Positional Faithfulness for weak positions

Paroma SanyalEFL- University

Positional Constraints

A •Positional Faithfulness to Strong position•Beckman (1998), Lombardi (1999)

B •Positional Markedness to Strong position•De Lacy (2000, 2001), Smith (2000, 2002)

C •Licensing Restriction on weak position•Kager (1996), Zoll (1998)

Strong and Weak positionsStrong Position Weak Position!

Word Initial Word Final

Head of Foot Non-head of Foot

Stressed syllable Unstressed syllable

Root Affix

… …

Positional Faithfulness

• Positional Faithfulness is interpreted as positional faithfulness to a strong position

• Ident-Pos [F]: Segments in position (Pos) in the output sequence for the feature [F] should correspond to segments in position (Pos) for the feature [F] in the input sequence

• Ident-Pos [F] >> Ident [F]

Neutralization restricted to weak position

Ident [F]/ Str>>*M>>

Ident [F]

Positional Augmentation

• Positional augmentation is a term coined by Cheryl Zoll to refer to refer to the markedness requirement of licensing more salient segmental material in strong positions.

• This markedness when dominating constraint may result in a variety of faithfulness and markedness constraint violations.

Jennifer Smith (2002)σʹHigh-sonority peakZabiče Slovene (Crosswhite 1999);Mokshan Mordwin (Kenstowicz 1994)

OnsetDutch (Booij 1995), Western Arrernte(Strehlow 1942; Davis 1988; Downing 1998)

Low-sonority onsetPirahã (Everett & Everett 1984), Niuafo'ou(Tsukamoto 1998; de Lacy 2000, 2001)

C [+rel]

Supra-laryngeal placeChamicuro (Parker 2001)

V:High-sonorityYawelmani Yokuts (Newman 1944; Kuroda1967; Kisseberth 1969; Archangeli 1984)

σ1

OnsetArapaho (Salzmann 1956), Guhang Ifugao(Newell 1956, Landman 1999)

Low-sonority onsetMongolian (Ramsey 1987), Kuman (Lynch1983; Blevins 1994), Mbabaram (Dixon 1991),Campidanian Sardinian (Bolognesi 1998)

Positional Constraints for weak positions

• Interaction of positional reduction or augmentation with another phonological process in a common context.

• The “other” process may be phonologically or morphologically motivated.

• The logical possibilities as well as natural language data available are complex and many. But….

Guugu Yimidhirr

Ist σ heavywaaɽigan ‘moon’waaḏa ‘crow’guuɽumugu ‘meat hawk’2nd σ heavydawaaɽ ‘star’gambuugu ‘head’ḏamaaɽbina ‘magpie

goose’

1st and 2nd σ heavybuuɾaay ‘water’muuluumul ‘dove’daaɾaalŋan ‘kangaroo’ɗiɽaayŋguɽ ‘old man’

Morphological environment

• /maŋal-nda/ ma.ŋaal.nda ‘clay’

• /wuluŋguɾ-nda/ wu.luŋ.guɾ.nda ‘lightning’

* wu.luŋ.guuɾ.nda

Bangla

• Vowel Harmony• No prominence induced augmentation or

reduction• All vowels in all positions!• Initial /a/ resists any alternation• Final /a/ shows up as lexical variation• Initial /i/ shows lexical variation• Final /i/ is without any alternation

Conclusion

• Strong and weak positions are not very different from each other in the context morphological and phonological processes

• Strong positions prefer augmentation. This might be blocked by dominant faithfulness requirement in the language.

• Weak positions prefer reduction. Again this might be blocked by dominant faithfulness requirement in the language.

• Additionally strong positions do not prefer to undergo reduction and weak positions resist augmentation

Summarizing

Positional Identity Positional markedness

Strong position PI/Str: Positional Identity

for strong position

Block neutralization in

Strong position

*M/Str: Positional

markedness for strong

position

Motivate augmentation in

strong position

Weak position PI/Wk: Positional Identity

for weak position

Block augmentation in

weak position

*M/Wk: Positional

markedness for weak

position

Motivate neutralization in

weak position

Some more interesting cases

• Dutch- Jennifer Smith• Obligatory onset in strong position

ONSET/σ’ >> IDENT >> ONSETor

IDENT/σ >> ONSET >> IDENT̆

• Shimakonde- Laura J.DowningStress controlled reductionVowel harmony

Thanks