Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2brh9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T22:32:43.578Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Saltation and the P-map*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 October 2015

Bruce Hayes  and
James White
Bruce Hayes*
Affiliation:
University of California, Los Angeles
James White*
Affiliation:
University College London
*
E-mail: [email protected]
E-mail: [email protected].
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We define a saltatory phonological alternation as one in which sound A is converted to C, leaping over phonetically intermediate B. For example, in Campidanian Sardinian, intervocalic /p/ is realised as [β] – leaping over [b], which does not alternate. Based on experimental evidence, we argue that saltation is marked, i.e. a UG bias causes language learners to disprefer it. However, despite its marked status, saltation does occur. We survey its diachronic origins, and suggest that it is never introduced as a sound change, but arises only from a variety of historical accidents. For the formal analysis of saltation, we propose a new approach, based on Zuraw's (2007, 2013) *Map constraints and Steriade's (2001, 2009) P-map. This approach is more restrictive than previous proposals, and accounts for psycholinguistic evidence indicating an anti-saltation learning bias: saltation is disfavoured during learning because it is by definition not a P-map-compliant pattern.

Type
Articles
Information
Phonology , Volume 32 , Issue 2 , August 2015 , pp. 267 - 302
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2015 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

For help and advice we would like to thank Laura Jo Downing, Armin Mester, Viola Miglio, Russell Schuh, Norval Smith, Colin Wilson and members of audiences at the joint UCLA/USC Phonology Seminar, Harvard University and the University of Washington. We also thank our anonymous reviewers and the associate editor for their helpful input.

Supplementary materials, which include the tableaux for the complete analysis of Campidanian (see §6.3 and §6.4), are available at http://www.journals.cambridge.org/issue_Phonology/Vol32No02.

References

Anderson, Stephen R. (1981). Why phonology isn't ‘natural’. LI 12. 493–539.Google Scholar
Anderson, Stephen R. (1985). Phonology in the twentieth century: theories of rules and theories of representations. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Anderson, Stephen R. & Browne, Wayles (1973). On keeping exchange rules in Czech. Papers in Linguistics 6. 445–482.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anttila, Arto (2012). Modeling phonological variation. In Cohn, Abigail C., Fougeron, Cécile & Huffman, Marie K. (eds.) The Oxford handbook of laboratory phonology. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 76–91.Google Scholar
Aronoff, Mark, Arsyad, Azhar, Basri, Hasan & Broselow, Ellen (1987). Tier configuration in Makassarese reduplication. CLS 23:2. 1–15.Google Scholar
Bach, Emmon & Harms, Robert T. (1972). How do languages get crazy rules? In Stockwell, Robert P. & Macaulay, Ronald K. S. (eds.) Linguistic change and generative theory. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. 1–21.Google Scholar
Baković, Eric (2000). Harmony, dominance, and control. PhD dissertation, Rutgers University.Google Scholar
Becker, Michael, Nevins, Andrew & Levine, Jonathan (2012). Asymmetries in generalizing alternations to and from initial syllables. Lg 88. 231–268.Google Scholar
Beckman, Jill N. (1997). Positional faithfulness, positional neutralisation and Shona vowel harmony. Phonology 14. 1–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beckman, Jill N. (1998). Positional faithfulness. PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
Benua, Laura (1997). Transderivational identity: phonological relations between words. PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
Bernhardt, Barbara H. & Stemberger, Joseph P. (1998). Handbook of phonological development from the perspective of constraint-based nonlinear phonology. San Diego: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Blevins, Juliette (2004). Evolutionary Phonology: the emergence of sound patterns. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Blumenfeld, Lev (2003). Counterfeeding, derived environment effects, and comparative markedness. Theoretical Linguistics 29. 89–99.Google Scholar
Bolognesi, Roberto (1998). The phonology of Campidanian Sardinian: a unitary account of a self-organizing structure. PhD dissertation, University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Bowers, Dustin (2012). Phonological restructuring in Odawa. MA thesis, University of California, Los Angeles. Available (May 2015) at https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=sites&srcid=ZGVmYXVsdGRvbWFpbnxkdXN0aW5ib3dlcnNsaW5ndWlzdHxneDo2ZTI5N2JhZjQ2MzM3Y2Fm.Google Scholar
Bradshaw, Mary M. (1995). Tone on verbs in Suma. In Akinlabi, Akinbiyi (ed.) Theoretical approaches to African linguistics. Trenton, NJ: Africa World Press. 255–271.Google Scholar
Bradshaw, Mary M. (1998). Tone alternations in the associative construction of Suma. In Maddieson, Ian & Hinnebusch, Thomas J. (eds.) Language history and linguistic description in Africa. Trenton, NJ: Africa World Press. 117–125.Google Scholar
Bradshaw, Mary M. (1999). Unrecoverable origins. In Hermans & van Oostendorp (1999). 51–80.Google Scholar
Brasoveanu, Adrian & Prince, Alan (2011). Ranking and necessity: the Fusional Reduction Algorithm. NLLT 29. 3–70.Google Scholar
Buckley, Eugene (2000). On the naturalness of unnatural rules. UCSB Working Papers in Linguistics 9. 16–29.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan (1985). Morphology: a study of the relation between meaning and form. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bynon, Theodora (1977). Historical linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Casali, Roderic F. (1997). Vowel elision in hiatus contexts: which vowel goes? Lg 73. 493–533.Google Scholar
Crosswhite, Katherine M. (2000). Vowel reduction in Russian: a unified account of standard, dialectal, and ‘dissimilative’ patterns. University of Rochester Working Papers in the Language Sciences 1. 107–172.Google Scholar
Crowhurst, Megan J. (2011). Constraint conjunction. In van Oostendorp, Marc, Ewen, Colin J., Hume, Elizabeth & Rice, Keren (eds.) The Blackwell companion to phonology. Malden, Mass.: Wiley-Blackwell. 1461–1490.Google Scholar
Crowhurst, Megan J. & Hewitt, Mark (1997). Boolean operations and constraint interactions in Optimality Theory. Ms, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill & Brandeis University. Available as ROA-229 from the Rutgers Optimality Archive.Google Scholar
Dobson, E. J. (1968). English pronunciation 1500–1700. 2nd edn. Vol. 2: Phonology. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
Downing, Laura J. (1998). On the prosodic misalignment of onsetless syllables. NLLT 16. 1–52.Google Scholar
Fleischhacker, Heidi (2001). Cluster-dependent epenthesis asymmetries. UCLA Working Papers in Linguistics 7 : Papers in Phonology 5. 71–116.Google Scholar
Fleischhacker, Heidi (2005). Similarity in phonology: evidence from reduplication and loan adaptation. PhD dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Flemming, Edward (1995). Auditory representations in phonology. PhD dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Flemming, Edward (2004). Contrast and perceptual distinctiveness. In Hayes, Bruce, Kirchner, Robert & Steriade, Donca (eds.) Phonetically based phonology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 232–276.Google Scholar
Goldwater, Sharon & Johnson, Mark (2003). Learning OT constraint rankings using a Maximum Entropy model. In Spenador, Jennifer, Eriksson, Anders & Dahl, Östen (eds.) Proceedings of the Stockholm Workshop on Variation within Optimality Theory. Stockholm: Stockholm University. 111–120.Google Scholar
Hall, T. A. (2006). Derived Environment Blocking effects in Optimality Theory. NLLT 24. 803–856.Google Scholar
Hayes, Bruce (1995). Metrical stress theory: principles and case studies. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Hayes, Bruce (1999). Phonological restructuring in Yidiɲ and its theoretical consequences. In Hermans, & van Oostendorp, (1999). 175–205.Google Scholar
Hayes, Bruce (2004). Phonological acquisition in Optimality Theory: the early stages. In Kager, et al. (2004). 158–203.Google Scholar
Hayes, Bruce, Tesar, Bruce & Zuraw, Kie (2013). OTSoft 2.3.3. Software package. http://www.linguistics.ucla.edu/people/hayes/otsoft/.Google Scholar
Hermans, Ben & van Oostendorp, Marc (eds.) (1999). The derivational residue in phonological Optimality Theory. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Hutchison, John P. (1981). A reference grammar of the Kanuri language. Madison: African Studies Program, University of Wisconsin.Google Scholar
Hyman, Larry M. (1975). Phonology: theory and analysis. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
Inkelas, Sharon (1999). Exceptional stress-attracting suffixes in Turkish: representations versus the grammar. In Kager, René, van der Hulst, Harry & Zonneveld, Wim (eds.) The prosody–morphology interface. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 134–187.Google Scholar
Itô, Junko & Mester, Armin (1997). Correspondence and compositionality: the ga-gyõ variation in Japanese phonology. In Roca, Iggy (ed.) Derivations and constraints in phonology. Oxford: Clarendon. 419–462.Google Scholar
Ito, Junko & Mester, Armin (1998). Markedness and word structure: OCP effects in Japanese. Ms, University of California, Santa Cruz. Available as ROA-255 from the Rutgers Optimality Archive.Google Scholar
Ito, Junko & Mester, Armin (2003). On the sources of opacity in OT: coda processes in German. In Féry, Caroline & van de Vijver, Ruben (eds.) The syllable in Optimality Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 271–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jarrett, Kevin (2007). A dictionary of Manga, a Kanuri language of Eastern Niger and NE Nigeria. Revised and edited by Blench, Roger. Available (May 2015) at http://www.rogerblench.info/Language/Nilo-Saharan/Saharan/MangadictionaryUnicode.pdf. Google Scholar
Kager, René, Pater, Joe & Zonneveld, Wim (eds.) (2004). Constraints in phonological acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaye, Jonathan (1978). Rule mitosis: the historical development of Algonquian palatalization. In Cook, Eung-Do & Kaye, Jonathan (eds.) Linguistic studies of native Canada. Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press. 143–156.Google Scholar
Kazazis, Kostas (1969). Possible evidence for (near-)underlying forms in the speech of one child. CLS 5. 382–388.Google Scholar
Kenstowicz, Michael & Kisseberth, Charles (1977). Topics in phonological theory. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
King, Robert D. (1969). Historical linguistics and generative grammar. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul (1965). Phonological change. PhD dissertation, MIT. Available (May 2015) at http://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/13011.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul (1968). Linguistic universals and linguistic change. In Bach, Emmon & Harms, Robert T. (eds.) Universals in linguistic theory. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. 170–202.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul (1973). Abstractness, opacity, and global rules. In Fujimura, Osamu (ed.) Three dimensions in linguistic theory. Tokyo: TEC. 57–86.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul (1978). Analogical change as a problem for linguistic theory. Studies in the Linguistic Sciences 8:2. 77–96.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul (1982). Explanation in phonology. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Labov, William (1994). Principles of linguistic change. Vol. 1: Internal factors. Oxford & Cambridge, Mass.: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Ladd, D. Robert & Scobbie, James M. (2003). External sandhi as gestural overlap? Counter-evidence from Sardinian. In Local, John, Ogden, Richard & Temple, Rosalind (eds.) Phonetic interpretation: papers in laboratory phonology VI. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 164–182.Google Scholar
Lass, Roger (1997). Historical linguistics and language change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lofstedt, Ingvar (2010). Phonetic effects in Swedish phonology: allomorphy and paradigms. PhD dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Lombardi, Linda (1999). Positional faithfulness and voicing assimilation in Optimality Theory. NLLT 17. 267–302.Google Scholar
Łubowicz, Anna (2002). Derived environment effects in Optimality Theory. Lingua 112. 243–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Łubowicz, Anna (2003). Local conjunction and comparative markedness. Theoretical Linguistics 29. 101–112.Google Scholar
McCarthy, John J. (2003). Comparative markedness. Theoretical Linguistics 29. 1–51.Google Scholar
McCarthy, John J. (ed.) (2004). Optimality Theory in phonology: a reader. Malden, Mass. & Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
McCarthy, John J. & Prince, Alan (1995). Faithfulness and reduplicative identity. In Beckman, Jill N., Dickey, Laura Walsh & Urbanczyk, Suzanne (eds.) Papers in Optimality Theory. Amherst: GLSA. 249–384.Google Scholar
Maddieson, Ian (1984). Patterns of sounds. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Mascaró, Joan (1996). External allomorphy as emergence of the unmarked. In Durand, Jacques & Laks, Bernard (eds.) Current trends in phonology: models and methods. Salford: ESRI. 473–483. Reprinted 2004 in John J. McCarthy (ed.) Optimality Theory in phonology. Oxford: Blackwell. 513–522.Google Scholar
Minkova, Donka (1993). On leapfrogging in historical phonology. In van Marle, Jaap (ed.) Historical linguistics 1991: papers from the 10th International Conference on Historical Linguistics, Amsterdam, August 12–16, 1991. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 211–228.Google Scholar
Mohanan, K. P. (1982). Lexical Phonology. PhD dissertation, MIT. Distributed by Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
Moreton, Elliott (2008). Analytic bias and phonological typology. Phonology 25. 83–127.Google Scholar
Padgett, Jaye (2003). Contrast and post-velar fronting in Russian. NLLT 21. 39–87.Google Scholar
Padgett, Jaye (2009). Systemic contrast and Catalan rhotics. The Linguistic Review 26. 431–463.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pilch, Herbert (1966). Das Lautsystem der hochdeutschen Umgangssprache. Zeitschrift für Mundartforschung 33. 247–266.Google Scholar
Prince, Alan & Smolensky, Paul (1993). Optimality Theory: constraint interaction in generative grammar. Ms, Rutgers University & University of Colorado, Boulder. Published 2004, Malden, Mass. & Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Prince, Alan & Tesar, Bruce (2004). Learning phonotactic distributions. In Kager, et al. (2004). 245–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robinson, Orrin W. (2001). Whose German? The ach/ich alternation and related phenomena in ‘standard’ and ‘colloquial’. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Rubach, Jerzy (1984). Cyclic and Lexical Phonology: the structure of Polish. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Rubach, Jerzy (1993). The lexical phonology of Slovak. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
Salmons, Joseph (2012). A history of German: what the past reveals about today's language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Schirmunski, V. M. (1962). Deutsche Mundartkunde: vergleichende Laut- und Formenlehre der deutschen Mundarten. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag.Google Scholar
Schuh, Russell G. (2003). The linguistic influence of Kanuri on Bade and Ngizim. Maiduguri Journal of Linguistic and Literary Studies (MAJOLLS) 5. 55–89.Google Scholar
Schuh, Russell G. (2005). The history of labial and velar obstruents in Kanuri. Ms, University of California, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Shademan, Shabnam (2002). Epenthetic vowel harmony in Farsi. MA thesis, University of California, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Skoruppa, Katrin, Lambrechts, Anna & Peperkamp, Sharon (2011). The role of phonetic distance in the acquisition of phonological alternations. NELS 39:2. 717–729.Google Scholar
Smith, Norval, Beers, Mieke, Bod, Rens, Bolognesi, Roberto, Humbert, Helga & van der Leeuw, Frank (1991). Lenition in a Sardinian dialect. In Bertinetto, Pier Marco, Kenstowicz, Michael & Loporcaro, Michele (eds.) Certamen phonologicum II: papers from the 1990 Cortona Phonology Meeting. Turin: Rosenberg & Sellier. 309–328.Google Scholar
Smith, Norval & Haabo, Vinije (2007). The Saramaccan implosives: tools for linguistic archaeology? Journal of Pidgin and Creole Languages 22. 101–122.Google Scholar
Smolensky, Paul (1995). On the internal structure of the constraint component Con of UG. Ms, Johns Hopkins University. Available as ROA-86 from the Rutgers Optimality Archive.Google Scholar
Stampe, David (1973). A dissertation on Natural Phonology. PhD dissertation, University of Chicago.Google Scholar
Stave, Matthew, Smolek, Amy & Kapatsinski, Vsevolod (2013). Inductive bias against stem changes as perseveration: experimental evidence for an articulatory approach to Output-Output Faithfulness. Proceedings of the 35th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society. Austin: Cognitive Science Society. 3454–3459.Google Scholar
Steriade, Donca (2001). Directional asymmetries in place assimilation: a perceptual account. In Hume, Elizabeth & Johnson, Keith (eds.) The role of speech perception in phonology. San Diego: Academic Press. 219–250.Google Scholar
Steriade, Donca (2009). The phonology of perceptibility effects: the P-map and its consequences for constraint organization. In Hanson, Kristin & Inkelas, Sharon (eds.) The nature of the word: studies in honor of Paul Kiparsky. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. 151–179.Google Scholar
Sundara, Megha, Jung Kim, Yun, White, James & Chong, Adam J. (2013). There is no pat in patting: acquisition of phonological alternations by English-learning 12-month-olds. Paper presented at the 38th Boston University Conference on Language Development. Available (May 2015) at http://www.ucl.ac.uk/~ucjtcwh/index_files/SundaraEtAl_BUCLD2013.pdf.Google Scholar
Tesar, Bruce & Smolensky, Paul (1995). The learnability of Optimality Theory. WCCFL 13. 122–137.Google Scholar
Vaux, Bert (2002). Consonant epenthesis and the problem of unnatural phonology. Ms, Harvard University.Google Scholar
Vennemann, Theo (1972a). Rule inversion. Lingua 29. 209–242.Google Scholar
Vennemann, Theo (1972b). Phonetic analogy and conceptual analogy. In Vennemann, Theo & Wilbur, Terence H. (eds.) Schuchardt, the Neogrammarians, and the transformational theory of phonological change. Frankfurt am Main: Athenäum. 181–204.Google Scholar
Virdis, Maurizio (1978). Fonetica storica del dialetto Campidanese. Cagliari: Edizioni della Torre.Google Scholar
White, James (2013). Bias in phonological learning: evidence from saltation. PhD dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
White, James (2014). Evidence for a learning bias against saltatory phonological alternations. Cognition 130. 96–115.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
White, James & Sundara, Megha (2014). Biased generalization of newly learned phonological alternations by 12-month-old infants. Cognition 133. 85–90.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wilson, Colin (2006). Learning phonology with substantive bias: an experimental and computational study of velar palatalization. Cognitive Science 30. 945–982.Google Scholar
Zuraw, Kie (2007). The role of phonetic knowledge in phonological patterning: corpus and survey evidence from Tagalog infixation. Lg 83. 277–316.Google Scholar
Zuraw, Kie (2013). *Map constraints. Ms, University of California, Los Angeles. Available (May 2015) at www.linguistics.ucla.edu/people/zuraw/dnldpprs/star_map.pdf.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: PDF

Hayes and White supplementary material

Hayes and White supplementary material 1

Download Hayes and White supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 510.1 KB