1 Synchronic functional grounding: Evidence from positional augmentation Jennifer L. Smith UNC Chapel Hill Manuscript date: May 2004 Comments welcome ([email protected]) Abstract 1. Introduction One of the fundamental questions that drives research in phonological theory and the phonology-phonetics interface is this: Why do phonological patterns so often involve well- formedness conditions that make sense phonetically? Some researchers propose that the phonetic naturalness of phonological patterns comes about because phonetic factors have effects internal to the phonological grammar; that is, the formal grammar is functionally grounded (Archangeli and Pulleyblank 1994). Recent proponents of this position include Flemming (1995), Boersma (1998), Kirchner (1998), Hayes (1999), and Steriade (2001). Others take the position that phonetic factors provide influence external to the phonology, by way of phonetic effects on speech perception, language acquisition, and diachronic change. In particular, it has been proposed that the phonetic naturalness of phonological patterns is a direct consequence of diachronic change through listeners' misperception of an ambiguous acoustic signal, followed by a reanalysis of the phonological grammar on the basis of the new interpretation of the signal's phonological structure (Ohala 1981, 1993; Blevins, to appear; Blevins and Garrett 1998, 2004; Hyman 2001; Kavitskaya 2001; J.A. Barnes 2002). On this second view, the formal phonology is itself phonetics-free. Phonological grammars tend to be phonetically natural only because phonetic patterns determine what kinds of misperception can arise, and therefore what kinds of diachronic reanalyses can take place. This paper presents a case of phonetically influenced phonological patterning that is not compatible with an explanation based on diachronic change through misperception and reanalysis. Markedness constraints on phonologically prominent positions (de Lacy 2001; Parker 2001; Smith 2000, 2002), also called positional augmentation constraints, are restricted by functional factors — such constraints are attested only if the demand they make of their prominent position is one involving the enhancement of perceptual salience (Smith 2000,
Transcript
1
Synchronic functional grounding:Evidence from positional augmentation
Phonological patterns are often phonetically natural, but the reason for this observation is under debate. Two opposing accounts of the influence of phonetics on phonology are the synchronic grammar-internalfunctional grounding model, which holds that phonetic factors directly restrict the contents of the formalphonological grammar, and the diachronic misperception and re-phonologization model, which holds thatphonetic factors influence phonology only by determining the course of diachronic change. This papershows that the functional restrictions on positional augmentation constraints (markedness constraints onphonologically strong positions) are incompatible with the diachronic misperception model, providingsupport for the inclusion of synchronic functional grounding in the phonological grammar.
1. Introduction
One of the fundamental questions that drives research in phonological theory and thephonology-phonetics interface is this: Why do phonological patterns so often involve well-formedness conditions that make sense phonetically?
Some researchers propose that the phonetic naturalness of phonological patternscomes about because phonetic factors have effects internal to the phonological grammar;that is, the formal grammar is functionally grounded (Archangeli and Pulleyblank 1994).
Recent proponents of this position include Flemming (1995), Boersma (1998), Kirchner(1998), Hayes (1999), and Steriade (2001).
Others take the position that phonetic factors provide influence external to the
phonology, by way of phonetic effects on speech perception, language acquisition, and
diachronic change. In particular, it has been proposed that the phonetic naturalness ofphonological patterns is a direct consequence of diachronic change through listeners'
misperception of an ambiguous acoustic signal, followed by a reanalysis of the phonologicalgrammar on the basis of the new interpretation of the signal's phonological structure (Ohala
1981, 1993; Blevins, to appear; Blevins and Garrett 1998, 2004; Hyman 2001; Kavitskaya2001; J.A. Barnes 2002). On this second view, the formal phonology is itself phonetics-free. Phonological grammars tend to be phonetically natural only because phonetic patterns
determine what kinds of misperception can arise, and therefore what kinds of diachronicreanalyses can take place.
This paper presents a case of phonetically influenced phonological patterning that isnot compatible with an explanation based on diachronic change through misperception andreanalysis. Markedness constraints on phonologically prominent positions (de Lacy 2001;
Parker 2001; Smith 2000, 2002), also called positional augmentation constraints, are restricted
by functional factors — such constraints are attested only if the demand they make of theirprominent position is one involving the enhancement of perceptual salience (Smith 2000,
Synchronic functional grounding
1. It may be the case that a certain number of 'unnatural,' phonetically unmotivatedprocesses are in fact involved in natural-language phonology (e.g., Bach and Harms 1972;
Anderson 1981; Hyman 2001). The question addressed by this paper is, when there are
phonetically motivated restrictions on phonological patterns, how those restrictions shouldbe modeled.
2
2002). It is argued here that the functional restrictions on these constraints cannot all bereanalyzed as the effects of diachronic misperception and re-phonologization processes, butcan be accounted for in a model that incorporates functional grounding internal to theformal grammar.
First, background discussion of the debate over how phonetics constrains phonologyis given in §2. Next, §3 presents an overview of positional augmentation constraints and thefunctional restrictions on such constraints. Case studies involving positional augmentationconstraints are discussed in §4, to exemplify the kinds of phonological patterns that theseconstraints are responsible for. Then, §5 examines the problems presented by the casestudies in §4 for the view that diachronic misperception and re-phonologization processesare responsible for all apparent phonetic restrictions on possible phonological patterns. Thissection also outlines a synchronic model of grammar-internal functional grounding thataccounts for the patterns observed. Conclusions and implications are discussed in §6.
2. The functional grounding debate
This section summarizes two opposing positions concerning the nature of phoneticinfluence on phonological systems: the grammar-internal functional grounding model (§2.1)and the diachronic misperception and re-phonologization model (§2.2). In §2.3, theassumptions of the two approaches are exemplified and contrasted in a discussion of howeach would account for the fact that unstressed vowels, but not stressed vowels, are
particularly susceptible to reduction to [�]. Finally, §2.4 discusses the conditions that the
diachronic misperception and re-phonologization account would need to meet if it is toextend to all cases where phonological patterning is restricted by phonetic naturalness.
2.1 Functional grounding as a restriction on formal grammars
Formal phonological grammars allow for the expression of both 'natural' and'unnatural' rules/constraints/processes (Chomsky and Halle 1968; Eisner 1997). The
problem is that the phonological elements, constituents, or operations that are needed tocharacterize natural (phonetically motivated) phonological processes can be formally
recombined in ways that are not phonetically motivated, as shown in (1).1
Synchronic functional grounding
2. It is important to keep in mind that, while the OT framework facilitates the
assumption of grammar-internal functional grounding, it does not entail this assumption.
OT provides a formal mechanism that allows functionally motivated tendencies todetermine the grammars of natural languages, because the phonologies of individual
3
(1) Formal phonological models can express unnatural processes
a. Unnatural rule [+nas] > [-voi] / __ [+lab] 'Nasals become voiceless before labials'
Formally similar rules that are natural
[+nas] > [+lab] / __ [+lab] 'Nasals become labial before labials'
[-son] > [-voi] /__ # 'Obstruents become voiceless when final'
b. Unnatural constraint
*[+NAS, +VOI] 'Segments are not both nasal and voiced'
Formally similar constraints that are natural
*[+NAS, -VOI] 'Segments are not both nasal and voiceless'
*[-SON, +VOI] 'Segments are not both obstruent and voiced'
One strategy for addressing the problem of formal overgeneration is to appeal tofunctional grounding (term due to Archangeli and Pulleyblank 1994), the proposal that
phonological entities or processes are based on, determined by, or restricted by functional(phonetic, psycholinguistic) factors. The functional factors themselves are usually assumedto be external to the formal grammar (though for a different perspective see, e.g., Flemming1995; Kirchner 1998, 2001; Zhang 2001). However, these factors place restrictions on whatthe formal grammar can express. For example, Archangeli and Pulleyblank (1994) developa formal phonological model in which all implicational statements of the form If A, then B
must be grounded, which, in their terms, means that each implication must "reflect physicalcorrelates of the [feature values] involved" (Archangeli and Pulleyblank 1994, p. 167).
The idea that the formal objects and operations in the phonological system aredirectly constrained by functional factors has a long history; influential proposals along theselines include the discussion of markedness in Chomsky and Halle (1968, ch. 9) and the
theories of Natural Generative Phonology (Vennemann 1974; Hooper 1976) and NaturalPhonology (Stampe 1973; Donegan 1978; Donegan and Stampe 1979), as well as, for
example, many of the theoretical debates concerning distinctive-feature theory or models offeature geometry. Grammar-internal functional grounding has also been implemented inOptimality Theory (OT; Prince and Smolensky 1993; McCarthy and Prince 1995), usually
as a requirement that some, or all, of the constraints in the grammar are grounded (havephonetic or psycholinguistic motivation). Examples of OT work that follows this strategy
2
Synchronic functional grounding
languages are the result of interactions among ranked and violable constraints, and
constraints are a straightforward way of modeling functional pressures as part of thephonological grammar. However, the OT framework does not inherently require all of theconstraints in the system to reflect functionally motivated tendencies. This fact has two
consequences. First, if constraints are functionally motivated, we need separate theories ofwhich constraints are grounded and how the grounding is enforced (Eisner 1997; Hayes1999; Smith 2002). Second, a phonological system that does not assume grammar-internal
functional grounding is equally compatible with the fundamental assumptions of OT.
4
include J. Beckman (1995, 1998), Casali (1996), Flemming (1995), Hayes (1999), Jun(1995), Kirchner (1998, 2001), Padgett (1995, to appear), Pater (1999), Prince andSmolensky (1993, §5.1), Smith (2000, 2002), Steriade (1993, 1997, 2001), Walker (1998),Wilson (2001), Zhang (2000, 2001), and many of the articles in Hayes, Kirchner, andSteriade (2004).
2.2 Another view: Functional factors only influence diachronic misperception and phonologization
There is an alternative strategy for handling the problem that formal grammarspredict more phonological patterns than actually occur, which rejects the position that theformal phonological grammar is itself functionally grounded.
According to this second view, functional factors operate separately from, andexternally to, the formal grammar. The only thing that functional pressures do is constrainthe way that a grammar is transmitted from one generation to the next, because they directlyinfluence processes such as speech perception, language acquisition, and diachronic change. Specifically, functional factors such as coarticulation, articulatory undershoot, or perceptualconfusion cause listeners (particularly learners) to misinterpret the phonological structuresthat speakers produce, assigning to perceived utterances a phonological structure that isdifferent from that intended by the speaker (Ohala 1981, 1993). Because only certain kindsof phonetic contexts give rise to acoustic signals that are ambiguous enough to bemisperceived and re-phonologized, not all of the formally possible phonological processesare actually found in natural language. An advantage of this approach is that, if all apparentfunctionally based restrictions on the phonological system can be traced back to diachronicchanges caused by misperception and phonologization, then there is no need to duplicatefunctional factors or their effects inside the formal grammar, which would presumablycomplicate the grammatical model with extra machinery.
Work that argues for some version of this position includes Ohala (1981, 1993),Anderson (1981), Blevins (to appear), Blevins and Garrett (1998, 2004), Hale and Reiss(2000), McMahon (2000), Hyman (2001), Kavitskaya (2001), Kochetov (2001), J.A. Barnes(2002), and Yu (2004).
Synchronic functional grounding
3. Another possible implementation of the grammar-internal functional grounding
model would be to propose that *VPLACE/F� exists, but is in a universally fixed ranking
5
2.3 Example: The vowel-reduction asymmetry
To contrast these two models of phonetic influence on phonology, it is useful toconsider an example of a functionally restricted phonological pattern and see how the twoapproaches would account for the functional restrictions on the pattern.
As is well known, many languages reduce vowels to [�] in unstressed syllables.
However, there are no languages that reduce vowels to [�] exclusively in stressed syllables.
This asymmetry has a functional basis (see Crosswhite 1999 and Barnes 2002 for recentdiscussion). Namely, unstressed syllables are often shorter than stressed syllables; this isparticularly true in languages with vowel reduction. The longer stressed syllables allowfuller realization of the articulatory target for each vowel. On the other hand, the shorterunstressed syllables are subject to articulatory undershoot and are therefore less well able tomaintain contrasts among different vowel qualities. This basic pattern is fairlyuncontroversial. What is currently under debate is just how the functional basis of thevowel-reduction asymmetry is related to the formal phonological grammar.
An example of a theoretical approach consistent with the grammar-internalfunctional grounding model (§2.1) is the positional markedness treatment of vowel
neutralization (Steriade 1993; Crosswhite 1999). To account for the fact that vowel
reduction targets unstressed syllables, this approach posits a constraint *VPLACE/F�, aversion of the markedness constraint *VPLACE that is relativized to the position 'unstressedsyllable'.
(2) *VPLACE/F� 'No vowel place features, in unstressed syllables'
Crucially, this proposal includes the following restriction: An analogous constraint for
stressed syllables, *VPLACE/F�, must be absent from the constraint set. Otherwise, the
system predicts that some languages would rank the problematic *VPLACE/F� high in the
grammar; the result of such a ranking would be vowel reduction exclusively in stressed
syllables, which is the unattested pattern. The difference between these two formally similar, but empirically quite different,
constraints is that *VPLACE/F� is functionally grounded, and therefore is a legitimate
member of the constraint set, while *VPLACE/F� is not functionally grounded, so it is not a
legitimate constraint. In other words, the asymmetry between stressed and unstressed
vowels is accounted for by means of grammar-internal functional grounding, which isimplemented as a restriction on which of the formally expressible constraints are actuallyincluded in the constraint set.
3
Synchronic functional grounding
below *VPLACE/F�. The justification for the universally fixed ranking would likewise be the
difference in functional grounding between these two constraints. See Steriade (2001) for a
related proposal concerning functionally determined rankings among faithfulnessconstraints.
6
The role of functional factors in the vowel-reduction asymmetry, and the character ofthe formal phonological grammar, are viewed quite differently under the diachronicmisperception and re-phonologization model. (The following discussion is based on thetreatment of vowel reduction in Barnes 2002.)
The diachronic explanation for the vowel-reduction asymmetry is as follows. Assume that there is a language with no phonological vowel reduction, but with unstressedsyllables that are shorter than stressed syllables. In unstressed syllables, speakers may fail toachieve articulatory targets for vowels, as in (3). This leads to variation in the acoustic
patterns produced, including tokens in which an intended [a] is produced as something that
sounds like [�].
(3) Failure to achieve articulatory targets in unstressed syllables
UR Articulatory intent Acoustic pattern produced
/pa�ta/ [pa�ta] [pa�ta] ~ [pa�ta�] ~ [pa�t�]
Given this kind of variability in the acoustic patterns for unstressed syllables, the nextgeneration of learners may misperceive speakers' articulatory intent, and assume that the
undershoot form [pa�t�] is the intended articulation. If such a reanalysis occurs, vowel
reduction will become phonologized. That is, there will have been a change in the
phonological grammar (in OT terms, a new, higher ranking for the constraint *VPLACE/F�)
such that speakers now intend to produce underlying /a/ as [�] in unstressed syllables.
(4) Phonological vowel reduction after misperception and re-phonologization
UR Articulatory intent Acoustic pattern produced
/pa�ta/ [pa�t�] [pa�t�]
If a scenario like this is responsible for every instance in which vowel reductiondevelops, then there is a clear extra-grammatical explanation for the lack of languages in
which vowels reduce to [�] in stressed syllables only. That is, if it is duration-based
articulatory undershoot that leads to phonological vowel reduction, then reduction willnever develop in stressed syllables only, because no speech community will ever havearticulatory undershoot in stressed syllables only.
Synchronic functional grounding
7
The crucial formal difference between this account and the positional-markedness
account discussed above is that here, non-grounded constraints like *VPLACE/F� are not
formally excluded from the universal constraint set. The idea is that these undesirableconstraints are harmless even if they do find their way into the universal constraint set,because the process of diachronic change through misperception will never lead speakers torank them high enough to be active in the grammar of any language.
2.4 How general is the misperception/re-phonologization model of phonetic naturalness?
The diachronic misperception and re-phonologization approach to the vowel-reduction asymmetry outlined above is appealing; it relates the observed inactivity of a non-
grounded phonological constraint such as *VPLACE/F� directly to phonetic influences on
language change, without explicitly needing to exclude the constraint from the universalconstraint set. An important question remains, however: Can the misperception and re-phonologization model account for all proposed cases of functional grounding in
phonology? If so, then whenever a formally possible, but functionally unmotivated,constraint seems to be 'missing' from the constraint set, there should be a misperception andre-phonologization account of the constraint's phonological inactivity. However, positionalaugmentation constraints, which involve the addition of perceptually salient properties tophonologically strong positions, pose problems for this approach.
The next two sections define (§3) and exemplify (§4) positional augmentationconstraints and the functionally based restrictions on this constraint family; problems thatthese constraints raise for the diachronic misperception and re-phonologization model ofphonetic influences in phonology are then discussed in §5.
3. Positional augmentation — an overview
The discussion in the previous section considers two formally similar constraints,
*VPLACE/F� and *VPLACE/F�, of which the first is phonetically motivated and the second is
not. The remainder of this paper focuses on a particular family of constraints that is likewisesubject to a functionally based restriction; not all logically possible members of the familyare attested.
The family of constraints in question is the set of positional augmentation constraints.
These are markedness constraints that are relativized to phonologically strong positions —in other words, they are constraints that are responsible for enforcing phonological
requirements that hold specifically of material in strong positions, rather than holdingacross-the-board of all relevant structures in a language (de Lacy 2001; Parker 2001; Smith2000, 2002).
Phonologically prominent, or 'strong,' positions are those that have particular phonetic or
psycholinguistic salience (Steriade 1993; J. Beckman 1998). Examples of strong positions
that have been discussed in the literature include the stressed syllable, the onset (or releasedconsonant), the long vowel, the morphological root, and the initial syllable. These positions
Synchronic functional grounding
4. Another logically possible approach to these patterns is to propose weak-position-
specific faithfulness constraints, which if ranked high would protect contrasts in weak
positions while allowing a general markedness constraint to affect strong positions only. However, this approach fails to capture the connection between phonological requirements
that are specifically enforceable in strong positions and the addition of perceptual salience tothose positions (see below). Furthermore, pursuing the weak-position faithfulnessalternative would require us to abandon the insight that positional faithfulness constraintshave a special relationship with strong positions, which are accessible to the grammar
because of their increased salience (J. Beckman 1998).
8
are known for their characteristic ability to resist neutralization processes affecting other
positions (Trubetzkoy 1939; Steriade 1993; Beckman 1998). However, there are also caseswhere strong positions are the exclusive targets of certain types of neutralization processes
(de Lacy 2001; Parker 2001; Smith 2000, 2002). Examples of phonological requirementsaffecting strong positions are given in (5); the case studies discussed in the following sectionfocus on the strong positions root (5d) and onset (5e).
(5) Examples of requirements on strong positions (see Appendix for language examples)
Strong position Phonological requirement
a. Main-stress syllable BimoraicityHigh toneLow toneHigh-sonority peakOnsetLow-sonority onset
b. Long vowel High-sonority peak
c. Initial syllable OnsetLow-sonority onset
d. Root Stress
e. Onset Supralaryngeal place
Since these phenomena involve phonological requirements on strong positions, rather
than the commonly observed resistance by strong positions to phonological requirements,they cannot be modeled with strong-position-specific faithfulness constraints (J. Beckman1995, 1998; Casali 1996). Instead, these phenomena must be modeled with strong-position-specific markedness constraints; in OT, phonological requirements on output forms that
4
Synchronic functional grounding
9
override input featural specifications are enforced by the markedness constraints in thegrammar.
However, it is not just any markedness constraint that can be relativized to a strongposition, because, empirically, it is not just any kind of phonological requirement that targetsstrong positions. As seen in the examples listed in (5), markedness constraints on strongpositions always demand the presence of a perceptually salient property, which can be
provisionally defined as a property that gives rise to a larger neural response than would anotherwise identical phonological form that lacks the property in question (see Smith 2002 foradditional discussion). Other logically possible markedness constraints on strong positionsthat do not call for salient properties are not observed to be phonologically active. Forexample, HAVEPLACE/Onset is attested — this is a markedness constraint, relativized toonsets, that requires a consonant to have a supralaryngeal Place feature, penalizing onsetconsonants with only a glottal Place specification (Parker 2001; see §4.2 below). However,constraints that simply ban typologically marked features from the strong position onset, such
as *LABIAL/Onset, 'onset consonants are not [Labial],' are empirically unattested (see alsoParker 2001, p. 362). The difference between the attested HAVEPLACE/Onset and theunattested *LABIAL/Onset is precisely one of perceptual salience. That is, a non-labial onsetconsonant would not consistently be more perceptually salient than a labial onset, but anonset consonant with some supralaryngeal Place feature would be more perceptually salient
than a glottal onset consonant (Stevens 1971; Warner 1998). Because they demand thepresence of perceptually salient properties in the strong positions that they target,markedness constraints on strong positions are also called positional augmentation constraints
(Smith 2000, 2002; see also Zoll 1998 on positional effects involving 'augmentation of theinput').
Crucially, degree of perceptual salience is a functional, extra-phonologicalcharacteristic. Therefore, the requirement that strong-position-specific markednessconstraints must invoke perceptually salient properties is a functionally motivated one. Thisfunctionally based restriction on strong-position-specific markedness constraintscomplements other aspects of strong-position behavior — given that strong positions aregenerally less susceptible to markedness requirements than weak positions, it is unsurprisingthat strong-position-specific markedness constraints should be highly restricted. Intuitively,
what positional augmentation constraints do is to take a position with intrinsic salience onsome dimension and give it additional perceptual salience, thereby 'making the strongstronger' (compare the harmonic alignment of prominence scales in Prince and Smolensky
1993, §5.1).Before turning to the question of whether this kind of functional restriction on
possible constraints can be modeled with the diachronic misperception and re-phonologization account described in §2.2-3, the following section presents case studiesexemplifying two positional augmentation constraints and the phonological patterns that
they are responsible for.
Synchronic functional grounding
5. According to Langdon (1977, p. 239), the stem a+ku+xáp contains three prefixes.
Since roots are monosyllabic (Langdon 1975, 1977), the root must be áp or xáp.
10
4. Positional augmentation — case studies
4.1 A constraint calling for stress in roots
One example of a phonological requirement specifically affecting a strong position isthe requirement that roots bear stress. (On the status of the root as a strong position, seeMcCarthy and Prince 1995; J. Beckman 1995, 1998; Casali 1996; Alderete 1999, 2001). This requirement can be formally modeled with a positional augmentation constraint,HAVESTRESS/Root. (6) HAVESTRESS/Root Roots bear stress
Because stress is correlated with perceptual salience, this constraint meets the functionallybased criteria for a positional augmentation constraint.
In some languages, roots are consistently stressed. In such cases, HAVESTRESS/Rootis ranked above all other constraints that could determine stress placement, such as left- orright-edge Alignment constraints (McCarthy and Prince 1993), which would place stress oninitial or final syllables respectively, or WEIGHT-TO-STRESS (Prince 1990), which wouldattract stress to heavy syllables. Examples of languages with consistent root stress includeDiegueño (Langdon 1975, 1977), in (7), and Tahltan (Cook 1972; Alderete 1999; Aldereteand Bob to appear), in (8). The Tahltan examples demonstrate that root stress is choseneven when this leaves a syllable containing a long vowel (8b,c), or a closed syllable (8f),unstressed.
(7) Root stress in Diegueño Data from Langdon (1977, p. 239-240); roots are underlined
a. ma�t 'land'
b. t�-x�-m�-k a�n-p 'is tangled up'w
c. m-a�ku�xa�p-c-m�-ju 'Are you catching up with him?'5
you-catch.up-SAME.SUBJ-you-be
Synchronic functional grounding
11
(8) Root stress in TahltanData from Alderete and Bob (to appear); roots are underlined
a. �u�des-�u��t 'I whistled'
b. �e��i�-dli �n 'We (dual) danced' < cv�.cv�-ccv�c
c. �ude��i�-dle�t 'We (dual) melted it' < cv.cv�.cv�-ccv�c
d. de�-to�e 'soft'
e. me��e-k’a�he 'his/her fat'
f. da�#dah-se�|a 'Did you (pl) holler?' < cv�#cvc-cv�.cv
g. me�-det|’o�j 'his/her pelts'
Additional languages with consistent root stress include Chukchee (Krause 1979),Nancowry (Radhakrishnan 1981), and Mbabaram (Dixon 1991).
Another pattern involving HAVESTRESS/Root is observed in Tuyuca (J. Barnes1996). In this language, root stress is not surface-true; instead, it emerges as the defaultpreference when all else is equal. Emergent root-stress patterns such as this confirm that thepreference for root stress is integrated into the phonological grammar; it is a requirementthat can interact with other processes in the phonology of a language.
Tuyuca has lexical contrasts between stressed and unstressed roots and betweenstressed and unstressed suffixes, as shown in (9). (There are no prefixes in the language.)
Synchronic functional grounding
12
(9) Stressed and unstressed roots and suffixes(data from Barnes 1996)
Roots Suffixes
Stressed ho�a 'to write' -me�na 'with'
po�a 'hair' -make� 'stuff'
ho�o 'to plant manioc' -di �kv 'only'
wai � 'fish' -sotoa� 'on top of'
kape�a 'eye' -ju� 'beforehand'
keero� 'lightning bug' -wi � (an evidential)
-�o� (fem. sg. vb. sfx.)
Unstressed hoo 'to submerge oneself' -a (an evidential)
noa 'who' -i (an evidential)
waka 'splinter' -je (change of focus)
waso 'to change' -sa (thematic importance)
There is exactly one stress per prosodic word in Tuyuca, so when roots and suffixescombine, not all morphemes necessarily surface faithful to their input stress specifications. As shown in (10), a stressed root (10a) always surfaces with stress (forms i, ii). However, not
all roots are stressed in the language; combining an unstressed root (10b) with a stressedsuffix (10c) leads to surface stress on the suffix (form iii). Crucially, however, if there is no
lexically stressed morpheme, the root bears surface stress (form iv).
(10) Root and suffix combinations; roots are underlined(Barnes 1996, p. 41)
Roots
stressed unstressed
Suffixes a. /ho�a/ 'to write' b. /waso/ 'to change'
stressed c. /-ju�/ (ASPECT) i. ho�aju iii. wasoju�
unstressed d. /-i/ (EVIDENTIAL) ii. ho�ai iv. waso�i
The aspects of the Tuyuca pattern that attest to the ranking of HAVESTRESS/Root inthe phonology of this language are first, the fact that lexically stressed affixes take
Synchronic functional grounding
13
precedence over lexically unstressed roots (10, iii), and second, the fact that default stress is
inserted into the root rather than into the affix (10, iv).
Because word stress placement respects input stress location even at the cost ofviolating HAVESTRESS/Root — appearing on a lexically stressed affix in preference to alexically stressed root — this shows that faithfulness constraints on the presence andaffiliation of input stresses (11) must outrank HAVESTRESS/Root.
(11) Stress faithfulness constraints dominate HAVESTRESS/Root(constraints from Alderete 1999, 2001)
a. MAX-PROM A metrical prominence (=stress) in the input has an outputcorrespondent; 'stress is not deleted'
b. DEP-PROM A metrical prominence in the output has an input
correspondent; 'stress is not inserted'
c. NOSHIFT Corresponding prominences have corresponding sponsorsand links; 'the location of a stress does not shift' (called NOFLOP-PROM in Alderete 1999, 2001)
Specifically, either MAX-PROM or DEP-PROM (or both) must dominateHAVESTRESS/Root in order to rule out a candidate that deletes the input stress from the
suffix and inserts a new one on the root (as in candidate (12a); the grave accent ( � ) is used
to indicate an output stress that is not a correspondent of the stress shown in the input). Inaddition, NOSHIFT must dominate HAVESTRESS/Root in order to rule out a candidate inwhich the input prominence surfaces in the output on a different sponsor, in order to appearwithin the root (as in candidate (12b)). With this ranking, the attested form (candidate(12c)), which maintains the input affix stress, is correctly chosen; HAVESTRESS/Root cannotforce stress in a lexically unstressed root if a lexically stressed affix is present.
Synchronic functional grounding
6. It is not an Alignment constraint (McCarthy and Prince 1993) forcing stress to the leftedge of the word that favors root stress over affix stress, since default stress always appears at
the right edge of the root (Barnes 1996).
14
(12) Tuyuca ranking (I): Inserting/deleting or moving a stress is avoided { MAX-PROM or DEP-PROM }, NOSHIFT >> HAVESTRESS/Root
/hoo + wi �/ submerge.oneself-EV 'he submerges himself'
/hoo+wi �/ MAX-PROM or NOSHIFT HAVESTRESS/Root
DEP-PROM
a. hoo�wi(newly inserted stress)
*!
b. hoo�wi(shifted input stress)
*!
L c. hoowi �(faithful input stress)
*
Although it is dominated, and frequently violated, HAVESTRESS/Root is neverthelesscrucial for a complete account of the Tuyuca stress pattern. Only this constraint can forcedefault stress insertion into roots when no morpheme in a word has lexical stress.
The significance of a word with no lexically stressed morphemes is that MAX-PROM
and DEP-PROM no longer penalize a candidate that has inserted a stress into the root. Asnoted above, all prosodic words in Tuyuca have exactly one stress. This pattern is enforcedby the constraint CULMINATIVITY (which may in fact be an encapsulation of multipleinteracting constraints), here given a characterization based on Alderete (1999).
(13) CULMINATIVITY Every prosodic constituent has exactly one head (Alderete 1999)
With CULMINATIVITY ranked above DEP-PROM, one stress must be inserted (14a); a DEP-PROM violation is unavoidable. On the other hand, there is no input stress to be deleted, soMAX-PROM is not violated by any candidate. In this situation, the effects of
HAVESTRESS/Root emerge — root stress (14b) is chosen over affix stress (14c).6
Synchronic functional grounding
15
(14) Tuyuca ranking (II): Default stress is inserted on rootsCULMINATIVITY >> DEP-PROM; effects of HAVESTRESS/Root emerge
/hoo + a/ submerge.oneself-EV 'I submerge myself'
/hoo+a/ CULM DEP- MAX- HAVE DEP-PROM PROM STRESS/Rt PROM/Rt
a. hooa *! *
L b. hoo�a * *
c. hooa� * *!
It is important to note that, unlike the case of a stressed root plus a stressed affix,where the choice is which input stress to preserve and which to delete, default root-stressinsertion cannot be driven by special faithfulness to roots. Stress insertion in the root actually
violates root faithfulness, since an input property of the root is changed in the output. Thatis, the actual output (14b) performs worse on the root-specific faithfulness constraint DEP-PROM/Root than the candidate with affix stress (14c) does. Default root stress is not alogical necessity; languages like Thompson River Salish actively avoid default stressinsertion into roots (Coelho 2002), showing the effects of DEP-PROM/Root. If the grammarcontained no constraint favoring root stress that could be ranked above this root-specificfaithfulness constraint, then DEP-PROM/Root, no matter how low-ranking, would alwaysfavor default stress on affixes.
In summary, languages with a surface-true preference or an emergent preference forroot stress, including Tahltan, Diegueño, and Tuyuca, provide evidence for a phonologicalrequirement that roots bear stress. The constraint responsible for this requirement,HAVESTRESS/Root, is a positional augmentation constraint. This constraint targets the root,which is a strong position; bearing stress, which this constraint demands, makes the rootmore perceptually salient.
4.2 A constraint calling for supralaryngeal Place in onset consonants
Another example of a phonological requirement that specifically affects a strongposition is the requirement that onsets have a supralaryngeal Place specification. This
pattern is found in Chamicuro, discussed in detail by Parker (1994, 2001), as well as inTiriyó, Carib, and Macushi (Parker 2001, p. 362), and in Yatzachi Zapotec, where an onset
[�] is insufficiently salient to block vowel coalescence (Borroff 2003).
The phonological requirement that onsets must have supralaryngeal Place is enforced
by the following constraint, proposed by Parker (2001).
Synchronic functional grounding
16
(15) HAVEPLACE/Onset Every onset segment in the output has a [supralaryngeal]Place specification (Parker 2001, p. 371)
The crucial observation about Chamicuro is that glottal consonants are never onsets,although in coda position they contrast with each other, with other coda consonants, andwith the lack of a coda.
(16) Coda [h �] contrastive in Chamicuro (data from Parker 2001, p. 364-5)
a. me�sa 'sea lion' d. a�tikana 'we'
me�sa 'party' ahtini 'path, trail'
me∅sa 'table' uanasti 'I watch, look'
b. itehki 'it burns' e. sa�pu 'lake'
ite�ki 'it is abundant' kahpu 'bone'
c. me�na 'woodpecker'
netna 'how much?'
jelna 'man, husband'
me∅nu 'tongue'
sjekput”le 'pot-bellied'
Parker (2001) provides supporting evidence from loanword adaptation showing thatthe absence of glottal onsets is a linguistically significant generalization. The Spanishfricative represented orthographically as <j> (which, according to Parker (2001, p. 373), is
typically glottal [h] rather than dorsal [x] in the area of Peru where Chamicuro was spoken)
is consistently realized as a coronal fricative in Chamicuro: [], or [”] before round vowels.
(17) Glottal onsets adapted in Chamicuro loanwords from Spanish (Parker 2001, p. 373)
Spanish Chamicuro
a. naranja na�anha alana 'orange'
b. jabón ha on awona 'soap'
c cojo koho ko”o 'lame, crippled'
The onset (or, perhaps, released consonant) is a strong position (Kingston 1985,
1990, to appear; Lombardi 1991; Padgett 1995; Steriade 1993, 1997). Crucially, as with thecases of mandatory root stress discussed in the preceding section, the prohibition againstglottal onsets in Chamicuro cannot be modeled with special faithfulness for this strong
Synchronic functional grounding
17
position. The only workable analysis involves the markedness constraint against onsetglottals, HAVEPLACE/Onset, introduced in (15) above (see Parker 2001 for additionalargumentation that such a constraint is needed).
HAVEPLACE/Onset is a markedness constraint specific to a phonologically strongposition, and it does meet the functional criteria for a positional augmentation constraint,because consonants with supralaryngeal Place features are more perceptually salient thanglottal consonants (Stevens 1971; Warner 1998).
With this constraint ranked appropriately, it is possible to model the Chamicuropattern, allowing glottal codas but no glottal onsets. (The constraints and analysis presentedhere are based on those of Parker (2001), with minor changes.)
First, the fact that glottal codas surface intact shows that any markedness constraintpenalizing glottal consonants in general, such as *LARYNGEAL (18c), must be outranked bythe faithfulness constraints against segment deletion (18a) and changes in Place features(18b).
a. MAX-SEG Input segments have output correspondents;'segments are not deleted' (McCarthy and Prince 1995)
b. IDENT[Place] Corresponding segments agree in Place features;
'Place features are not changed' (McCarthy and Prince 1995)
c. *LARYNGEAL Output segments have no laryngeal feature specifications(including [spread glottis], [constricted glottis])(Lombardi 1999, 2001)
The ranking among these constraints is illustrated in (19), where a glottal coda appears inthe surface form (19a) instead of being deleted (19b) or altered (19c).
7. The phonological repair chosen by a language during loanword adaptation is notnecessarily the same as the default repair in the native phonological system (Yip 2002; Smith2004). Here, however, it is the fact that a repair occurs at all that is important — this
confirms that glottals are actively avoided. Moreover, in the case of Chamicuro, there is noevidence that the feature-change repair in loanword adaptation does differ from the defaultrepair strategy for glottals. Therefore, the tableau in (19) below follows Parker's (2001)
assumption that MAX-SEG outranks IDENT[Place] in the core phonology of Chamicuro,making featural change the preferred repair for glottal onsets.
18
Unlike glottal codas, glottal onsets are subject to the positional constraintHAVEPLACE/Onset. Therefore, this constraint must dominate at least one faithfulnessconstraint that would otherwise protect glottal consonants in onset position. FollowingParker (2001), the dominated constraint in (20) is taken to be IDENT[Place], based on theevidence from loanword adaptation shown in (16) above.
The inclusion of HAVEPLACE/Onset in the ranking does not affect the results for glottalcodas shown in (19), because no coda will ever violate an onset-specific constraint.
In summary, Chamicuro and the other languages that prohibit glottal consonantsspecifically in onset position provide evidence for another strong-position-specificphonological requirement, one that forces onsets to have a supralaryngeal Placespecification. The markedness constraint that enforces this requirement is Parker's (2001)HAVEPLACE/Onset. Like HAVESTRESS/Root in §4.1, HAVEPLACE/Onset invokes aperceptually salient property, thus respecting the functionally based limitation that restrictsthe inventory of markedness constraints on strong positions. The following section nowdemonstrates that this functional restriction on the constraints in the phonological grammaris not one that can be adequately modeled by the diachronic misperception and re-phonologization account of phonetic influence on phonology.
Synchronic functional grounding
19
5. Accounting for the functional restriction on positional augmentation constraints
In §2, two alternative accounts were presented of the tendency for phonologicalpatterns to be phonetically motivated. The grammar-internal functional grounding model(§2.1) holds that the contents of the formal phonological grammar are directly restricted byfunctional factors. The diachronic misperception and re-phonologization model (§2.2)counters that phonological patterns tend to be phonetically plausible, not because the formalgrammar is explicitly limited by functional factors, but because phonological patterns evolvewhen learners misperceive aspects of the acoustic signal and incorporate the misperceivedstructures into their grammatical systems.
The question posed at the end of §2 was this: Is the misperception and re-phonologization model able to account for all cases where a formally possible, butfunctionally unmotivated, constraint seems to be 'missing' from the constraint set? Oneexample of a functionally based restriction on phonological constraints is the condition onpositional augmentation constraints described in §3; namely, markedness constraints onstrong positions that do not enhance perceptual salience are unattested. Can this gap in theinventory of phonologically active constraints be explained via patterns of diachronicmisperception and re-phonologization?
This section presents a number of difficulties raised by positional augmentationphenomena for the misperception and re-phonologization account, considering problemsrelated both to specific characteristics of the §4 case studies and also to more generalcharacteristics of positional augmentation phenomena (§§5.1-2). A grammar-internalfunctional grounding account of the functionally based restrictions on positionalaugmentation is then developed in §5.3. Finally, §5.4 shows that it is not possible to expandthe diachronic model to handle positional augmentation without introducing a componentinto the model that is essentially indistinguishable from synchronic grammar-internalfunctional grounding itself.
5.1 Misperception-based accounts and the nature of the phonological patterns
The first problem posed by positional augmentation constraints for the misperceptionand re-phonologization model is that the kinds of phonological requirements being enforcedin strong positions cannot all have come about through misperception in the first place. As aconsequence, it is difficult to relate the functionally based characteristics of this class ofconstraints directly to the nature of the diachronic misperception and re-phonologization
process.For example, the languages discussed in §4.1 involve mandatory root stress. It is
difficult to see how this situation could have arisen through misperception from a language that
did not have root stress. The problem is perhaps most pressing for a case like Tuyuca, whereroot stress is an emergent effect of a relatively low-ranking constraint rather than a surface-true generalization. But even for the surface-true cases like Diegueño and Tahltan, it isunlikely that some acoustic factor could cause listeners to misperceive stress on a root thatwas not originally stressed. Plauché et al. (1997) and Chang et al. (2001), replicating a
Synchronic functional grounding
20
known visual-perception effect in the domain of auditory perception, show that perceptualconfusion is asymmetric with respect to perceptual salience. If X and Y differ primarily inthat X has some salient cue that Y lacks, listeners may misperceive salient X as Y (i.e., theymay fail to perceive the salient cue). However, listeners do not 'imagine' the presence of anonexistent salient cue and misperceive Y as salient X. Since positional augmentationconstraints always act to add perceptual salience to a strong position, their effects are
therefore incompatible with a misperception origin. It is possible that particular instances of positional augmentation might come about
through misperception and re-phonologization if a perceptually salient cue that is present inthe signal for some other reason is later reinterpreted as being phonologically associated with a
strong position. Positional augmentation effects calling for low-sonority onset consonants ininitial syllables and stressed syllables (de Lacy 2001; Smith 2000, 2002) might be amenableto this kind of explanation, since phonetic articulatory strengthening effects for stressed-syllable onsets (M. Beckman et al. 1992) and domain-initial consonants (Keating et al. 2004)have been experimentally observed. However, this approach cannot provide a generalexplanation for the functional aspects of positional augmentation taken as a whole. Theproblem is that the prominent property enforced by a positional augmentation constraintneed have no intrinsic connection to the phonetic characteristics of the position beingaugmented — as with roots and stress, or onsets and supralaryngeal place. See §5.2 belowfor additional discussion of this 'abstract' character of the functional grounding in positionalaugmentation constraints.
Chamicuro and the other languages listed in §4.2, with a requirement that onsetconsonants cannot be glottal, pose a different kind of problem for a diachronically basedaccount. Specifically, what is known about the diachronic development of glottalconsonants is not likely to lead to a Chamicuro-type pattern. Diachronic glottal 'fortition' or
'buccalization' — change to a different Place feature — is sporadically attested for [h]
(Blevins, to appear), but essentially unattested for [�] (Trask 1995), leading Trask to describe
glottal Place as "a vast sink from which no segment ever returns." Crucially, the onset-
specific requirement for non-glottal Place in Chamicuro treats [h] and [�] as a class, so no
[h]-specific diachronic misperception account can adequately capture the general
Chamicuro pattern. An alternative misperception scenario, involving diachronic loss of glottal onsets
through failure to perceive them at all, would indeed give rise to a language with no glottalonsets. However, this scenario should entail the loss of glottal codas as well, since codas areless perceptible than onsets, a fact that is often emphasized in misperception and re-
phonologization accounts of coda neutralization. Instead, glottal codas persist in theChamicuro-type languages.
These facts about the nature of the positional augmentation case studies from §4show that it is difficult to develop a convincing misperception and re-phonologizationaccount of the phonological patterns involved because the observed phonological patterns
Synchronic functional grounding
21
do not accord well with what is known about speech perception and paths of diachronicchange.
5.2 Misperception-based accounts and 'abstract' functional grounding
An additional problem that arises in trying to explain the functional restriction onpositional augmentation constraints in a diachronic misperception and re-phonologizationmodel has to do with the nature of the functionally based restriction itself. This restrictionsimply states that markedness constraints on prominent positions are legitimate,phonologically active constraints only if they demand the presence of some perceptuallysalient property in the strong position that they target. Crucially, it is not the case that the
perceptually salient property must be related to some intrinsic characteristic of the strongposition for the constraint to be acceptable. This can be seen in the positional augmentationeffects discussed in §4: roots have no intrinsic connection to stress, and onsets have nointrinsic connection to supralaryngeal Place features. Additional cases listed in (5) in whichthere is no particular phonetic relationship between the strong position and the perceptuallysalient property include the requirement that long vowels have high-sonority peaks, and therequirement that stressed syllables be heavy (one of the best-known examples of a strong-position-specific requirement).
In this sense, the functionally based restriction on positional augmentationconstraints can be said to be 'abstract'; it is clearly functionally motivated, since it refers toperceptual salience, but it is not tied to the specific characteristics of particular constraints orparticular strong positions. It is because the functional restriction on positionalaugmentation constraints has this degree of formal abstraction that it is difficult to reduce itto a mere byproduct of the way that particular phonological patterns might have arisendiachronically.
An analogous argument against a misperception and re-phonologization account hasbeen raised by Steriade (2001, p. 233) for the phonology of nasal place assimilation. Steriade argues against trying to relate the typological observation that nasals are the mostlikely consonants to undergo place assimilation directly to the results of perceptual-confusion experiments (Hura et al. 1992) showing that place features are more easilyconfused in nasals than in stops or fricatives. This is because in Hura et al.'s experimental
results, nasals were most often misperceived, not as assimilated nasals, but as alveolar nasals.
Nasals do tend to be misperceived, but not primarily in assimilatory ways. Therefore, bare misperception is unlikely to be the root of assimilation. . . .This may be an example of knowledge of perceptibility used as a phonological tool.
Steriade (2001, p. 233) [emphasis added]
Both the nasal-assimilation case discussed by Steriade (2001) and the positionalaugmentation effects discussed here show that functionally based considerations sometimesinfluence phonological patterns in ways that differ from the direct effects that the same
functionally based considerations would have on a specific instance of speech perception. In
Synchronic functional grounding
22
other words, the effects of phonetics on phonology can be more abstract than amisperception and re-phonologization account would predict. (See also Kingston, toappear, for related discussion.)
5.3 Positional augmentation in the grammar-internal functional grounding model
The conclusion to be drawn from the discussion in §5.1 and §5.2 above is this: Thefunctional restriction that distinguishes attested from unattested strong-position-specificmarkedness constraints — a requirement that such constraints must invoke perceptuallysalient properties — is one case where the phonological inactivity of non-functionally-motivated constraints cannot be adequately explained by the diachronic misperception andre-phonologization model.
On the other hand, the functionally based restriction on positional augmentationconstraints is certainly compatible with models of grammar-internal functional groundingthat use functional considerations to exclude non-grounded constraints from the formalphonological grammar. One such model, the Schema/Filter model, is outlined in thefollowing diagram.
(21) The Schema/Filter model of grammar-internal functional grounding
a. b. c.
Generalized
constraint schemas block some of the potential CON
The Schema/Filter model is based on Hayes' (1999) Principle of InductiveGrounding, but it generalizes the approach to constraint types beyond the articulatorilybased feature-cooccurrence constraints that Hayes discusses. In this model, all logically
possible constraints are generated by freely combining individual phonological elements(features, prosodic categories, strong positions, . . .) with generalized constraint schemas thatproduce families of related constraints (Alignment constraints, IDENT[Feature]constraints, . . .). In the case at hand, the relevant constraint schema is one that relativizesmarkedness constraints to strong positions (21a).
Any functionally based restrictions on the constraint set (including Hayes' (1999)Principle of Inductive Grounding) are then modeled as constraint filters. To capture the
Synchronic functional grounding
23
functionally based restriction on strong-position-specific markedness constraints involvingperceptual salience, the model includes a filter that tests all logically possible constraints ofthat family. The filter uses real-world, functional knowledge to see if a given strong-position-specific markedness constraint passes more-salient candidates and penalizes less-salient ones (21b) (see Smith 2002 for additional discussion of this screening process). If aconstraint has this property, as HAVEPLACE/Onset does (§4.2), it is admitted into theuniversal constraint set (21c). If not, like the unattested *LABIAL/Onset, the constraint isrejected from the constraint set.
This model of the formal-functional interface in phonology has a number ofadvantages. Unlike the diachronic misperception and re-phonologization model, it allowsfor the kind of 'abstract' functional grounding discussed in §5.2 above, because it testsformally generated constraints for compliance with general functionally based principles,rather than creating constraints directly from functional factors (see Hayes 1999 foradditional discussion). This aspect of the model also addresses the criticism sometimesleveled against grammar-internal functional grounding approaches (see especially Anderson1981; Hale and Reiss 2000) that phonology, as part of grammatical competence, is anabstract formal system that can have no direct connection to physical factors. In theSchema/Filter model, as in the Inductive Grounding model of Hayes (1999) on which it isbased, the formal, symbolic phonological grammar is given only a restricted point of contactwith functionally based conditions that do nothing but sort grounded from non-groundedconstraints (see also Archangeli and Pulleyblank 1994, p. 281 for an analogous proposalinvolving grounded implicational statements). Moreover, this model avoids the pitfall ofentailing that every imaginable phonetic factor must be relevant for the formal phonology,because only those phonetic factors that are incorporated as constraint filters in the systemcan restrict the formal grammar.
5.4 Alternative diachronic models?
The arguments advanced above have not addressed all imaginable diachronicallybased explanations for the functionally motivated restrictions on positional augmentation
effects; only the misperception and re-phonologization model has been examined anddeemed insufficient as a comprehensive model of phonetic effects on phonology. This resultis nevertheless significant, because the attribute of this particular diachronic model thatmakes it unable to model the functionally based limits on positional augmentationconstraints is precisely what has made it seem so attractive as an alternative to grammar-
internal functional grounding. The crucial attribute of the misperception and re-phonologization model is this: it is
non-teleological with respect to the perceptibility of linguistic forms and contrasts (see
especially Ohala 1981, 1993; Blevins, to appear; Blevins and Garrett 1998, 2004). That is,this model is an attempt to account for phonetic naturalness while assuming
no intention by either the speaker or the hearer to change pronunciation. Indeed, the whole purpose of the listener's interpretive activity is to attempt to
Synchronic functional grounding
24
deduce the pronunciation intended by the speaker, i.e., to preserve, not to
change, the pronunciation norm. It is when the listener makes mistakes in this
interpretation that sound change can start. (Ohala 1993, p. 262; emphasis in original)
As argued above, a purely misperception-based, which is to say non-teleological,diachronic model encounters difficulties with positional augmentation for several reasons. The addition of perceptual salience to a strong position is not the kind of sound change thatis expected to result from misperception (§5.1), and the relationship between strong positionsand salient properties found in positional augmentation is too abstract to have a reliableorigin in the acoustic signal (§5.2). One conceivable response to these criticisms would be toenrich the diachronic model with a perceptually based teleological component that, alongwith non-teleological misperception, determines the direction of diachronic change. For thecase of strong-position-specific markedness constraints, we might include in this teleologicalcomponent a goal such as, "Maximize perceptual salience in strong positions."
Crucially, however, the addition of a teleological component to the misperceptionand re-phonologization model drastically changes the character of the model. It no longerexplains the phonetically motivated nature of phonological patterning as an accidentalbyproduct of independently observable, non-goal-directed pressures that arise in the courseof communication between speakers. The expanded model now introduces a certain kind ofstrategy into the process of diachronic language change — a strategy that appeals tofunctional factors, but at an abstract or conventionalized level. As a consequence, thismodel now makes a language-system-internal appeal to functional factors that is very likethe models of grammar-internal functional grounding that proponents of the original non-teleological diachronic model have been attempting to replace.
In conclusion, the only way to expand the diachronic misperception and re-phonologization account of phonetic influences in phonology so that it can account forpositional augmentation is to abandon the commitment to a non-teleological model. However, a diachronic model with a teleological component makes the same kind of appealto abstract, conventionalized functional factors that a synchronic functional-groundingmodel would make. While a detailed comparison between the teleological diachronicmodel and the synchronic functional-grounding model is not possible here, it is clear that thefunctionally motivated restrictions on positional augmentation are due to an interface
between the phonological grammar and phonetic naturalness that is mediated by more than'innocent' misperception.
6. Conclusions and implications
The preceding discussion has examined the implications of positional augmentationconstraints, and the functionally motivated restriction on constraints of this type, for twocompeting models of phonetic effects on phonology. Positional augmentation constraints
are subject to a functional restriction, namely, that markedness constraints relativized tostrong positions are legitimate only if they act to increase perceptual salience. However, this
Synchronic functional grounding
25
restriction cannot be reduced to patterns attributable to diachronic change via misperceptionand phonologization. For one thing, there are several aspects of the phonological patternsinvolved in positional augmentation effects that do not mirror known processes of speechperception or diachronic change. Also, positional augmentation constraints are functionallygrounded in an abstract, non-contextual sense — they must involve perceptual salience, butthere need be no direct connection between the salient property demanded by the constraintand the nature of the position in question. For these reasons, a grammar-internal functionalgrounding account such as the Schema/Filter Model is better able to capture the relationshipbetween the formal phonology of positional augmentation constraints and the substantivebasis of those constraints.
This is not to say that the process of diachronic change has no influence over thenature of synchronic grammars. A diachronic misperception and re-phonologizationaccount may turn out to be the most compelling explanation for certain types ofphonological patterns, even if it cannot account for all aspects of the phonetics-phonologyinterface. Patterns of diachronic change may also provide insight into why onephonological pattern is more commonly attested than another (Archangeli and Pulleyblank1994, p. 159), even where both patterns are phonetically motivated.
Given these considerations, potentially fruitful questions for future research includethe following: What is the division of labor between synchronic and diachronic sources ofphonetic effects on phonological patterns? Which kinds of effects are best treated from adiachronic perspective, and which from a synchronic and grammar-internal-groundingperspective? Continuing to develop explicit, predictive theories of each of these models ofthe phonetics-phonology relationship will advance our understanding of synchronicgrammar, diachronic change, and their interactions.
Acknowledgements
<suppressed>
Synchronic functional grounding
26
Appendix
The following is a list of phonological requirements on strong positions, withrepresentative language examples. (For references and analysis of cases not discussedabove, see Smith 2002.)
Strong position Prominent property Languages
Main-stress syllable Heavy syllable C AguacatecC West GermanicC Mohawk
High tone C GolinC Serbo-CroatianC Slave
High-sonority peak C EnglishC Mordwin
C Zabic �e Slovene
Onset C W. ArrernteC Dutch
Low-sonority onset C Niuafo'ouC Pirahã
Long vowel High-sonority peak C Yowlumne [Yawelmani]
Onset Supralaryngeal place C ChamicuroC Yatzachi Zapotec
Initial syllable Onset C ArapahoC Guaraní
C Guhang IfugaoC HausaC Tabukang Sangir
Low-sonority onset C KumanC Guugu Yimidhirr
C MbabaramC MongolianC Pitta-PittaC Campidanian Sardinian
Synchronic functional grounding
Strong position Prominent property Languages
27
Root Stress C ChukcheeC DiegueñoC MbabaramC NancowryC TahltanC Tuyuca
References Alderete, John D. 1999. Morphologically Governed Accent in Optimality Theory. Ph.D. diss.,
UMass Amherst. [Routledge, New York, 2001.]Alderete, John D. 2001. Root-controlled accent in Cupeño. NLLT 19(3), 455-502.
Alderete, John D., and Tanya Bob. To appear. A corpus-based approach to Tahltan stress,in S. Hargus and K. Rice, eds., Athabaskan Prosody. Benjamins, Amsterdam.
Anderson, Stephen R. 1981. Why phonology isn't natural. Linguistic Inquiry 12, 493-539.
Archangeli, Diana, and Douglas Pulleyblank. 1994. Grounded Phonology. MIT Press,
Cambridge, Mass.Bach, Emmon, and Robert T. Harms. 1972. How do languages get crazy rules?, in R.P.
Stockwell and R.K.S. Macauley, eds., Linguistic Change and Generative Theory. Indiana
University Press, Bloomington, pp. 1-21.Barnes, Janet. 1996. Autosegments with three-way lexical contrasts in Tuyuca. International
Journal of American Linguistics 62, 31–58.
Barnes, Jonathan A. 2002. Positional Neutralization: A Phonologization Approach to Typological
Patterns. Ph.D. diss., UC Berkeley.
Beckman, Jill N. 1995. Shona height harmony: Markedness and positional identity, in JillN. Beckman, Laura Walsh Dickey, and Suzanne Urbanczyk, eds., Papers in Optimality
Theory. University of Massachusetts Occasional Papers 18. GLSA, Amherst, Mass., pp.
54–75.Beckman, Jill N. 1998. Positional Faithfulness. Ph.D. diss., UMass Amherst. [Garland, New
York, 1999.]Beckman, Mary E., Jan Edwards, and Janet Fletcher. 1992. Prosodic structure and tempo in
a sonority model of articulatory dynamics, in Gerard J. Docherty and D. Robert Ladd,
eds., Papers in Laboratory Phonology II: Segment, Gesture, Prosody. Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge, pp. 68-86.Blevins, Juliette. To appear. Evolutionary Phonology: The Emergence of Sound Patterns.
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Blevins, Juliette, and Andrew Garrett. 1998. The origins of consonant-vowel metathesis.
Language 74(3), 508-556.
Blevins, Juliette, and Andrew Garrett. 2004. The evolution of metathesis, in B. Hayes et al.,eds., Phonetically-based Phonology.Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 117-156.
Synchronic functional grounding
28
Boersma, Paul. 1998. Functional Phonology. Holland Academic Graphics, The Hague.
Borroff, Marianne. 2003. Against an ONSET analsyis of hiatus resolution. Ms., SUNY StonyBrook. Rutgers Optimality Archive #586 [http://roa.rutgers.edu].
Casali, Roderic F. 1996. Resolving Hiatus. Ph.D. diss., UCLA. [Garland, New York, 1998.]
Chang, Steve S., Madelaine C. Plauché, and John J. Ohala. 2001. Markedness andconsonant confusion asymmetries, in Elizabeth V. Hume and Keith Johnson, eds., The
Role of Speech Perception in Phonology. Academic Press, San Diego, pp. 79-101.
Chomsky, Noam, and Morris Halle. 1968. The Sound Pattern of English. Harper and Row,
New York.Coelho, Gail. 2002. Conflicting directionality in Thompson River Salish. Proceedings of
Texas Linguistic Society VII.
Cook, Eung-Do. 1972. Stress and related rules in Tahltan. International Journal of American
[Routledge, New York, 2002.]Hale, Mark, and Charles Reiss. 2000. "Substance abuse" and "dysfunctionalism": Current
trends in phonology. Linguistic Inquiry 31, 157-169.
Hayes, Bruce. 1999. Phonetically driven phonology: The role of Optimality Theory andinductive grounding, in M. Darnell, et al., eds., Formalism and Functionalism in Linguistics,
vol. I. Benjamins, Amsterdam, pp. 243–85.
Hayes, Bruce, Robert Kirchner, and Donca Steriade, eds. 2004. Phonetically Based Phonology.
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Hooper, Joan Bybee. 1976. An Introduction to Natural Generative Phonology. Academic Press,
New York.Hura, Susan L., Björn Lindblom, and Randy L. Diehl. 1992. On the role of perception in
shaping phonological assimilation rules. Language and Speech 35, 59-72.
Hyman, Larry M. 2001. The limits of phonetic determination in phonology: *NC revisited,in Elizabeth V. Hume and Keith Johnson, eds., The Role of Speech Perception in Phonology.
Academic Press, San Diego, pp. 141-185.
Synchronic functional grounding
29
Jun, Jongho. 1995. Perceptual and Articulatory factors in Place Assimilation: An Optimality
Toronto. [Routledge, New York, 2002.]Krause, Scott R. 1979. Topics in Chukchee Phonology and Morphology. Ph.D. diss., University
of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign.Langdon, Margaret. 1975. Boundaries and lenition in Yuman languages. International
Journal of American Linguistics 41, 218-33.
Langdon, Margaret. 1977. Stress, length, and pitch in Yuman languages. Larry M. Hyman,ed., Studies in Stress and Accent. Southern California Occasional Papers in Linguistics 4.
University of Southern California, Los Angeles, 239–259.Lombardi, Linda. 1991. Laryngeal Features and Laryngeal Neutralization. Ph.D. diss., UMass
Amherst. [Garland, New York, 1994.]Lombardi, Linda. 1999. Positional faithfulness and voicing assimilation in Optimality
Theory. NLLT 17, 267-302.
Lombardi, Linda. 2001. Why Place and Voice are different: constraint-specific alternationsin Optimality Theory. L. Lombardi, ed., Segmental Phonology in Optimality Theory:
Constraints and Representations. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 13-45.
McCarthy, John J., and Alan S. Prince. 1993. Generalized alignment. Yearbook of
Morphology 1993, 79–153.
McCarthy, John J., and Alan S. Prince. 1995. Faithfulness and reduplicative identity, in JillN. Beckman, Laura Walsh Dickey, and Suzanne Urbanczyk, eds., Papers in Optimality
Theory. University of Massachusetts Occasional Papers 18. GLSA, Amherst, Mass, pp.
250–384.McMahon, April. 2000. Change, Chance, and Optimality. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Ohala, John J. 1981. The listener as a source of sound change. CLS 17: Papers from the
Parasession on Language and Behavior, 178-203.
Synchronic functional grounding
30
Ohala, John J. 1993. The phonetics of sound change. Charles Jones, ed., HistoricalLinguistics: Problems and Perspectives. Longman, London, pp. 237-278.
Padgett, Jaye. 1995. Partial class theory and nasal place assimilation. Proceedings of South
Western Optimality Theory Workshop 1995, 145–183.
Padgett, Jaye. To appear. Russian voicing assimilation, final devoicing, and the problem of[v]. NLLT.
Parker, Steve. 1994. Laryngeal codas in Chamicuro. International Journal of American
Linguistics 60, 261-271.
Parker, Steve. 2001. Non-optimal onsets in Chamicuro: An inventory maximised in codaposition. Phonology 18, 361-386.
Pater, Joe. 1999. Austronesian nasal substitution and other NC effects, in Harry van derHulst, René Kager, and Wim Zonneveld, eds., The Prosody-Morphology Interface.
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 310-343.Plauché, M., C. Delogu, and J. Ohala. 1997. Asymmetries in consonant confusion.
Proceedings of Eurospeech '97, 4, 2187-2190.
Ploch, Stefan. 1999. Nasals on my Mind: The Phonetic and the Cognitive Approach to Nasality.
Ph.D. diss., University of London.Prince, Alan S. 1990. Quantitative consequences of rhythmic organization. CLS 26:
Parasession on the Syllable in Phonetics and Phonology, 355–398.
Prince, Alan S., and Paul Smolensky. 1993. Optimality Theory: Constraint Interaction in
Generative Grammar. Ms., Rutgers U. and U. of Colorado. [Malden, Mass., Blackwell,
2004.]Radhakrishnan, R. 1981. The Nancowry Word: Phonology, Affixal Morphology and Roots of a
Nicobarese Language. Linguistic Research, Carbondale, Ill.
Smith, Jennifer L. 2000. Prominence, augmentation, and neutralization in phonology.Proceedings of BLS 26, 247-257.
Smith, Jennifer L. 2002. Phonological Augmentation in Prominent Positions. Ph.D. diss., UMass
Amherst. [To appear from Routledge in 2004.]Smith, Jennifer L. 2004. On loanword adaptation as evidence for preferred repair strategies.
Poster presentation, International Conference on Linguistic Evidence, University of
Tübingen.Smith, Jennifer L. To appear. Making constraints positional: toward a compositional model
of CON. Lingua.
Stampe, David. 1973. A Dissertation on Natural Phonology. Indiana University Linguistics
Club, Bloomington, Ind. [Garland, New York, 1979.]Steriade, Donca. 1993. Positional neutralization. Paper presented at NELS 23, University of
Massachusetts, Amherst.
Steriade, Donca. 1997. Phonetics in phonology: The case of laryngeal neutralization. Ms.,UCLA.
Steriade, Donca. 2001. Directional asymmetries in place assimilation: a perceptual account,
in Elizabeth V. Hume and Keith Johnson, eds., The Role of Speech Perception in Phonology.
Academic Press, San Diego, pp. 219-250.
Synchronic functional grounding
31
Stevens, Kenneth N. 1971. The role of rapid spectrum changes in the production andperception of speech, in L.L. Hammerich et al., eds., Form and Substance: Phonetic and
Linguistic Papers Presented to Eli Fischer-Jørensen. Akademisk Forlag, Copenhagen, pp.
95–101.Trask, Larry. 1995. Summary: Buccalization. Linguist List 6.960 [www.linguistlist.org].Trubetzkoy, Nikolai Sergeevich. 1939. Principles of Phonology. Translated by C.A.M. Baltaxe.
Berkeley, University of California Press, 1969.Vennemann, Theo. 1974. Words and syllables in natural generative grammar. CLS 10: Papers
from the Parasession on Natural Phonology, 346-374.
