26.12.2013 Views

Typology and variation in child consonant harmony - University of ...

Typology and variation in child consonant harmony - University of ...

Typology and variation in child consonant harmony - University of ...

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

6 JOE PATER AND ADAM WERLE<br />

for by rank<strong>in</strong>g <strong>of</strong> AGREE w.r.t. faithfulness constra<strong>in</strong>ts<br />

(20) Place faithfulness constra<strong>in</strong>ts<br />

a. FAITH(LAB), FAITH(DOR), FAITH(COR)<br />

b. FAITHX: <strong>in</strong>put place feature X is preserved <strong>in</strong> the output.<br />

For the generalization that assimilation <strong>of</strong> non-coronals implies that <strong>of</strong><br />

coronals, we posit a fixed rank<strong>in</strong>g (Kiparsky 1994; cf. Jun 1995):<br />

(21) The place faith hierarchy<br />

FAITH(DOR), FAITH(LAB) >> FAITH(COR)<br />

The rank<strong>in</strong>g <strong>of</strong> Faith(Dor) <strong>and</strong> Faith(Lab) will determ<strong>in</strong>e whether labials<br />

assimilate to velars, or vice versa. Child typology provides evidence <strong>of</strong> both<br />

rank<strong>in</strong>gs.<br />

(22) Evidence for both labial dom<strong>in</strong>ance <strong>and</strong> velar dom<strong>in</strong>ance<br />

Labial-to-velar assimilation: Menn (1971), Stoel-Gammon (1996),<br />

Pater (1997)<br />

Velar-to-labial assimilation: Cruttenden (1978), Gnanadesikan (to<br />

appear), Macken (1995)<br />

To illustrate the factorial typology produced by the permutation <strong>of</strong> AGREE<br />

with the constra<strong>in</strong>ts <strong>in</strong> this hierarchy, we will use the FAITHDOR >> FAITH-<br />

LAB rank<strong>in</strong>g motivated for Trevor<br />

(23) The <strong>in</strong>teraction <strong>of</strong> AGREE with the place faith hierarchy<br />

a. AGREE >> FAITH(DOR) >> FAITH(LAB) >> FAITH(COR)<br />

labials <strong>and</strong> coronals assimilate to velars<br />

b. FAITH(DOR) >> AGREE >> FAITH(LAB) >> FAITH(COR)<br />

labials <strong>and</strong> coronals assimilate to velars<br />

c. FAITH(DOR) >> FAITH(LAB) >> AGREE >> FAITH(COR)<br />

only coronals assimilate to velars<br />

d. FAITH(DOR) >> FAITH(LAB) >> FAITH(COR) >> AGREE<br />

no assimilation<br />

This matches the coronal/non-coronal implication. S<strong>in</strong>ce the changes <strong>in</strong> the<br />

patterns produced depend on the rank<strong>in</strong>g <strong>of</strong> AGREE with respect to FAITHLAB<br />

<strong>and</strong> FAITHCOR, we will leave FAITHDOR out <strong>of</strong> further discussion, assum<strong>in</strong>g<br />

that it always dom<strong>in</strong>ates FAITHLAB.<br />

The follow<strong>in</strong>g tableaux illustrate a grammar that targets both labials<br />

<strong>and</strong> coronals for assimilation.<br />

(24) /dk/ AGREE FAITH(LAB) FAITH(COR)<br />

a. [k] *

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!