Foundations of Contrastive Hierarchy Theory

B. Elan Dresher

Foundations of Contrastive Hierarchy Theory

Introduction

Monday 26 October 2020

Introduc)on

Part I: Historical Antecedents

Part II:A Theory of Contrast

Conclusion

2

InthistalkIwillpresentabriefintroductiontoatheoryofcontrastivefeaturehierarchiesinphonology.

Istartfromtheassumptionthatphonologyisaboutcontrast;withoutcontrast,thereisnophonology,onlyphoneticsorthephysicsofspeech(Dresher&vanderHulsttoappear).

Introduction

Thequestion,whichContrastiveHierarchyTheoryaddresses,ishowcontrastshouldbeincorporatedintophonologicaltheory.

ContrastiveHierarchyTheoryisbuiltonessentiallytwoideas:

3

TheEirstideaisthatphonologicalprimes(inmycase,binaryfeatures)arecomputedhierarchically,withthechoiceandorderingoftheprimesbeinglanguageparticular.

Thesecondhypothesisisthatonly contrastiveprimesarecomputedbythephonology;non-contrastivefeaturescanbeadded,forexamplebyenhancement,inapost-phonologicalcomponent.

Introduc*on

IwillshowhowthetheoryhasbeenappliedtovowelreductioninBrazilianPortugueseandtheacquisitionofitsvowelsystem.

4

IwillthenshowhowtheWestGermanicvowelsystemprovidesachallengingempiricaltestofthetheory(spoileralert:thetheorywillpassthetest!).

Beforegettingtothat,inthefirstpartofthetalkIwillshowthatthecentralideasofContrastiveHierarchyTheory,inoneformoranother,havebeenhidinginplainsightatthecentreofthehistoryofphonology.

Introduction

IwillbeginwithHenrySweet,atthedawnofmodernphonology.

Mostdirectly,thetheoryadaptsproposalsbyRomanJakobsonandN.S.TrubetzkoytothegenerativeframeworkofNoamChomskyandMorrisHalle.

5

Introduc)on



Conclusion

Thestructureandprogressofthistalkisindicatedinthepanel:

youarehere

6


7


1. Sweet 1877

Contrastive Properties and

‘Broad Romic’ Transcription

Introduc8on

Part I

1. Sweet2. Trubetzkoy

3. Jakobson

4. Halle

5. Chomsky & Halle

Part II

Conclusions


Contrast and Broad Transcription

AccordingtoDanielJones(1967:256),HenrySweet(1845–1912)wastheEirsttodistinguishadetailedphonetictranscription(whathecalled‘NarrowRomic’)fromaphonemictranscriptionsuitabletoanindividuallanguage(‘BroadRomic’).

8

Forexample,thevowelsintheEnglishwordsbait andbet differinthreeways:thevowelinbait islongerandtenserthaninbet,andisadiphthong,whereasthevowelinbet isamonophthong.

IPA[eːj][ɛ]

Anaccuratephonetictranscriptionwouldindicateallthesedistinctions;inthecurrentnotationoftheInternationalPhoneticAlphabet(IPA),theyaretranscribedasshown.


baitbet

long, tense, +jshort, lax, +Ø

Differences

9

Thesethreedifferences,however,arenotindependent:recombiningthevariouspropertiestocreatenewvowelsasshownwouldnotresultinanewworddistinctfrombothbait andbet,butwouldbeheardassome(perhapsodd-sounding)variantofoneofthesewords.

baitbet

IPA[eːj][ɛ]

Sweet(1877:104)writes:“wemaylaydownasageneralrulethatonlythosedistinctionsofsoundsrequiretobesymbolizedinanyonelanguagewhichareindependentlysigniEicant.”

Contrast and Broad Transcrip*on


Differences Non-contrastingvowels

[eː], [ej], [e], [ɛː], [ɛj], [ɛːj]

10

Further,“iftwocriteriaofsigniEicanceareinseparablyassociated,suchasquantityandnarrownessorwideness[i.e.,tensenessorlaxness/BED],weonlyneedindicateoneofthem.”Sweetproposes(1877:109–110)thatinbroadtranscription[eːj]shouldbetranscribed‘ei’(or,equivalently,‘ej’)and[ɛ]as‘e’.


Broadei or eje

Thus,ofthethreedifferencesinthevowels,hechoosesthepresenceofanoff-glidej assignificant,ignoringbothquantity(length)andnarrownessorwideness(tensenessorlaxness).

baitbet

IPA[eːj][ɛ]


Differences

11

Inthiscasehegivestherationaleforhischoice.Heobserves(p.110):“Thenarrownessofall[English]vowelsisuncertain”,especially/ij/and/ej/.

Thatis,vowelscanvaryinthedegreetowhichtheyaretenseorlaxwithoutessentiallychangingtheidentityofthevowel,aslongasotherpropertiesdonotchange.


Broadei or eje

Narrownessnotcontrastive[e:j] or [ɛ:j][ɛ] or [e]

baitbet

IPA[eːj][ɛ]


Differences

12

Similarly,heEinds(p.18)that“originallyshortvowelscanbelengthenedandyetkeptquitedistinctfromtheoriginallongs.”

Thatis,[bɛt](bet)canbelengthenedto[bɛːt]withoutpassingintobait,and[beːjt](bait)canbeshortenedto[bejt]withoutbeingperceivedasbet.


Lengthnotcontrastive[e:j] or [ej][ɛ] or [ɛ:]

Broadei or eje

baitbet

IPA[eːj][ɛ]


Differences

13

Whiletensenessandlengthcanbealteredwithoutchangingonevowelphonemeintoanotherone,presumablythesameisnotthecaseforthethirddistinguishingproperty.

Addingaglidetothevowelinbet,orremovingitfrombait,couldcausetheresultingvoweltobeperceivedashavingchangedcategory.


Glideiscontrastive[e:j] not [eː][ɛ] not [ɛj]

Broadei or eje

baitbet

IPA[eːj][ɛ]


Differences

14

WecanconcludefromhisdiscussionthatSweet’sanalysispositsthatthecontrastivepropertiesofboththevowelsinbait andbet aremidandfront,withnocontrastivespecificationfortensenessorquantity.

Thedifferenceinthetwowordsresidesintheadditionofasecondsegmenttothevowelinbait.


baitbet

IPA[eːj][ɛ]


Differences

15

Contrastivepropertiesmid, front, off-glide jmid, front

Broadei or eje

Sweetdidnotproposeamethodforcomputingcontrastiveproperties,nordidheconsistentlyattempttoidentifywhatthecontrastivepropertiesareforeverysegment(Dresher2016).


Thefurtherdevelopmentoftheseideas,andtheirconnectionwithfeaturehierarchies,camesomeyearslaterintheworkofthePragueSchoollinguists,notablyN.S.Trubetzkoy(1890–1938)andRomanJakobson(1896–1982).

!onlycontrastivepropertiesneedbetranscribed,

!andthesepropertiescanbeidentiEiedbyobservinghowsoundsfunctioninalanguage.

However,wecanseeinhisworktheideasthat:

16


2. Trubetzkoy 1939

Phonemic Content and

Contrast as ‘Point of View’

Introduc)on

Part I


3. Jakobson

4. Halle

5. Chomsky & Halle

Part II

Conclusions

17


N.S.Trubetzkoy’sGrundzügederPhonologie (1939;Englishversion1969,newcriticalSpanishedition2019)isnotableforitsinsightsintothenatureofcontrast.

Trubetzkoy’s Grundzüge der Phonologie

18

AnimportantnotionofTrubetzkoy’sisphonemiccontent:“Byphonemiccontent weunderstandallphonologicallydistinctivepropertiesofaphoneme…”(Trubetzkoy1969:66).

Phonemic content

“EachphonemehasadeEinablephonemiccontentonlybecausethesystemofdistinctiveoppositionsshowsadeEiniteorderorstructure.”(1969:67–8)

“thecontentofaphonemedependsonwhatpositionthisphonemetakesinthegivenphonemicsystem …”(1969:67)

19

Phonemic content and structure of the system

“thesystemofdistinctiveoppositionsshowsade=initeorderorstructure…thecontentofaphonemedependsonwhatpositionthisphonemetakesinthe

givenphonemicsystem …”

Theseremarkssuggestthatthephonemiccontentofaphoneme,thatis,thesetofitscontrastiveproperties,oughttoderive fromitspositioninthesystemofdistinctiveoppositions.

Therefore,weneedawaytodetermineaphoneme’spositioninthesystemofoppositionsbefore wehavedetermineditsdistinctiveproperties.

20

Phonemic content and structure of the system

“thesystemofdistinctiveoppositionsshowsade=initeorderorstructure…thecontentofaphonemedependsonwhatpositionthisphonemetakesinthe

givenphonemicsystem …”

Trubetzkoydoesnotexplicitlyshowushowtodothis;however,awayofprovidinganorderorstructure tothesystemofcontrastsisviathehierarchicalbranchingtreesthatbecameprominentlaterintheworkofJakobson.

FeaturehierarchiesarealreadyimplicitinTrubetzkoy(1939);considerhisdiscussionoftheLatinvowelsystem.

21

Thatis,thelowvowel/a/ischaracterizedonlybyitsheight;inourterms,itisassignedonlythefeature[+low].

/i/ /u/

/a/

/o//e/

The vowel system of Latin

[+low]

[–low]

TrubetzkoyobservesthatinLatin,asinmanyEive-vowelsystems,thelowvoweldoesnotparticipateintonalitycontrasts;‘tonality’referstobacknessorliprounding,thatis,propertiesthataffectthesecondformant(F2).

Latin

Buthowcanweprevent/a/fromreceivingotherfeatures?

Wecanifweassigncontrastivefeaturesinanorder,inafeaturehierarchy.

22

Inordertoexclude/a/fromreceivingtonalityfeatures,itisnecessarytoorder[±low]atthetopofthefeaturehierarchy:thishastheeffectofseparating/a/fromtheothervowels.

Since/a/isalreadyuniquelydistinguished,itwillreceivenofurtherfeatures.

/a/[+low] [–low]

The vowel system of La*n

/i/ /u/

/a/

/o//e/

[+low]

[–low]

Latin Topofthehierarchy:[low]

23

Whattheothertwo(or,moreunusually,three)featuresaredependsontheevidencefromthelanguage.

Commonfive-vowelsystemsusethefeatures[±back]or[±round]and[±high].

24

/a/[+low] [–low]

Topofthehierarchy:[low]

The vowel system of Latin

[–high] [+high] [–high] [+high]

[–back/round] [+back/round]

/e/ /i/ /o/ /u/

24

Thenotionofafeaturehierarchyisonlyimplicit inTrubetzkoy’sdiscussionoftheLatinvowelsystem.

Invokingafeaturehierarchyisawaytomakesenseofhisanalysis.

InthecaseofPolabian,however,Trubetzkoyexplicitly referstoahierarchy.

Polabian: “A certain hierarchy”

Heobserves(1969:102–3;2019:156)that“acertainhierarchyexisted”inthevowelsystemofPolabian,wherebythecontrastbetweenfrontandbackvowelsishigherthanthecontrastbetweenroundedandunroundedvowels.

25

Anotherimportantinsightiscontainedina1936articleaddressedtopsychologistsandphilosophers(Trubetzkoy2001[1936]:20):

Contrast depends on point of view

Whatdoesthismean?TosaythatthecorrectclassiEicationdependsonone’spointofviewmeansthatphonologicalcontrastscanvary fromlanguagetolanguage,andcannotbedeterminedsimplybyinspectinganinventory.

ThecorrectclassiEicationofanopposition“dependsonone’spointofview”;but“itisneithersubjectivenorarbitrary,for

thepointofviewisimpliedbythesystem.”

26

WehaveseenthatinLatinthelowvowel/a/issetapartfromtheothervowels,inTrubetzkoy’sanalysis.

‘Point of view’ means contrast is variable

Butthisisnottheonlywaytodrawthecontrastsinafive-vowelsystem.

/i/ /u/

/a/

/o//e/

[+low]

[–low]

Latin

27

Itispossible,forexample,togroupthelowvowel/a/withtheother[–round]vowels.Troubetzkoy proposesthatArchi(EastCaucasian,inCentralDaghestan)hasavowelsystemthatisdividedinthismanner.

[+round][–round]

Hesaysthisbecauseofthewaythesoundsbehave.

Archi


/i/ /u/

/a/

/o//e/

28

Trubetzkoyobservesthataconsonantalroundingcontrastisneutralizedbeforeandaftertheroundedvowels/u/and/o/,contrastingthesevowelswithunrounded/i/,/e/,and/a/.

[+round][–round]Archi


/i/ /u/

/a/

/o//e/

“Thismeansthatallvowelsaredividedintoroundedandunroundedvowels,whilethebackorfrontpositionofthetongueprovesirrelevant…”(Trubetzkoy1969:100–1).

29

Thisanalysiscorrespondstoordering[±round]Eirst,dividingthevowelsintotwogroups:/i,e,a/and/u,o/.

[+round][–round]Archi


/i/ /u/

/a/

/o//e/

Furtherdistinctionswithinthesegroupsaremadebyotherfeatures;thetreebelowshowsonepossiblefeaturehierarchy.

[round]>[high]>[low]

[+high] [–high]/i/

[+high] [–high]/u/ /o/

[–low] [+low]/e/ /a/

[–round] [+round]

30

Japanese

InJapanese,Trubetzkoyarguesthatneutralizationoftheoppositionbetweenpalatalizedandnon-palatalizedconsonantsbefore/i/ and /e/ showsthatthesevowelsareputintooppositionwiththeothervowels/a,o,u/.

[+front] [–front]

Five-vowel systems: Japanese

Thegoverningoppositionisthatbetweenfrontandbackvowels,“liproundingbeingirrelevant”(Trubetzkoy1969:101).

/a/

/o//e/

/i/ /u/

31

Japanese[+front] [–front]

Five-vowel systems: Japanese

/a/

/o//e/

/i/ /u/

Thisanalysiscorrespondstoordering[front]Eirst.TherestofthetreeisadaptedfromHirayama(2003).ThesefeaturetreesareimplicitinTrubetzkoy,buttheybecomeexplicitintheworkofRomanJakobsonandhiscollaborators.

[front]>[open]>[low]

[+front] [–front]

[+open] [–open]/e/ /i/

[+open] [–open]/u/

[+low] [–low]/a/ /o/

32


3. Jakobson 1941

The Acquisition of

Phonological Contrasts

Introduction

Part I


3. Jakobson

4. Halle

5. Chomsky & Halle

Part II

Conclusions

33


Jakobson’sKindersprache (1941;Englishtrans.1968,Spanish1974),advancesthenotionthatcontrasts arecrucialinphonologicalacquisitionandthattheydevelopinahierarchicalorder.

Jakobson’s Kindersprache

Inparticular,heproposesthatlearnersbeginwithbroadcontraststhataresplitbystagesintoprogressivelyEinerones. 34

TheacquisitionofvowelsystemssetoutinJakobson(1941)andJakobson&Halle(1956)followsthisschema.

Acquisition sequences (vowels)

Atthefirststage,thereisonlyasinglevowel.Astherearenocontrasts,wecansimplydesignateit/V/.

/V/

vowel

35

Jakobson&Hallewritethatthislonevowelisthemaximallyopenvowel[a],the‘optimalvowel’.

Acquisition sequences (vowels)

Butwedon’tneedtobethatspeciEic:wecanunderstandthistobeadefaultvalue,oratypicalbutnotobligatoryinstantiation.

/V/

vowel

[a]

36

Inthenextstageitisproposedthatthesinglevowelsplitsintoanarrow(high)vowel/I/,whichistypically[i],andawide(low)vowel,/A/,typically[a].

Acquisi*on sequences (vowels)

Iwillcontinuetounderstandthesevaluesasdefaults.

vowel

/I/

widenarrow

/A/

/V/

37

Inthenextstagethenarrowvowelsplitsintoapalatal(front)vowel/I/andavelar(backorround)vowel/U/,typically[u].


vowel

widenarrow

/A/palatal velar

/I/ /U/

/I/

38

AftertheEirsttwostages,Jakobson&Halleallowvariationintheorderofacquisitionofvowelcontrasts.


vowel

widenarrow

palatal velar

/I/ /U/

Thewidebranchcanbeexpandedtoparallelthenarrowone.

/A/

/æ/ /a/

palatal velar

39

Orthenarrowvowelscandeveloparoundingcontrastinoneorbothbranches.


vowel

widenarrow

palatal velar /a/

unrnd rnd

/i/ /y/

unrnd rnd

/ɨ/ /u/

40

Contras*ve features assigned hierarchically

Thisapproachhastwonotablecharacteristics:

Continuinginthisfashionwewillarriveatacompleteinventoryofthephonemesinalanguage,witheachphonemeassignedasetofcontrastivepropertiesthatdistinguishitfromeveryotherone.

!Onlycontrastivefeaturesareassignedtoeachphoneme.

!Contrastivefeaturesareassignedhierarchically,inawaythatcanberepresentedbyabranchingtree.

41


4. Halle 1959

An argument for specification

by branching trees

Introduc)on

Part I


3. Jakobson

4. Halle

5. Chomsky & Halle

Part II

Conclusions

42


An argument for branching trees

InTheSoundPatternofRussian (1959;SPR), Hallemakesanargumentonbehalfofbranchingtrees;thisisthefirstsuchargumentIhavefoundintheliterature.

43

Hearguesthatfeaturespecificationbyabranchingtreeistheonlywaytoensurethatsegmentsarekeptproperlydistinct.

Figure I-1 in The Sound Pattern of Russian, p. 46

44

(ThisishistreeforRussian.)

SpeciEically,Halleproposed(1959:32)thatphonemesmustmeettheDistinctnessCondition:

Segment-type/A/willbesaidtobedifferentfromsegment-type/B/,ifandonlyifatleastonefeaturewhichisphonemicinboth,hasadifferentvaluein/A/thanin/B/;i.e.,plusintheformerandminusinthelatter,orviceversa.

TheDistinctnessCondition

Thisformulationisdesignedtodisallowcontrastsinvolvingazerovalue ofafeature.

The Distinctness Condition

45

Considerthetypicalsub-inventory/p,b,m/shownbelow,andsupposewecharacterizeitintermsoftwobinaryfeatures,[±voiced]and[±nasal].

IntermsoffullspeciEications,/p/is[–voiced,–nasal],/b/is[+voiced,–nasal],and/m/is[+voiced,+nasal].

[voiced][nasal]

/b/+–

/p/––

/m/

++

Whichofthesefeaturesiscontrastive?Manypeoplereasonasfollows:

How do we establish contrasts?

46

Weobservethat/p/and/b/aredistinguishedonlyby[voiced];sothesespeciEicationsmust becontrastive.Similarly,/b/and/m/aredistinguishedonlyby[nasal];thesespeciEicationsmustalso becontrastive.Whatabouttheuncircled speciEications?Thesearepredictablefromthecircledones:

[voiced][nasal]

/b/+–

/p/––

/m/

++

47


Since/p/istheonly[–voiced]phonemeinthisinventory,itsspeciEicationfor[nasal]ispredictable,henceredundant.Wecanwritearuleorconstraint:Similarly,/m/istheonly[+nasal]phoneme,soitsspeciEicationfor[voiced]isredundant:Thisisastill-popularwayofthinkingaboutcontrastivespeciEications;wecancallitthe‘MinimalDifference’approach(e.g.Padgett2003,Calabrese2005,Campos-Astorkiza 2009,Nevins2010).

[voiced][nasal]

/b/+–

/p/––

/m/

++ If[–voiced],then[–nasal]

If[+nasal],then[+voiced]

48


AccordingtoMinimalDifference,afeatureisonlycontrastiveinasegmentifitistheonly featurethatdistinguishesthatsegmentfromanotherone.

[voiced][nasal]

/b/+–

/p/–

/m/

+

ButaccordingtotheDistinctnessCondition,/p/isnot ‘differentfrom’/m/:whereonehasafeature,theotherhasnone.

Therefore,thesespecificationsarenotproperlycontrastive.

49


TheyviolatetheDistinctnessConditionbecausenofeaturehierarchyyieldsthisresult.

Ifweorder[voiced]>[nasal],wegeneratean‘extra’speciEicationon/m/.

[voiced][nasal]

/b/+–

/p/–

/m/

++

[–voiced] [+voiced]/p/

[–nasal] [+nasal]/b/ /m/

The Distinctness Condition

50

[voiced][nasal]

/b/+–

/p/

–/m/

+

[–nasal] [+nasal]/m/

[–voiced] [+voiced]/p/ /b/–

Ifweorder[nasal]>[voiced],wegeneratean‘extra’specificationon/p/.

51

The Dis*nctness Condi*on

EitherofthespeciEicationsbelowisproperlycontrastive.

[voiced][nasal]

/b/+–

/p/–

/m/

+

[–voiced] [+voiced]/p/

[–nasal] [+nasal]/b/ /m/

+

Contrastive ≠ Unpredictable

/b/+–

/p/–

/m/

+–

[–nasal] [+nasal]/m/

[–voiced] [+voiced]/p/ /b/

[voiced] > [nasal] [nasal] > [voiced]Notethatinahierarchicalapproach,acontrastivefeatureisnotnecessarilyunpredictable.

52

Therefore, according to SPR, to ensure that all the phonemes of a language aredistinct from one another, it is necessary that their feature speciEications must begenerable by a branching tree.

53

Contrast is hierarchical

IbelievethatHalle’sargumentiscorrect:asdemonstratedbyArchangeli (1988)andinmoredetailbyDresher(2009),theMinimalDifferenceapproachoftenfailstoyieldany intelligiblesetofspeciEications.Itisthewrongtheoryofcontrast.

Conceptually,themainflawofMinimalDifferenceisitsfailuretorecognizethatcontrastiverelationsinaninventoryexistnotjustbetweenpairsofsegments,butalsobetweengroups ofsegmentsatdifferentlevelsofthehierarchy.

Thus,thereisasenseinwhichcontrastisindeedminimal,almostbydeEinition;butonly whenviewedinhierarchicallayers,andnotinpairwisecomparisons.

54

Decline of the branching trees

ItisironicthatwhileTheSoundPatternofRussian containsthisoriginalargumentonbehalfofbranchingtrees,atthesametimeitsanalysisofRussiancontributedtounderminingthewholenotionofcontrastivespeciEication(Dresher&Halltoappear).Becauseofthat,andduealsotoargumentsbyLightner(1963)andStanley(1967),underspeciEicationwasabandonedaltogetherinChomsky&Halle’sTheSoundPatternofEnglish (SPE,1968),alongwiththebranchingtrees(forreasons,seeDresher2009:96–104).Theresultwasthatlanguage-particularfeaturecontrastsdidnotplayaroleinthetheoryofgenerativegrammarthatdevelopedfromSPE.

55


5. Chomsky & Halle 1968

The Generative Framework

and Approach to Phonology

Introduc)on

Part I


3. Jakobson

4. Halle

5. Chomsky & Halle

Part II

Conclusions

56


ThoughIdepartfromSPEwithrespecttocontrastandthenatureoffeatures,Chomsky&HalleprovidethebroadgenerativeframeworkandcognitiveapproachtophonologythatIassumeinthetheoryofcontrasttowhichInowturn.

The genera*ve framework

57

Part II: A Theory of Contrast

1. Main Tenets of Contrastive

Hierarchy Theory (CHT)

Introduction

Part I

Part II

1. CHT Main Tenets2. Features in CHT

3. Acquisition: BPvowel system

4. Synchrony:PGmc. Vowels

5. Diachrony: WestGmc. i-Umlaut

Conclusions

58


Return of the branching trees

Asatheoryofphonologicalrepresentations,branchingtreeswererevived,underothernames,byClements(2001;2003;2009),andindependentlyattheUniversityofToronto,wheretheyarecalledcontrastivefeaturehierarchies(Dresher,Piggott,&Rice1994;Dyck1995;Zhang1996;Dresher1998b;Dresher&Rice2007;Hall2007;Dresher2009;Mackenzie2009;etc.).

ItisthelatterapproachIwillbepresentinghere.Ithasgoneundervariousnames:ModiEiedContrastiveSpeciEication(MCS),or‘TorontoSchool’phonology,orContrastandEnhancementTheory;IcallitContrastiveHierarchyTheory(CHT).

Idon’tclaimthereisany‘standardversion’ofthistheory;inwhatfollows,IwillpresentthetheoryasIunderstandit.

59

Contrast and hierarchy

TheEirstmajorbuildingblockofourtheoryisthatcontrastsarecomputedhierarchicallybyorderedfeatures thatcanbeexpressedasabranchingtree.

BranchingtreesaregeneratedbytheSuccessiveDivisionAlgorithm (Dresher1998b,2003,2009):

Assigncontrastivefeaturesbysuccessivelydividingtheinventoryuntileveryphonemehasbeendistinguished.

TheSuccessiveDivisionAlgorithm

60

/a/

/i/

Criteria for ordering featuresWhatarethecriteriaforselectingandorderingthefeatures?

Phoneticsisclearlyimportant,inthattheselectedfeaturesmustbeconsistentwiththephoneticpropertiesofthephonemes.

/a/

/i/

Forexample,acontrastbetween/i/and/a/wouldmostlikelyinvolveaheightfeaturelike[low]or[high],thoughotherchoicesarepossible,e.g.[front]or[advanced/retractedtongueroot].

[low]

[front]

61

Inthiscase,/i/and/ə/wouldbedistinguishedbyacontrastivefeature,eventhoughtheirsurfacephoneticsareidentical.

Criteria for ordering features

/a/

/i/

[low]

InsomedialectsofInuktitut,forexample,anunderlyingcontrastbetween/i/and/ə/isneutralizedatthesurface,withboth/i/and/ə/beingrealizedasphonetic[i](Compton&Dresher2011).

Ofcourse,thecontrastivespeciEicationofaphonemecouldsometimesdeviatefromthesurfacephonetics.

/ə/[front]/u/

[round]

62

A feature can be said to be active if it plays a rolein the phonological computation; that is, if it isrequired for the expression of phonologicalregularities in a language, including both staticphonotactic patterns and patterns of alternation.

PhonologicalActivity

Contrast and phonological ac*vityAstheaboveexampleshows,thewayasoundpatterns canoverrideitsphonetics(Sapir1925).

Thus,weconsiderasmostfundamentalthatfeaturesshouldbeselectedandorderedsoastoreElectthephonologicalactivity inalanguage,whereactivityisdeEinedasfollows(adaptedfromClements(2001:77):

63

ThesecondmajortenethasbeenformulatedbyHall(2007)astheContrastivistHypothesis:

A theory of contras*ve specifica*on

TheContrastivistHypothesisThe phonological component of a language Loperates only on those features which are necessaryto distinguish the phonemes of L from one another.

Thatis,only contrastivefeaturescanbephonologicallyactive.Ifthishypothesisiscorrect,itfollowsasacorollarythat

CorollarytotheContrastivistHypothesisIf a feature is phonologically active, then it must becontrastive.

64

Domain of the Contrastivist Hypothesis

Onthishypothesis,underlyinglexicalrepresentationsconsistonlyofcontrastivespeciEications.

Theserepresentationsformtheinputtothecontrastivephonology, whichisthedomaininwhichtheContrastivistHypothesisapplies.

OutputofContrastivePhonology

UnderlyingLexicalRepresentations Contrastivefeaturesonly

PhonologygovernedbytheContrastivistHypothesis

65

Domain of the Contrastivist HypothesisStevens,Keyser&Kawasaki(1986)proposethatfeaturecontrastscanbeenhanced byotherfeatureswithsimilaracousticeffects(seealsoStevens&Keyser1989;Keyser&Stevens2001,2006).

Ourhypothesisisthatenhancementtakesplaceafterthecontrastivephonology,whenfurtherphoneticdetailisspeciEied.

SurfacePhoneticRepresentations

Phoneticprocesses:enhancement,non-contrastivefeatures

66

OutputofContrastivePhonology

UnderlyingLexicalRepresentations Contrastivefeaturesonly

PhonologygovernedbytheContrastivistHypothesis

Enhancement of underspecified featuresForexample,avowelthatis[+back]and[–low] canenhancethesefeaturesby:

[+low]

[+back]

[–back]

Idesignateenhancementfeatureswithgreen curlybrackets{ }.

/i/ /u/

/a/

[–low]

{+round}

{+high} Theseenhancementsarenotnecessary,however,andotherrealizationsarepossible(Dyck1995;Hall2011).

adding{+round} toenhance[+back] (giving[u,ʊ,o,ɔ],not[ɨ,ɯ,ɤ,ʌ]

adding{+high} toenhance[–low] (giving[u,ʊ],not[o,ɔ]

67

Markedness

Iassumethatmarkednessislanguageparticular(Rice2003;2007)andaccountsforasymmetriesbetweenthetwovaluesofafeature,wheretheseexist.

Afurtherassumptionisthatfeaturesarebinary,andthateveryfeaturehasamarked andunmarked value.

Forexample,weexpectthatunmarkedvaluesserveasdefaults,andmaybemoreorlessinert.

68

Neutralization: Vowel reduction

Trubetzkoy(1939:71–5)suggestedthatneutralization—thesuspensionofacontrastincertainpositions—canhavedifferenttypesofoutcomes.

Inothercases,thereducedvowelcannotbephoneticallyequatedwithaparticularstressedvowel;thatis,neutralizationistoavowelthathasadifferentrepresentationfromboththemarkedandunmarkedstressedvowels.

Inthecaseofvowelreduction,forexample,vowelsthatcontrastinstressedpositionmightneutralizetotheunmarkedvowelwhennotstressed.

CHTcanelegantlyrepresentbothtypesofreduction,whichariseinBrazilianPortuguese.

69

Brazilian Portuguese vowel reduction

Theywrite(2004:229)thatinpre-stressedposition,“thequalityofthecorrespondingstressedvowelisroughlypreserved.”

AccordingtoBarbosa&Albano(2004),aSãoPaulospeakerhadthestressedvowelsshownbelow.

Stressedposition a ue ɔɛ oi

Beforethestress a ue oi

70

AccordingtoBarbosa&Albano(2004),aSãoPaulospeakerhadthestressedvowelsshownbelow.

Theywrite(2004:229)thatinpre-stressedposition,“thequalityofthecorrespondingstressedvowelisroughlypreserved.”

ButthisisnotthecaseforunstressedvowelsinEinalposition.

Stressedposition a ue ɔɛ o

Finalunstressed ɐ

i

Beforethestress a ue oi

ɪ ʊ

Brazilian Portuguese vowel reduc*on

71

Vowel reduc*on in Contras*ve Hierarchy Theory

Spahr(2012)proposesaCHTaccountofBrazilianPortuguesevowelreduction;IhavemodifiedhishierarchytothatproposedbyBohn(2015,2017)forthePaulistadialect.

[–back]2

/u/

[+high] [–high]3

[+back]

[+low]1/a/

[–low]2 [–high]3[+high]

/i/

/e/

[+ATR]

/ɛ/

[–ATR]

/o/

[+ATR]

/ɔ/

[–ATR]

72

(SeeCarvalho2011foracontrastivehierarchyanalysisoftheEuropeanPortuguesevowelsystemusingprivativeelements.)

Inpre-stressedposition,thereareno[ATR]contrastsunderthe[–high]nodesnumbered3.

[–back]2

/u/

[+high] [–high]3

[+back]

[+low]1/a/


/i/

/e/

[+ATR]

/ɛ/

[–ATR]

/o/

[+ATR]

/ɔ/

[–ATR]

73

Spahr proposesthatthesenodesareinterpretedasarchiphonemesa laTrubetzkoy(seealsoSpahr2014).


Thenewrepresentations[+back,–low,–high]and[–back,–high]receivetheirownphoneticinterpretations;inthisSoutheasterndialect,theyarerealizedas[o]and[e].

[–back]2

/u/

[+high] [–high]3

[+back]

[+low]1/a/


/i/ [e]

[o]

74


BPdialectsdifferastowhether[o,e]or[ɔ,ɛ]aretheresultsofneutralization(seeNevins2012fordiscussionandreferences).

[–back]2

/u/

[+high] [–high]3

[+back]

[+low]1/a/


/i/

75

Broadlyspeaking,‘southeastern’dialectshavethe[+ATR][o,e],and‘northeastern’dialectsreduceto[–ATR][ɔ,ɛ].

[e] ~ [ɛ]

[o] ~ [ɔ]


Underspecificationallowsfor‘flexibilityofinterpretation’(Nevins2012)thatallowseither[+ATR]or[–ATR]tobelessmarked.

[–back]2

/u/

[+high] [–high]3

[+back]

[+low]1/a/


/i/

76

[e] ~ [ɛ]

[o] ~ [ɔ]


Inunstressedfinalpositionthecontrastsunderthenodesnumbered2aresuppressed,andthesegmentsunderthesenodesreceivedistinctphoneticinterpretationsas[ʊ]and[ɪ].

[–back]2

/u/

[+high] [–high]3

[+back]

[+low]1/a/


/i/

77

[e] ~ [ɛ]

[o] ~ [ɔ]

[ʊ]

[ɪ]


Inthisnewsetofcontraststhesegmentundernode1alsoreceivesadistinctphoneticinterpretation,[ɐ].

[–back]2[+back]

[+low]1[ɐ]

[–low]2

78

[ʊ]

[ɪ]

Vowel reduction in Contrastive Hierarchy Theory

Part II: Contrastive Hierarchy

Theory (CHT)

2. Features in Contrastive

Hierarchy Theory

Introduc)on

Part I

Part II


3. Acquisi)on: BPvowel system



Conclusions

79


Mielke(2008)andSamuels(2011)arguethatphonologicalfeaturesarenotinnate,butrather‘emerge’inthecourseofacquisition.

Emergent features?

Theyarguethatinnatefeaturesaretoospecific,andnosinglesetofproposedfeaturesworksinallcases.

Butiffeaturesarenotinnate,whatcompelsthemtoemerge?

Weneedtoexplainwhyfeaturesinevitably emerge,andwhytheyhavethepropertiesthattheydo.

CHTprovidesananswertothisquestion:learnersmust arriveatasetofhierarchicallyorderedcontrastivefeatures.

80

Aninventoryof3phonemesallowsexactly2contrastivefeatures.Twovariantsareshown,differinginhowmarkedfeaturesaredistributed.

How many features are there?

[–F1][+F1]

[–F2][+F2]

/1/ /2/

/3/

3 phonemes: F1 > F2

[–F1][+F1]

[–F2][+F2]

/2/ /3/

/1/

3 phonemes: F1 > F2

81

A4-phonemeinventorycanhaveaminimumof2featuresandamaximumof3.

[–F1][+F1]

[–F2][+F2]

/1/ /2/

[–F1]

[–F2][+F2]

/2/

[+F1]

/1/

4 phonemes: minimum 4 phonemes: maximum

[–F2][+F2]

/3/ /4/

[+F3]

/3/

[–F3]

/4/


82

Ingeneral,thenumberoffeaturesrequiredbyaninventoryofn elementswillfallinthefollowingranges:

3 1.58 2 24 2 2 35 2.32 3 4

theminimumnumberoffeatures=thesmallestinteger≥log2n

themaximumnumberoffeatures=n–1

6 2.58 3 5

Phonemes log2n min max


83

Theminimumnumberoffeaturesgoesupveryslowlyasphonemesareadded.

7 2.81 3 68 3 3 710 3.32 4 9

Theupperlimitriseswithn.

12 3.58 4 11



84

However,systemsthatapproachtheupperlimitareextremelyuneconomical.

16 4 4 1520 4.32 5 1925 4.64 5 24

Atthemaxlimit,eachnewcontrastusesauniquefeatureunsharedbyanyotherphonemes.

32 5 5 31



85

Emergent features and UG

Thus,thecontrastivehierarchyandContrastivistHypothesisaccountforwhyphonologicalsystemsresembleeachotherintermsofrepresentations,withoutrequiringindividualfeaturestobeinnate.

Onthisview,theconceptofacontrastivehierarchyisaninnatepartofUniversalGrammar(UG),andisthegluethatbindsphonologicalrepresentationsandmakesthemappearsimilarfromlanguagetolanguage.

86


3. Acquisition:

The Brazilian Portuguese

Vowel System

Introduc)on

Part I

Part II





Conclusions

87


Branching trees in child language

Morerecently,Bohn(2015,2017)presentsaCHTanalysisoftheacquisitionoftheBrazilianPortuguese(BP)vowelsystembythreechildren.

Branchingtreesdidnotdisappearcompletelyfromphonology:theycontinuedtobeusedinchildlanguagestudies,fortheyareanaturalwaytodescribedevelopingphonologicalinventories.

(Someexamplesare:Pye,Ingram,&List1987;Ingram1988,1989;Levelt 1989;Dinnsen etal.1990;Dinnsen 1992,1996;Fikkert 1994;seeDresher1998aforareview).

Brazilian Portuguese stressed vowelsThetreebelowagainshowstheBPvowels(Paulistadialect)instressedposition.Thehierarchyis[back]>[low]>[high]>[ATR].

[–back]

/u/

[+high] [–high]

[+back]

[+low]

/a/

[–low] [–high][+high]

/i/

/e/

[+ATR]

/ɛ/

[–ATR]

/o/

[+ATR]

/ɔ/

[–ATR]

89

Bohn(2015,2017) motivatesthishierarchybasedonthepatternsofactivityinthisdialect(seealsoBohn&Santos2018).

Acquisition of the BP vowel systemChildL.seemstobeaperfectJakobsonian:thefirstvowelis[a],andthenextoneis[i].ButcontrarytoJakobson,thisisnotaheightcontrast.

[–back][+back]

[a]

90

Itlookslikeone,butBohnobservesthatsubstitutionpatternssuggestratherthatisa[back]contrast,whichisthetopBPfeature(alsocontrarytoJakobson).

[i]

Acquisition of the BP vowel systemAm.’sfirstcontrastisbetween[a]and[e],not[i];Bohnproposesthat,aswithL.,thisrepresentsabacknesscontrast.

[–back]

91

BothL.andAm.makeaEirstcontrastthatreElectsthehighestBPfeature,whichis[back].AreallBrazilianchildrenthisfar-sighted?

[e]

[+back]

[a]

Apparentlynot!Thethirdchild,A.,beginsdifferently.

A.’sfirstcontrastisbetween[a]and[o].

[+low]

[a]

[–low]

[o]

92

Substitutionpatternssuggestthatthisisnotabacknessorroundnesscontrastbutaheightcontrast,basedon[low].

Acquisition of the BP vowel system

Inthenextstage,A.acquirescontrastive/i,e,u/.

/u/

[+high] [–high]

[+low]

/a/


/i/ /e/

/o/

93

Acquisition of the BP vowel system

Inthenextstage,A.acquirescontrastive/i,e,u/.

[–back]

/u/

[+high] [–high]

[+back]

[+low]

/a/


/i/ /e/

/o/

94

AtsomepointA.hastoreorganizethefeaturehierarchyinordertoarriveattheadultBPsystem,whichhas[back]>[low].

Acquisi*on of the BP vowel system

The[ATR]contrastbetween/e~ɛ/and/o~ɔ/isthelasttobeacquired.

[–back]

/u/

[+high] [–high]

[+low]

/a/


/i/

/e/

[+ATR]

/ɛ/

[–ATR]

/o/

[+ATR]

/ɔ/

[–ATR]

95

Thus,thethreechildrentakedifferentroutesinacquiringtheBPvowelsystem.


[+back]

TheorderofacquisitionofcontrastsismorevariablethanJakobsonallowed.

[–back]

/u/

[+high] [–high]

[+low]

/a/


/i/

/e/

[+ATR]

/ɛ/

[–ATR]

/o/

[+ATR]

/ɔ/

[–ATR]

96

Nevertheless,thegeneralideathatlearnersacquirecontrastsinahierarchy isafruitfulwaytomodelacquisition.


[+back]


4. Synchronic Phonology:

The Proto-Germanic

Short Vowel System

Introduc)on

Part I

Part II





Conclusions

97


Proto-Germanic short vowelsIwouldliketolooknowatProto-Germanic,whichiscommonlyassumedtohavehadthefourshortvowels*/i/,*/e/,*/a/,*/u/(Ringe 2006).

Shortvowels

Italsohadlongvowels,butthesewillnotberelevanthere(seeDresher2018fordiscussionofthelongvowels).WhyProto-Germanic?IpicktheProto-GermanicshortvowelsystemtoillustrateaCHTsynchronicanalysisfortworeasons:

First,becauseitslaterevolutionintoWestGermanicandOldEnglishraisessomeinterestingdiachronicissuesthatwewilllooksoon.

98

i u

e

a

Proto-Germanic Contras*ve Features

Andsecond,becausealltheingredientsofaCHTanalysishavealreadybeenassembledbyAntonsen(1972)!

Aswehavecometoexpect,hisutilizationofacontrastivefeaturehierarchyisonlyimplicit,andnotmentioned;howeverhisarticleisaniceillustrationofCHTargumentationavantlalettre.

ElmerAntonsenwasanAmericanlinguistandrunologistwhomademanycontributionstothestudyofGermanicphonology.

99

AntonsenproposesthefeaturespeciEicationsbelowfortheshortvowelsystem(1972:133):

*/a/ */u/ */i/ */e/Low + – – –Rounded + – –High + –

NoticethattheyshowapatternofunderspeciEicationthatischaracteristicofabranchingtree:theEirstfeatureappliestoallthephonemes,andthescopesoftheremainingfeaturesgetprogressivelysmaller.


i u

e

a

100

Antonsen(1972:132–133)supportsthesefeaturespeciEicationsbycitingpatternsofphonologicalactivity(neutralizations,harmony,anddistributionofallophones)andloanwordadaptationfromLatin.

Thus,basedontheevidencefromthedescendantdialects,heassumesthat*/a/hadallophones*[a, æ, ə, ɒ],whichallhaveincommonthattheyare[+low].

*/a/ */u/ */i/ */e/Low + – – –Rounded + – –High + –[+low]


i u

e

a

101

Further,thereisevidencethat*/i/and*/u/hadloweredallophonesbefore*/a/,againsuggestingthat*/a/hada[+low]featurethatcouldaffectvowelheight.

Andthereisnoevidencethat*/a/hadanyotheractivefeatures(thatis,featuresthatplayedaroleinthephonologybyaffectingneighbouringsegments,orthatgrouped*/a/withothersegmentsasanaturalclass).



i u

e

a

102

[+low]

Asthefeaturethatdistinguishes*/u/from*/i/and*/e/Antonsenchooses[rounded].

Hisreasonisthatalltheallophonesof*/u/wererounded.


[+rounded]

WewillreturnshortlytothisspeciEicaspectoftheanalysis.

Proto-Germanic Contrastive Features

i u

e

a

103

[+low]

Antonsenobservesthatthecontrastbetween*/i/and*/e/wasneutralizedinenvironmentsthataffectedtongueheight(beforehighfrontvowels,lowvowels,andbeforenasalclusters).

Hearguesthatthissupportsdistinguishing*/i/and*/e/byonefeature,[high].


Henotesthatthenegativespecificationsof*/e/areconsistentwithitbeing“theonlyvowelwhichdoesnotcauseumlautassimilationsinaprecedingrootsyllable”.

[+low]

[+high] [+rounded]

i u

e

a

Proto-Germanic Contrastive Features

104

Aselegantasthisanalysisis,Iwillfollowthemajority,includingLass(1994),Ringe (2006:148),andPurnell&Raimy(2015),inassumingthatthefeaturethatdistinguishes*/i,e/from*/u/is[front],not[rounded].

Thereasonisthat*/i/couldcauseallophonicfrontingof*/u/,whichsuggestsithadanactivefeature[+front].

*/a/ */u/ */i/ */e/Low + – – –Front – + +High + –

[+high][+front]


i u

e

a

105

[+low]

Proto-Germanic feature hierarchyWiththisamendment,thecontrastivefeaturehierarchyfortheProto-Germanicshortvowelslookslikethis.

*/a/ */u/ */i/ */e/Low + – – –

High + –

[+high]

*/i/

[–high]

*/e/

[+front] [–front]

*/u/

[–low][+low]

*/a/

[low] > [front] > [high]

Front – + +

Alltheactivefeaturesarecontrastive,aspertheContrastivistHypothesis.

Moreover,thisanalysisexplainswhycertainvowelsparticipateincertainprocessesandothersdonot.

106

Proto-Germanic feature hierarchy

Noticethatthefeature[round]playsnoroleinthecontrastivephonologyatthispoint.

*/a/ */u/ */i/ */e/Low + – – –

High + –

[+high]

*/i/

[–high]

*/e/

[+front] [–front]

*/u/

[–low][+low]

*/a/


Front – + +

ThisaspectoftheanalysiswillsoonbecomeverysigniEicant!

107

108


5. Diachronic Phonology:

West Germanic i-Umlaut

Introduc)on

Part I

Part II





Conclusions

108


Diachronicstudies usingcontrastivefeaturehierarchiesinclude:Zhang (1996) and Dresher & Zhang (2005) on Manchu; Barrie (2003) on Cantonese; Rohany Rahbar(2008) on Persian; Dresher (2009: 215–225) on East Slavic; Ko (2010, 2011, 2018) on Korean,Mongolic, and Tungusic; Compton & Dresher (2011) on Inuit; Gardner (2012), Roeder & Gardner(2013), and Purnell & Raimy (2013) on North American English vowel shifts; Harvey (2012) on Ob-Ugric (Khanty and Mansi); Oxford (2012, 2015) on Algonquian; Voeltzel (2016), Schalin (2017), andSandstedt (2018) on Scandinavian; and Krekoski (2017) on Chinese tonal systems.

Contrastivehierarchies havebeenfruitfullyappliedtophonologicalchangeinavarietyoflanguages.

Contrast shiX and phonological change

SomestudiesutilizingaversionofCHTarelistedbelow.

109

ContrastiveHierarchyTheorycanshednewlightonalong-standingconundruminthehistoryofWestGermanic.

Itconcernstheruleofi-umlaut,andillustrateshowapost-lexicalphoneticrulecanbecomelexical,andhowanenhancementfeaturecanbecomecontrastive.

West Germanic i-umlaut

110

ItalsoprovidesaniceempiricaltestofwhatNevins(2015)callsthe“Oops,INeedThat”Problem.

Thisproblemreferstoasituationwhereanon-contrastivefeatureisneededbythephonology.

The “Oops, I Need That” Problem

AccordingtotheContrastivistHypothesis,thissituationshouldnotarise,becauseonlycontrastivefeaturesshouldbeactive.

Thus,the“Oops,INeedThat”ProblemwouldindicateanapparentcounterexampletotheContrastivistHypothesis.

111

Proto-Germanic feature hierarchy

Recallthat*/i/and*/u/hadloweredallophonesduetotheinEluenceofthe[+low]*/a/.

*/a/ */u/ */i/ */e/Low + – – –

High + –

[+high]

*/i/

[–high]

*/e/

[+front] [–front]

*/u/

[–low][+low]

*/a/


Front – + +

InWestGermanic,theloweredallophoneof*/u/developedintoanewphoneme*/o/.

112

Thisnewphonemefilledagapinthesystemandbroughtthe[–front]branchintosymmetrywiththe[+front]branch.

Therefore,thenewvoweldidnotrequireachangetotheinheritedProto-Germanicshortvowelfeaturehierarchy.

Notethatthefeature[round]isstillnot contrastiveatthispoint.

West Germanic feature hierarchy

[+front] [–front]

[low]>[front]>[high]

[+high] [–high]*/i/ */e/

[+high] [–high]*/u/ */o/

[–low][+low]*/a/

113

West Germanic i-umlaut

*ybil *føːt+ii-umlaut*ubil *foːt+iWestGermanic‘evilN .S .’ ‘footN .P.’Gloss

Theruleofi-umlautbeganinearlyGermanicasaphoneticprocessthatcreatedfrontedallophonesofthebackvowelswhen*/i(ː)/or*/j/followed(V.Kiparsky1932;Twaddell1938;Benediktsson 1967;Antonsen1972;Penzl 1972).

Intheexamplesbelow,*/u/and*/oː/arebothfronted(to*[y]and*[ø],respectively)before/i/inthefollowingsyllable:

114

i-umlautcruciallypreservestheroundednatureofthefrontedvowels;butinouranalysisoftheWestGermanicvowelsystem,[round]isnotcontrastive.

Uh-oh!Isthisan“Oops,INeedThat”Problem?

i-umlaut: Oops, I need that?

[+front] [–front]

[low]>[front]>[high]

[+high] [–high]*/i/ */e/

[+high] [–high]*/u/ */o/

[–low][+low]*/a/

115

*u b i l[–low][–front][+high]{+round}

[–low][+front][+high]{–round}

*y b i l[–low][+front][+high]{+round}


Therefore,{round} isavailableasanenhancementfeatureatthepointthat*/u,o/arefronted.

No!Forindependentreasons,manycommentators,beginningwithV.Kiparsky(1932)andTwaddell(1938),proposedthati-umlautbeganasalatephonetic rule,andwasnot partofthecontrastivephonology.

i-umlaut: I don’t need it, it’s an enhancement feature!

116

*ybil *føːt+ii-umlaut*ubil *foːt+iPre-OldEnglish‘evilN .S .’ ‘footN .P.’Gloss

117

Pre-Old English i-umlaut

Overtime,however,thereisevidencethati-umlautbecamealexicalrule.

i-umlaut becomes opaque

*ybil *føːt+ii-umlaut*ubil *foːt+iPre-OldEnglish‘evilN.S.’ ‘footN .P.’Gloss

AlreadyinearlyOldEnglish,theunstressed/i/triggerofi-umlautwaseitherloweredafteralightsyllable,asinyfel,

118

ordeletedafteraheavysyllable,asinføːt. Thesechangesmadei-umlautopaqueonthesurface.Inmanycases,thei-umlauttriggerbecameunrecoverabletolearners.

yfel føːt i-lowering/deletion

i-umlaut becomes opaque

yfil —i-umlaut/ufil/ /yfel/Underlying

‘evilN .S .’ ‘evilN .S .’Gloss

Accordingtostandardaccounts,thisledtothephonologization of[y(:)] and[ø(:)] asnewphonemes.

119

Anexampleis‘evil’,whoseunderlyingformisrestructuredfrom/uEil/ to/yfel/.

yfel —i-lowering/deletion[yfel] [yfel]Surface

Oldergrammar Newergrammar

Aslongasi-umlautremainsaphoneticprocess,itisnotclearhowitcouldsurvivethelossofitstriggeringcontexts;whydoesn’t/ufel/surfaceas*[ufel]?

Phonologization paradox

—i-umlaut

/ufel/Underlying

—i-lowering

Afterlossofi-umlauttrigger

PostlexicalPhonology

Severalscholarshavepointedoutaproblemwiththisaccount(Liberman1991;Fertig1996;Janda2003;P.Kiparsky2015).

Theonlywayfori-umlauttopersistisifitentersthelexicalphonologywhile [y(:)]and[ø(:)] arestillpredictableallophonesof/u(:)/ and/o(:)/,respectively.

120

*[ufel]Surface

Thisaccountraisestwoquestions:

! First,why doesi-umlautenterthelexicalphonologywhileitsproductsarenotcontrastive?

P.Kiparsky (2015)suggeststhatitisbecausethenewfrontroundedallophoneswereperceptuallymoresalient thantheirtriggers(cf.Jakobson,Fant,&Halle1952),whichwerebecomingprogressivelyweakerastimewhenon.

Phonologiza*on paradox

121

! How dotheproductsofi-umlautenterthelexicalphonologywhentheyinvolvenon-contrastivefeaturesthatoriginateinenhancement?

TothisquestionContrastiveHierarchyTheorycancontributeanold/newsolutionbasedonthenotionofcontrastshift.

Ifindthisexplanationtobequitecompelling;butitraisesanotherquestion:

Phonologiza*on paradox

122

“Onceaphonologicalchangehastakenplace,thefollowingquestionsmustbeasked:

Contrast and phonological change

Old,becauseinanarticleEirstpublishedin1931,RomanJakobsonproposedthatdiachronicphonologymustlookatcontrastshifts(Jakobson1962[1931]).

Whatexactlyhasbeenmodi=iedwithinthephonologicalsystem?

…hasthestructureofindividualoppositions[contrasts]beentransformed?Orinotherwords,hastheplaceofaspeci=icoppositionbeenchanged…?”

123

Salience and contrast shiXButalsonew,becausethatprogramwasnevercarriedout;CHTgivesusawell-definedwaytolookatcontrastshifts.

Letusrevisitthestagewheni-umlautwasstillapost-enhancementrule.

AdaptingKiparsky’s idea,Iproposethattheperceptualsalienceofthefrontroundedallophonescausedlearnerstohypothesizethat{round} isacontrastivefeature.

*u b i l[–low][–front][+high]{+round}


*y b i l[–low][+front][+high]{+round}


124

ItwasnotpartoftheearlierWestGermanicfeaturehierarchy.

Contrast shiX in West Germanic

Laterhierarchy:

[low]>[front]>[high]Earlierhierarchy:

[front]>[round]>[high]

Onesuchhierarchyisshownbelow.

Butwecanconstructanothercontrastivehierarchythatincludes[round].

125

Thisnewhierarchy,however,requiresdemoting[low]tomakeroomfor[round].

Contrast shiX in West Germanic

Laterhierarchy:

[low]>[front]>[high]Earlierhierarchy:


Hopefullynotafeaturethatweneed!

Thisishowcontrastivehierarchieswork:onecanintroduceorpromoteafeature,butthereisatrade-off:anotherfeaturehastobedemoted.

126

Inthenewfeaturehierarchy,thevowelsareEirstdividedinto[+front]/i,e/and[–front]/u,o,a/.

[+front]

[+high] [–high]

/i/ /e/ /a/

/u/ /o/

[+high][–high]

[–front]

[+round] [–round]

West Germanic feature hierarchy 2

127

Then[±round]divides/u,o/from/a/.


Finally,[±high]completesthecontrastivefeatures.

Now,wheni-umlautchangesthe[–front,+round] vowels/u,o/to[+front],theresultisnewfrontroundedvowels,whichbeginasallophones.


/u, o/

[–front][+round][αhigh]

[y, ø]

[+front][+round][αhigh]

128

Hereiswhatthederivedtreelookslike.Thenewfrontroundedvowels[y, ø]arenotunderlying,butareallophonesof/u,o/.

[+front]

[–round]

[+high] [–high]

/i/ /e/

[+round]

[+high][–high]

[y] [ø]

/a/

/u/ /o/

[+round] [–round]

[+high][–high]

[–front]


/u, o/


[y, ø]


129

Althoughtheyareallophones,theycanariseinthecontrastivephonologybecausetheyconsistonlyofcontrastivefeatures.

[+front]

[–round]

[+high] [–high]

/i/ /e/

[+round]

[+high][–high]

[y] [ø] /u/ /o/

[+round]

[+high][–high]

[–front]


/u, o/


[y, ø]


/a/

[–round]

130

Deep allophones

Deepallophonesarepossiblebecausecontrastivefeaturescanbepredictableinahierarchicalapproach.

Wehavelefthangingonequestionthatyoumightbewonderingabout…

TheyarethuswhatMoulton(2003)calls‘deepallophones’;hewasreferringtotheOldEnglishvoicedfricatives,whichalsoariseearlyinthecontrastive(lexical)phonologyasallophonesofthevoicelessfricatives.

131

Recallthetrade-offthatthisanalysisrequires:

[+front]

[+high] [–high]

/i/ /e/ /a/

/u/ /o/

[+high][–high]

[–front]

[+round] [–round]

West Germanic feature hierarchy 2: Oops, I need that?

132

Inthenewhierarchy,/a/nolongerhasa[+low]feature.


Uhoh!Dowenowhavea“Oops,INeedThat”Problem?

No!/a/nolongerneedsa[+low]feature!

/a/

/u/ /o/

[+high][–high]

[–front]

[+round] [–round]

West Germanic feature hierarchy 2: No, I don’t need it!

133

Iknowofnoevidence— inOldEnglish,forexample—that/a/causesloweringofothersegments,orother-wiseneedsanactive[+low]feature.

Recallthatthisisinstrikingcontrasttoearlierstagesofthelanguage,wherethereisevidencethat*/a/causedlowering.

/a/

[–front]

[–round]

West Germanic feature hierarchy 2: No, I don’t need it!

134

ThistypeofconnectionbetweencontrastandactivityisexactlywhatContrastiveHierarchyTheorypredicts.

[+low]

*/a/

Hierarchy2Hierarchy1

Conclusion

Introduc)on



Conclusion

135


Tosumup,ContrastiveHierarchyTheorymakestestableempiricalpredictionsaboutphonologicalsystems,providesinterestingaccountsofacquisition,andanewwayoflookingatphonologicalinventories.

Conclusions

Ofcourse,manyquestionsremaintobeexplored:

!CantheContrastivistHypothesisbesustainedordoesthe“Oops,INeedThat”Problem(i.e.toomuch activity)arise?

!Conversely,whathappenswhenthereistoolittle activity?Doesphoneticsplayalargerroleindeterminingthefeatures(cf.Krekoski2017)?

!Arethereconstraints,apartfromcontrast,onwhatphonologicalfeaturescanbe?

136

!Howstablearecontrastivehierarchiesacrosstimeandspace?

IhavetriedtoshowthattheideasthatContrastiveHierarchyTheoryarebuiltonhavealongandevendistinguishedpedigreeinthehistoryofphonology.

!Howdolearnersacquirethefeaturehierarchyoftheirlanguage?

Forvariousreasons,thistheoryneverquitecametogetherinthe20th century.

Itismyhopethatthefullpotentialofthisapproachwillberealizedinthe21st.

Conclusions

137

For discussions and ideas I would like to thank Graziela Bohn,Elizabeth Cowper, Daniel Currie Hall, Paula Fikkert, Ross Godfrey,Christopher Harvey, Norbert Hornstein, Harry van der Hulst, BillIdsardi, Ross Krekoski, David Lightfoot, Sara Mackenzie, AndrewNevins, Will Oxford, Keren Rice, Christopher Spahr, and Zhang Xi.

Andthankyou!Muitoobrigado!

https://dresher.artsci.utoronto.caFormorerecentpapersandtalks,pleasesee:

138

ReferencesAntonsen,ElmerH.1972.TheProto-Germanicsyllabics(vowels).InFransvanCoetsem &HerbertL.Kufner(eds.),TowardagrammarofProto-Germanic,117–140.Tubingen:MaNiemeyer.

Archangeli,Diana.1988.UnderspeciVicationinphonology.Phonology 5(2):183–207.Barbosa,Plınio A.&EleonoraCavalcanteAlbano.2004.BrazilianPortuguese.JournaloftheInternationalPhoneticsAssociation 34:227–32.

Barrie,Mike.2003.ContrastinCantonesevowels.TorontoWorkingPapersinLinguistics 20:1–19.Benediktsson,Hreinn.1967.TheProto-Germanicvowelsystem.InTohonorRomanJakobson,Vol.1,174–96.TheHague&Paris:Mouton.

Bohn,Graziela Pigatto.2015.AquisiçaodasvogaistonicasepretonicasdoPortuguesBrasileiro.Doctoraldissertation,UniversityofSaoPaulo.

Bohn,Graziela Pigatto.2017.Theacquisitionoftonicandpre-tonicvowelsinBrazilianPortuguese.JournalofPortugueseLinguistics 16(7),1–5.DOI:https://doi.org/10.5334/jpl.184

Bohn,Graziela Pigatto &RaquelSantanaSantos.2018.Theacquisitionofpre-tonicvowelsinBrazilianPortuguese.Alfa:Revista deLinguística (SaoJosedoRioPreto)62(1):191–221.

Calabrese,Andrea.2005.Markednessandeconomyinaderivationalmodelofphonology.Berlin:MoutondeGruyter.

139

CamposAstorkiza,Judit Rebeka.2009.Minimalcontrastandthephonology– phoneticsinteraction.Munich:Lincom Europa.

Carvalho,JoaquimBrandao de.2011.Contrastivehierarchies,privativefeatures,andPortuguesevowels.Linguistica.Revista deestudos linguisticos dauniversidade doPorto 6:51–66.

Chomsky,Noam&MorrisHalle.1968.ThesoundpatternofEnglish.NewYork,NY:Harper&Row.Clements,G.N.2001.Representationaleconomyinconstraint-basedphonology.InT.AlanHall,(ed.),Distinctivefeaturetheory,71–146.Berlin:MoutondeGruyter.

Clements,G.N.2003.Featureeconomyinsoundsystems.Phonology 20:287–333.Clements,G.N.2009.Theroleoffeaturesinspeechsoundinventories.InEricRaimy&CharlesE.Cairns(eds.),Contemporaryviewsonarchitectureandrepresentationsinphonologicaltheory,19–68.Cambridge,MA:MITPress.

Compton,Richard&B.ElanDresher.2011.Palatalizationand‘strongi’acrossInuitdialects.CanadianJournalofLinguistics/Revuecanadiennedelinguistique 56:203–28.

Dinnsen,DanielA.1992.Variationindevelopingandfullydevelopedphoneticinventories.InCharlesA.Ferguson,LisaMenn,&CarolStoel-Gammon(eds.),Phonologicaldevelopment:Models,research,implications,191–210.Timonium,MD:YorkPress.

Dinnsen,DanielA.1996.Context-sensitiveunderspeciVicationandtheacquisitionofphoneticcontrasts.JournalofChildLanguage 23:31–55.

140

Dinnsen,DanielA.,StevenB.Chin,MaryElbert,&ThomasW.Powell.1990.Someconstraintsonfunctionallydisorderedphonologies:Phoneticinventoriesandphonotactics.JournalofSpeechandHearingResearch33:28–37.

Dresher,B.Elan.1998a.Childphonology,learnability,andphonologicaltheory.InTej Bhatia&WilliamC.Ritchie(eds.),Handbookoflanguageacquisition,299–346.NewYork:AcademicPress.

Dresher,B.Elan.1998b.Oncontrastandredundancy.PresentedattheannualmeetingoftheCanadianLinguisticAssociation,Ottawa.Ms.,UniversityofToronto.

Dresher,B.Elan.2003.Contrastandasymmetriesininventories.InAnna-MariadiSciullo (ed.),Asymmetryingrammar,volume2:Morphology,phonology,acquisition,239–57.Amsterdam:JohnBenjamins.

Dresher,B.Elan.2009.Thecontrastivehierarchyinphonology.Cambridge:CUP.Dresher,B.Elan.2016.Contrastinphonology1867–1967:Historyanddevelopment.AnnualReviewofLinguistics 2:53–73.

Dresher,B.Elan.2018.ContrastiveFeatureHierarchiesinOldEnglishDiachronicPhonology.TransactionsofthePhilologicalSociety116(1):1–29.

Dresher,B.Elan&DanielCurrieHall.Toappear.Theroadnottaken:SPR andthehistoryofcontrastinphonology.ToappearinJournalofLinguistics (CUP).

Dresher,B.Elan&HarryvanderHulst.Toappear.Leadingideasinphonology.InB.ElanDresher&HarryvanderHulst(eds.),TheOxfordhandbookofthehistoryofphonology. Oxford:OUP.

141

Dresher,B.Elan,Glyne L.Piggott,&KerenRice.1994.Contrastinphonology:Overview.TorontoWorkingPapersinLinguistics 13.1.iii-xvii.

Dresher,B.Elan&KerenRice.2007.Markednessandthecontrastivehierarchyinphonology.https://dresher.artsci.utoronto.ca/contrast/

Dresher,B.Elan&XiZhang.2005.ContrastandphonologicalactivityinManchuvowelsystems.CanadianJournalofLinguistics/Revuecanadienne delinguistique 50:45–82.

Dyck,Carrie.1995.Constrainingthephonology–phoneticsinterface,withexempliVicationfromSpanishandItaliandialects.Doctoraldissertation,UniversityofToronto.

Fertig,David.1996.Phonology,orthography,andtheumlautpuzzle.InRosinaL.Lippi-Green&JosephC.Salmons(eds.),Germaniclinguistics:Syntacticanddiachronic,169–184.Amsterdam/Philadelphia:JohnBenjamins.

Fikkert,Paula.1994.Ontheacquisitionofprosodicstructure(HILDissertations6). Dordrecht:ICGPrinting.Gardner,MattHunt.2012.Beyondthephonologicalvoid:ContrastandtheCanadianShift.Ms.,DepartmentofLinguistics,UniversityofToronto.

Hall,DanielCurrie.2007.Theroleandrepresentationofcontrastinphonologicaltheory.Doctoraldissertation,UniversityofToronto.

Hall,DanielCurrie.2011.Phonologicalcontrastanditsphoneticenhancement:Dispersedness withoutdispersion.Phonology28:1–54.

142

Halle,Morris.1959.ThesoundpatternofRussian:Alinguisticandacousticalinvestigation.TheHague:Mouton.Secondprinting,1971.

Harvey,Christopher.2012.ContrastiveshiftinOb-UgricVowelsystems.Ms.,DepartmentofLinguistics,UniversityofToronto.

Hirayama,Manami.2003.ContrastinJapanesevowels.TorontoWorkingPapersinLinguistics 20:115–32.Ingram,David.1988.Jakobsonrevisited:SomeevidencefromtheacquisitionofPolishphonology.Lingua75:55–82.

Ingram,David.1989.Firstlanguageacquisition:Method,descriptionandexplanation.Cambridge:CUP.Jakobson,Roman.1941.Kindersprache,Aphasie,undallgemeine Lautgesetze.Uppsala:UppsalaUniversitetsArsskrift.

Jakobson,Roman.1962[1931].PhonemicnotesonStandardSlovak.InSelectedwritingsI.Phonologicalstudies,221–30.TheHague:Mouton.[InCzechinSlovenská miscellanea(StudiespresentedtoAlbertPražak).Bratislava,1931.]

Jakobson,Roman.1968.Childlanguage,aphasia,andphonologicaluniversals.TranslationbyA.R.Keiler ofJakobson1941.TheHague:Mouton.

Jakobson,Roman.1974.Lenguaje infantil yafasia.TranslationbyEstherBenıtezofJakobson1941.Madrid:Ayuso.

Jakobson,Roman,C.GunnarM.Fant,&MorrisHalle.1952.Preliminariestospeechanalysis.MITAcousticsLaboratory,TechnicalReport,No.13.ReissuedbyMITPress,Cambridge,Mass.,EleventhPrinting,1976.

143

Jakobson,Roman&MorrisHalle.1956.Fundamentalsoflanguage.TheHague:Mouton.Janda,RichardD.2003.“Phonologization”asthestartofdephoneticization – or,onsoundchangeanditsaftermath:Ofextension,generalization,lexicalization,andmorphologization.InBrianD.Joseph&RichardD.Janda,(eds.),Thehandbookofhistoricallinguistics,401–422.Oxford:Blackwell.

Jones,Daniel.1967.Thephoneme:Itsnatureanduse,3rdedition(withanAppendion thehistoryandmeaningoftheterm“phoneme”).Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.

Keyser,SamuelJay&KennethN.Stevens.2001.Enhancementrevisited.InMichaelJ.Kenstowicz (ed.),KenHale:Alifeinlanguage,271–91.Cambridge,Mass.:MITPress.

Keyser,SamuelJay&KennethN.Stevens.2006.Enhancementandoverlapinthespeechchain.Language 82:33–63.

Kiparsky,Paul.2015.Phonologization.InPatrickHoneybone &JosephSalmons(eds.),Thehandbookofhistoricalphonology,563–79.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.

Kiparsky,Valentin.1932.Johdatusta fonologiaan.Virittäjä 36:230–50.Ko,Seongyeon.2010.Acontrastivist viewontheevolutionoftheKoreanvowelsystem.ProceedingsoftheSixthWorkshoponAltaicFormalLinguistics(WAFL6).MITWorkingPapersinLinguistics 61:181–96.

Ko,Seongyeon.2011.VowelcontrastandvowelharmonyshiftintheMongoliclanguages.ProceedingsoftheSeventhWorkshoponAltaicFormalLinguistics(WAFL7).MITWorkingPapersinLinguistics 62:187–202.

Ko,Seongyeon.2018.TonguerootharmonyandvowelcontrastinNortheastAsianlanguages.Wiesbaden:Harrassowitz Verlag.

144

Krekoski,Ross.2017.ContrastandcomplexityinChinesetonalsystems.Doctoraldissertation,UniversityofToronto.

Lass,Roger.1994.OldEnglish:Ahistoricallinguisticcompanion.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.Levelt,ClaraC.1989.Anessayonchildphonology.M.A.thesis,LeidenUniversity.Liberman,Anatoly.1991.PhonologizationinGermanic:Umlautsandvowelshifts.InElmerH.Antonsen &HansHenrichHock(eds.),Stæfcræft:StudiesinGermaniclinguistics,125–37.Amsterdam:JohnBenjamins.

Lightner,TheodoreMcGraw.1963.Anoteontheformationofphonologicalrules.Quarterlyprogressreport(ResearchLaboratoryofElectronics,MIT)68:187–9.

Mackenzie,Sara.2009.Contrastandsimilarityinconsonantharmonyprocesses:Doctoraldissertation,UniversityofToronto.

Mielke,Jeff.2008.Theemergenceofdistinctivefeatures.Oxford:OUP.Moulton,Keir.2003.DeepallophonesintheOldEnglishlaryngealsystem.TorontoWorkingPapersinLinguistics 20:157–73.

Nevins,Andrew.2010.Localityinvowelharmony. Cambridge,MA:MITPress.Nevins,Andrew.2012.VowellenitionandfortitioninBrazilianPortuguese.Letras deHoje 47(3):228–33.Nevins,Andrew.2015.Triumphsandlimitsofthecontrastivity-onlyhypothesis.LinguisticVariation 15(1):41–68.

Oxford,Will.2012.‘Contrastshift’intheAlgonquianlanguages.ProceedingsfromtheMontreal-Ottawa-Toronto(MOT)PhonologyWorkshop2011:Phonologyinthe21stCentury:InHonourofGlyne Piggott.McGillWorkingPapersinLinguistics 22(1).9pages.http://www.mcgill.ca/mcgwpl/Viles/mcgwpl/oxford2012_0.pdf. 145

Oxford,Will.2015.Patternsofcontrastinphonologicalchange:EvidencefromAlgonquianvowelsystems.Language 91:308–57.

Padgett,Jaye.2003.Contrastandpost-velarfrontinginRussian.NaturalLanguageandLinguisticTheory 21:39–87.

Penzl,Herbert.1972.MethodsofcomparativeGermaniclinguistics.InFransvanCoetsem &HerbertL.Kufner(eds.),TowardagrammarofProto-Germanic,1–43.Tubingen:MaNiemeyer.

Purnell,Thomas&EricRaimy.2013.Contrastivefeaturesinphoneticimplementation:TheEnglishvowelsystem.PresentedattheCUNYPhonologyForumConferenceOnTheFeature,January2013.

Purnell,Thomas&EricRaimy.2015.Distinctivefeatures,levelsofrepresentationandhistoricalphonology.InPatrickHoneybone &JosephSalmons(eds.),Thehandbookofhistoricalphonology,522–44.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.

Pye,Clifton,DavidIngram,&HelenList.1987.AcomparisonofinitialconsonantacquisitioninEnglishandQuiche.InKeithE.Nelson&AnnVanKleeck(eds.),Children'slanguage(vol.6),175–90.Hillsdale,NJ:Erlbaum.

Rice,Keren.2003.Featuralmarkednessinphonology:Variation.InLisaCheng&Rint Sybesma (eds.),ThesecondGlot Internationalstate-of-the-articlebook:Thelatestinlinguistics,387–427.Berlin:MoutondeGruyter.

Rice,Keren.2007.Markednessinphonology.InPauldeLacy(ed.),TheCambridgehandbookofphonology,79–97.Cambridge:CUP.

146

Ringe,Donald.2006.AhistoryofEnglish:FromProto-Indo-EuropeantoProto-Germanic(AlinguistichistoryofEnglish,Vol.1).Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.OxfordScholarshipOnline(www.oxfordscholarship.com).

Roeder,RebeccaV.&MattHuntGardner.2013.ThephonologyoftheCanadianShiftrevisited:ThunderBayandCapeBreton.UniversityofPennsylvaniaWorkingPapersinLinguistics(SelectedPapersfromNWAV41)19.2:161–70.

Rohany Rahbar,Elham.2008.AhistoricalstudyofthePersianvowelsystem.KansasWorkingPapersinLinguistics 30:233–45.

Samuels,BridgetD.2011.Phonologicalarchitecture:Abiolinguisticperspective.Oxford:OUP.Sandstedt,Jade.2018.FeaturespeciVicationsandcontrastinvowelharmony:TheorthographyandphonologyofOldNorwegianheightharmony.Doctoraldissertation,UniversityofEdinburgh.

Sapir,Edward.1925.Soundpatternsinlanguage.Language 1:37–51.Schalin,Johan.2017.Scandinavianumlautandcontrastivefeaturehierarchies.NOWELE 70(2):171–254.Spahr,Christopher.2012.PositionalneutralizationintheContrastiveHierarchy:Thecaseofphonologicalvowelreduction.Ms.,UniversityofToronto.Availableathttp://individual.utoronto.ca/spahr/.

Spahr,Christopher.2014.Acontrastivehierarchicalaccountofpositionalneutralization.TheLinguisticReview31(3–4):551–85.

Stanley,Richard.1967.Redundancyrulesinphonology.Language 43:393–436.Stevens,KennethN.&SamuelJayKeyser.1989.Primaryfeaturesandtheirenhancementinconsonants.Language 65:81–106.

147

Stevens,KennethN.,SamuelJayKeyser&HarukoKawasaki.1986.Towardaphoneticandphonologicaltheoryofredundantfeatures.InJosephS.Perkell &DennisH.Klatt(eds.),Symposiumoninvarianceandvariabilityofspeechprocesses,432–69.Hillsdale,NJ:LawrenceErlbaum.

Sweet,Henry.1877.Ahandbookofphonetics.Oxford:ClarendonPress.Trubetzkoy,N.S.1939.Grundzuge derPhonologie.Gottingen:Vandenhoek &Ruprecht.Trubetzkoy,N.S.1969.Principlesofphonology.TranslationbyChristianeA.M.Baltaxe ofTrubetzkoy1939.Berkeley:UniversityofCaliforniaPress.

Trubetzkoy,N.S.2001[1936].Atheoryofphonologicaloppositions.InAnatolyLiberman(ed.),Studiesingenerallinguisticsandlanguagestructure,14–21.TranslatedbyMarvinTaylor&AnatolyLiberman.Durham,NC:DukeUniversityPress.[Essai d’une theorie desoppositionsphonologiques.Journaldepsychologie normale etpathologique 33(1936),5–18.]

Trubetzkoy,N.S.2019.Principiosdefonología.NuevatraduccionyversioncrıticadeEstherHerreraZendeyasyMichaelHerbertKnapp.MexicoCity:ElColegiodeMexico,CentrodeEstudiosLinguısticosyLiterarios.

Twaddell,W.Freeman.1938.AnoteonOHGumlaut.Monatshefte für deutschen Unterricht 30:177–181.Voeltzel,Laurence.2016.Morphophonologiedeslanguesscandinaves:Hierarchiesegmentaleetcomplexitesyllabique.Doctoraldissertation,UniversityofNantes.

Zhang,Xi.1996.VowelsystemsoftheManchu-TunguslanguagesofChina.Doctoraldissertation,UniversityofToronto.

148

Date post:	08-Jan-2022
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	0 times
Download:	0 times

Foundations of Contrastive Hierarchy Theory

Documents