No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

In this paper, I discuss two rules in Chilcotin (Athapaskan), both of which involve spreading of the feature [retracted tongue root] ([rtr]). The first rule is a coronal consonant harmony rule, Sibilant Assimilation, which requires that all coronal sibilants in a word agree in their specification for [rtr). The second rule, a tongue root harmony rule called Flattening, spreads [+rtr] fresh velar segments and coronal sibilants onto neighbouring vowels. Only a subset of the [+rtr] segments which trigger Flattening undergo Sibilant Assimilation. Given the structure of the feature hierarchy, the spreading of this subset in Sibilant Assimilation is impossible without violating locality. I suggest that the theory of tree geometry be modified to accomodate this problem.

In the 1970's a major debate took place on the question of rule ordering in phonology. One group argued that the specific ordering of phonological rules, if needed at all, was always intrinsic, being predictable on the basis of universal principles. The second group, following in the tradition of Chomsky and Halle and the SOUND PATTERN OF ENGLISH, responded that these principles did not work, and that rule ordering is extrinsic, having to be stipulated in the phonologies of a number of languages. In the course of this debate, the proponents of extrinsic rule ordering sometimes argued that the analyses forced by the universal, intrinsic approach lacked insight, missed generalizations or simply did not work. Curiously, although positions were taken against extrinsic rule ordering and in favor of either simultaneous or random sequential ordering, no one to my knowledge argued in parallel fashion that the extrinsic approach lacked insight, missed generalizations, or simply did not work. In this paper I would like to present one such possible case. I shall attempt to demonstrate that in the lexical tonology of Haya, an Eastern Bantu language spoken in Tanzania, extrinsic rule ordering simply gets in the way. In section 1 I present the relevant tonal data, showing that a classical autosegmental analysis utilizing extrinsic rule ordering runs into serious problems. After showing, in section 2, that various alternative solutions involving rule ordering still fail to overcome these problems, I then consider in section 3 two possible analyses: one with simultaneous application of the three lexical tone rules in question, the other exploiting morphemic planes. I will conclude that this may be one language where simultaneous rule application is warranted. The data come from the lexical tonology of Haya, a subject that was covered in some detail in Hyman and Byarushengo (1984). For reasons of simplicity, I shall present only the underlying and lexical representations of Haya verb forms. It should be borne in mind that the forms cited in this study are subject to subsequent postlexical tone rules that are described in the Hyman and Byarushengo paper.

It is widely acknowledged that certain feature combinations are more likely to occur than others. For example, the feature of nasality is much more likely to appear on segments that are voiced than on segments that are voiceless (see discussion below). Several properties of such combinatorial restrictions are important, including the following: (i) the motivation or source of such restrictions, (ii) their cross-linguistic variability, (iii) their language -internal strength, (iv) the manners in which they manifest themselves. This paper examines certain aspects of the phonology of nasal segments that bear on these issues. The paper focusses on the phenomenon of nasal opacity, where opacity is used to refer to the arresting of a process of feature propagation. When some feature (in this paper, nasality) is transmitted throughout some domain, the presence of certain opaque segments interrupts such a transmission. It is shown that in a wide range of cases involving nasality, the class of opaque segments is systematically defined. Blocking is not due to the lexical idiosyncracy of particular segments; the class of blockers is defined in terms of particular phonological features. This property raises two important issues. On the one hand, how can the possible classes of blockers be characterised in terms of their feature composition? On the other hand, by what mechanism do the opaque elements actually accomplish blocking. In the following sections, I first discuss certain cross-linguistic generalisations concerning cooccurrence restrictions involving nasality; I go on to demonstrate that the types of cooccurrence restrictions governing segmental inventories also define typical classes of opaque segments; finally, it is demonstrated that the actual mechanism for accomplishing the blocking of feature transmission involves feature cooccurrence restrictions in a central way.

No description available.