Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-mlc7c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-03T21:55:21.306Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Theoretical implications of segment neutrality in nasal harmony

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 May 2004

G. L. Piggott
G. L. Piggott
Affiliation:
McGill University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In nasal harmony systems, any major consonant class (excluding laryngeal glides) may fail to undergo nasalisation. This paper proposes to derive the neutrality of stops, fricatives, liquids and glides from the satisfaction of a special set of faithfulness constraints; each member of the set commands the presence of a particular segment class in a consonant inventory. The analysis requires that the constraint commanding the presence of stops be active in every grammar and invariably take precedence over the demands of nasal harmony. The explanation of stop neutrality forces a rethinking of the nature of constraints and how they interact. The paper argues that the constraints regulating the cross-linguistic manifestation of segment neutrality are either universal grammatical features (i.e. principles) or language-specific choices (i.e. parameters of variation). It also postulates that constraint interaction is regulated by a set of metaconditions that determine ordering; constraint ranking is not random.

Type
Research Article
Information
Phonology , Volume 20 , Issue 3 , December 2003 , pp. 375 - 424
Copyright
© 2003 Cambridge University Press

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

This research was supported by grants from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (410-97-0603, 410-01-0668). The paper had a long gestation period. Versions were presented at GLOW (2000), the 1st North American Phonology Conference (2000), the Asymmetry Conference (2001) and the 9th Manchester Phonology Conference (2001). Comments of the participants at these conferences are gratefully acknowledged. Suggestions by two sets of anonymous reviewers also helped to improve the quality of the analysis and sharpen the clarity of the exposition.