based on the theory of RU and the other on the theory of CU. The c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the adult systems are given i n Chapter 3. In Chapter 5 a c q u i s i t i o n data from Hungarian and Spanish are presented, which demonstrate the phonological inventories and s u b s t i t u t i o n patterns used by young childre n during the second year of l i f e . In t h i s chapter I w i l l examine the ac q u i s i t i o n facts i n l i g h t of the predictions made i n 4.3. I w i l l focus on three p a r t i c u l a r areas: the a c q u i s i t i o n of phonological inventories, the types of su b s t i t u t i o n patterns used by Hungarian and Spanish children, and the comparision of the phonological rules required i n the adult languages with the rules that are found i n the children's speech. This chapter w i l l be organized as follows. In 6.1 I discuss two major discrepancies that e x i s t between the attested a c q u i s i t i o n data presented i n Chapter 5 and a parametric theory of ac q u i s i t i o n , and I w i l l show how these discrepancies can be resolved without abandoning the parametric model. In 6.2 I attempt to account for the development of the phonological inventories of Hungarian and Spanish given the p r i n c i p l e s and feature s p e c i f i c a t i o n s required by the parametric theories of RU and CU. In 6.3 the 399 s u b s t i t u t i o n patterns used by these two groups of c h i l d r e n are discussed i n l i g h t of the theories of RU and CU. In 6.4 I attempt to determine i f there i s evidence that the parametric phonological rules proposed i n Chapter 3 are operative i n the early phonological systems of children acquiring these languages. In 6.5 I summarize these r e s u l t s , which show that the RU theory i s more successful at accounting for several aspects of the a c q u i s i t i o n facts than the CU theory. In 6.6 I discuss some of the implications that these r e s u l t s have both for phonological theory and for a theory of phonological a c q u i s i t i o n . 6.1 Predicted vs. Attested Phonological Inventories In t h i s section I w i l l look at two of the most general differences that e x i s t between the i n i t i a l phonological inventories predicted for Hungarian and Spanish i n 4.3 and the attested inventories described i n Chapter 5. In 4.3.3 i t i s shown that many of the predictions made by the theories of RU and CU for the i n i t i a l phonological systems of Hungarian and Spanish are i d e n t i c a l . Both theories predict that i n i t i a l l y Hungarian and Spanish children have 5 d i s t i n c t vowels r e a l i z e d as [ i ] , [u], [a], [o] and [e], that these systems are s p e c i f i e d using the features [low], [back] and [round], and that they are unable to represent complex vowels. These theories also predict that children acquiring Hungarian w i l l i n i t i a l l y substitute front non-low unrounded vowels for rounded ones, and the low back vowel for a low front vowel, 400 and that there w i l l be no substitutions of t h i s type i n Spanish 1. The major differences that e x i s t between the two variants of the a c q u i s i t i o n theory r e l a t e to the underlying feature s p e c i f i c a t i o n s attributed to children's early vowels, and the stages of restructuring that w i l l occur over the course of development. 6.1.1 The Inventories In 5.1.2 and 5.1.3 composite phonological inventories for Hungarian and Spanish children at Times 1 and 2 are presented 2. These composite inventories are derived by determining phonological inventories for i n d i v i d u a l c h i l d r e n and then including sounds used only by a majority of c h i l d r e n acquiring that language. In 4.3.3 the predicted i n i t i a l inventories f o r these two languages are discussed. The composite inventories and the inventories predicted for Time 1 by both the RU and CU parametric theories are compared i n (6.1) 3. 401 (6.1) a. Hungarian Time 1 Predicted Attested 1 u 1 e o o a \u00C2\u00A3 a a Time 2 i ti u 6 o e \u00C2\u00A3 a a I n i t i a l s e t t i n g of Complex N parameter - OFF b. Spanish Time 1 Predicted Attested i u i e o e o a a Time 2 i u e o I n i t i a l s e t t i n g of Complex N parameter - OFF The comparisons for Hungarian are made i n (6.1a) and those for Spanish i n (6.1b). I have assumed that both the theories of 402 RU and CU adopt the Complex N parameter, and that the i n i t i a l OFF s e t t i n g of t h i s parameter t e l l s c hildren that nuclei do not branch. This parameter w i l l have to be reset at some point i n the a c q u i s i t i o n of Hungarian or Spanish i n order to allow long vowels or diphthongs. In (6.1a) i t i s shown that the vowel system used by Hungarian children at Time 1 d i f f e r s from the predicted system i n two c r u c i a l ways. F i r s t , only the long vowel /a/ i s part of t h i s system at Time 1, while the two long vowels /a/ and /e/ are part of the system at Time 2. The predictions r e l a t i n g to the Complex N parameter, outlined i n 4.3.3, are that once t h i s parameter i s reset, the c h i l d should be able to produce complex vowels for a l l d i s t i n c t sets of feature s p e c i f i c a t i o n s . If a Hungarian c h i l d i s able to represent long vowels at Time 1, then there should be 5 such vowels, rather than the 1 that i s attested. At Time 2 we would expect 7 d i s t i n c t long vowels, rather than the 2 that are attested. In (6.1b) i t i s shown that there i s l i t t l e evidence that the Complex N parameter has been reset by a majority of Spanish-speaking children by Time 2. The i n d i v i d u a l data (see (5.26)) show that only one c h i l d , Ignacio, uses diphthongs productively at Time 2, and these are always diphthongs beginning with a high front g l i d e . Thus i t appears that i n Spanish, as i n Hungarian, complex vowels enter the c h i l d ' s system slowly. The second major discrepancy between the predicted and attested inventories shown i n (6.1) i s t h e i r s i z e . The 403 composite inventories for both Spanish and Hungarian c h i l d r e n at Time 1 contain 4 vowels, while the predictions i n both cases are for 5 vowel inventories. The evidence i n both languages from i n d i v i d u a l children's data i s that i n i t i a l l y the phonological inventories may be even smaller than the four vowel inventories shown i n the composites since i n (5.27) i t shown that the voc a l i c inventory used by Claudio (the l e a s t advanced of the Spanish children) at Time 1 consists of the three vowels /e/, lot and /a/. In addition, as discussed i n above, the long vowel inventories i n Hungarian appear to develop gradually. In (5.12) and (5.14) i t i s shown that the long vowel inventory begins with /a/, and then /e/ i s added and l a t e r /6/. Given the assumption of current non-linear phonology that long vowels are simply short vowels associated to two s k e l e t a l s l o t s (discussed i n 2.1.2.4 and 3.2.1) the order of a c q u i s i t i o n of long vowels should be i d e n t i c a l to that of short vowels. While t h i s data from long vowels i s suggestive about an e a r l i e r period of development that that demonstrated i n (6.10), the data on long vowels i s also more variable than that given for short vowels, and I w i l l base by analyses s o l e l y on the short vowel r e s u l t s . 6.1.2 Gradual Acqui s i t i o n of Complex Vowels The data i n (6.1) suggest that the a c q u i s i t i o n of the Complex N parameter i s not an instantaneous event, as i s predicted i n Chapter 4. It appears that once t h i s parameter 404 i s reset, i t i s applied i n a gradual fashion, f i r s t beginning with the feature combination for /a/, and then slowly being extended to the feature sets for /e/ and /of. The problem of accounting for gradual a c q u i s i t i o n within a parametric model i s discussed i n 4.3.3.3. This problem i s c e r t a i n l y not s p e c i f i c to the a c q u i s i t i o n of long vowels. The a c q u i s i t i o n of word-final consonants and consonant clus t e r s (Ingram 1976) have also been noted to develop i n a slow and gradual fashion. Davis (1987) suggests that gradual a c q u i s i t i o n can be reconciled with the parametric view of rules i f we assume that i t i s the learning mechanism which accounts for the non-instantaneous nature of s p e c i f i c a c q u i s i t i o n s , and not the grammar i t s e l f . Davis suggests that the learning mechanism may function i n the manner of a pa r a l l e l - d i s t r i b u t e d - p r o c e s s o r (PDP), a learning device outlined i n McLelland and Rumelhart (1986). This type of processor i n i t i a l l y acquires s k i l l s item by item, u n t i l knowledge becomes generalized as a r u l e . At that point overgeneralization may occur, when the r u l e i s applied i n an overly broad manner. Positive evidence w i l l force the processor to retreat from overgeneralizations u n t i l the rule i s eventually applied only i n the appropriate contexts. Although I w i l l not argue for a PDP type mechanism s p e c i f i c a l l y , I w i l l assume that a learning mechanism with s i m i l a r c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s can account for the type of a c q u i s i t i o n that often occurs i n language development. Given t h i s assumption, the gradual a c q u i s i t i o n of complex vowels 405 that we f i n d i n the Spanish and Hungarian data ( p a r t i c u l a r l y i n Hungarian) can be attributed to some aspect of learning outside the parametric model. Once the Complex N parameter i s reset by a c h i l d acquiring a language with complex vowels, complex vowels w i l l be acquired one at a time. Complex vowels w i l l be l a t e r acquisitions than simple vowels because t h e i r representation w i l l require both the r e s e t t i n g of the Complex N parameter and the appropriate feature combinations. The order i n which vowels are acquired w i l l be c o n t r o l l e d by the factors discussed i n 6.1.3. 6.1.3 Gradual A c q u i s i t i o n of the Inventory The si z e discrepancy between the attested and predicted inventories i n (6.1) also points to a more gradual type of a c q u i s i t i o n than that predicted by the parametric theory. I t i s not c l e a r , however, that t h i s aspect of the system can be at t r i b u t e d to a s p e c i f i c c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of the learning mechanism, as i s done i n 6.1.2 for the gradual a c q u i s i t i o n of complex vowels. There i s no s p e c i f i c parameter that has been posited to account for the order i n which segments appear i n early phonological inventories. The Spanish data for i n d i v i d u a l children at Time 1 presented i n (5.24) shows that Claudio's inventory contains only three vowels, while both the Spanish and Hungarian composites at Time 1 contain the vowels /a/, /e/ and /o/ plus the high front vowel / i / . Only at Time 2 do we see the high back vowel appear i n the composites of both Spanish and 406 Hungarian (shown i n (5.15) and (5.27)). In the Hungarian Time 2 composite the front rounded vowels / t l / and /o7 have been added. Based on these pieces of evidence, I suggest that we can envision the gradual development of phonological inventories given i n (6.2) (ignoring for the moment the low front vowel i n Hungarian). (6.2) a. e o b. i a e o a c. i u d. i ti u (Hungarian e o e 0 o only) a a At the f i r s t stage we have a contrast between /e/ vs. /a/ vs. /o/, shown i n (6.2a). We therefore have a contrast based on the feature [low] and another based on the feature [back]. At the following stage, shown i n (6.2b), the high front vowel / i / w i l l be added. This i s the stage shown i n the composites at Time 1 i n Spanish. In (6.2c) the high back vowel /u/ i s added to the system, giving the inventory shown i n the Spanish Time 2 composite. The f i n a l stage, shown i n (6.2d) i s applicable to Hungarian only, and shows that f i n a l addition of the front rounded vowels. The a c q u i s i t i o n stages i n (6.2a-c) do not follow d i r e c t l y from the predictions of the parametric theories of RU and CU described i n 4.3. How then do we account for these data? I 407 believe the parametric theory can be saved i f a theory of feature a v a i l a b i l i t y i s adopted to explain why children's phonological inventories are i n i t i a l l y smaller than predicted. Such a theory w i l l not weaken the a c q u i s i t i o n theory as long as i t i s assumed to be a part of UG/ perhaps even b u i l t into a theory of feature geometry such as that shown i n (2.7). UG w i l l supply the c h i l d with the knowledge of what features are and how they work, a set of redundancy rules which supply redundant feature values, and a feature geometry which w i l l include a hierarchy of v o c a l i c features. When the c h i l d begins to develop a phonological system, features w i l l become avai l a b l e slowly. Universal redundancy rules w i l l always be present to give u n i v e r s a l l y predictable feature values as soon as a new feature becomes available to the c h i l d . 6.1.3.1 Jakobson and Halle (1956) In Jakobson and Halle (1956) a theory of d i s t i n c t i v e features i s developed, which assumes that ch i l d r e n acquire features i n a s p e c i f i c order. Jakobson and Halle propose three classes of d i s t i n c t i v e features: sonority features, protensity features, and t o n a l i t y features. Although t h i s set of features i s able to d i s t i n g u i s h three vowel heights, i n t h e i r discussions of the a c q u i s i t i o n of v o c a l i c systems only two vowels heights are assumed. Based on Jakobson's e a r l i e r work (Jakobson 1941/68) Jakobson and Halle argue that the f i r s t vowel acquired i s /a/, and then further vowel contrasts develop as outlined i n (6.3). 408 (6.3) Vowel Ac q u i s i t i o n (adapted from Jakobson and Halle 1956: 55) a. Narrow vs. wide e.g. / i / or /e/ vs. /a/ b. Narrow vowels: p a l a t a l vs. velar e.g. / i / vs. /u/ or /o/, or /e/ vs. /u/ or /o/ c. i . Wide vowels: p a l a t a l vs. velar e.g. / a e / vs. /a/ i i . Narrow p a l a t a l vowels: rounded vs. unrounded e.g. /y/ vs. / i / or // vs. /e/ i i i . Velar vowels: unrounded vs. rounded e.g. /uV vs. /u/ or /y/ vs. /o/ d i i . Wide p a l a t a l vowels: rounded vs. unrounded e.g. /\u00C2\u00AB/ vs. /e/ The numbering i n (6.3) demonstrates s p e c i f i c ordering r e l a t i o n s h i p s . The acquisitions i n (6.3b) follow those i n (6.3a), and those i n (6.3c) follow those i n (6.3b), although the acquisitions within (6.3c) are not ordered with respect to one another. The a c q u i s i t i o n i n (6.3dii) i s ordered a f t e r the a c q u i s i t i o n i n ( 6 . 3 c i i ) , yet i s not ordered with respect to any other acquisitions i n (6.3). The stages of a c q u i s i t i o n i n (6.3) beginning with (6.3b) are s i m i l a r to those outlined i n (6.2), except that the stages i n (6.2) contain an extra height d i s t i n c t i o n . The opposition i n (6.3b) as well as that shown i n (6.2a) i s between a non-low 409 back vowel, a low back vowel and a non-low front vowel. A f t e r t h i s stage, Jakobson and Halle say that ei t h e r a low front vowel, a rounded version of the e x i s t i n g non-low front vowel, or the unrounded counterpart to the non-low back vowel may be added to the system. The contrast can then be another [+back]/[-back] one, or a new [+round]/[-round] contrast. The data from Hungarian suggest that a further contrast i n backness w i l l occur before the [round] contrast, but neither Hungarian nor Spanish provide evidence for when a back unrounded vowel appears, since neither language contains such a vowel. The attested stages of a c q u i s i t i o n for Hungarian and Spanish shown i n (6.2) also demonstrate that i n a three height vowel system (such as Hungarian), the high vowels become productive a f t e r the mid ones, with the high back vowel being the l a s t addition of the core 5 vowels. The features used by Jakobson and Halle (1956) are quite d i f f e r e n t from those that I use i n t h i s t h e s i s . Translating into current feature theory (as shown i n (2.7)), the stages i n (6.3) predict that features become available i n the order i n (6.4) . (6.4) Order of Acquisi t i o n of Vocalic Features (based on Jakobson and Halle 1956) a. [low] b. [back] c. [round] 410 According to the stages shown i n (6.3) there i s some room for v a r i a t i o n within the s p e c i f i c contrasts that develop based on a given feature (either between children or between languages), although the s p e c i f i c ordering of features i n (6.4) i s i n v i o l a b l e . For example, Jakobson and Halle would claim that a contrast based on the feature [low] always develops before a contrast based on the features [back] or [round], but we are not t o l d why the i n i t i a l low contrast develops between /a/ and a front non-low vowel. In 6.1.3.3 I w i l l show that the exact contrasts can be predicted i f a theory such as Jakobson and Halle's i s combined with a parametric theory of underspecification. Notice that there are fewer observed stages given i n (6.2) for Hungarian and Spanish than are predicted by Jakobson and Halle (1956). Jakobson and Halle suggest that the f i r s t vowel used i s /a/, which i n i t i a l l y contrasts only with a consonant. After t h i s v o c a l i c d i s t i n c t i o n s begin to develop, with the f i r s t contrast developing between a narrow and a wide vowel, i . e . between /a/ and /e/ or / i / . Only at t h i s point i s the back mid vowel /o/ added to the system, when a contrast based on backness i s added. In the data presented i n Chapter 5, there i s l i t t l e evidence for these very early stages> unless we take into account the data from long vowels. This may be because the samples used were from childr e n beyond the i n i t i a l stages of a c q u i s i t i o n detailed i n Jakobson and Halle (and i n many other a c q u i s i t i o n reports). In the following sections I attempt to account only for the data reported on 411 here, and only i n 6.6 w i l l I attempt to r e l a t e the data from Hungarian and Spanish to the predictions of Jakobson and Halle (1956) . 6.1.3.2 Calabrese (1988) Calabrese (1988) attempts to provide an explanation for several phenomena i n phonology, one being the stages of a c q u i s i t i o n outlined i n (6.3). Calabrese's theory u t i l i z e s a set of f i l t e r s , which are a set of negative constraints on feature co-occurrence, and a hierarchy, which orders the set of f i l t e r s . Both the f i l t e r s and the hierarchy are provided by UG. Calabrese argues that negative f i l t e r s are preferable to p o s i t i v e constraints because of the blocking e f f e c t s and repair strategies that are exhibited i n the languages of the world. Calabrese's theory i s s i m i l a r to the theory of Natural Phonology (Stampe 1969), discussed i n 4.1.2.3, i n that i t assumes that every f i l t e r i n the hierarchy i s operative innately, and that i n the process of acquiring a language, a c h i l d learns that c e r t a i n f i l t e r s can be v i o l a t e d . Calabrese goes one step further than Stampe i n providing the hierarchy of f i l t e r s . A c h i l d can only acquire a segment which v i o l a t e s a f i l t e r at some given p o s i t i o n i n the hierarchy when a segment v i o l a t i n g a f i l t e r at a lower p o s i t i o n i n the hierarchy has already been acquired. The hierarchy of f i l t e r s needed for vowel systems i s given i n (6.5). 412 (6.5) Calabrese's Hierarchy of Vocalic F i l t e r s (from Calabrese 1988: 266) * [ + s y l l a b i c / +low] I I *[+syllabic, +high] ,-low] *[+high, -ATR] *[-back, +round] *[+low, +round] I *[+low, +ATR] Calabrese claims that i f a l l v o c a l i c features are f r e e l y combined, the feature combinations corresponding to / i / , /u/ and /a/ w i l l r e s u l t . These three vowels represent the universal v o c a l i c system that a l l children i n t i a l l y have. Children gradually learn that to achieve the inventory of t h e i r language c e r t a i n f i l t e r s w i l l have to be v i o l a t e d . Children f i r s t learn to v i o l a t e the f i l t e r s at the bottom of 413 the tree i n (6.5) and then work t h e i r way up. If only the f i l t e r *[+low, +ATR], i s vi o l a t e d , Calabrese says the c h i l d w i l l achieve a canonical 5 vowel system: / i / , /u/, /a/, /c/ and /o/. A f i l t e r such as *[-high, -low] w i l l not be v i o l a t e d u n t i l a l l f i l t e r s below i t have already been v i o l a t e d . While Calabrese's theory i s able to capture the gradual a c q u i s i t i o n of a phonological inventory, i t i s impossible to integrate into the RU or CU parametric theories as previously outlined\"*. Both theories of underspecif i c a t i o n assume that one of the components of UG i s a set of redundancy ru l e s , which supply feature co-occurrence constraints. Calabrese*s f i l t e r s would perform much the same function as the redundancy ru l e s , and combining his theory with one of the underspecification theories would r e s u l t i n two sets of machinery doing the same work. I believe a better account of the gradual a c q u i s i t i o n of inventories can be achieved i f we integrate a theory of feature a v a i l a b i l i t y , such as that outlined i n Jakobson and Halle, with the parametric a c q u i s i t i o n theories examined here. 6.1.3.3 A Theory of Feature A v a i l a b i l i t y I assume that a parametric theory of a c q u i s i t i o n , based on a theory of underspecification, must also include a theory of feature a v a i l a b i l i t y which s p e c i f i e s the order i n which d i s t i n c t i v e features may become part of a phonological system. Based on the order of features given i n (6.4) and the stages > of a c q u i s i t i o n i n (6.2) I w i l l assume that the order of 414 a v a i l a b i l i t y i s as given i n (6.6). (6.6) Order of Feature A v a i l a b i l i t y a. [low] & [back] b. [high] c. [round] There i s no evidence i n the data from Hungarian and Spanish for an ordering between the features [low] and [back], so I assume that they enter the system together. The r e s u l t s from Hungarian demonstrate that a high vowel contrast w i l l be added before a contrast involving the feature [round]. This p a r t i c u l a r contrast i s not one noted by Jakobson and Halle (1956). As discussed i n 4.2 I continue to assume that features are innately available to children on a phonetic l e v e l (see 4.2). At an early age children have access to a l l v o c a l i c features, and can use them to represent phonetic e n t i t i e s . Sometime i n the f i r s t half of the second year the information load becomes too great to simply remember which features go with which words, and the c h i l d w i l l set about developing a phonological system. The c h i l d w i l l focus on a p a r t i c u l a r feature at a p a r t i c u l a r time, and w i l l focus on learning how to use t h i s feature productively. Once t h i s feature i s f i r m l y productive i n the c h i l d ' s sytem, the c h i l d w i l l go on to the next feature, and to the next, u n t i l a l l v o c a l i c features are i n use. If UG t e l l s the c h i l d which features are the f i r s t to be systematized and provides the redundancy rules for these 415 features, then each and every c h i l d w i l l develop a s i m i l a r system. In applying t h i s order of feature a v a i l a b i l i t y to the stages of development i n (6.2) we see that the order i t s e l f cannot e n t i r e l y explain which vowels enter the system at a given time. For example, when the feature [high] enters the system, eith e r a front or back high vowel could i n i t i a l l y contrast with the other vowels i n the system. The Spanish and Hungarian data demonstrate that t h i s contrast w i l l i n i t i a l l y be represented through the addition of / i / and not /u/ to the system. In the following sections I show that the order of ac q u i s i t i o n given i n (6.2) can only be explained using both the order of features i n (6.6) and the default rules and underlying feature markings used i n RU. Neither the order of feature a v a i l a b i l i t y nor the mechanisms of a theory of underspecification can alone capture the a c q u i s i t i o n f a c t s . In terms of a feature geometry such as that given i n (2.7) (repeated i n (4.14)) we can see that the features [low], [back] and [high] are a l l dominated by the Dorsal node, while [round] i s dominated by the Labial node. While i t might be tempting to i n part explain the order i n which v o c a l i c features become available to a c h i l d by t h i s d i s t i n c t i o n i n nodes, t h i s explanation by i t s e l f suggests that Dorsal consonants should be acquired before Labial ones, when i n fac t the opposite i s generally true (see discussion i n 4.1.2). While some revisions of the theory of feature geometry may help to solve t h i s problem, I do not attempt to determine 416 exactly how a theory of feature a v a i l a b i l i t y can be incorporated into our current ideas of phonological representations. In the following sections I discuss i n d e t a i l how the RU and CU analyses compare to the phonological inventories shown i n (6.2) when the idea of feature a v a i l a b i l i t y i s taken into account. 6.2 Inventories 6.2.1 Hungarian The composite phonological inventories for Hungarian, as determined by the PIPC methodology i n Chapter 5 are given i n (6.7) s. (6.7) Vocalic Inventories - Hungarian a. Time 1 o a b. Time 2 i (1 u 0 o \u00C2\u00A3 a At Time 1 the inventory consists of 4 short vowels and 1 long vowel, and at Time 2 the inventory consists of 7 short vowels 417 and 2 long vowels. Since the a c q u i s i t i o n of long vowels has been discussed i n 6.1.1 I w i l l not deal s p e c i f i c a l l y with those vowels here. U n t i l t h i s point I have ignored the issue of the or i g i n s of the two vowels designated as /e/ and /e/ i n (6.7). /e/ i s shown as a short low front unrounded vowel which contrasts with back /a/, /e/ i s a long mid front unrounded vowel, which i s shown i n Chapter 3 to contrast with /6/. The v o c a l i c system of Hungarian i s discussed i n d e t a i l i n 3.1, and the adult v o c a l i c system argued for there i s given i n (6.8) s. (6.8) Hungarian Vowels i ti u e 0 o \u00C2\u00A3 a In t h i s system the short version of /e/ never surfaces as [e] since a rule of Front Vowel Lowering changes i t to [e]. A phonetic mid front rounded vowel can only surface when dominated by two s k e l e t a l s l o t s and a branching nucleus, i . e . when i t i s a long vowel. The vowel /e/ i n (6.8) i s r e a l i z e d as [e] when i t i s short, and i s prohibited from being associated to two sk e l e t a l s l o t s dominated by a branching nucleus. Thus the vowel [e] has two underlying sources i n Hungarian: /e/ or /e/. The data i n (6.7) show that phonetic [e] i s part of the ch i l d ' s inventory at both Times 1 and 2 and that [e] i s part of the c h i l d ' s inventory at Time 2. Unfortunately, i t i s 418 impossible to determine the underlying source of these vowels since i n the published data the c h i l d ' s forms are given i n orthographic form, and no d i s t i n c t i o n i s made between [e] and [ c ] . Given t h i s problem, I assume that both /e/ and /e/ are part of the c h i l d ' s phonological inventory at both Times 1 and 2, and therefore that the inventories at these two times are better represented as i n (6.9). (6.9) Revised Vocalic Inventories - Hungarian a. Time 1 i e o \u00C2\u00A3 a b. Time 2 i u u e 0 o \u00C2\u00A3 a Given that the c h i l d ' s long vowel inventory at Time 2 (as shown i n (6.7)) contains long /e/ the i n c l u s i o n of both /e/ and /\u00C2\u00A3/ at t h i s time i s r e l a t i v e l y safe. It i s less c l e a r that the same i s true for Time 1. The discussion i n 6.1 focusses on the discrepancies that e x i s t between the attested phonological inventories of Hungarian and Spanish and the systems predicted by RU and CU. It i s shown that by taking data from i n d i v i d u a l c h i l d r e n into account, and by assuming that the long vowel inventory 419 develops i n the same fashion as the short vowel inventory,, several previous stages of a c q u i s i t i o n can be deduced p r i o r to Time 1. Given the assumption that both /e/ and /e/ are i n the ch i l d ' s inventory at Time 1 as well as at Time 2, the stages of phonological development I attempt to account for i n Hungarian are given i n (6.10). (6.10) a. e o b. i \u00C2\u00A3 a e o \u00C2\u00A3 a c. i u e o \u00C2\u00A3 a d. i ti u e o o \u00C2\u00A3 a 6.2.1.1 RU Account The components of a parametric theory of RU are outlined i n d e t a i l i n 2.5.1. and again i n 4.3.1. The most important aspects of t h i s theory with regard to the a c q u i s i t i o n of phonological inventories are the Minimal Redundancy Condition (MRC), given i n (4.17) and the universal redundancy r u l e s , given i n (4.18). In addition, the featural parameters that are argued to require resetting i n Hungarian are given i n (4.21) . Assuming the order of feature a v a i l a b i l i t y given i n (6.6) and the default rules i n (4.1.8) we can see there i s a problem i n r e l a t i n g the feature [high] to the developmental stages i n (6.10). In previous chapters i t has been assumed that UG 420 supplies [+high] as a predictable context-free value, as shown by r u l e 2 i n (4.18). If t h i s i s the case then mid vowels should be underlyingly marked as [-high], and according to the order of feature a v a i l a b i l i t y i n (6.6) a vowel with the marked value of [high] should only enter the c h i l d ' s phonological system a f t e r contrasts have been established using the features [low] and [back]. The stages i n (6.10) (and for that matter the Jakobsonian data i n (6.3)) demonstrate, however, that /e/ i s one of the e a r l i e s t vowels acquired. Two solutions are a v a i l a b l e at t h i s point. We can abandon the theory of RU, or we can assume that UG i n fact supplies [-high] as a predictable value and [+high] as an i n i t i a l marked value. I w i l l adopt the l a t t e r s o l u t i o n and assume that the revised set of default rules that constrain children's e a r l i e s t phonological systems are those given i n (6.11). (6.11) Revised Default Rules Context-free rules FCRs 1. [ ] \u00E2\u0080\u0094> [-low] 5. [+low] --> [-high] 2. [ ] --> [-high] 6. [+low] --> [+back] 3. [ ] \u00E2\u0080\u0094> [-back] 7. [+low] --> [-round] 4. [ ] \u00E2\u0080\u0094> [-round] 8. [+back] [-low] --> [+round] 9. [-back] [-low] --> [-round] Assuming that the rules i n (6.11) supply the predictable feature values, the i n i t i a l marked s p e c i f i c a t i o n s of Hungarian 421 vowels w i l l be those i n (6.12), rather than those proposed e a r l i e r i n (4.27) 7. (6.12) Revised I n i t i a l Representation of Hungarian - RU i / t i e/0 a/e u o high + + low + back + + The representations i n (6.12) eliminate the need to assume that the marked context-free parameter for [high] (rule 2a i n (6.11)) must be reset i n Hungarian, and consequently only 3 fe a t u r a l parameters w i l l require res e t t i n g to the marked option i n the a c q u i s i t i o n of Hungarian. These are given i n (6.13) . (6.13) Marked Featural Parameters of Hungarian Context-free Context-sensitive 4a. [ ] \u00E2\u0080\u0094> [+round] 6. *[+low] \u00E2\u0080\u0094> [+back] 9. *[-back] \u00E2\u0080\u0094> [-round] [-low] In accounting for the stages of a c q u i s i t i o n i n (6.10), (6.6) t e l l s us that the f i r s t features that are a v a i l a b l e to the c h i l d are [low] and [back], so the f i r s t v o c a l i c contrasts should be based on these features. Given that the marked values of these features are [+low] and [+back] (based on the context-free default rules 1 and 3 i n (6.11)) these f i r s t contrasts should be between a vowel marked as [+low], one 422 marked as [+back] and one unspecified for both features. The s p e c i f i c a t i o n s given i n (6.12) then predict a contrast between /a-e/, /e-0/ and /o/, with the default rules giving surface values for those three vowels as [a], [e] and [o]. These are the only possible contrasts based on the a v a i l a b i l i t y of just the features [low] and [back] and the vowel s p e c i f i c a t i o n s i n (6.12). While we do not have evidence for t h i s three vowel system, we do have evidence for a four vowel system, which includes the low front vowel [e]. This vowel arises as the r e s u l t of the r e s e t t i n g of the context-sensitive parameter marking [+back] on low vowels (rule 6 i n (6.13)). Once [low] and [back] are available to the c h i l d , t h i s r u l e can be reset, since that r u l e references only the features [low] and [back] 8. When t h i s parameter i s reset, the c h i l d w i l l add /e/ to the phonological inventory, and w i l l restructure the inventory so that /a/ i s also marked as [+back]. The theory of RU combined with the order of feature a v a i l a b i l i t y i n (6.6) therefore predicts two stages: one with [a] vs. [e] vs. [o], and a s l i g h t l y l a t e r one where the low front vowel [e] has been added to the system. While we do not have s p e c i f i c evidence that the f i r s t stage e x i s t s , we do have evidence for the l a t e r stage. The c h i l d can do nothing more based on the features [low] and [back] and the next a c q u i s i t i o n w i l l occur when [high] enters the system. At t h i s point, we again face a problem. Both / i / and /u/ i n (6.12) are marked for the feature [high], 423 with / i / marked as [+high] and /u/ marked as [+high] and [+back]. Given the assumptions we have made u n t i l now, there i s nothing to predict which vowel w i l l be acquired f i r s t , although the data demonstrate that / i / i s acquired before /u/. Since / i / i s marked with the fewest number of feature values, I w i l l assume that the MRC can be interpreted as a p r i n c i p l e of a c q u i s i t i o n a l markedness, saying that the segment with the fewest number of feature markings w i l l be acquired f i r s t . This p r i n c i p l e must be interpreted i n conjunction with the theory of feature a v a i l a b i l i t y , and the other assumptions of the parametric theory. Given t h i s view of the MRC / i / should enter the c h i l d ' s system f i r s t , and l a t e r /u/. (6.6) says that the f i n a l feature to become av a i l a b l e i s [round], and the correct use of t h i s feature w i l l necessitate r e s e t t i n g the context-free parameter for [round] and the context-sensitive rule predicting [-round] for front non-low vowels (rules 4a and 9 i n (6.1.3)). In order to reset the context-sensitive rule, the c h i l d need only discover that front non-low round and unround vowels are phonologically d i s t i n c t i n Hungarian. To reset the context-free parameter, the c h i l d must discover that the harmony rules of the language require t h i s p a r t i c u l a r feature s p e c i f i c a t i o n . The c h i l d can acquire a l l the appropriate segments of the language without r e s e t t i n g the context-free rule, so I assume that the context-free parameter i s reset a f t e r the adult inventory has been acquired. Once the context-sensitive rule given as r u l e 9 i n (6.13) i s reset, /&/ w i l l be marked only as [+round], while 424 / t l / w i l l be marked as both [+round] and [+high]. If we again assume the MRC as predicting a c q u i s i t i o n a l order, /o7 should be acquired before / t l / . The preceding picture of a c q u i s i t i o n i n Hungarian can be schematized as i n (6.14). (6.14) a. e a o [+low] [+back] b. e a o \u00C2\u00A3 [+low] [+low] [+back][+back] c. e a o \u00C2\u00A3 i [+low] [+low] [+back][+back] [+high] d. e a o \u00C2\u00A3 i u [+low] [+low] [+back] [+back] [+back] [+high] [+high] e. e a o \u00C2\u00A3 i u 0 ti [+low] [+low] [+back] [+back] [+back] ( [+high] [+high] [+high] I [+rd] [+rd] 425 This schema d i f f e r s from that i n (6.10) only with r e l a t i o n to the vowel /e/. In (6.14) /e/ i s assumed to enter the c h i l d ' s system a f t e r /e/ and lo/, while i n (6.10), the i n i t i a l inventory includes both these vowels 9. Since we have no firm evidence to suggest that a stage such as that shown i n (6.14a) cannot e x i s t p r i o r to the data we have evidence f o r , I w i l l assume that the account shown i n (6.14) i s p l a u s i b l e . 6.2.1.2 CU Account The two most important components of UG i n the parametric theory of CU are the R e s t r i c t i v e Redundancy Condition (RRC), given i n (4.25), and the universal R-rules, given i n (4.26). The i n i t i a l Hungarian v o c a l i c system predicted by the theory of CU i s given i n (6.15) (repeated from (4.27). (6.15) I n i t i a l Representation of Hungarian Vowels - CU i / i l e/o a/e u o high + - + -low + back - - + + Again, given the R-rules i n (4.26), the 5 d i s t i n c t segments i n (6.15) w i l l surface as [ i ] , [e], [a], [u] and [o]. In order to achieve the adult system of Hungarian CU predicts that the same two context-sensitive rules must be reset to the marked option as i n RU. These marked parameters are given i n (6.16). 426 (6.16) Marked Featural Parameters - CU 2. *[+low] \u00E2\u0080\u0094> [+back] 5. *[-back] \u00E2\u0080\u0094> [-round] [-low] When context-sensitive parameters are reset i n CU i t i s not necessary that the rules be eliminated from the grammar; however the feature values made redundant by these rules w i l l be marked underlyingly and by the RRC any contrastive s p e c i f i c a t i o n s w i l l also be added to the underlying representation. Given the theory of feature a v a i l a b i l i t y , the RRC and the other assumptions of CU, we can attempt to account for the stages of Hungarian a c q u i s i t i o n i n (6.10). Following the order of a v a i l a b i l i t y i n (6.6) we f i r s t assume that only the features [low] and [back] can contrast i n t h i s system. While / a - e / i s marked only as [+low] i n (6.15), there are no other vowels i n t h i s system that are marked with just the features [low] and [back]. The only option available to the c h i l d then i s to reset the context-sensitive rule predicting [+back] on [+low] vowels (rule 2 i n (6.16)), a f t e r which I t / w i l l be marked as [-back] i n contrast with /a/, which w i l l then be marked as [+back] and [+low]. This account then predicts that the f i r s t vowel contrast w i l l be between /a/ and /e/. This i s not a stage for which we have evidence, as shown i n (6.10). When [+high] next becomes available, we f i n d that three segments i n (6.14) are marked only for the features [high] and 427 [back]: / i - u 7 , /e-o7, and /u/. If we interpret the RRC i n (4.25) as saying that the segments with the fewest number feature markings w i l l be acquired f i r s t , we predict that /u/, / i - t l / and /e-G7, which w i l l surface as [u], [ i ] , [e], w i l l be added to the system next. The second stage of development w i l l then be one which includes the vowels /a/, /e/, /u/, / i / and /e/. This w i l l be c l o s e l y followed by a t h i r d stage where /o/ i s added to the inventory. When [round] becomes an operative feature the c h i l d w i l l be able to reset context-sensitive rule 5 i n (6.16), which involves the features [low], [back] and [round]. Once t h i s i s reset /u7 w i l l be s p e c i f i e d as [+high], [-back] and [+round] and /tt/ as [-high], [-back] and [+round]. Both segments w i l l be s p e c i f i e d with three values and should therefore be added to the inventory at approximately the same time. This account predicts the stages of v o c a l i c a c q u i s i t i o n i n (6.17). (6.17) a. a e b. a \u00C2\u00A3 e i u c. a \u00C2\u00A3 e i u o d. a e e i u o l i o These stages are very d i f f e r e n t from the stages that have been observed i n the Hungarian a c q u i s i t i o n data, given i n (6.10). 428 The only s i m i l a r i t i e s are that / t i / and /0/ are the l a s t vowels to be acquired. It therefore does not seem possible, given the assumptions of the parametric theory of CU and a theory of feature a v a i l a b i l i t y , to account for the development of the phonological inventories i n Hungarian. 6.2.2 Spanish I assume, following the reasoning given i n 6.1.1, that the i n i t i a l v o c a l i c contrasts of Spanish develop as shown i n (6.18). (6.18) a. e o b. i a e o a c. i u e o' These are the i d e n t i c a l to the f i r s t 3 stages posited for Hungarian, except that Spanish does not have a low front vowel. The i n i t i a l 3 vowels are /a/, /e/ and /o/, followed by the high front vowel and l a t e r the high back vowel. 6.2.2.1 RU Account In using the RU a c q u i s i t i o n theory to account f o r the developmental stages for Spanish given i n (6.18), I again assume the order of feature a v a i l a b i l i t y i n (6.6) and the MRC as a predictor of a c q u i s i t i o n a l markedness. In addition I 429 assume that the context-free default rule for the feature [high] should be [ ] \u00E2\u0080\u0094> [-high] rather than [ ] \u00E2\u0080\u0094> [+high] and that the set of universal default rules i s as given i n (6.11). Given that the rules i n (6.11) supply the redundant feature s p e c i f i c a t i o n s for the 5 vowel inventory of Spanish, the marked values w i l l be as given i n (6.19). (6.19) I n i t i a l Spanish Vowel System - RU i e a o u high + + low + back + + The system i n (6.19) i s revised from that o r i g i n a l l y given i n (4.22) i n that the opposite value of [high] i s marked underlyingly. This means that the t o t a l l y unspecified vowel i n the system w i l l i n i t i a l l y be /e/, rather than / i / , and that the context-free parameter for [high] need not be reset i n the a c q u i s i t i o n of Spanish. As t h i s was the only parameter assumed i n Chapter 4 to require r e s e t t i n g i n Spanish, I now assume that there are no featural parameters to be reset i n t h i s language. Given the theory of feature a v a i l a b i l i t y and the s p e c i f i c a t i o n s i n (6.19) we can predict the stages of a c q u i s i t i o n that w i l l occur i n Spanish, and compare these to the observed stages as outlined i n (6.18). The f i r s t features that becomes available are [low] and [back], p r e d i c t i n g that 430 the f i r s t segments should have contrasts based on some combination of these features. As i n the Hungarian system, the vowels /a/ # /e/ and /o/ are the only three i n the system that contrast with regard to just these features. When [high] becomes available, / i / w i l l be be added to the inventory f i r s t , since i t i s marked only as [+high]. /u/, which i s marked as [high] and [+back], w i l l be the l a s t vowel acquired. The ordering of / i / and /u/ i s predicted by the MRC. The addition of [round] w i l l have no e f f e c t on t h i s system, since t h i s feature i s not operative i n any way i n the proposed Spanish system. These predicted stages are i d e n t i c a l to the stages i n (6.18). These stages are schematized i n (6.20) using the RU vowel s p e c i f i c a t i o n s . (6.20) a. e a o [+low] [+back] b. e a o i [+low] [+back] [+high] c. e a o i u [+low] [+back] [+back] [+high] [+high] 431 The developments shown i n (6.20) d i f f e r from the i n i t i a l stages shown i n (6.14) for Hungarian with respect to the r e s e t t i n g of the context-sensitive parameter supplying [+back] for low vowels. In Hungarian i t i s assumed that t h i s f e a t u r a l parameter i s reset once [back] and [low] are both a v a i l a b l e . At that point /e/ w i l l be added to the system, and the s p e c i f i c a t i o n of [back] w i l l be restructured. This parameter i s not reset i n Spanish, a low front vowel i s not part of the inventory, and restructuring does not occur. Restructuring i s not predicted to occur at a l l i n the a c q u i s i t i o n of Spanish, since no marked featural parameters are required. 6.2.2.2 CU Account In the CU account of the stages of a c q u i s i t i o n of Spanish vowels, I again assume that the RRC can be interpreted as a predictor of a c q u i s i t i o n a l markedness. Assuming that the c h i l d has phonetic representations for the 5 vowels of Hungarian, the c h i l d ' s i n i t i a l contrastive s p e c i f i c a t i o n of these vowels, as constrained by the R-rules i n (4.26) i s given i n ( 6 . 2 1) 1 0. (6.21) I n i t i a l Spanish Vowel System - CU i e a o u high + - - + low + -back - - + + 432 This i s i d e n t i c a l to the contrastive s p e c i f i c a t i o n s assumed for the adult system of Spanish (see (3.72)). Following the assumptions for the CU a c q u i s i t i o n of Spanish given i n 4.3.2.2, there are no featural parameters for the c h i l d to reset i n order to achieve the adult system. Given the order of feature a v a i l a b i l i t y i n (6.6) and the s p e c i f i c a t i o n s i n (6.21) we predict that no vowels w i l l be acquired when only the features [low] and [back] are a v a i l a b l e to the c h i l d , since only /a/ i s marked with one of those features, and the only vowel that i s marked [-low] i s also [-high]. When [high] becomes available, we predict that / i / , /e/ and /u/ w i l l be added to the system, and w i l l contrast with /a/. The f i n a l vowel to be added to the system w i l l be /o/, since i t has the most feature s p e c i f i c a t i o n s . This account then predicts the sequence of stages shown i n (6.22). (6.22) a. a e i u c. a e i u o While the f i r s t stage does contain 4 vowels, as does the i n i t i a l stage i n (6.18), the CU account predicts that /u/ w i l l be a member of t h i s early stage, while the attested stages i n (6.18) demonstrate that i t i s not. The CU account also predicts that /o/ w i l l be the l a s t vowel acquired, while the attested stages demonstrate that i t i s part of the i n i t i a l inventory. 433 It then appears that the CU theory i s incapable of accounting for the attested stages of development i n Spanish, as well as i n Hungarian. 6.3 Substitution Patterns In 5.2 the substitution patterns used by Hungarian and Spanish childr e n are examined. These substitutions are classed as eithe r paradigmatic substitutions or syntagmatic substitutions. Paradigmatic substitutions occur when the unmarked s e t t i n g of a phonological parameter applies i n a ch i l d ' s speech when the language being acquired requires the marked s e t t i n g . Syntagmatic substitutions occur when a phonological rule of Spread operates across a c h i l d ' s word form to f i l l i n unspecified feature values. Such a process supplies the surface values for a s k e l e t a l s l o t which i s underlyingly unspecified. The Hungarian and Spanish r e s u l t s demonstrate that the most frequent type of paradigmatic s u b s t i t u t i o n i s the use of a simple vowel i n the c h i l d ' s form for a complex vowel i n the adult form. It i s also shown that the syntagmatic substitutions that occur i n the two d i f f e r e n t languages are remarkably s i m i l a r , although the t r i g g e r mechanisms are somewhat d i f f e r e n t . The parametric theories of RU and CU make very s i m i l a r predictions concerning the types of substitution errors that w i l l occur i n the speech of children acquiring Hungarian and Spanish. These predictions are outlined i n 4.3. In 6.3.1 and 6.3.2 I look at the substitution patterns that occur i n the 434 a c q u i s i t i o n data, and show the RU theory i s better able to explain several of these patterns than the CU theory of ac q u i s i t i o n . In looking at syntagmatic substitutions i n 6.3.1 I f i r s t look at the s i m i l a r i t i e s that e x i s t between the syntagmatic substitutions used i n the two languages under investigation/ and then I look at the differences. In 6.3.2 I examine the paradigmatic substitution patterns that occur i n both Hungarian and Spanish. 6.3.1 Syntagmatic Substitutions 6.3.1.1 C r o s s - l i n g u i s t i c S i m i l a r i t i e s In 5.2 i t i s shown that CV and V Spread are used by chil d r e n acquiring both Hungarian and Spanish. Of a t o t a l of 3 children acquiring Spanish, a l l 3 make use of CV Spread, while there i s evidence for V Spread only i n Claudio's speech. Of a t o t a l of 4 Hungarian children, there i s evidence that 2 make use of CV Spread and 3 make use of V Spread. Since the number of l e x i c a l types per c h i l d are f a i r l y small, i t i s possible that the c h i l d produced additional forms, not reported i n the published a r t i c l e s , which would show the operation of these rules. Both types of Spreading are used more often by both Hungarian and Spanish speaking c h i l d r e n at Time 1 than at Time 2. What i s in t e r e s t i n g about the occurrence of CV and V Spread i n the Spanish and Hungarian a c q u i s i t i o n data i s that Spanish does not have a productive spreading or a s s i m i l a t i o n process. Contrary to the assumptions that are usually made 435 about parametric rules, the unmarked option of t h i s r u l e can be assumed to be ON (or a p p l i c a t i o n ) , rather than OFF (or non-a p p l i c a t i o n , see 2.1.3 and 4.3). An a l t e r n a t i v e conception of why we f i n d Spreading occurring at such an early age even when the language being learned does not require such a r u l e , i s that i t s appearance can be a t t r i b u t e d to the e f f e c t s of the S a t i s f a c t i o n Condition, given e a r l i e r i n (4.12) and repeated here i n (6.23). (6.23) S a t i s f a c t i o n Condition (McCarthy and Prince 1986: 6) A l l elements i n a template are o b l i g a t o r i l y s a t i s f i e d . I assume, as discussed i n 4.2.3, that children's i n i t i a l word shapes are provided by a set of templates to which melodic information must be mapped. If a c h i l d i s unable to provide melodic information for a l l elements i n the template, and the condition i n (6.23) i s assumed to be a part of UG, then the c h i l d w i l l be forced to provide s p e c i f i c a t i o n s for unspecified segments. If we assume that only the operations of Insert, Delink and Spread (given i n (4.11)) are available phonological operations, then only Spread would be able to provide f e a t u r a l representations for an underlyingly u n f i l l e d segment. Insert would require that the c h i l d add a feature, and i f the c h i l d i s having d i f f i c u l t y supplying features for templatic elements, t h i s option seems u n l i k e l y . Delinking would only serve to diminsh the featural content of the representation 436 even further. If we conceive of Spread i n early phonological development as a rule which i s i n i t i a l l y ON, and then l a t e r has to be turned to OFF i n languages such as Spanish, then we must assume that there p o s i t i v e evidence w i l l t e l l the c h i l d that such a rule does not function i n t h e i r language. It i s d i f f i c u l t to conceive of what po s i t i v e evidence of t h i s sort would look l i k e . It i s much easier to conceive of a ru l e of Spread as simply dropping out of the c h i l d ' s repertoire of operations once the entire phonological inventory of the language has been acquired. Spread might then have to be relearned (or reset to the marked ON option i n the parametric account) i f i t i s required as a phonological ru l e i n that language. This conception of Spread enables us to explain how the c h i l d can go from a rule which spreads a l l v o c a l i c features, so that a l l vowels i n a word become i d e n t i c a l , to one which spreads only a single feature (as i n the case of Back or Round Harmony i n Hungarian). It also allows us to explain why Spread ( i . e . reduplicated c h i l d forms) appear to decrease i n the speech of a l l children over time, even when the language being learned may require a spreading r u l e . It i s an i n t e r e s t i n g fact that the v o c a l i c features which are spread i n the data from children acquiring Hungarian and Spanish always seem to be the Dorsal features. In the Hungarian forms which undergo CV and V Spread i n (5.23), only the vowels /a/, / i / , /o/ and /e/, which do not require the 437 s p e c i f i c a t i o n of [round] are spread. In Spanish the vowels which spread are /a/, /o/ and /e/. This may suggest that i t i s the Dorsal Node which i s being spread. Consistent with that i s the fact that a Dorsal consonant never seems to intervene between the target and tr i g g e r of the spreading process. The p r i n c i p l e s of spreading would suggest that a consonant s p e c i f i e d as Dorsal should block spreading of the Dorsal Node. Within the theory of RU i t would be possible to assume that i n many cases a rule of Spread manipulates only a single feature value rather than an entire node (except that t h i s w i l l not account for the spreading of /a/ once the context-sensitive rule predicting [+back] on [+low] vowels has been r e s e t ) , however, t h i s predicts that we then have several seemingly unrelated spreading processes, rather than one u n i f i e d r u l e . 6.3.1.2 C r o s s - l i n g u i s t i c Differences The major difference that i s found with regard to syntagmatic substitutions i n Hungarian and Spanish re l a t e s to the conditions under which these substitutions are r e a l i z e d . In Hungarian Spread occurs, as predicted i n 4.2.3, ei t h e r when a target sound i s not i n the chi l d ' s phonological inventory at that time, or when some complexity exists i n the target. For example, T.A. at Time 1 used the form [magna] for maqno, where the features of the i n i t i a l vowel are spread to the second vowel s l o t , at a time when the long vowel /6/ was not i n his repert o i r e . In Laci's form [appa:] for hoppa the vowel 438 s p e c i f i c a t i o n s of the f i n a l vowel i n the target are spread to the i n i t i a l vowel i n the ch i l d ' s form. Although /o/ i s one of the sounds i n Laci's phonological repertoire at the time t h i s form was used, both the target and Laci's form contain geminate consonants. It i s possible that the representation of the geminate i s an added complexity i n the c h i l d ' s form, and as a r e s u l t L aci i s only able to provide d i s t i n c t vowel features for a single vowel. In contrast, there i s no evidence that Spanish c h i l d r e n use syntagmatic substitutions to provide features for vowels not yet i n t h e i r repertoire. Syntagmatic substitutions appear to a r i s e i n t h i s language only to provide surface s p e c i f i c a t i o n s for an unstressed vowel. In the majority of the forms shown i n (5.37) both vowels i n the c h i l d forms surface with the feature s p e c i f i c a t i o n s of the stressed vowel i n the adult target. In 5.2.2.1 I have speculated that Spanish childr e n at the age studied here have not yet determined how stress functions i n t h e i r language, and stress must be l e x i c a l l y marked. This underlying representation of stress makes the c h i l d ' s representation more complex, and as a r e s u l t the c h i l d i s able to supply feature s p e c i f i c a t i o n s only for the stressed vowel. Unstressed vowels w i l l receive t h e i r surface s p e c i f i c a t i o n s through the operation of Spread, or as w i l l be shown i n 6.4.2, through the operation of redundancy ru l e s . 439 6.3.2 Paradigmatic Substitutions Paradigmatic substitutions are predicted by both the CU and RU theories to occur when the universal unmarked parameter s e t t i n g operates i n the c h i l d ' s system i n a language which requires a marked parameter se t t i n g . Both theories predict that simple vowels w i l l be substituted for complex vowels, based on the unmarked set t i n g of the Complex N parameter, as discussed i n 4.2.2.3. Both theories predict that i n Hungarian [a] w i l l i n i t i a l l y be substituted for /e/, and that [ i ] and [e] w i l l i n i t i a l l y be substituted for / t i / and /o7, based on the context-sensitive redundancy rules that must be reset i n these languages. In Spanish both theories predict that there w i l l be no paradigmatic substitutions that r e l a t e to context-s e n s i t i v e f e atural parameters, since there are no context-s e n s i t i v e rules which require r e s e t t i n g i n t h i s language (given the assumption discussed i n 6.2.1.1 regarding the marked value of [high] i n the RU theory). 6.3.2.1 Hungarian The most common type of paradigmatic s u b s t i t u t i o n process found i n Hungarian i s the collapsing of short and long vowels 1 1. This type of substitution accounts for almost one-half of the mismatches that occur between adult and c h i l d forms i n both sessions ( i . e . throughout the c h i l d ' s second year). As discussed i n 6.1.2 long vowels appear to be acquired i n a gradual fashion, rather than a l l at once. At Time 1 ( i . e . i n the f i r s t half of the second year) the 440 composite inventory for Hungarian contains only the long vowel /a/, while at Time 2 ( i . e . i n the second half of the second year) the vowel /e/ has also been acquired. It has been suggested that t h i s gradual a c q u i s i t i o n can be a t t r i b u t e d to the learning mechanism, and i s not necessarily evidence against the parametric model of a c q u i s i t i o n . The productive paradigmatic substitutions that are found to occur i n Hungarian that do not r e l a t e to the long/short vowel d i s t i n c t i o n are the substitution of [o] for /u/, and the s u b s t i t u t i o n of [a] for /e/. The l a t t e r s u b s t i t u t i o n i s predicted by both the RU and CU theories, because the universal redundancy rules provide [+back] as the redundant value of low vowels. Neither theory predicts the substitution of [o] for /u/, however, given the theory of feature a v a i l a b i l i t y discussed i n 6.1.3 and the i n i t i a l representation of Hungarian vowels provided by the theory of RU (shown i n (6.12)) i t i s possible to f i n d an explanation for such a pattern. The order of feature a v a i l a b i l i t y i n (6.6) t e l l s us that the feature [back] becomes avail a b l e to a c h i l d before [high], and the RU representation of vowels s p e c i f i e s /o/ as [+back] and /u/ as [+back] and [+high]. It i s therefore conceivable that before [high] enters the chil d ' s system, the vowel [o] may be used to replace target /u/. There i s no comparable explanation to be found within the i n i t i a l representation of vowels given by the theory of CU. In (6.15) i t i s shown that /u/ i s i n i t i a l l y s p e c i f i e d as 441 [+high] and [+back], while /o/ i s s p e c i f i e d as [-high], [-low] and [+back]. Given a theory of feature a v a i l a b i l i t y where features become s p e c i f i e d i n the order given i n (6.6) there would be no reason to suspect that [o] might act as a replacement for /u/. /u/ requires one additional feature s p e c i f i c a t i o n , and both require the a v a i l a b i l i t y of the features [high] and [back]. 6.3.2.2 Spanish It i s shown i n (5.31) that the replacement of a simple vowel for a diphthong i n the adult target accounts for approximately one-third of a l l the mismatches found i n the Spanish data. Even by the second half of the second year diphthongs are not part of children's phonological inventories, although some children are beginning to attempt them at t h i s l a t e r time (see (5.29)). It may be that complex vowels are l a t e r acquisitions i n Spanish than i n Hungarian because t h e i r surface r e a l i z a t i o n i s c o n t r o l l e d not only by the Complex N parameter, but also by phonological rules such as High-Glide Formation (see 3.2). In Hungarian the two s k e l e t a l s l o t s that form long vowels share a si n g l e set of feature s p e c i f i c a t i o n s , so once the c h i l d has learned the appropriate set of feature s p e c i f i c a t i o n s and has reset the Complex N parameter, the vowels w i l l begin to be used productively. A c q u i s i t i o n of complex vowels i n Spanish requires one extra step. Although neither parametric theory predicts that 442 paradigmatic substitutions w i l l occur that do not r e l a t e to the Complex N parameter, i t i s shown i n 5.2.2.2 that Spanish-speaking children sometimes replace /a/ by [e]. Given the RU representation of Spanish vowels i n (6.19) t h i s s u b s t i t u t i o n finds a ready explanation. If the c h i l d neglects to provide feature s p e c i f i c a t i o n s for a vowel, then that vowel w i l l surface as [e]. [e] i s the most common substitute for a l l the vowels of Spanish, although t h i s pattern i s only frequent enough to c a l l productive for / a / 1 2 . If we look at the CU i n i t i a l s p e c i f i c a t i o n of Spanish vowels i n (6.21), again there appears to be no reason to assume that [e] might ever occur i n place of /a/, /a/ i s marked as [+low], while /e/ i s [-high] and [-back], and while i t may be possible to explain the s u b s t i t u t i o n of [a] for /e/ before [high] and [back] become ava i l a b l e , we would never expect the opposite to occur. Again, then, the RU theory of a c q u i s i t i o n appears to be the better account of these a c q u i s i t i o n fa c t s . 6.4 Rules As was discussed i n 4.1.2 most research into the a c q u i s i t i o n of phonological rules has centered around the c h i l d ' s own rules, rather than on the rules that the c h i l d must acquire to achieve the adult phonological system. This i s i n part due to the fact that a coherent theory of autosegmental rules i s a r e l a t i v e l y new development, and to the fact that a c q u i s i t i o n researchers have only recently begun to view the c h i l d ' s phonological system as a possible adult 443 grammar. As a consequence, l i t t l e i s known about the rela t i o n s h i p s that e x i s t between children's phonological rules and the rules of adult phonological systems. In t h i s section I w i l l examine the a c q u i s i t i o n data from Spanish and Hungarian to determine i f there i s evidence for the rules of the adult language as outlined i n Chapter 3. The two underspecification a c q u i s i t i o n theories assume roughly the same sets of rules for both languages, although the rule mechanisms d i f f e r i n c e r t a i n c r u c i a l ways that w i l l be important i n accounting for the data. 6.4.1 Hungarian In Chapter 3 analyses of the vo c a l i c system of Hungarian are presented within the frameworks of RU and CU. The phonological rules assumed to be present i n Hungarian by both theories are given i n (6.24). (6.24) Parametric Phonological Rules of Hungarian a. Back Harmony (BH) b. Round Harmony (RH) c. Epenthetic Vowel S p e c i f i c a t i o n (CU only) d. Low Front Vowel Formation Back Harmony and Round Harmony are both spreading r u l e s , while Low Front Vowel Formation changes a front mid unrounded vowel into a low vowel. Each of these rules are parametric rules i n the sense discussed i n Chapters 3 and 4, however, Round Harmony and Low Front Vowel Formation have r e l a t i v e l y complex 444 target conditions. I hypothesize i n 6.3.1.1 that the Spread rule that i s i n evidence i n these children's early forms may be t o t a l l y independent of the rules of Back and Round Harmony and may disappear from the c h i l d ' s system before Back and Round Harmony are acquired. If t h i s i s true then we might expect that m u l t i s y l l a b i c forms that do not undergo Place Spread or Copy w i l l contain vowels that v i o l a t e the r e s t r i c t i o n s of Back or Round Harmony, and t h i s i s not the case. In an examination of the m u l t i s y l l a b i c forms which contain d i f f e r e n t i a t e d vowels, there are no apparent v i o l a t i o n s of Back Harmony at eithe r Time 1 or 2. Back vowels follow back vowels, front rounded vowels follow front rounded vowels, and eith e r set may co-occur with /e/ and / i / . There do not appear to be any cases of the vowels /e/ and / i / being changed into back unrounded vowels, and while there are one or two cases of /e/ and / i / being changed into a back [o] or front [0], these substitutions are by no means systematic. It may be then that a ru l e of Back Harmony cooccurs with a Spread rule which accounts for CV and V Spread. The Spread rul e which accounts for CV and V Spread w i l l gradually drop out of usage as the c h i l d learns the correct feature s p e c i f i c a t i o n s of the language, and at the same time the ru l e of Back Harmony increases i n usage, as the c h i l d gets better at providing the underlying s p e c i f i c a t i o n s for vowels. Round Harmony i s shown i n Chapter 3 to be a less general ru l e than Back Harmony. This rule spreads the marked feature 445 value(s) of [round] only to short mid vowels. In the RU account i t i s assumed that Round Harmony spreads [-round], the un i v e r s a l l y redundant feature value. For t h i s to be f e a s i b l e , the c h i l d must reset the context-free parameter for [round] to the marked option, suggesting that Round Harmony w i l l be a la t e a c q u i s i t i o n ([round] i s also the l a s t feature make avai l a b l e to the c h i l d , according to (6.6)). In the small number of c h i l d forms which contain f i n a l s u f f i x e s only one was found that v i o l a t e s Round Harmony r e s t r i c t i o n s . This form i s [tfut^tllek] from T.A. (target = [t\u00C2\u00A3tlt$ tilttk]), which would be impossible i f a rule of Round Harmony spread [+round] rightwards. Because there are so few c h i l d forms with su f f i x e s I do not believe there i s s u f f i c i e n t evidence to prove that a ru l e of Round Harmony does or does not e x i s t . A process of Epenthesis i n Hungarian inserts a vowel which i s r e a l i z e d as [0], [o] or [e] to break up impermissable consonant c l u s t e r s . The rule can apply r o o t - i n t e r n a l l y or between morphemes, and I assume i t applies automatically as a r e s u l t of the s y l l a b i f i c a t i o n algorithms of the language. The c h i l d forms which contain additional vowels not present i n the target are given i n (6.25). 446 (6.25) Adult Lexical Type C h i l d Form Time 1 Laci a l l [a:l:] aa e l kez [ke:z] k\u00C2\u00A3Z\u00C2\u00A3 t e j [t\u00C2\u00A3j] t\u00C2\u00A3J\u00C2\u00A3 kuk [kuk] kuku Time 2 T.A. bus [bus] busi vonat [vonat] nata M. hozott [hozot:] hosta In each of these forms an extra vowel appears word-finally so that the c h i l d ' s s y l l a b l e structure i s (C)V(C)(C)V. There are no examples of extra word-final vowels i n the data for Jolan or T.A. at Time 1. In 6 of the 8 examples i n (6.25) the q u a l i t y of the f i n a l vowel appears to be determined through Spread, and therefore i t does not seem l i k e l y that a r u l e of Epenthetic Vowel S p e c i f i c a t i o n , such as that proposed i n CU, i s functioning i n the speech of these children. One possible interpretation of the forms i n (6.25) i s that the f i n a l vowel s l o t s are inserted by a r u l e of Epenthesis, but I believe a better explanation i s that they are the r e s u l t of mapping the features of a consonant-final adult target to a CVCV template. In (6.26) the number and proportion of vowel-final and consonant-final phonetic types are given for each Hungarian c h i l d at two times. 447 (6.26) Vowel-final No. Proportion Consonant-final No. Proportion Time 1 T.A. Jolan Laci Mean 26 18 25 .70 .69 1.00 .80 11 8 0 .30 .31 .00 .20 Time 2 T.A. M. Mean 86 64 .61 .44 .53 56 80 .39 .56 .47 At Time 1 i n both T.A. and Jolan's speech approximately 70% of a l l forms are vowel-final and 30% are consonant-final. L a c i did not produce any consonant-final forms at a l l at t h i s time. By Time 2 T.A. had increased his proportion of consonant-f i n a l forms by almost 10% and M. produced a larger proportion of consonant-final than vowel-final forms. The fact that Hungarian children i n i t i a l l y use such a large number of CV and CVCV s y l l a b l e structures even when t h i s i s not the preferred s y l l a b l e structure of the language (see discussion of the s y l l a b l e shapes of Hungarian i n 5.1.2.2) suggests that the shape of these early words i s provided by UG. In 4.1.2.4 I hypothesize that UG supplies a set of word templates which provide the i n i t i a l word shapes that c h i l d r e n 448 use. The figures i n (6.26) suggest that by the second half of the second year Hungarian children are using these universal templates less and l e s s , and have learned to produce more consonant-final forms. If t h i s i s true then the f i n a l vowels i n the c h i l d forms i n (6.25) are best explained as mismatches between universal templates and adult targets, and not as examples of Epenthesis. The f i n a l adult rule of Hungarian given i n (6.24) i s Low Front Vowel Formation. This rule adds [+low] to a vowel which i s front, mid and unrounded when one i s derived through Back Harmony or Round Harmony. In the published Hungarian data [e] i s written orthographically as e, and I have chosen to in t e r p r e t a l l instances of e as phonetic [e]. I therefore have no evidence as to whether Low Front Vowel Formation exists i n the speech of these children. 6.4.2 Spanish The phonological rules which are proposed by the theories of RU and CU to account for the v o c a l i c system of Spanish are discussed i n d e t a i l i n 3.2. These rules are given i n (6.27). (6.27) Parametric Phonological Rules of Spanish a. Unstressed N Reduction b. Vowel Delinking c. High-Glide Formation d. F i n a l Vowel Lowering e. Reassociation of [+high] (CU only) 449 Unstressed N Reduction and Vowel Deletion are both rules which delete a s k e l e t a l s l o t associated with a nucleus, i f i t i s not stressed. Vowel Delinking i s a c y c l i c l e x i c a l r u l e which delinks the s k e l e t a l s l o t of a vowel when i t i s immediately followed by another vowel. High-Glide Formation adds the feature [+high] to the non-head member of a branching stressed nucleus. F i n a l Vowel Lowering changes a high vowel to a mid vowel when i t i s word-final and unstressed. Reassociation of [+high] i s a rul e required only i n the CU analysis which reassociates the [+high] feature of a vowel delinked by Vowel Delinking. The rule of Unstressed N Reduction (6.27a) i s i n t r i c a t e l y t i e d to the representation of diphthongs i n Spanish. I assume, following Harris (1985), that f a l l i n g diphthongs i n Spanish are underlyingly represented as two s k e l e t a l s l o t s , both which may have t h e i r own sets of v o c a l i c f e a t u r e s 1 3 . Unstressed N Reduction i s the rule which deletes the non-head member of the diphthong i f i t does not receive s t r e s s , and therefore accounts for the simple vowel alternants of vowels which can surface e i t h e r as a diphthong or as a simple vowel. The composite phonological inventories for Spanish childre n at Times 1 and 2 i n (5.28) and (5.30) demonstrate that diphthongs are not being used productively at ei t h e r session. Both Florencia and Ignacio are beginning to attempt diphthongs, but these are not systematic even at Time 2. Examples of diphthong reductions are shown i n (6.28). 450 (6.28) Diphthong Reductions ja - - > a axiesta \u00E2\u0080\u0094 > atata d i a r i o - - > l a l o gracias - - > ata aguacate - - > aBaxate je \u00E2\u0080\u0094 > e c i e l o \u00E2\u0080\u0094 > seyo c i e r t o \u00E2\u0080\u0094 > seto we - - > e llueve - - > eBje puede - - > peje suelo - - > sejo wa - - > a cual \u00E2\u0080\u0094 > kai cuarto \u00E2\u0080\u0094 > pako cuatro - - > bako Target diphthongs are generally produced as a simple vowel with the same vo c a l i c features as the head member of the diphthong. It would therefore appear that Spanish c h i l d r e n , l i k e Hungarian children, are only able to map v o c a l i c features to a single s k e l e t a l s l o t . This suggests that the c h i l d ' s representations of c i e l o and cuarto w i l l be as i n (6.29). (6.29) N N N N I I I I X X X X X X X X I I I I [+F] [+G] [+H] [+G] s e y o p a k o 451 In each form the c h i l d w i l l have d i s t i n c t representations for the two vowels, but because the Complex N parameter i s set at the unmarked universal option, each vowel w i l l be represented as a single s k e l e t a l s l o t . Spanish children w i l l have to learn, on the basis of po s i t i v e evidence, that the language permits nuclei to branch and dominate two s k e l e t a l s l o t s . Diphthong reductions can then be explained i n a p a r a l l e l fashion to Hungarian long/short vowel confusions \u00E2\u0080\u0094 they are paradigmatic substitutions which occur because a universal parameter s e t t i n g i s present i n the ch i l d ' s phonology when the adult language requires the marked parameter s e t t i n g . Given that diphthongs are not productive for 2 children at Time 2 and that a paradigmatic substitution accounts for the diphthong reductions, i t i s u n l i k e l y that a rul e of Unstressed Vowel Reduction i s part of the ch i l d ' s early phonological system. Once a Spanish c h i l d has acquired the a b i l i t y to represent vowels as two s l o t s , the rule of High-Glide Formation (6.27c) must be acquired before the two s l o t s w i l l be r e a l i z e d c o r r e c t l y . In 3.2 I have assumed that High-glide Formation i s a s p e c i f i c rule of Spanish, rather than a universal convention, as i s proposed i n Harris (1985). If High-glide Formation i s i n fact a rule that must be learned, then we might expect to f i n d children having some d i f f i c u l t y with diphthongs between the time that they are able to represent branching nuclei and the time that diphthongs are 452 c o r r e c t l y produced. This does not appear to be the case. Underlying diphthongs seem to have only two possible r e a l i z a t i o n s i n the speech of children acquiring Spanish: they are r e a l i z e d as simple vowels (as i n (6.30)), or as the correct diphthongs. This evidence suggests that High-glide Formation may i n fact be a property of Universal Grammar (as Harris suggests) rather than a rule s p e c i f i c to the phonology of Spanish. The ru l e of Vowel Delinking (6.27b) i s a c y c l i c r u l e which only applies when two vowels are contiguous because of morphological concatenation. There i s very l i t t l e evidence i n the Spanish data that children at t h i s early age are systematically combining i n f l e c t i o n a l morphemes and roots. At Time 2 there are several examples of verb roots with i n d i c a t i v e endings, but these are not frequent enough to indicate that children are adding suffixes productively. If chil d r e n do not yet have a sense of how to perform morphological operations, then they w i l l c e r t a i n l y not be able to order rules within the l e x i c a l component. Given that we looked at Hungarian c h i l d forms which contain an extra vowel s l o t than the target, i t would be in t e r e s t i n g to do the same for Spanish. The forms i n (6.30) are examples of c h i l d forms that are v o w e l - i n i t i a l when the adult target i s consonant-initial. 453 (6.30) C h i l d Adult Lexical Type Child.form Claudio dulce { eBi C eBle kolumpio eBje l i b r o eBle t o a l l a eja lece ese huevo 0B0 Florencia gracias ata zanajoria aoja In a l l but the f i n a l 3 forms the vowel which occurs word-i n i t i a l l y i s [e], although that the i n i t i a l vowel i n the target i s [e] only i n the case of lece. The forms i n (6.30) can be analyzed as CVCV forms that have features mapped only to the f i n a l s y l l a b l e . In a form such as [eBi] Spread has not taken place to f i l l i n unspecified feature values, and the i n i t i a l vowel i s r e a l i z e d as [e]. In forms such as [oBo] and [ata] Spread provides the feature s p e c i f i c a t i o n s of the i n i t i a l vowel. This data i s in t e r e s t i n g when examined i n conjunction with the e a r l i e r findings on paradigmatic s u b s t i t u t i o n patterns and exceptions to V Spread. In 6.3.1 I point out that the t r i g g e r of Spread i n Spanish i s generally the stressed vowel, with the exception of two forms i n which the stressed vowel i s [e] ([poxo] 'espEjo' and [oBo] 'huEvo'). If /e/ i s a vowel which underlyingly has no features i n Spanish, 454 If /e/ i s s p e c i f i e d i n t h i s fashion there i s no reason to expect that i t should be the most frequent substitute, nor that i t w i l l occur i n ce r t a i n v o w e l - i n i t i a l phonetic forms. The forms i n (6.30) can be analyzed as forms which have two d i s t i n c t vowel representations, but t h i s would not explain why the i n i t i a l vowel i n these forms i s always [e] or a copy of the f i n a l vowel. The f i n a l r u l e which i s assumed by both the RU and CU theories i s F i n a l Vowel Lowering (6.27e) which lowers a high unstressed f i n a l vowel to a mid vowel. The evidence for the presence of t h i s rule w i l l come mainly from morphemes which have a vowel that alternates between a high or mid vowel, depending upon i t s po s i t i o n i n the word. There are several examples i n the Spanish data of children's forms which contain a f i n a l high vowel when the adult target does not (e.g. [eBi] 'dulce', [kai] 'cual', [nani] 'media'), suggesting that F i n a l Vowel Lowering i s not present i n children's systems at these early ages. I suggest that such a rule i s more l i k e l y to be acquired l a t e r , when the c h i l d i s a c t i v e l y beginning to combine morphemes, and begins to pay attention to the processes that occur when morphemes are combined (the same i s true for Vowel Delinking). Reassocation of [+high] (6.27f) i s a rule that i s necessary only i n the CU analysis of Spanish. This r u l e reassociates a f l o a t i n g [+high] feature a f t e r the vowel s l o t has been deleted by Vowel Delinking. As stated above, there i s no evidence for a rule of Vowel Deletion at the early ages 455 studied here, and I assume then that a rule of Reassociation of [+high] i s also not possible. Rules such as these are probably better studied at a l a t e r point i n a c q u i s i t i o n , when morphological forms can be manipulated for the c h i l d . 6.5 Summary ^ The a c q u i s i t i o n data show that the i n i t i a l phonological inventories of both Spanish and Hungarian c h i l d r e n are smaller than predicted by either the RU or CU a c q u i s i t i o n theories. The evidence points to the gradual development of a phonological inventory beginning with the vowels /a/, /e/, /o/ (and /e/ i n Hungarian). The next vowel to be added to t h i s system i s / i / , and the l a s t vowel to be added to a symmetrical 5 vowel inventory i s /u/. In Hungarian / t i / and /0/ are the l a s t vowels acquired. To account for the discrepancy between the inventories predicted by a parametric theory of a c q u i s i t i o n and the attested data I have proposed a theory of feature a v a i l a b i l i t y , which s p e c i f i e s the order i n which features become part of the chi l d ' s phonological system. This i s a universal order that w i l l hold for a l l children. In addition to prescribing the order of features, t h i s theory of feature a v a i l a b i l i t y w i l l help to make predictions about the order i n which context-sensitive featural parameters are reset. The evidence from Hungarian demonstrates that the context-s e n s i t i v e rule which makes reference to the features [low] and [back] w i l l be reset once the features [low] and [back] are 456 made availa b l e to the c h i l d , and before the feature [high] enters the ch i l d ' s system. The reset t i n g of t h i s rule w i l l allow the low front vowel /e/ to become a part of the c h i l d ' s phonological system. The context-sensitive rules which involves the feature [round] can only be reset a f t e r [round] i s made av a i l a b l e . The a c q u i s i t i o n theory based on the theory of RU i s able to predict the early inventories of Hungarian and Spanish, assuming the components of UG i n (6.31). (6.31) a. a theory of default (universal redundancy) rules b. a theory of feature a v a i l a b i l i t y which says that features become available i n the order [low]/[back], [high] and then [round] c. the MRC interpreted as a predictor of ac q u i s i t i o n a l markedness. The theory of default rules dictates the u n i v e r s a l l y predictable feature values, and these rules may i n i t i a l l y override the ch i l d ' s s p e c i f i c a t i o n of segments. If the language requires a marked context-sensitive parameter se t t i n g , the e f f e c t of the c h i l d i n i t i a l l y using the unmarked se t t i n g w i l l be that c e r t a i n d i s t i n c t segments or classes of segments w i l l be merged i n the child' s early system. Once a feature i s made available for the c h i l d to use productively, the c h i l d w i l l add a l l segments s p e c i f i e d by that feature to the inventory. The MRC i s the p r i n c i p l e of UG which says that segments 457 with the fewest number of feature s p e c i f i c a t i o n s w i l l be added to the c h i l d ' s repertoire f i r s t , and can only be used i n conjunction with a theory which indicates the order i n which features w i l l become part of the c h i l d ' s system. Once a l l segments s p e c i f i e d by a given feature have been added to the inventory a context-sensitive default s p e c i f i c a t i o n r e l a t i n g to that feature w i l l be reset at the OFF option, i f r e s e t t i n g i s required by the language-specific grammar. Parameter re s e t t i n g w i l l force the feature s p e c i f i c a t i o n s i n the e x i s t i n g inventory to be restructured. The three aspects of the RU theory given i n (6.31) allow the RU theory to c o r r e c t l y account for the development of the v o c a l i c inventories i n Hungarian and Spanish. The underlying feature s p e c i f i c a t i o n s required by the theory of Radical Underspecification explain why /a/, /e/ and /o/ are the f i r s t vowels acquired, why / i / i s acquired only a f t e r the mid and low vowels, why /u/ i s acquired a f t e r /o/, and why / t l / and / f l / are the l a s t vowels to be acquired i n Hungarian. The predictions made by the RU theory also suggest that i n the a c q u i s i t i o n of Hungarian children w i l l have to reset the context-free parameter for [round]. There i s no evidence i n the Hungarian a c q u i s i t i o n data that t h i s parameter had been reset at either Time 1 or Time 2, and no evidence for a r u l e of Round Harmony by age 2;0 X 4. Even paired with a theory of feature a v a i l a b i l i t y or with the RRC (the Restricted Redundancy Condition), the contrastive s p e c i f i c a t i o n s required by the theory of CU cannot explain the 458 attested order of a c q u i s i t i o n i n either Spanish or Hungarian. In a contrastive system the vowel /o/ w i l l be marked with the features [low], [back] and [high], while /u/ should be marked only for the features [high] and [back]. We would then predict that /o/ should be acquired l a t e r than /u/, when the opposite order of a c q u i s i t i o n i s attested i n both languages. A second discrepancy between the predicted and attested systems relates to complex vowels. Both parametric a c q u i s i t i o n theories predict that the a c q u i s i t i o n of complex vowels i s a function of the se t t i n g of the Complex N parameter, and once a c h i l d acquiring Spanish or Hungarian resets t h i s parameter to the marked option complex vowels should immediately be used for a l l vowels that feature s p e c i f i c a t i o n s e x i s t for. This did not prove to be the case i n e i t h e r language (the evidence i s less c l e a r i n Spanish where complex vowels were just entering the c h i l d ' s system i n the second half of the second year). A c q u i s i t i o n of complex vowels appears to be a gradual process, which i s s i m i l a r to the a c q u i s i t i o n of simple vowels. I have suggested that the parametric view of a c q u i s i t i o n can be maintained i f we assume that once a parameter i s reset, the learning mechanisms w i l l integrate the new parameter se t t i n g i n a gradual fashion. The data from syntagmatic substitution patterns suggest that Spread i s a rule which functions i n c h i l d forms to f i l l i n the q u a l i t y of a target vowel when i t i s l e f t unspecified i n the underlying representation. While i t might be possible to assume that the un i v e r s a l l y unmarked set t i n g of these rules 459 i s ON, I have chosen to account for the spreading facts by assuming that Spread i s an operation provided by UG, and that i t i s forced to apply i n the c h i l d ' s system because of the S a t i s f a c t i o n Condition. It i s therefore not necessary to assume that t h i s rule i s 'unlearned' on the basis of p o s i t i v e evidence. The spreading evidence from both languages shows that the operation of t h i s type of Spread does not c o n s i s t e n t l y apply i n a s p e c i f i c d i r e c t i o n . D i r e c t i o n a l i t y i s determined s o l e l y by which vowel or s y l l a b l e i n the word i s l e f t unspecified. In Spanish the v o c a l i c t r i g g e r of Spread i s generally stressed, while t h i s i s not the case i n Hungarian. It i s hypothesized that t h i s difference may be due to the d i f f e r e n t roles that stress plays i n these languages \u00E2\u0080\u0094 i n Hungarian stress i s assigned by a very regular rule, while i n Spanish stress i s a complex process which requires the knowledge of which roots and suffixes are exceptional to c e r t a i n stress r u l e s . U n t i l a Spanish c h i l d can productively represent complex vowels and has determined the appropriate stress patterns of the language, stress on vowels w i l l be l e x i c a l l y indicated. The underlying representation of stress may complicate the Spanish chil d ' s underlying representations enough that underlying feature values are supplied only for stressed vowels. Two productive paradigmatic substitution patterns are found i n the Hungarian data -- the substitution of /e/ with [a] and the substitution of /u/ with [a]. The f i r s t i s 460 predicted by both theories of underspecification, since i t i s the r e s u l t of the universal default rule predicting [+back] for low vowels. The second substitution pattern i s not predicted by either theory, but i t i s possible to explain t h i s pattern given the s p e c i f i c a t i o n s of /a/ and /u/ required by RU. The contrastive feature s p e c i f i c a t i o n s of /a/ and /u/ do not lead to any insights into why t h i s p a r t i c u l a r s u b s t i t u t i o n pattern occurs. Both the RU and CU a c q u i s i t i o n theories also predict that [ i ] should serve as a substitute for / t i / and [e] should serve as a substitute for /oV, but neither of these patterns are found i n the a c q u i s i t i o n data. Although no paradigmatic substitution patterns are predicted by e i t h e r theory for Spanish, i t i s found that [e] has c e r t a i n i d i o s y n c r a t i c properties i n the early phonological systems of children acquiring t h i s language. These are given i n (6.32) . (6.32) a. [e] i s the most frequent substitute b. [e] appears i n i t i a l l y i n c e r t a i n VCV c h i l d forms where the adult target i s c o n s o n a n t - i n i t i a l c. forms containing stressed [e] appear to be exceptions to V Spread. There i s no obvious way to r e l a t e these 3 c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s i n the theory based on CU. In RU, on the other hand, these properties can be explained by the fact that /e/ i s the t o t a l l y unspecified vowel of the language. A vowel w i l l surface as [e] i f for some reason i t i s underlyingly 461 unspecified and Spread does not operate i n the word form. In CVCV forms where the i n i t i a l s y l l a b l e i s e n t i r e l y unspecified and Spread does not take place, the word w i l l be r e a l i z e d as a VCV form with [e] as the i n i t i a l vowel. If the stressed vowel has no underlying feature s p e c i f i c a t i o n s i t w i l l not be able to act as a t r i g g e r of Spread. If Spread applies i n such a form, the only possible vowel that can spread i s the unstressed one. Based on the analyses given i n Chapter 3 both variants of the a c q u i s i t i o n theory predict that 3 phonological rules w i l l be a part of the adult phonology of Hungarian. I have hypothesized that Spread that operates early i n children's speech i s a d i s t i n c t rule from Back and Round Harmony. The c h i l d w i l l i n t i a l l y spread a l l Dorsal features to a t o t a l l y unspecified target vowel, and t h i s rule w i l l gradually disappear as the c h i l d acquires greater s k i l l at representing . v o c a l i c features. The fact that Hungarian children, even at t h i s young age, do not v i o l a t e Back Harmony r e s t r i c t i o n s suggests that a rule of Back Harmony may begin to operate very early. I have e s s e n t i a l l y ignored the rule of Low Front Vowel Lowering i n Hungarian, because of the confusions that e x i s t i n Hungarian between the orthography and the sources of [e]. Based on the analysis of Spanish i n 3.2 the RU analysis posited 4 rules for the adult phonology and the CU analysis 5. Three of the RU rules and 4 of the CU rules a f f e c t diphthongs, and the evidence suggests that i n general Spanish c h i l d r e n at 462 t h i s early age do not productively use diphthongs, nor any of the rules that a f f e c t them. The diphthongs that were used suggest that once a complex vowel can be represented, the correct features w i l l be associated to that vowel. This i s taken as evidence that High-Glide Formation may a very unmarked r u l e . The rule of Vowel Delinking i s a c y c l i c r u l e deleting vowels only between morphemes, and there i s no evidence of i t s use i n Spanish-speaking children's early productions. These r e s u l t s point to several areas where a closer study of the a c q u i s i t i o n data i s required. I have assumed that child r e n map feature s p e c i f i c a t i o n s to templates which provide t h e i r i n i t i a l word structures and that templates e x i s t as the unmarked option of a parameter. In some languages the marked se t t i n g of the parameter w i l l be required i n the adult language. I have not looked at how mapping to a template proceeds, when features are mapped to i n i t i a l or f i n a l s y l l a b l e s (or vowels), or when templates cease to r e s t r i c t children's word shapes. In a related area, I have not attempted to determine when a c h i l d w i l l use a paradimatic su b s t i t u t i o n , and when a syntagmatic s u b s t i t u t i o n . These are obvious areas for future research. 6.6 Implications The primary focus of t h i s study has been the comparison of two variants of a parametric a c q u i s i t i o n theory, based on the opposing theories of Radical and Contrastive 463 Underspecification. In t h i s chapter a c q u i s i t i o n data on normal phonological development i n Spanish and Hungarian has been examined, and tested against the predictions these theories make for the a c q u i s i t i o n of vowels i n these languages. While i t has been shown that neither theory can account for a l l the data, the RU theory provides a superior account of the aspects of the data i n (6.33). (6.33) a. the RU theory ( i n conjunction with a theory of feature a v a i l a b i l i t y and an a c q u i s i t i o n a l interepretation of the MRC) i s able to predict the development of both the Hungarian and Spanish vocalic inventories. b. a r a d i c a l l y underspecified system of Hungarian explains why /a/ i s sometimes used as a substitute for /u/. c. the RU theory of underspecification predicts that /e/ i s a t o t a l l y unspecified vowel i n Spanish. This account of Spanish /e/ explains why i t i s the most frequent substitute used by these children, why the i n i t i a l vowel i n children's v o w e l - i n i t i a l forms i s always [e], and why stressed /e/ behaves exceptionally i n forms that undergo V Spread. These r e s u l t s have c e r t a i n implications both for phonological theory i n general and for a theory of a c q u i s i t i o n . These w i l l be outlined i n the following sections. 464 6.6.1 Implications for Phonological Theory There has been much c r o s s - l i n g u i s t i c research into the emplrial v a l i d i t y of the competing theories of RU and CU (eg. Mester and Ito 1989, Abaglo and Archangeli 1989, Davis 1989). The fact that the RU a c q u i s i t i o n theory i s able to explain the development of the phonological inventories of Hungarian and Spanish while the CU theory i s not suggests that RU provides the best account of how underlying phonological systems are s p e c i f i e d and how they develop. Given the most basic p r i n c i p l e of RU \u00E2\u0080\u0094 the MRC \u00E2\u0080\u0094 children w i l l use only non-redundant features and feature values i n t h e i r i n i t i a l phonological representations, and only non-redundant information w i l l be represented i n adult phonological systems. The RU a c q u i s i t i o n theory predicts that two types of featural parameters w i l l require r e s e t t i n g i n Hungarian \u00E2\u0080\u0094 context-sensitive redundancy rules and the context-free redundancy ru l e for [round]. The a c q u i s i t i o n data from Hungarian show that by 2;0 children have reset the context-s e n s i t i v e parameters, and have acquired the short vowel inventory of the adult language, but there i s no evidence that they have reset the context-free rule for [round] or that they are using a rule of Round Harmony. These facts suggest that context-sensitive parameters are reset early, while context-free parameters, i f reset at a l l , are switched much l a t e r . One serious inadequacy of both parametric a c q u i s i t i o n theories i s that they predict that at the i n i t i a l stages of phonological a c q u i s i t i o n , children's inventories w i l l be f u l l y 465 developed, except where the rules of UG provide context-s e n s i t i v e parameters that are not part of the language-p a r t i c u l a r system. To account for the attested systems I have hypothesized that an a c q u i s i t i o n theory must be enriched by a theory of feature a v a i l a b i l i t y , which w i l l supply features one at a time for integration into the ch i l d ' s phonological system. I believe i t i s essential to assume that at a phonetic l e v e l , features are provided innately, but they are only made available for systematic phonological manipulation one at a time i n a fixed order. Evidence was found i n the a c q u i s i t i o n data presented i n t h i s chapter for a rule of Spread, even i n children's systems before 1;6. These rules are found i n both Hungarian and Spanish, even though there i s no evidence i n the phonology of adult Spanish for either r u l e . This suggests that Spread i s a parametric rule whose unmarked set t i n g i s ON, or that t h i s i s the only operation available to a c h i l d to f i l l i n unspecified feature values. If we assume that the operation of Spread i n young children's speech represents the most unmarked form of the ru l e parameters, then these parameters must be revised to take into account the following: 466 (6.34) a. the unmarked set t i n g of a d i r e c t i o n a l i t y parameter should r e f l e c t the fact that Spread may operate either L \u00E2\u0080\u0094> R or R \u00E2\u0080\u0094> L. b. the unmarked set t i n g of Spread when i t applies to a vo c a l i c segment i s the Dorsal Node, or the highest node that w i l l allow v o c a l i c spreading to take place across consonants. 6.6.2 Implications for a Theory of Phonological A c q u i s i t i o n The r e s u l t s given i n t h i s chapter show that a parametric theory of a c q u i s i t i o n based on the RU theory of underspecification provides a feasi b l e account of many aspects of phonological a c q u i s i t i o n i n both Hungarian and Spanish. Assuming that the context-sensitive rules provided by UG are part of the ch i l d ' s f i r s t phonological system helps to explain why t h e i r phonological inventories develop as they do. A s i m p l i f i e d schema of an RU ac q u i s i t i o n model, with c e r t a i n revisions based on the ac q u i s i t i o n findings, i s given i n (6.35) . 467 (6.35) Revised Model of RU Acqui s i t i o n UG Features Principles Principles of Autoseg. and Lex. Phonology Ordering Principles Ordering Constraints Elsewhere Condition Feature Availability MRC Systematization Parameters Phonological Rules Featural Parameters Complex N Templates LEARNING MECHANISM -> Parameter Switching Device ALPHABET --> Matrix Complement rules Input I have provided only a s i m p l i f i e d version of the parametric aspects of t h i s model. Four s p e c i f i c types of parameters are shown i n (6.35): phonological rule parameters, f e a t u r a l parameters (default r u l e s ) , the Complex N parameter, and template parameters. The featural parameters are the set of redundancy rules given i n (6.11), and these w i l l provide children with the 468 i n i t i a l set of hypotheses concerning the underlying s p e c i f i c a t i o n s for the vowels of t h e i r language. The model i n (6.35) also contains a Complex N parameter, which w i l l allow for complex vowels as a marked option, and a set of templatic parameters, which w i l l provide the structure for children's early words. The p r i n c i p l e s i n (6.35) are the same as i n the e a r l i e r model given i n (2.43), with the addition of Feature A v a i l a b i l i t y . While i t may be possible that Feature A v a i l a b i l i t y i s a parameterizable p r i n c i p l e of UG, I prefer to believe that the order of feature a v a i l a b i l i t y i s u n i v e r s a l l y i n v i o l a b l e . The a c q u i s i t i o n data suggest that the learning mechanism i n (6.35) should be a mechanism which allows f o r gradual a c q u i s i t i o n once parameters are reset, rather than one that assumes instantaneous learning. There are several aspects of the a c q u i s i t i o n data presented i n Chapters 5 and 6 that remain rather mysterious. One i s the conditions under which Spread takes place i n Hungarian and Spanish. In Spanish i t i s f a i r l y c l e a r that the t r i g g e r vowel i n both processes i s always the stressed one (unless i t i s /e/), while i t i s just as c l e a r that stress does not play a r o l e i n determining triggers i n Hungarian. The only explanation that I have to o f f e r for t h i s phenomenon i s that stress plays a very d i f f e r e n t role i n the two languages. In Hungarian stress i s assigned by a very simple r u l e that stresses the i n i t i a l s y l l a b l e i n words of any length. In Spanish, on the other hand, ce r t a i n roots and a f f i x e s are exceptional with regard to the stress rules. If c h i l d r e n are 469 not able to determine the complex stress patterns at t h i s e a r l y age, then the stress patterns of the language would be appear to be t o t a l l y random, and would have to be marked l e x i c a l l y . A second aspect of the data that remains puzzling i s the fact that several aspects of a c q u i s i t i o n do not appear to be an all-or-nothing event, as i s suggested by the parametric theory. Once a parameter i s reset to the marked option during the course of language a c q u i s i t i o n , the parametric theory predicts the new structure or rule should be immediately acquired i n a l l contexts. This view of a c q u i s i t i o n i s not supported by previous a c q u i s i t i o n evidence, nor i s i t supported by the re s u l t s presented here. In attempting to account for t h i s c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of a c q u i s i t i o n I have simply assumed that the learning mechanisms ( i . e . the parameter-switching device) i s a more complicated mechanism than l e a r n a b i l i t y theory assumes, and that i t i s responsible for these gradual patterns of phonological rules and segments. I believe these a c q u i s i t i o n data provide s t r i k i n g evidence that children's and adults' phonological systems are c l o s e l y related. A c q u i s i t i o n i n both Spanish and Hungarian appears to be directed by many of the same constraints and rules as e x i s t i n the adult systems. Several aspects of the a c q u i s i t i o n data discussed here provide evidence that UG provides the c h i l d with a set of templates that w i l l help shape t h e i r f i r s t words. Children's i n i t i a l words are mostly CV i f monosyllabic and CVCV i f 470 m u l t i s y l l a b i c . Children acquiring a language such as Hungarian, where words are predominantly consonant-final, soon learn that the template supplied by UG does not f i t the preferred s y l l a b l e shape of the language, at which point final-consonants become much more frequent. Evidence from forms that undergo Spread suggest that sometimes when the c h i l d i s dealing with a CVCV template, they have only enough information to represent a single s y l l a b l e . In t h i s case a p r i n c i p l e such as the S a t i s f a c t i o n Condition (McCarthy and Prince 1986) w i l l i n i t i a t e a phonological r u l e to f i l l i n the feature s p e c i f i c a t i o n s of the remaining s y l l a b l e or segment. The Jakobsonian theory of a c q u i s i t i o n (Jakobson 1941/68, Jakobson and Halle 1956) assumes that children's early phonological systems are constructed around the notion of contrast. Although the notion of contrast i s not formally b u i l t into the theory of RU, the development of children's inventories shown i n 6.2 shows that contrast i s an important aspect of t h i s early development. Jakobson's discussions of contrast are based on pairs of i n d i v i d u a l segments, although the primitives of the theory i t s e l f are d i s t i n c t i v e features. If v o c a l i c (and consonantal) features are made ava i l a b l e to a c h i l d one at a time i n a given order, then children's i n i t i a l inventories w i l l develop around featural contrasts. Two out of three of Jakobson's predictions for vowels given i n (4.1) are supported by the Hungarian and Spanish a c q u i s i t i o n data. In Hungarian the front rounded vowels are acquired a f t e r front unrounded vowels, and i n both languages 471 i t appears to be the case that the contrast between / i / and /e/ i s acquired before the contrast between /u/ and /o/. I have assumed that the vowels /e/ and /e/ enter the c h i l d ' s system at the same time i n Hungarian, so there i s no p a r t i c u l a r evidence bearing on whether or not the contrast between /a/ and /e/ i s acquired before the contrast between /a/ and a low front vowel. As shown i n (6.3), Jakobson and Halle (1956) predict that the f i r s t three vowels may be /a/, / i / and /u/ or /a/, /e/ and /o/. The a c q u i s i t i o n data from Hungarian and Spanish demonstrate that, at l e a s t i n these languages, only the l a t t e r scenario i s possible, with / i / and /u/ being l a t e r acquisitions than /a/. In c l o s i n g , I would l i k e to add that the analyses of early phonological a c q u i s i t i o n i n Hungarian and Spanish presented i n t h i s thesis are r e a l l y only a beginning. Those aspects of t h i s data that I have examined here \u00E2\u0080\u0094 the sequence of stages i n the a c q u i s i t i o n of v o c a l i c inventories and the types of su b s t i t u t i o n errors that occur i n the c h i l d forms \u00E2\u0080\u0094 reveal several pressing areas for future research. How and when does Spread operate i n children's early word forms? How do childr e n represent stress i n i t i a l l y i n a language such as Spanish? What i s i t that makes children underspecify word forms i n c e r t a i n cases and not i n others? And perhaps most importantly, what are the exact set of word templates provided by UG, and how are feature s p e c i f i c a t i o n s mapped to them? These and many other questions must be asked, and I believe 472 answers w i l l be forthcoming given the type of model argued for i n t h i s t h e s i s . 473 Notes to Chapter 6 1 This type of substitution i s referred to as a paradigmatic s u b s t i t u t i o n , and i s discussed i n 4.1.2 and 4.2. 2 The composites for Hungarian are given i n (5.13) and (5.15) for Times 1 and 2, and those for Spanish are given i n (5.25) and (5.23). 3 The low and mid front unrounded vowels i n Hungarian w i l l be addressed i n 6.1.3. * Calabrese's theory also makes two predictions that are not borne out i n the a c q u i s i t i o n data from Hungarian and Spanish. F i r s t , Calabrese's theory predicts that the f i r s t vowel system w i l l contain 3 vowels, while the data suggest that the i n i t i a l system contains only /a/. Secondly, his theory predicts that the i n i t i a l vowel system w i l l contain /a/, / i / and /u/, while the Spanish and Hungarian data show that when a 3 vowel inventory i s achieved, i t w i l l contain the vowels /a/, /e/ and /of. 5 These are given i n (5.13) and (5.15). 6 The symbols [tl] and [0] are used i n t h i s chapter rather than IPA symbols because these are the orthographic symbols used for non-low front unrounded vowels i n Hungarian. 7 I believe an added piece of evidence to support t h i s decision comes from the analyses of Hungarian and Spanish i n Chapter 3. I t seems strange that an i d e n t i c a l marked parameter s e t t i n g i s required i n two t o t a l l y unrelated languages, and i t would make much more sense to assume that both languages make use of the unmarked context-free parameter s e t t i n g for [high]. 3 This RU account of a c q u i s i t i o n does not predict whether /o/ w i l l be acquired f i r s t , or whether the context-sensitive r u l e [+low] \u00E2\u0080\u0094> [+back] w i l l be reset f i r s t . This suggests that there may be some in d i v i d u a l v a r i a t i o n i n the ordering of these two ac q u i s i t i o n s . 9 It i s e n t i r e l y possible that /e/ i s acquired before /o/, although the RU theory predicts /e/ w i l l be acquired a f t e r /e/. 1 0 This system i s given e a r l i e r i n (4.32). 1 1 In a majority of cases Hungarian children produce long vowels as short ones, although there are examples of long vowels being used as substitutes for short vowels. 474 1 2 In Chapter 5 I use an a r b i t r a r y c r i t e r i a of 3 occurrences of a s u b s t i t u t i o n before i t i s considered productive. 1 3 Diphthongs cannot contain two [+high] feature matrices. See Harris (1983) for more d e t a i l s on t h i s r e s t r i c t i o n . 1 4 This fact does not argue against the RU a c q u i s i t i o n theory, since t h i s parameter could very well be reset at a l a t e r time. 475 References Abaglo, P. and Archangeli, D. 1989. Language-particular underspecification: Gengbe /e/ and Yoruba / i / . L i n g u i s t i c Inquiry 20, 457-480. Ajdukiewicz, K. 1935. Die Syntaktische Konnexitat. Studia Philosophica 1, 1-27. Alatorre, M.F. 1976. Sobre polisemia y homonimia i n f a n t i l e s . L i t t e r a e Hispanae et Lusitanae. Mtinchen: Max Hueber Verlag, 153-171. A l l e n , M.R. 1978. Morphological investigations. PhD Dissertation, University of Connecticut. Archangeli, D. 1984. Underspecification i n Yawelmani phonology and morphology. PhD. d i s s e r t a t i o n , MIT. Archangeli, D. 1988. Aspects of underspecification theory. Phonology 5, 183-208. Archangeli, D. and Pulleyblank, D. 1986. The content and structure of phonological representations. Unpublished manuscript, University of Arizona and University of Southern C a l i f o r n i a . Archangeli, D. and Pulleyblank, D. 1987. Maximal and minimal ru l e s : e f f e c t s of t i e r scansion. In J. McDonough and B. Plunkett (eds.) Proceedings of the Seventeenth Annual Meeting, NELS, University of Massachusetts, Amherst: GLSA, 16-35. Archangeli, D. and Pulleyblank, D. 1989. Yoruba vowel harmony. L i n g u i s t i c Inquiry 20, 173-218. Aronoff, M. 1976. Word Formation i n Generative Grammar. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Atkinson, M. 1982. Explanations i n the Study of C h i l d Language development. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ e r s i t y Press. Atkinson, K., MacWhinney, B., and Stoel, C. 1968. An experiment on the recognition of babbling. Language Behaviour Research Laboratory Working Paper #14. Berkeley: University of C a l i f o r n i a . Bach, E. 1985. On some recurrent types of transformations. In C.W. K r e i d l e r (ed.) Sixteenth Annual Roundtable Meeting on L i n g u i s t i c s and Language Studies. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Monograph Series on Language and L i n g u i s t i c s , 18. 476 Baker, C.L. 1979. Syntactic theory and the projection problem. L i n g u i s t i c Inquiry 10, 533-582. Balassa, Jozsef. 1893. A gyermek nyelvenek fejlodese. Nyelvtudomamanyi KBzlemenyek 23, 60-73, 129-144. Benedict, H. 1979. Early l e x i c a l development: comprehension and production. Journal of C h i l d Language 6, 183-200. Berwick, R. 1985. The A c q u i s i t i o n of Syntactic Knowledge. Cambridge: MIT Press. Bloom, L. 1970. Language Development: Form and Function i n Emerging Grammars. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Bolozky, S. 1977. On the status of fast speech i n Natural Generative Phonology. In J. Kegl, D. Nash, and A. Zaenen (eds.) Proceedings of the Seventh Annual Meeting of the Northeastern L i n g u i s t i c Society. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT. Borer, H. 1984. Parametric Syntax. Dordrecht: F o r i s . Borer, H. and Wexler, K. 1987. The maturation of syntax. In T. Roeper and E. Williams (eds.) Parameter Setting. Dordrecht: Reidel, 123-172. Borowsky, T. 1986. Topics i n the l e x i c a l phonology of English. PhD Dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst. Borzone de Manrique, Ana M. and Massone, M.I. 1985. Estrategias de organizacion fonologica durante e l proceso de adquisicion del lenguaje. Lenguas Modernas. C h i l e : University of C h i l e . Braine, M. 1963. The ontogeny of English phrase structure: the f i r s t phase. Language 39, 1-13. Braine, M. 1971. The a c q u i s i t i o n of language i n infant and c h i l d . In C.E. Reed (ed.) The Learning of Language. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts. Brame, Michael, K. and Bordelois, Ivonne. 1973. Vocalic alternations i n Spanish. L i n g u i s t i c Inquiry 4, 111-168. Bresnan, J . 1978. A r e a l i s t i c transformational grammar. In M. Halle, J. Bresnan and G. M i l l e r (eds.) L i n g u i s t i c Theory and Psychological Reality. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1-59. Bresnan, J . 1982. The Mental Representation of Grammatical Relations. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. 477 Brown, R. and Hanlon, C. 1970. Derivational complexity and order of a c q u i s i t i o n i n c h i l d speech. In J. R. Jayes, (ed.) Cognition and the Development of Language. New York: Wiley. Calabrese, A. 1988. Towards a theory of phonological alphabets. PhD. Dissertation, MIT. C a r r o l l , S. and Roberge, Y. 1988. Negative evidence r e v i s i t e d . Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Canadian L i n g u i s t i c s Association, Universite Laval, Quebec. Chomsky, N. 1957. Syntactic Structures. The Hague: Mouton. Chomsky, N. 1965. Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Chomsky, N. 1970. Remarks on nominalization. In R. Jacobs & P. Rosenbaum (eds.) Readings i n English Transformational Grammar. Waltham: Ginn, 184-221. Chomsky, N. 1981a. Lectures on Government and Binding. Dordrecht: F o r i s. Chomsky, N. 1981b. Pr i n c i p l e s and parameters i n syntactic theory. In N. Hornstein and D. Lightfoot (eds.) Explanations i n L i n g u i s t i c s . London: Longman, 32-75. Chomsky, N. and Halle, M. 1968. The Sound Pattern of English. The Hague: Mouton. Christdas, P. 1988. The phonology and morphology of Tamil. PhD d i s s e r t a t i o n , Cornell University. Clements, G.N. 1985. The geometry of phonological features, Phonology Yearbook 2, 225-252. Clements, G.N. 1987. Phonological feature representations and the description of intr u s i v e stops. In A. Bosch et a l . (eds.) Parasession on Autosegmental and Metrical Phonology. Chicago L i n g u i s t i c Society, 29-50. Clements, G.N. and Ford, K. 1979. Kikuyu tone s h i f t and i t s synchronic consequences. L i n g u i s t i c Inquiry 10, 179-210. Cohn, A. 1989. Stress i n Indonesian and bracketing paradoxes. Natural Language and L i n g u i s t i c Theory 7, 167-216. Csapodi, I. 1905. Gyermekek nyelvtudomanya. Magyar Nyelvor 34, 464-466. Czaykowska-Higgins, E. 1988. Investigations into P o l i s h Morphology and Phonology. PhD Dissertation, MIT. 478 Davis, H. 1987. The a c q u i s i t i o n of the English a u x i l i a r y system and i t s r e l a t i o n to l i n g u i s t i c theory. PhD d i s s e r t a t i o n , University of B r i t i s h Columbia. Davis, S. 1990. An argument for the underspecification of [coronal] i n English. L i n g u i s t i c Inquiry 21, 301-305. Den Dikken, M. and van der Hulst, H. to appear. Segmental hierarchitecture. In H. van der Hulst and N. Smith (eds.) Features, Segmental Structure, and Harmony Processes. Dordrecht: F o r i s . Dowty, D., Wall, R. and Peters, S. 1982. Introduction to Montague Semantics. Boston: Reidel. Dresher, E. and Kaye, J. 1988. A computational learning model for metrical phonology. Unpublished manuscript, University of Toronto and University of London. Edwards, M.L. 1974. Perception and production i n c h i l d phonology: the t e s t i n g of four hypotheses. Journal of C h i l d Language 1, 205-219. E i l e r s , R., Gavin, W. and O i l e r , K. 1982. C r o s s - l i n g u i s t i c perception i n infancy: early e f f e c t s of l i n g u i s t i c experience. Journal of C h i l d Language 50, 14-18. Endrei, Gerzson. 1913. Adalelok a gyermeknyelv fejlodesehez. A Gyermek 7, 461-466, 524-526. Farkas, D. and Beddor, P. 1987. Pr i v a t i v e and equipollent backness i n Hungarian. In A. Bosch et a l . (eds.) Parasession on Autosegmental and Metrical Phonology. Chicago L i n g u i s t i c Society, 90-105. Ferguson, C.A. and Farwell, C. 1975. Words and sounds i n early language a c q u i s i t i o n . Language 51, 419-39. Fodor, J.D. 1989. Learning the periphery. In R.J. Matthews and W. Demopoulos (eds.) L e a r n a b i l i t y and L i n g u i s t i c Theory. Dordrecht: Kluwer, 129-154. Fodor, J.A. and Garrett, M.F. Some syntactic determinants of sentential complexity. Perception and Psychophysics 2, 289-296. Fodor, J.A., Bever, R.G. and Garrett, M.F. The Psychology of Language: An Introduction to Psycholinquistics and Generative Grammar. New York: McGraw-Hill. Garnica, 0. 1973. The development of phonemic speech perception. In R. Moore (ed.) Cognitive Development and the A c q u i s i t i o n of language. New York: Academic Press, 215-222. 479 Goad, H. and Ingram, D. 1987. Individual v a r i a t i o n and i t s relevance to a theory of phonological a c q u i s i t i o n . Journal of C h i l d Language 14, 419-432. Gold, E. 1967. Language i d e n t i f i c a t i o n i n the l i m i t . Information and Control 10, 447-474. Goldsmith, J. 1976. Autosegmental Phonology. Indiana University L i n g u i s t i c s Club, Bloomington, Indiana. Goldsmith, J . 1987. Vowel systems. In A. Bosch, B. Need and E. S c h i l l e r (eds.) Papers from the Parasession on Autosegmental and Metrical Phonology. Chicago L i n g u i s t i c Society, 116-133. Gosy, Maria. 1978. Szavak es toldalekok hangalaki jellemzOi a gyermeknyelvben. Hungarian Papers i n Phonetics 2, 90-98. Goto, H. 1971. Auditory perception by normal Japanese adults of the sounds \"L\" and \"R\". Neuropsychologia 9, 317-323. G u i l f o y l e , E. 1984. The a c q u i s i t i o n of tense and the emergence of l e x i c a l subjects. Unpublished manuscript, McGill University. Halle, M. 1959. The Sound Pattern of Russian. The Hague: Mouton. Halle, M., Harris, J.W. and Vergnaud, J.-R. 1991. A reexamination of the Stress Erasure Convention and Spanish stress. L i n g u i s t i c Inquiry 22, 141-158. Halle, M. and Mohanan, K.P. 1985. Segmental phonology of Modern English. L i n g u i s t i c Inquiry 16, 57-116. Halle, M. and Vergnaud, J.R. 1981. Harmony processes. In W. K l e i n and W. Levelt (eds.) Crossing the Boundaries i n L i n g u i s t i c s \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 Dordrecht: Reidel, 1-23. Halle, M. and Vergnaud, J-R. 1982. On the framework of autosegmental phonology. In van der Hulst, H. and Smith, N. (eds.) The Structure of Phonological Representations. Dordrecht: F o r i s . Halle, M. and Vergnaud, J-R. 1987. An Essay on Stress. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Harris, J.W. 1969. Spanish Phonology. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Harris, J.W. 1977. Remarks on diphthongisation i n Spanish. Lingua 41, 261-305. 480 Harris, J.W. 1978. Two theories of non-automatic morphophonological alternations: evidence from Spanish. Language 54, 41-60. Harris, J.W. 1980. Nonconcatenative morphology and Spanish p l u r a l s . Journal of L i n g u i s t i c Research 1, 15-31. Harris, J.W. 1983. S y l l a b l e Structure and Stress i n Spanish: a Nonlinear Analysis. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Harris, J.W. 1985. Spanish diphthongisation and s t r e s s : a paradox resolved. Phonology Yearbook 2, 31-45. Harris, J.W. 1989. How d i f f e r e n t i s verb stress i n Spanish? Probus 1, 241-258. Hayes, B. 1981. A metrical theory of stress r u l e s . PhD Dissertation, MIT. Revised version d i s t r i b u t e d by the Indiana University L i n g u i s t i c s Club, Bloomington, Indiana. Hayes, B. 1986. I n a l t e r a b i l i t y i n CV Phonology. Language 62, 321-349. Hoard, J. and O'Grady, G. 1976. Nyangumarda phonology: a preliminary report. In R.M.W. Dixon (ed.) Grammatical Categories i n Australian Languages. New Jersey: Humanities Press, 51-77. Hooper, J.B. 1976. An Introduction to Natural Generative Phonology. New York: Academic Press. Hyams, N. 1983. The a c q u i s i t i o n of parameterized grammars. PhD d i s s e r t a t i o n , CUNY. Ingram, D. 1976. Phonological D i s a b i l i t y i n Children. Edward Arnold: London. Ingram, D. 1978. The r o l e of the s y l l a b l e i n phonological development. In A. B e l l and J.B. Hooper (eds.) S y l l a b l e s and Segments. New York: North-Holland, 143-155. Ingram, D. 1981. Procedures for the Phonological Analysis of Children's Language. Baltimore: University Park Press. Ingram, D. 1989a. F i r s t Language A c q u i s i t i o n : Method, Description, and Explanation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Ingram, D. 1989b. Underspecification theory and phonological a c q u i s i t i o n . Unpublished manuscript, University of B r i t i s h Columbia. 481 Ingram, D. 1990. L e a r n a b i l i t y i n phonological theory and language a c q u i s i t i o n . Unpublished manuscript, Univ e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia. Irwin, O.C. 1951. Infant speech: consonantal p o s i t i o n . Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders 16, 159-161. Ito, J. and Mester, A. 1986. The phonology of voicing i n Japanese. L i n g u i s t i c Inquiry 17, 49-73. Iverson, G. and Wheeler, D. 1987. Hi e r a r c h i c a l structures i n c h i l d phonology. Lingua 87, 243-258. Jakobson, Roman. 1968. Child Language, Aphasia and Phonological Universals. The Hague: Mouton. ( O r i g i n a l l y published i n German, 1941). Jakobson, Roman and Halle, M. 1956. Fundamentals of Language\u00E2\u0080\u00A2 The Hague: Mouton. Jensen, J.T. and Stong-Jensen, M. 1989. Underspecification and structure preservation i n Hungarian. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Canadian L i n g u i s t i c s Association, Universite Laval, Quebec. Jusczyk, P., Shea, S. and A s l i n , R. 1984. L i n g u i s t i c experience and infant speech perception: a re-examination of E i l e r s , Gavin and O i l e r (1982). Journal of C h i l d Language 11, 453-466. Kahn, D. 1976. Syllable-Based Generalizations i n English Phonology. PhD Dissertation, MIT, reproduced by the Indiana L i n g u i s t i c s Club. Kaisse, E. and Shaw, P.A. 1985. On the theory of l e x i c a l phonology. Phonology Yearbook 2, 1-30. Kaye, J. 1989. Phonology: A Cognitive View. H i l l s d a l e , N.J.: Erlbaum. Kaye, J. and Lowenstamm, J. 1984. De l a s y l l a b i c i t e . In D e l l , R., H i r s t , D. and Vergnaud, J-R. (eds.) Forme sonore du lanqaqe. Paris: Herman. Kaye, J . , Lowenstamm, J. and Vergnaud, J.-R. 1985. The i n t e r n a l structure of phonological elements: a theory of government and charm. Phonology Yearbook 2, 305-328. Keating, P. 1985. CV phonology, experimental phonetics and c o a r t i c u l a t i o n . UCLA Working Papers i n Phonetics. Kiparsky, P. 1973. 'Elsewhere' i n phonology. In S. R. Anderson & P. Kiparsky (eds.) F e s t s c h r i f t for Morris Halle. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 93-106. 482 Kiparsky, P. 1981. Vowel harmony. Unpublished manuscript, Stanford University. Kiparsky, P. 1982. Lexical phonology and morphology. In I.-S. Yang (ed.) L i n g u i s t i c s i n the Morning Calm. Seoul: Hanshin, 3-91. Kiparsky, P. 1985. Some consequences of Le x i c a l Phonology. Phonology Yearbook 2, 85-138. Kontra, M. and Ringen, C. 1986. Hungarian vowel harmony: the evidence from loanwords. Ural-Altaische Jarhbtlcher 58, 1-13. Kornai, A. 1987. Hungarian vowel harmony. Proceedings of the Sixth West Coast Conference on Formal L i n g u i s t i c s . Stanford: Stanford L i n g u i s t i c s Association, 147-161. Koutsoudas, A., Sanders, G., and N o l l , C. 1974. The appl i c a t i o n of phonological rules. Language 50, 1-28. LaCharite, D. 1990. Substantive conditions and Setswana mid vowel alternations. Paper presented at the MOT Student Conference, University of Ottawa, May 1990. Lasnik, H. 1989. On ce r t a i n substitutes for negative evidence. In R.J. Matthews and W. Demopoulos (eds.) L e a r n a b i l i t y and L i n g u i s t i c Theory. Dordrecht: Kluwer, 89-106. Lebeaux, D. Comments on Hyams. In T. Roeper and E. Williams (eds.) Parameter Setting. Dordrecht: Reidel, 23-40. Leben, W. 1973. Suprasegmental phonology. PhD d i s s e r t a t i o n , MIT. Leopold, W.F. 1947. Speech Development of a B i l i n g u a l C h i l d : A Linguist's Record. Vol. 2. Sound Learning i n the F i r s t Two Years. Evanston, 111.: Northwestern Univ e r s i t y Press. Lewis, M.M. 1936. Infant Speech: a Study of the Beginnings of Language. New York: Harcourt Brace. Levergood, B. 1984. Rule governed vowel harmony and the s t r i c t cycle. In C. Jones and P. S e l l s (eds.) Proceedings of the Fourteenth Annual Meeting, NELS, CLSA, University of Massachusetts, Amherst. Levin, J . 1985. A metrical theory of s y l l a b i c i t y . PhD Dissertation, MIT. Liberman, M. and Prince, A. 1977. On stress and l i n g u i s t i c rhythm. L i n g u i s t i c Inquiry 8, 249-336. 483 Lieber, R. 1987. An Integrated Theory of Autosegmental Processes. Albany, New York: SUNY Press. Lightner, T.M. 1963. A note on the formulation of phonological rules. Quarterly Progress Report of the Research Laboratory of Electronics MIT 68, 197-189. Lisker, L. and Abramson, A.S. 1970. The voicing dimensions: some experiments i n comparative phonetics. Proceedings of the Sixth International Congress of Phonetic Sciences. Prague: Academia. Locke, J . 1983. Phonological Acqui s i t i o n and Change. New York: Academic Press. MacKain, K.W., Best, C.T. and Strange, W. 1980. Native language ef f e c t s on the perception of l i q u i d s . Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 27. Macken, M. 1975. The a c q u i s i t i o n of i n t e r v o c a l i c consonants i n Mexican Spanish: a cross sectional study based on imitation data. Papers and Reports on C h i l d Language Development 9, 29-42. Macken, M. 1979. Developmental reorganization of phonology: a hierarchy of basic units of a c q u i s i t i o n . Lingua 49, 11-49. Macken, M. and Ferguson, C.A. 1983. Cognitive aspects of phonological development: model, evidence, and issues. In K.E. Nelson (ed.) Children's Language. Vol. 4. H i l l s d a l e , N.J.: Erlbaum. MacPherson, I.R. 1975. Spanish Phonology. Manchester: Manchester University Press. MacWhinney, B. 1974. How Hungarian children learn to speak. PhD Dissertation, University of C a l i f o r n i a , Berkeley. Malkiel, Y. 1966. Diphthongization, monophthongization, metaphony: studies i n t h e i r i n t e r a c t i o n i n the paradigm of the Old Spanish - i r verbs. Language 42, 430-472. Mascaro, J. 1976. Catalan phonology and the phonological cycle. PhD Dissertation, MIT. Distributed by the Indiana University L i n g u i s t i c s Club. McCarthy, J.J. 1979. Formal problems i n Semitic phonology and morphology. PhD d i s s e r t a t i o n , MIT. McCarthy, J . J . 1984. Theoretical consequences of Montanes vowel harmony. L i n g u i s t i c Inquiry 15, 291-318. McCarthy, J . J . 1986. OCP e f f e c t s : gemination and antigemination. L i n g u i s t i c Inquiry 17, 207-263\u00C2\u00B0. 484 McCarthy, J . J . and Prince, A. 1986. Prosodic morphology. Unpublished manuscript, University of Massachusetts, Amherst and Brandeis University. McLelland, J. and Rumelhart, D. 1986. Explorations i n P a r a l l e l Distributed Processing. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Meggyes, Klara. 1971. Egy Keteves Gyermek Nyelvi Rendszere. Budapest: Akademiai Kiadd. Menn, L. 1978. Phonological units i n beginning speech. In A. B e l l and J.B. Hooper (eds.) Syllables and Segments. Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing Company, 157-171. Mester, A. 1990. Dependent t i e r ordering and the OCP. In H. van der Hulst and N. Smith (eds.) Features, Segmental Structure, and Harmony Processes 1. Dordrecht: F o r i s . Mester, A. and Ito, J. 1989. Feature p r e d i c t a b i l i t y and underspecification: P a l a t a l prosody i n Japanese Mimetics. Language 65, 258-293. M i l l e r , G.A.. 1962. Some psychological studies of grammar. American Psychologist 17, 748-762. M i l l e r , P. 1972. Some context-free processes a f f e c t i n g vowels. Working Papers i n L i n g u i s t i c s 2, 146-163. Mohanan, K.P. 1982. Lexical phonology. PhD d i s s e r t a t i o n , MIT. Distributed by the Indiana University L i n g u i s t i c s Club, Bloomington, Indiana. Mohanan, K.P. 1983. The structure of the melody. Unpublished manuscript, MIT. Mohanan, K.P. and Mohanan, T. 1984. L e x i c a l phonology of the consonant system of Malayalam. L i n g u i s t i c Inquiry 15, 575-602. Montgomery, T. 1975. Complementarity of stem-vowels i n the Spanish second and t h i r d conjugations. Romance Philology 29, 281-296. Moskowitz, A. 1970. The two-year-old stage i n the a c q u i s i t i o n of English phonology. Language 46, 426-441. Norman, L.S. and Sanders, G.A. 1977. Vocalic var i a t i o n s i n Spanish verbs. Glossa 11, 171-190. O'Grady, W. 1987. P r i n c i p l e s of Grammar and Learning. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 485 O i l e r , K. 1974. S i m p l i f i c a t i o n as the goal of phonological processes i n c h i l d speech. Language Learning 24, 299-303. Paradis, C. 1988. On constraints and repair s t r a t e g i e s . The L i n g u i s t i c Review 6, 71-97. Paradis, C. and Prunet, J.-R. 1990. On explaining some OCP v i o l a t i o n s . L i n g u i s t i c Inquiry 21, 456-466. Penny, R.J. 1972. Verb-class as a determiner of stem-vowel i n the h i s t o r i c a l morphology of Spanish verbs. Revue de li n q u i s t i q u e romaine 36, 343-359. Pesetsky, D. 1979. Russian morphology and l e x i c a l theory. Unpublished manuscript, MIT. Piggott, G. 1985. Aspects of Odawa Morphophonemics. New York: Garland. Piggott, G. 1990. The parameters of na s a l i z a t i o n . In van der Hulst, H. and Smith, N. (eds.) Features, Segmental Structure and Harmony Processes 1. Dordrecht, F o r i s . Piggott, G. to appear. V a r i a b i l i t y i n feature dependency: the case of n a s a l i t y . Natural Language and L i n g u i s t i c Theory. Pinker, S. 1979. Formal models of language learning. Cognition 10, 217-283. Pinker, S. 1984. Language L e a r n a b i l i t y and Language Development. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Prince, A. 1983. Relating to the g r i d . L i n g u i s t i c Inquiry 14, 19-100. Pulleyblank, D. 1985. A l e x i c a l treatment of tone i n Tiv. In D. L. Goyvaerts (ed.) African L i n g u i s t i c s : Essays i n Memory of M.W.K. Semikenke. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 421-476. Pulleyblank, D. 1986. Tone i n Lexical Phonology. Dordrecht: Reidel. Pulleyblank, D. 1988. Vocalic underspecification i n Yoruba. L i n g u i s t i c Inguiry 19, 233-270. Pulleyblank, E. 1989. The ro l e of coronal i n articulator-based features. Chicago L i n g u i s t i c Society. Pulleyblank, D. and Archangeli, D. 1990. Formal and substantive conditions on feature combination. Paper presented at McGill University, March 1990. 486 Pye, C. 1986b. Quiche Mayan speech to young ch i l d r e n . Journal of Child Language 13, 85-100. Pye, C , Ingram, D. and L i s t , H. 1984. A comparison of i n i t i a l consonant acquisiton i n Quiche and English. In K.E. Nelson and A. VanKleeck (eds.) Children's Language. Vol. 6. H i l l s d a l e , N.J.: Erlbaum. Rhodes, R. 1973. Some implications of Natural Phonology. Papers from the Ninth Regional Meeting of the Chicago L i n g u i s t i c Society, 531-541. Ringen, CO. 1978. Another view of the t h e o r e t i c a l implications of Hungarian vowel harmony. L i n g u i s t i c Inquiry 9, 105-115. Ringen, CO. 1980. A concrete analysis of Hungarian vowel harmony. In R. Vago (ed.) Issues i n Vowel Harmony. John Benjamins, 135-154. Ringen, CO. 1988. Transparency i n Hungarian vowel harmony. Phonology 5, 327-342. R i z z i , L. 1982. Issues i n I t a l i a n Syntax. Dordrecht: F o r i s . Roca, I. 1988. Theoretical implications of Spanish word stress. L i n g u i s t i c Inquiry 19, 393-423. Sadanandan, S. 1987. Acquisi t i o n of phonology: a reanalysis. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the L i n g u i s t i c Society of America, SanFrancisco, December, 1987. Sagey, E. 1986. The representation of features and r e l a t i o n s i n autosegmental phonology. PhD d i s s e r t a t i o n , MIT. Schein, B. and Steriade, D. 1986. On geminates. L i n g u i s t i c Inquiry 17, 691-744. Schwartz, R. and Leonard, L.B. 1982. Do chi l d r e n pick and choose: an examination of phonological s e l e c t i o n and avoidance i n early l e x i c a l a c q u i s i t i o n . Journal of C h i l d Language 9, 319-336. Selki r k . E. 1978. On prosodic structure and i t s r e l a t i o n to syntactic structure. Paper presented at the Conference of the Mental Representation of Phonology, reproduced by the Indiana L i n g u i s t i c s Club. Shaw, P.A. 1987. Non-conservation of melodic structure i n reduplication. In A. Bosch et a l . (eds.) Parasession on Autosegmental and Metrical Phonology. Chicago L i n g u i s t i c Society, 291-306. 487 Shvachkin, N.K. 1973. The development of phonemic speech perception i n early childhood. In C. Ferguson and D. Slobin (eds.) Studies of c h i l d language development. New York: Holt, Reinhart and Winston, 91-127. ( O r i g i n a l l y published i n Russian, 1948.) Siegel, D. 1974. Topics i n English Morphology. PhD d i s s e r t a t i o n , MIT. Published 1979, New York: Garland. Singh, S. and Black, J.W. 1966. Study of twenty-six intervocal consonants as spoken and recognized by four language groups. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 39, 371-387. Smith, N. 1973. The Acquis i t i o n of Phonology: A Case Study. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Solan, L. 1987. Parameter s e t t i n g and the development of pronouns and r e f l e x i v e s . In In T. Roeper and E. Williams (eds.) Parameter Setting. Dordrecht: Reidel, 189-210. Spencer, A. 1986. Towards a theory of phonological development. Lingua 68, 3-38. Sproat, R. 1985. On deriving the lexicon. PhD Di s s e r t a t i o n , MIT. Stampe, D. 1969. The a c q u i s i t i o n of phonemic representation. Proceedings of the F i f t h Regional Meeting of the Chicago L i n g u i s t i c Society, 433-444. Stanley, R. 1967. Redundancy rules i n phonology. Language 43, 393-436. Steriade, D. 1982. Greek prosodies and the nature of s y l l a b i f i c a t i o n processes. PhD Dissertation, MIT. Steriade, D. 1987. Redundant values. In A. Bosch et a l . (eds.) Parasession on Autosegmental and Metrical Phonology. Chicago L i n g u i s t i c Society, 339-362. Stoel, CM. 1974. The a c q u i s i t i o n of l i q u i d s i n Spanish. PhD Dissertation, Stanford University. Szpyra, J. 1989. The Phonology-Morphology Interface: Cycles, Levels and Words. London and New York, Routledge. Templin, M.C. 1957. Certain Language S k i l l s i n Children: Their Development and Interrelationships. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Trubetzkoy, N.S. 1969. P r i n c i p l e s of Phonology. Berkeley: University of C a l i f o r n i a Press. ( o r i g i n a l l y published i n German, 1939). 488 Vago, R.M. 1976. Theoretical implications of Hungarian vowel harmony. L i n g u i s t i c Inquiry 7, 245-263. Vago, R.M. 1980. The Sound Pattern of Hungarian. Washington: Georgetown University Press. Vago, R.M. 1988. Underspecification i n the height harmony system of Pasiego. Phonology 5, 343-362. Vihman, M. Consonant harmony: i t s scope and function i n c h i l d language. In J.H. Greenberg (ed.) Universals of Human Language 2, 282-334. Velten, H.V. 1943. The growth of phonemic and l e x i c a l patterns i n infant language. Language 19, 281-292. Werker, J . and Tees, R. 1984. Cross-language speech perception: evidence for perceptual reorganization during the f i r s t year of l i f e . Infant Behavior and Development 7, 49-63. Wexler, K. and Culicover, P.W. 1983. Formal P r i n c i p l e s of Language Ac q u i s i t i o n . Cambridge: MIT Press. Wexler, K. and Hamburger, H. 1973. On the i n s u f f i c i e n c y of surface data for the learning of transformational languages. In Hintikka, K.J., Moravcsik, J.M.E. and Suppes, P. (eds.) Approaches to Natural Language. Dordrecht: Reidel. Wexler, K. and Manzini, M.R. 1987. Parameters and l e a r n a b i l i t y i n binding theory. In T. Roeper and E. Williams (eds.) Parameter Setting. Dordrecht: Reidel, v i i - x i x . White, L. 1981. The r e s p o n s i b i l i t y of grammatical theory to a c q u i s i t i o n a l data. In N. Hornstein and D. Lightfoot (eds.) Explanation i n L i n g u i s t i c s . London: Longman, 241-171. White, L. 1989. Universal Grammar and L2 A c q u i s i t i o n . Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Williams, E. 1976. The natural philosophy of language a c q u i s i t i o n . Unpublished manuscript, UMass. Williams, E. 1987. Introduction. In T. Roeper and E. Williams (eds.) Parameter Setting. Dordrecht: Reidel, v i i - x i x . Zee, D. 1988. Sonority Constraints on Prosodic Structure. PhD Dissertation, Stanford University. "@en . "Thesis/Dissertation"@en . "10.14288/1.0100444"@en . "eng"@en . "Linguistics"@en . "Vancouver : University of British Columbia Library"@en . "University of British Columbia"@en . "For non-commercial purposes only, such as research, private study and education. Additional conditions apply, see Terms of Use https://open.library.ubc.ca/terms_of_use."@en . "Graduate"@en . "Underspecification, parameters, and the acquisition of vowels"@en . "Text"@en . "http://hdl.handle.net/2429/30805"@en .