Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-c47g7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-23T18:25:50.334Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Level ordering and opacity in Tetsǫ́t’ıné: a Stratal OT account

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 March 2021

Alessandro Jaker  and
Paul Kiparsky
Alessandro Jaker*
Affiliation:
University of Toronto
Paul Kiparsky*
Affiliation:
Stanford University
*
*E-mail: alessandro.jaker@utoronto.ca, kiparsky@stanford.edu.
*E-mail: alessandro.jaker@utoronto.ca, kiparsky@stanford.edu.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Dene (Athabaskan) verbs are widely known for their complex morphophonology. The most complex patterns are associated with two conjugation markers, /s/ and /n/, which are associated with a floating H tone to their immediate left. In this paper, we provide an analysis of /θe/ and /ɲe/, the reflexes of the /s/ and /n/ conjugations in Tetsǫ́t’ıné. Whereas previous accounts of these conjugations have relied heavily on morphological conditioning, we show that, once level ordering, autosegmental phonology and metrical phonology are brought to bear on the problem, morphological conditioning is not required. Within the framework of Stratal OT, we propose the Domain Reference Hypothesis, by which phonological constraints may only refer to morphological domains and their edges. In addition, we show that in Tetsǫ́t’ıné there is a correlation between phonological opacity and morphological structure, as predicted by the Stratal OT model.

Type
Articles
Information
Phonology , Volume 37 , Issue 4 , November 2020 , pp. 617 - 655
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2021. Published by 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

We wish to thank the many Tetsǫ́t’ıné speakers that Alessandro Jaker has worked with over the years, especially Emerence Cardinal, who helped us check over the data for this article. We also wish to thank the Goyatıkǫ̀ Language Society and the Yellowknives Dene First Nation Land and Environment Office for supporting this work. This work was supported in part by NSF/NEF grant FN-249645 to Alessandro Jaker. Thanks also to participants at CLS 52, the University of Toronto Phonetics and Phonology Research Group and the University of Minnesota Linguistics Club for comments on previous versions of this work.

References

Ackroyd, Lynda (1982). Dogrib grammar. Ms, University of Toronto.Google Scholar
Anderson, Stephen R. (1992). A-morphous morphology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beckman, Jill N. (1998). Positional faithfulness. PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
Caballero, Gabriela (2008). Choguita Rarámuri (Tarahumara) phonology and morphology. PhD dissertation, University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
Carstairs, Andrew (1987). Allomorphy in inflexion. Beckenham: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Clark, Mary (1990). The tonal system of Igbo. Dordrecht: Foris.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coleman, Phyllis (1976). Dogrib phonology. PhD dissertation, University of Iowa.Google Scholar
Cook, Eung-Do (2004). A grammar of Dëne Sųłıné (Chipewyan). Winnipeg: Algonquian and Iroquoian Linguistics.Google Scholar
de Lacy, Paul (2002). The interaction of tone and stress in Optimality Theory. Phonology 19. 1–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Lacy, Paul (2007). The interaction of tone, sonority, and prosodic structure. In Lacy, Paul de (ed.) The Cambridge handbook of phonology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 281–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eberhard, David (1995). Mamaindé stress: the need for strata. Dallas: Summer Institute of Linguistics & University of Texas at Arlington.Google Scholar
Embick, David (2015). The morpheme: a theoretical introduction. Boston & Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gjersøe, Siri (2016). Cyclic optimization of floating L tones in Kikuyu. Available as ROA-1284 from the Rutgers Optimality Archive.Google Scholar
Goldsmith, John A. (1976). Autosegmental phonology. PhD dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
González, Carolina (2003). The effect of stress and foot structure on consonantal processes. PhD dissertation, University of Southern California.Google Scholar
Green, Anthony Dubach (2005). Word, foot, and syllable structure in Burmese. In Watkins, Justin (ed.) Studies in Burmese linguistics. Canberra: Australian National University. 1–25.Google Scholar
Haas, Mary R. (1968). Notes on a Chipewyan dialect. IJAL 34. 165–175.Google Scholar
Hargus, Sharon (1988). The lexical phonology of Sekani. New York: Garland.Google Scholar
Hayes, Bruce (1990). Precompiled phrasal phonology. In Inkelas, Sharon & Zec, Draga (eds.) The phonology–syntax connection. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 85–108.Google Scholar
Hayes, Bruce (1995). Metrical stress theory: principles and case studies. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Hayes, Bruce (2009). Introductory phonology. Malden, Mass. & Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Hoijer, Harry (1946). Chiricahua Apache. In Hoijer et al. (). 55–84.Google Scholar
Hoijer, Harry, Bloomfield, L., Haas, M. R., Halpern, A. M., Li, F. K., Newman, S. S., Swadesh, M., Trager, G. L., Voegelin, C. F. & Whorf, B. L. (eds.) (1946). Linguistic structures of native America. New York: Viking Fund.Google Scholar
Howren, Robert (1968). Stem phonology and affix phonology in Dogrib (Northern Athabaskan). CLS 4. 120–129.Google Scholar
Howren, Robert (1979). The phonology of Rae Dogrib. In Contributions to Canadian linguistics. Ottawa: National Museums of Canada. 7–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hyde, Brett (2002). A restrictive theory of metrical stress. Phonology 19. 313–359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Inkelas, Sharon (1995). The consequences of optimization for underspecification. NELS 25:1. 287–302.Google Scholar
Inkelas, Sharon (1998). The theoretical status of morphologically conditioned phonology: a case study of dominance effects. Yearbook of Morphology 1997. 121–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Inkelas, Sharon (2014). The interplay of morphology and phonology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Inkelas, Sharon & Zoll, Cheryl (2007). Is grammar dependence real? A comparison between cophonological and indexed constraint approaches to morphologically conditioned phonology. Linguistics 45. 133–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jaker, Alessandro (2012). Prosodic reversal in Dogrib (Weledeh dialect). PhD dissertation, Stanford University.Google Scholar
Jaker, Alessandro (2015). The consonant hierarchy in Dëne Sųłıné: verbal morphophonemics and synchronic variation. CLS 51. 285–299.Google Scholar
Jaker, Alessandro (2020). Tetsǫ́t’ıné prefix vowel length: evidence for systematic underspecification. Ms, University of Toronto.Google Scholar
Jaker, Alessandro & Cardinal, Emerence (2020). Tetsǫ́t’ıné verb grammar / Tetsǫ́t’ıné Yatıé k’ízį t'at’ú henádhër yatıé Ɂełtth’ı Ɂełaníílye. Fairbanks: Alaska Native Language Center.Google Scholar
Jaker, Alessandro, Welch, Nicholas & Rice, Keren (2020). The Na-Dene languages. In Siddiqi, Daniel, Barrie, Michael, Gillon, Carrie, Haugen, Jason D. & Mathieu, Éric (eds.) The Routledge handbook of North American languages. New York & London: Routledge. 473–503.Google Scholar
Jones, Patrick J. (2014). Tonal interaction in Kinande: cyclicity, opacity, and morphological structure. PhD dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Kaisse, Ellen M. (1985). Connected speech: the interaction of syntax and phonology. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Kaisse, Ellen M. (1990). Toward a typology of postlexical rules. In Inkelas, Sharon & Zec, Draga (eds.) The phonology–syntax connection. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 127–143.Google Scholar
Kaplan, Max J. (2020). Southern Pomo syncope is metrically conditioned: metrical opacity and stratal derivation. Proceedings of the Linguistic Society of America 5:1. 584–598.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul (1982). Lexical morphology and phonology. In Linguistic Society of Korea (ed.) Linguistics in the morning calm. Seoul: Hanshin. 3–91.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul (1985). Some consequences of Lexical Phonology. Phonology Yearbook 2. 85–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul (1993). Blocking in nonderived environments. In Hargus, Sharon & Kaisse, Ellen M. (eds.) Studies in lexical phonology. San Diego: Academic Press. 277–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul (1996). Allomorphy or morphophonology? In Singh, Rajendra (ed.) Trubetzkoy's orphan: proceedings of the Montréal roundtable ‘Morphonology: contemporary responses’. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins. 13–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul (2000). Opacity and cyclicity. The Linguistic Review 17. 351–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krauss, Michael E. (1964). Proto-Athapaskan-Eyak and the problem of Na-Dene: the phonology. IJAL 30. 118–131.Google Scholar
Levi, Susannah V. (2005). Acoustic correlates of lexical accent in Turkish. Journal of the International Phonetic Association 35. 73–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, Fang-Kuei (1946). Chipewyan. In Hoijer et al. (). 398–423.Google Scholar
McCarthy, John J. (1999). Sympathy and phonological opacity. Phonology 16. 331–399.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCarthy, John J. (2007). Hidden generalizations: phonological opacity in Optimality Theory. Sheffield & Bristol, Conn.: Equinox.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
McHugh, Brian (1990). The phrasal cycle in Kivunjo Chaga tonology. In Inkelas, Sharon & Zec, Draga (eds.) The phonology–syntax connection. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 217–242.Google Scholar
Mohanan, K. P. (1986). The theory of Lexical Phonology. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
Myers, Scott (1997). OCP effects in Optimality Theory. NLLT 15. 847–892.Google Scholar
Odden, David (1996). The phonology and morphology of Kimatuumbi. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
Oostendorp, Marc van (2007). Derived environment effects and consistency of exponence. In Blaho, Sylvia, Bye, Patrik & Krämer, Martin (eds.) Freedom of analysis? Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 123–148.Google Scholar
Pater, Joe (2009). Morpheme-specific phonology: constraint indexation and inconsistency resolution. In Parker, Steve (ed.) Phonological argumentation: essays on evidence and motivation. London: Equinox. 123–154.Google Scholar
Pesetsky, David (1979). Russian morphology and lexical theory. Ms, MIT. Available (November 2020) at https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=UQLFRisAAAAJ&hl=en.Google Scholar
Prince, Alan (1990). Quantitative consequences of rhythmic organization. CLS 26:2. 355–398.Google Scholar
Rice, Keren (1989). A grammar of Slave. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rice, Keren (2000). Morpheme order and semantic scope: word formation in the Athapaskan verb. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rice, Keren & Hargus, Sharon (1989). Conjugation and mode in the Athapaskan languages: evidence for two positions. In Cook, Eung-Do & Rice, Keren (eds.) Athapaskan linguistics: current perspectives on a language family. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 265–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rice, Keren & Saxon, Leslie (1994). The subject position in Athapaskan languages. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 22. 173–195.Google Scholar
Rubach, Jerzy (2011). Syllabic repairs in Macedonian. Lingua 121. 237–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rubach, Jerzy (2016). Polish yers: representation and analysis. JL 52. 421–466.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Selkirk, Elisabeth (1984). Phonology and syntax: the relation between sound and structure. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Stump, Gregory (2001). Inflectional morphology: a theory of paradigm structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stump, Gregory (2016). Inflectional paradigms: content and form at the syntax–morphology interface. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Topintzi, Nina (2008). On the existence of moraic onset geminates. NLLT 26. 147–184.Google Scholar
Wunderlich, Dieter (1996). Minimalist morphology: the role of paradigms. Yearbook of Morphology 1995. 93–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yip, Moira (2001). The complex interaction of tone and prominence. NELS 31. 531–545.Google Scholar