Click here to sign up. Submission Websites List. For the academic login, please select your organization on the next page. You will be redirected to verify your credentials. I have read the Karger Terms and Conditions and agree. If you would like to redeem your KAB credit, please log in. Subcription rates. Coratino, a dialect of southern Italy, displays complex vowel reduction processes assumed to be phonological. Square brackets in the original were changed to parentheses to differentiate our use of square brackets. In the next section we review the extent of palatalization across Inuit dialects.
In the following subsections we examine the relationship between palatalization and this fourth vowel. In the North Slope dialect alveolars undergo palatalization after strong i but not after weak i. Kaplan —82 provides the following examples in nominal and verbal morphology with proto-forms here and throughout added from Fortescue et al. We can observe the same dichotomy in the verb stems in 5 , with strong i in 5b,e,g causing palatalization, while the weak i in 5a,c,f does not Kaplan : 5 Barrow palatalization after strong i in verb stems stem gloss 3SG. Proto-Eskimo a.
The co-extensive distribution of schwa in modern Yupik languages and the Diomede subdialect of Bering Strait, along with historical documentation of eastern Canadian dialects noted above, provide independent support for these reconstructions. In 5f-g the intervening consonants between the stem vowel and the suffix initial consonant undergo assimilation.
At the other end of the geographic dialect continuum, we also observe synchronic palatalization in Greenlandic.
Vowel Reduction in Coratino (South Italy): Phonological and Phonetic Perspectives
Setting aside the status of palatalization in East Greenlandic for the moment, consider the following examples from Dorais comparing Greenlandic dialects to a non-palatalizing dialect from Canadian Inuktitut, with proto-forms from Fortescue et al. East Gr. Thule Aivilik gloss PE a. Rischel provides further examples of palatalization occurring across morpheme boundaries in West Greenlandic.
(PDF) A Glossory of Phonology by Philip Carr | GM Ai - biocordenskat.tk
However, the lack of word-final palatalization appears to be due to a phonotactic constraint banning word- final fricatives across all Canadian and Greenlandic Inuit. However, [s] can still appear after [t] and it is in this environment where we can see productive alternations across morpheme boundaries, as illustrated in the examples collected below from Fortescue : 24 stem gloss PART. Importantly, palatalization has not been extended to occur freely after surface [i].
However, there is reason to believe that this is a late phonetic rule.
Conversely, strong i in 24f—j does cause palatalization. Dorais seems to be suggesting that while palatalization is synchronically productive in West Greenlandic and Thule, it has become fossilized in East Greenlandic. Still, as illustrated earlier and stated by Tersis, these fossilized instances of palatalization arose diachronically after strong i, supporting the hypothesis that palatalization was productive after strong i at an earlier stage. Baffin Eskimo a.
These forms may reflect an earlier stage with some palatalization after strong i. These fall into two categories; those with four vowels and those with three. The other non-palatalizing dialects have only three vowels see the table in the next section for a detailed list. If they are fossilizations i. Conversely, if palatalization is synchronic then speakers would need to posit a fourth vowel so as not to over-generate.
Four vowels, without palatalization e. Diomede b.
Series: Current issues in linguistic theory
Four vowels, with palatalization e. North Slope c. Three vowels, without palatalization e. Aivilik d. This perseveration of a distinction in the absence of its phonetic motivation, as schematized in 31a below, is a common historical pattern. It may be that some of these dialects never had palatalization at all, but it is unlikely that none of them did. This, too, is a common historical development when an original contrast is lost. By the same token, why has no three-vowel dialect innovated palatalization?
No three-vowel dialect has extended palatalization to all surface [i] upon the loss of the underlying fourth vowel. We argue in the next section that this typological gap can be explained via an analysis that draws a connection between phonological activity and contrast.
- Books by Jacques Durand.
- Headhood, Elements, Specification and Contrastivity: Phonological Papers in - Google книги.
- Nuclear Physics?
Theoretical framework and analysis 3. It is a main contention of the general approach we follow here, that of Modified Contrastive Specification Avery and Rice ; Dresher, Piggott, and Rice , Dresher This theory adopts what D. Hall has called the Contrastivist Hypothesis, which he states as in Hall 20 The phonological component of a language L operates only on those features which are necessary to distinguish the phonemes of L from one another.
Put another way, the Contrastivist Hypothesis holds that only contrastive features are active in the phonology. How palatalization works is the subject of some debate; see Kenstowicz , T.
The typological gap can be accounted for if we can explain why [coronal] may not be active in three-vowel dialects. Apart from palatalization, what other examples of phonological activity are manifested by Inuit dialects? In a three- or four-vowel system it is not crucial which of these we choose, as all perform a roughly similar contrastive function. We contend that [labial] is a natural choice for this feature. In this section we will consider how to draw the connection between activity and contrast.
Consider again the vowel system of Proto-Eskimo, repeated from 1 above. To the features we have already identified as active we can add [high], a common feature in analyses of simple vowel systems. The full specifications of the vowels in 38 are as in That is, some specifications are predictable. Put differently, not all features are contrastive: some are redundant. A common procedure is to identify as contrastive only those features that uniquely distinguish a pair of phonemes.
To make a connection with phonological activity in these inventories, we need a different approach to contrast. An informal statement of this algorithm is given in Begin with no feature specifications: assume all sounds are allophones of a single undifferentiated phoneme. If the set is found to consist of more than one contrasting member, select a feature and divide the set into as many subsets as the feature allows for.
Repeat step b in each subset: keep dividing up the inventory into sets, applying successive features in turn, until every set has only one member. In this approach, features are ordered into a contrastive hierarchy. The ordering of the features and the SDA determine what the contrastive feature specifications are for an inventory. We assume that the ordering of features may vary cross-linguistically, though some orderings may be more common than others.
Since the ordering is variable, we must seek evidence for the ordering, in the first place, from phonological activity.
enter This fact suggests that these features should be at the top of the contrastive hierarchy in these dialects. Since these three features are sufficient to fully distinguish the four vowel phonemes, no other features, such as [high], can be contrastive.
Based on the phonological activity observed in all the dialects including three- vowel dialects , we propose the contrastive feature hierarchy in 43 for the Proto-Eskimo vowel system. For each feature we distinguish between the marked value in small caps and the unmarked, or default, value in parentheses. The non-low vowels can be divided up in a number of ways. A common pattern is that the next division is based on a place feature.
Of the two active place features, we propose that [labial] is the next feature in the order, for reasons that will become clear later.