The Interaction of Tone, Sonority, and Prosodic Structure: A Study by Paul de Lacy, Lecture notes of Literature

Download The Interaction of Tone, Sonority, and Prosodic Structure: A Study by Paul de Lacy and more Lecture notes Literature in PDF only on Docsity! Comp. by: PAnanthi Date:19/10/06 Time:06:58:31 Stage:1st Revises File Path:// spiina1001z/womat/production/PRODENV/0000000009/0000000186/0000000005/ 0000059683.3D Proof by: QC by: Author: de Lacy 12 The interaction of tone, sonority, and prosodic structure Paul de Lacy 12.1 Introduction The aim of this chapter is to link the major aspects of suprasegmental phonology discussed in this part of the Handbook (i.e. tone – Yip Ch.10, Gussenhoven Ch.11; sonority – Zec Ch.8; prosodic structure – Zec Ch.8, Kager Ch.9). It shows how sonority and tone can both influence and be influenced by prosodic structure. It argues that there is a unifying theoret- ical mechanism that accounts for such influences and how this same mechanism accounts for interactions at all prosodic levels, from below the syllable to the Utterance. To illustrate the theoretical points, the initial empirical focus will be on the influence that sonority can have on foot structure, often called ‘sonority-driven stress’. Relevant data from the North New Guinea language Takia are provided in (1). (1) Takia sonority-driven stress (Ross 2002, 2003) As with other stress systems, edge-attraction is evident (Kager Ch.9): in a word where all vowels are the same, stress is attracted to the right edge (e.g. [ara"tam], [ifi"ni], [tu"bun]). However, the most important factor for Takia is sonority: stress must fall on the most sonorous vowel available, where the part of the sonority scale that is relevant for Takia is | a i e,o i i,u | (for details Comp. by: PAnanthi Date:19/10/06 Time:06:58:33 Stage:1st Revises File Path:// spiina1001z/womat/production/PRODENV/0000000009/0000000186/0000000005/ 0000059683.3D Proof by: QC by: Author: de Lacy on sonority, see Section 12.2). The sonority requirements also override conditions on foot form: while [(ta"man)] has an iambic (right-headed) foot, [("abi)] has a trochaic one in order to have a higher sonority foot head. Section 12.2 identifies several competing theories that aim to account for the interaction seen in Takia and others like it. It argues that recent approaches that derive constraints from markedness hierarchies in a re- strictive fashion can account for the observed patterns with sonority and stress (Kenstowicz 1997/2004, de Lacy 2004); it contrasts this approach with ones that employ representational devices (e.g. distinctions in mora count, featural impoverishment). Section 12.3 identifies analogous influences between sonority and un- stressed positions, demonstrating the generality of the interaction between prosodic structure and sonority. The constraint-based proposal is extended to tone-prosody interactions in Section 12.4, different prosodic levels in Section 12.5, and Section 12.6 shows that it can also account for tone– and sonority–prosody interactions involving metathesis, deletion, epenthesis, and neutralization. This chapter links a number of traditionally distinct areas of research. It discusses markedness and its formal expression: sonority- and tone- driven stress are transparently sensitive to markedness hierarchies, unlike many segmental phenomena (Rice 4.6, de Lacy 2006). It is also a crucial complement to metrical stress theory (Kager Ch.9) since it is not possible to fully account for influences on foot form without considering sonority and tone. Non-metrical stress also provides a link to syllable theory. As Zec (Ch.8) shows, sonority plays a crucial role in the formation of syllables, and the same principles are relevant in foot formation. Finally, tone-driven stress provides insight into how tone and prosodic structure interact, relating to research on both tone (Yip Ch.10) and intonation (Gussenhoven Ch.11). To give a brief overview of the current state of research in this area, some aspects of the interaction of tone and sonority with prosodic struc- ture have a large literature behind them while others do not. While a great deal has been written about the influence of edges and moraic content on foot structure (see Kager Ch.9), work on sonority- and tone- driven stress is extremely limited in comparison (see the overviews for sonority in Section 12.2, and for tone: de Lacy 2002b). Other related phe- nomena, such as sonority-driven deletion, also do not have a large litera- ture (see Gouskova 2003 and references cited therein). In contrast, there has been a large amount of research into sonority-driven neutralization (also called ‘vowel reduction’ or ‘raising’) (see Crosswhite 1999, 2004 and references cited therein). A great deal has also been written about met- rical influences on tone, forcing tone shift, deletion, neutralization, and so on (see Goldsmith 1987, Downing 1990, Yip 2002, Sec.3.9, 10.3–4 for overviews). Despite the various approaches and different amounts of re- search on these topics, it is clear that they are currently converging in a 282 P A U L D E L A C Y Comp. by: PAnanthi Date:19/10/06 Time:06:58:34 Stage:1st Revises File Path:// spiina1001z/womat/production/PRODENV/0000000009/0000000186/0000000005/ 0000059683.3D Proof by: QC by: Author: de Lacy There are specific instantiations of the constraints in (4) for each level of the prosodic hierarchy. From the data given above, it is impossible to tell for Takia whether sonority refers to foot heads (i.e. all stressed syllables) or PrWd heads (i.e. just the main-stressed syllable). Either will work for Takia, so reference to foot heads will be arbitrarily assumed here as it makes no difference to the main points of the analysis. (Other types of head and non- head are discussed in Section 12.3.) So, *HdFt/
,@,i
u is violated whenever a stressed syllable (i.e. the head of a foot) contains a high central, mid central, or high peripheral vowel. For example, [("p
ka)(%t@ki)(%tipa)] violates it three times, as do [("pika)(%tiki)(%tipa)] and [("p@ka)(%t@ki)(%t@pa)]. The term ‘head’ is slightly imprecise as it has been used in a variety of different ways. For the cases discussed here, the ‘head of a’ is the nuclear vowel of a dominated by a series of prosodic heads up to a-level. See Zec’s (8.5.1, 2000, 2003) theory of prosodic thresholds and de Lacy’s (1999b, 2002a, 2006) Designated Terminal Element theory for more explicit ap- proaches to prosodic reference. Avoidance of stressed high vowels The forms in (5) show the influence of the *HdFt/
,@,i
u constraint. Stress could fall on the default (i.e. rightmost) syllable, but doing so would result in a stressed high peripheral vowel when there is a more desirable non-high vowel elsewhere in the word. Instead, stress is attracted away from a fixed position on the final syllable to fall on the highest sonority syllable. (5) Avoidance of stressed high vowels in Takia Tableau (6) illustrates with the word ["bemfufu]. Candidate (a) fares best in terms of the foot-form and location constraints, but in doing so fatally vio- lates *HdFt/
,@,i
u. In contrast, candidate (b) avoids violations of *HdFt/
,@,i
u by stressing the initial mid vowel, and in doing so violates both align-R and iamb. Even though Takia does not allow central vowels on the surface, the constraint *HdFt/
,@,i
u is used here because constraints are universal – i.e. there is no *HdFt/i
u. The interaction of tone, sonority, and prosodic structure 285 Comp. by: PAnanthi Date:19/10/06 Time:06:58:36 Stage:1st Revises File Path:// spiina1001z/womat/production/PRODENV/0000000009/0000000186/0000000005/ 0000059683.3D Proof by: QC by: Author: de Lacy (6) Avoidance of stressed high vowels Avoidance of stressed mid vowels Similarly, the forms in (7) show that mid vowels are avoided when there is a higher sonority option. This can be formally expressed by using *HdFt/
,@,i
u, e
o, as in tableau (8). (7) Avoidance of stressed mid vowels in Takia (8) Avoidance of stressed mid vowels Candidates (a) and (b) fatally violate *HdFt/
,@,i
u,e
o by having a non-low vowel as a foot head. As candidate (d) has a stressed [a], it wins despite its foot being two syllables from the right edge. Candidate (c) also has a stressed [a], but violates the metrical constraints more than (c).5 Emergent edge attraction Despite the fact that the *HdFt-sonority constraints dominate, the metrical constraints are still active in the system. Their effect emerges whenever there is a ‘tie’ on constraint violation of the *HdFt-sonority constraints. This happens most strikingly when there are only high vowels in a word, as illustrated in tableau (9). All the candidates equally violate the *HdFt-sonority constraints, so Align-R and Iamb are crucial in eliminating the competitors. (9) Emergent effect of metrical constraints 286 P A U L D E L A C Y Comp. by: PAnanthi Date:19/10/06 Time:06:58:36 Stage:1st Revises File Path:// spiina1001z/womat/production/PRODENV/0000000009/0000000186/0000000005/ 0000059683.3D Proof by: QC by: Author: de Lacy Do feet exist in Takia? The preceding analysis has assumed that PrWds are parsed into feet. This assumption is based on the hypothesis that all languages employ all pros- odic constituents in the Prosodic Hierarchy, including feet. The fact that foot form is blithely ignored in Takia’s stress system does not mean that feet do not exist in the language. In fact, there is evidence that they are important. All of the content words cited by Ross (2002, 2003) are mini- mally disyllabic; none have the form [(C)V(C)]. As Kager (Ch.9) explains, such minimal word restrictions can be accounted for by requirements on the form of feet. Specifically, FtBin-s “Feet are disyllabic” (based on McCarthy & Prince’s 1986 FtBin) must outrank a relevant faithfulness constraint so that underlying /pa/ would surface as [pata] (through epenthesis) or
(through deletion).6 In any case, the influence of foot structure is evident in many sonority- and tone-driven stress systems, and will be discussed in Section 12.3. The final main-stress ranking Some rankings cannot be determined from the available data. For example, there is no way to determine the ranking of *HdFt/
,@,i
u and *HdFt/
,@,i
u,e
o with respect to each other. Evenmore acutely, the ranking of *HdFt/
,@,i
u,e
o,a cannot be determined in regard to the constraints discussed above as every winning candidate violates this constraint in Takia. Similarly, the ranking of constraints such as *HdFt/
cannot be determined as Takia bans [
] on the surface (by means of *Nuc/
– Prince & Smolensky 2004). I add that the ranking of constraints in a stringency relation can be determined in some cases if there is another constraint C which dominates one constraint and is dominated by the other (see de Lacy 2006 Sec.5.3.2 for an example). Takia’s response to the sonority-head conditions is to deviate from the default metrical structure, and not delete the offending elements (/abi/ ! ["ab]), epenthesize (/abi/ ! [abi"a]), neutralize (/abi/ ! [a"ba]), or metathesize (/abi/ ! [i"ba]). Faithfulness constraints must therefore outrank the head- sonority constraints; these are discussed further in Section 12.6 but grouped under Faith here (10). (10) Takia’s sonority-driven stress ranking Expressing universality The constraints make it impossible to produce an ‘anti-Takia’ system where stress seeks out high vowels, thenmid vowels, and only grudgingly falls on [a]. The interaction of tone, sonority, and prosodic structure 287 Comp. by: PAnanthi Date:19/10/06 Time:06:58:40 Stage:1st Revises File Path:// spiina1001z/womat/production/PRODENV/0000000009/0000000186/0000000005/ 0000059683.3D Proof by: QC by: Author: de Lacy peripheral vowels equally, as shown in tableau (15). Because *HdFt/
and *HdFt/
,@ are ranked below Align-R(Ft,PrWd), they have no effect on the outcome. (15) Nganasan with Stringent constraints In short, the Stringent theory is empirically more adequate than the Fixed Ranking theory – Fixed Ranking prevents attested cases where distinctions between sonority categories are ignored for stress purposes. Typology The table in (16) summarizes the typological predictions of the Stringency Theory, including cases with conflation. Almost every possible contiguous conflation in stress-sonority interaction is attested. Categories are marked as conflated if they are grouped inside the same oval. For example, the mid and low vowels are conflated in Pichis Asheninca, but the central and high vowels are not. For ease of presentation the table uses ‘
/@’ to stand for any central vowel (e.g. Pichis Asheninca has [
], not schwa); in any case, it is rare to find a language with a contrast between /@/ and /
/ (Nganasan is one of the few). Similarly ‘e o’ stands for all mid vowels, including [e o e O] even though [e o] are demonstrably less sonorous than [e O] (see de Lacy 2006:Ch.7). (16) Head-sonority conflation typology The different systems are generated by different sets of active constraints. The Gujarati system, for example, is due to both *HdFt/
,@,i
u,e
o and *HdFt/
,@ being active, while *HdFt/
,@,i
u is not (to allow conflation of high and mid 290 P A U L D E L A C Y Comp. by: PAnanthi Date:19/10/06 Time:06:58:41 Stage:1st Revises File Path:// spiina1001z/womat/production/PRODENV/0000000009/0000000186/0000000005/ 0000059683.3D Proof by: QC by: Author: de Lacy vowels) (see de Lacy 2006 Sec.5.3.2). The table also shows that almost every imaginable conflation of vowel sonority is attested: any set of contiguous categories can be conflated. There are two systems missing from the table. One is a language that distinguishes all sonority levels: i.e. @ vs. i/u vs. e/o vs. a. Kobon is reported to have such distinctions (Kenstowicz 1997/2004), but Davies’ (1981) data only provide evidence for the distinctions | a i o i i, @ i
| – i.e. high vowels and schwa could be conflated. Given the existence of languages like Takia and Nanti (Crowhurst & Michael 2005) which distinguish every sonority level they have (i.e. i,u vs. e,o vs. a) it is likely that this gap is due to the limited range of data currently available rather than signifying a theoretical issue. Similarly, I have not found a system that definitely conflates ["@] and ["i "u] but distinguishes mid from low vowels. In such a language, stress would first seek out a low vowel and otherwise a mid vowel; if there were only high and central vowels, stress would fall on the default position. Given that there are languages in which stress favors low vowels over mid vowels (e.g. Gujarati) and languages in which high peripheral vowels and schwa are conflated (e.g. Nganasan), I assume that this gap is accidental. There are a number of languages that have stress systems that are insensitive to sonority, even though they have very low sonority vowels. My own dialect of New Zealand English is one: schwa (which corresponds to [I] in many other dialects) can be stressed and more sonorous vowels do not attract the stress away from it: e.g. [dZu"dZ@tsu] ‘jujitsu’, *["dZudZ@tsu], /h@stO\i/ ‘history’ ! ["h@st@\i]/["h@s0\̊i], *[h@"stOri]. Other languages include Iaai (Lynch 2002) which has the vowels [a e O e o i u @], with consistent word-initial stress and schwa permitted word-initially. Theoretically significant gaps are those in which stress seeks out lower sonority vowels and disregards higher sonority ones. Such systems are unattested, as predicted by the constraint-based theories. There is one other systematic and theoretically significant gap: no lan- guage conflates non-contiguous categories. An example would be a lan- guage which conflates low and high vowels, but not mid vowels: stress would fall on the leftmost [a], [i], or [u], and skip over intervening mid vowels [e] and [o]. The stringent constraints predict that such a language cannot exist. It would require a constraint that favored stressed high vowels over stressed mid vowels (e.g. *HdFt/mid vowels) and there is no such constraint in the theory. Sonority, or something else? After Kenstowicz (1997/2004), the discussion above has assumed that Takia and systems like it are sensitive to sonority rather than some other hier- archy. In contrast, Crowhurst & Michael (2005:70) propose that such stress systems are instead sensitive to two separate hierarchies: one on vowel height (HeightPk: | high i mid i low |), and one on vowel peripherality (PeriphPk: | central i peripheral |) (also see Smith 2002 Sec.23.2.2-fn.48). The interaction of tone, sonority, and prosodic structure 291 Comp. by: PAnanthi Date:19/10/06 Time:06:58:41 Stage:1st Revises File Path:// spiina1001z/womat/production/PRODENV/0000000009/0000000186/0000000005/ 0000059683.3D Proof by: QC by: Author: de Lacy This proposal essentially splits the sonority hierarchy along its two major dimensions (at least for vowels). There are two problems with this view. One is that it incorrectly prevents central and peripheral vowels from conflating. To explain why, it is first necessary to point out that the constraints from PeriphPk (i.e. *HdFt/high »» *HdFt/mid »» *HdFt/low) must be universally outranked by the constraints from HeightPk (i.e. *HdFt/central »» *HdFt/peripheral). If the opposite ranking was permitted, it would generate a language where foot heads avoid high peripheral vowels [i u] for the mid central vowel schwa: i.e. *HdFt/ high » *HdFt/central would favor ["p@ki] over [p@"ki] even in a system with default rightmost stress. However, there is no such language. This result holds regardless of whether fixed ranking or stringency is used. However, if *HdFt/central universally outranks *HdFt/high, it is impossible to conflate schwa and high vowels, incorrectly predicting that Nganasan is impossible for the same reason as illustrated in tableau (14). In short, to allow for conflation of central and peripheral vowels, it is crucial for them to be on the same hierarchy, therefore ruling out approaches that appeal to vowel height and peripherality as separate hierarchies. The other problem with approaches that seek to eschew sonority in favor of sub-hierarchies of features is that stress is never sensitive to features apart from sonority and tone. There is no system in which, for example, stress falls on the leftmost round vowel, or nasal vowel, and so on (de Lacy 2002a). Therefore, no stress system could refer directly to height features like [high] and [low] (and [round], and so on). In contrast, sonority is arguably not a subsegmental feature – it behaves like manner features, which McCarthy (1988) proposes inhabit the root node. 12.2.3 Representational approaches The two approaches discussed so far are both based on the assumption that markedness effects should be expressed through constraint form or ranking; this idea began with Prince & Smolensky (2004[1993]) and Smolensky (1993). An entirely different class of theory employs representational devices. Both Hayes’ (1995:Ch.7) ‘prominence grid’ proposal and the approach of representing distinctions through moraic or featural content will be discussed here. Prominence grids Hayes (1995:Ch.7), building on Halle & Vergnaud (1987), Davis (1989b) and Everett & Everett (1984), proposes a device called a ‘prominence grid’.8 A prominence grid is akin to a metrical grid (see Kager 9.2.1), but the grid-marks are assigned to syllables on the basis of certain properties. For example, Takia syllables with [a] would be assigned three grid-marks, syl- lables with mid vowels would get two, and syllables with high vowels just one. General rules or constraints require that the head syllable have the 292 P A U L D E L A C Y Comp. by: PAnanthi Date:19/10/06 Time:06:58:41 Stage:1st Revises File Path:// spiina1001z/womat/production/PRODENV/0000000009/0000000186/0000000005/ 0000059683.3D Proof by: QC by: Author: de Lacy vowel contrasts. For further critiques of representational theories of stress, see Gordon (1999), and de Lacy (2002a Sec.3.3.4, 2004 Sec.2.6.3). For a general critique of representational theories of markedness, see de Lacy (2006 Sec.8.4) and the references cited therein (cf. Rice 1996, to appear). 12.3 Non-heads and other levels Prince & Smolensky’s (2004) proposal about sonority and syllable structure not only draws a relation between syllable heads (i.e. nuclei) and sonority, but also between non-heads (i.e. margins) and sonority (see Zec 8.5.2). If sonority-driven stress is analogous to syllable form, it is therefore expected that there could be constraints on non-heads of feet. In addition, the reverse sonority relation should apply: non-heads should prefer low sonor- ity elements, with the resulting constraints as in (17), adapting a proposal by Kenstowicz (1997/2004), and explored further in de Lacy (2002a,b, 2004). (17) The effect of such constraints can be seen in Kiriwina (de Lacy 2004 Sec.4; for other cases, see Kenstowicz 1997/2004, de Lacy 2002a:Ch.4). As shown in (18a), a quantity-sensitive trochaic foot is built at or as near to the right edge of the PrWd as foot binarity will allow (CVV and CVC are heavy) (see Kager 9.2.3.2). However, the foot will appear away from the right edge if doing so will allow it to have a lower sonority non-head (i.e. a high vowel), in (18b). (18) Kiriwina sonority-driven stress (Senft 1986, Lawton 1993) The interaction of tone, sonority, and prosodic structure 295 Comp. by: PAnanthi Date:19/10/06 Time:06:58:42 Stage:1st Revises File Path:// spiina1001z/womat/production/PRODENV/0000000009/0000000186/0000000005/ 0000059683.3D Proof by: QC by: Author: de Lacy It is clear that Kiriwina is not concerned with the sonority of its foot head. In [("migi)la] the foot is not aligned with the right edge even though its competitor *[mi("gila)] has the same quality stressed vowel. Instead, what matters is the sonority of the non-head vowel of the foot: in *[mi("gila)] the foot has a very high sonority non-head vowel [a], whereas in [("migi)la] it has a low sonority one – i.e. [i]. This pattern is generated by ranking *non-HdFt/a,e
o over the constraints that require right-alignment: i.e. Align-R(Ft,PrWd) (19): (19) Kiriwina: Non-head sonority Interaction with metrical structure It is interesting to note that Kiriwina is far more respectful of metrical restrictions than Takia. In its desire to have a high sonority stressed vowel, Takia will tolerate trochees instead of iambs. In contrast, Kiriwina will only tolerate trochees: i.e. *[mi(gi"la)] is banned, and so is *[vi("la)] (cf. [vi#("vila)] ‘woman’); in constraint terms, Trochee outranks *non-HdFt/a,e
o in Kiriwina. Kiriwina will not tolerate degenerate feet, either: ["waga], *[wa("ga)] ‘canoe’; *[mi("gi)la]. The contrast can be generalized to the rankings in (20). (20) Interaction of sonority conditions with metrical conditions 296 P A U L D E L A C Y Comp. by: PAnanthi Date:19/10/06 Time:06:58:42 Stage:1st Revises File Path:// spiina1001z/womat/production/PRODENV/0000000009/0000000186/0000000005/ 0000059683.3D Proof by: QC by: Author: de Lacy Further details of the analysis of Kiriwina are given in de Lacy (2004 Sec.4). For a particular striking example of a system in which sonority interacts with metrical conditions, see Crowhurst & Michael (2005). 12.4 Tone The same constraint mechanism that was used with sonority also applies to the tonal hierarchy | High i Mid i Low |. The constraints proposed in de Lacy (2002b) are expressed with stringent form in (21). Precursors to these constraints include Goldsmith’s (1987) ‘Tone–accent attraction condition’, which favors accented syllables with specified tone over accented toneless syllables, and Jiang-King’s (1996:99) proposal that there is a tonal hierarchy | þUpper i –Raised | (see Yip 10.2.1) (also see Hayes 1995 Sec.7.1.3); for further discussion see Yip (2001a; 2002 Sec.3.9; 10.3.2). (21) Tone-head, and -non-head constraints (after de Lacy 2002b) The effect of both sets of constraints can be seen in Ayutla Mixtec. The foot is attracted to the left edge of a word, as seen in (22a). However, the foot will appear elsewhere if the ‘perfect toned foot’ can be produced: i.e. where the head has a high tone and the non-head has a low tone. (22) Ayutla Mixtec tone-driven stress (data from Pankratz & Pike 1967) Attraction of the foot head to a high-toned syllable can be dealt with by having *HdFt/L
M outrank Align-L(Ft,PrWd) and FtBin, as in tableau (23). To make candidates easier to read, forms like /kūnùrá/ are schematized as candidates as [ML("H)] and so on. The interaction of tone, sonority, and prosodic structure 297 Comp. by: PAnanthi Date:19/10/06 Time:06:58:43 Stage:1st Revises File Path:// spiina1001z/womat/production/PRODENV/0000000009/0000000186/0000000005/ 0000059683.3D Proof by: QC by: Author: de Lacy (gZi"ta)ksero] ‘it crushed it’, *[(%na%bi)(gZi"ta)ksero] (cf. [(i%pi)(ri%ni)te] ‘he sits’). In addition, for Kiriwina it is crucial that non-heads of feet are sensitive to sonority: stress in [("migi)la] does not fall at the right edge because the unstressed vowel in the foot (i.e. not unfooted unstressed vowels) ends up with a less sonorous segment. McGarrity’s general point is that in terms of sonority, secondary and primary stress are independent. A ranking such as || *HdFt/x » Align || will affect all stressed syllables, but || Align-R-HdPrWd » *HdFt/x » Align-R-Ft || will only affect secondary stressed syllables, while || *HdPrWd/x » Align-R-Ft » *HdFt/x || will only affect primary stressed syllables; all these types are attested. McGarrity (2003 Sec.4.2) also identifies Chamorro as having sonority-driven neutralization in secondary stressed syllables; this case is discussed in Section 12.6. Immediately above the foot is the Prosodic Word. The head of the Pros- odic Word is its main-stressed syllable (i.e. the segment dominated by the head mora of the head syllable of the head foot). Some languages place sonority and tone restrictions specifically on the head of the PrWd rather than the head of the foot. McGarrity (2003) identifies Axininca Campa as this type for sonority-driven stress (Payne 1990). Masset Haida provides an example for tone (Enrico 1991). As shown in (26), every syllable has either high or low tone, and iambic feet are arrayed from left to right; every syllable is parsed into a foot. As a visual aid, main-stressed syllables are given in bold. Main stress is attracted to the rightmost vowel with high tone. However, secondary stress makes no tone distinction, falling freely on low-toned vowels even when high-toned ones are available. Form (26d) is of special interest. While main stress falls on the rightmost high-toned syllable (i.e. [gwá:N], not [á:]), secondary stress falls on the low-toned [dà], ignoring the high-toned [á:]: i.e. *[(g——ù%dàN)(% á-dà) - (t’sà-"gwá:N) - (%gàn)]. In other words, the position of the head of the PrWd is influenced by tone, but foot heads are not. (26) Masset Haida tone-driven primary stress and tone-insensitive secondary stress In de Lacy (2002a, 2004) I argued that ‘PrWd non-heads’, when restricted by constraints on foot heads, can be used to refer to the informal notion of ‘unstressed syllable’; the influence of sonority on unstressed syllables is discussed in Section 12.6. The same type of influences are seen above the PrWd, though they are clearer for tone than sonority. For example, the head of a Phonological Phrase in Digo attracts high tone (Kisseberth 1984, Goldsmith 1988:85). This is a case of stress-dependent tone, with the constraint *HeadPPh/L playing a decisive role. For Korean, Kim (1997) argues that every Major Phrase must contain at least one high tone and that no other high tones are permitted. 300 P A U L D E L A C Y Comp. by: PAnanthi Date:19/10/06 Time:06:58:43 Stage:1st Revises File Path:// spiina1001z/womat/production/PRODENV/0000000009/0000000186/0000000005/ 0000059683.3D Proof by: QC by: Author: de Lacy The constraints *HeadMajorP/L and *non-HeadMajorP/H must therefore out- rank tone-faithfulness to achieve this result. At the highest level, Yip (10.3.2) proposes the constraint *Focus/L, which bans a low tone on a focused head. Truckenbrodt (1995) argues that the focused syllable is the head of the Utterance Phrase (or some other high prosodic constituent), so the tonal preferences can be seen even at the highest prosodic level. So, the same sonority and tone attractions are seen at every level in the prosodic hierarchy: heads of moras, syllable, feet, PrWd, Prosodic Phrases, and Utterance Phrases attract and are attracted by higher tone and high sonority segments, while non-heads of all these categories favor lower tone and lower sonority. 12.6 Faithfulness responses In Optimality Theory, no constraint is phenomenon-specific (see 1.2.2). Constraints with the form *p/p (p is a prosodic category, p is a property like sonority or tone) have many possible resolutions. The previous sections have focused on just one: i.e. moving p, through the general ranking || *p/son, faith » p-{align,shape} ||. This section focuses on resolutions that involve p – through || *p/son, p-{align,shape} » faith || which can cause deletion, epenthesis, neutralization, metathesis and coalescence. In a sense, such resolutions are ‘stress-driven sonority/tone’: they are cases where prosodic structure is kept constant and sonority/tone changes. 12.6.1 Neutralization The most common response to conditions on heads and sonority is prob- ably neutralization. The most extensive recent work on this topic in OT is Crosswhite (1998 et seq.), who proposes that (non-)head-sonority relations are responsible for a great deal of vowel reduction. In foot heads, vowels can become more sonorous, while in foot non-heads and unstressed syl- lables they typically become less sonorous. For example, in Chamorro (27) high vowels become mid in stressed syllables: (27) Chamorro sonorization in stressed syllables (Chung 1983, Crosswhite 1998) Sonorization is obligatory in main-stressed syllables and optional in sec- ondary stressed syllables: e.g. [ti ¯ n"tagu?] ‘messenger’ c.f. [ %te ¯ nta"go?ta] [%ti ¯ nta"go?ta] ‘our (incl.) messenger’. Adapting Crosswhite’s (1998) analysis, sonorization in Chamorro is caused when *HdFt/@,i
u outranks Ident[high], a constraint that preserves The interaction of tone, sonority, and prosodic structure 301 Comp. by: PAnanthi Date:19/10/06 Time:06:58:43 Stage:1st Revises File Path:// spiina1001z/womat/production/PRODENV/0000000009/0000000186/0000000005/ 0000059683.3D Proof by: QC by: Author: de Lacy underlying [high] values. It is crucial that metrical constraints (like Trochee and Align-R(Ft,PrWd)) outrank Ident[high] (also see McGarrity 2003) other- wise the system would have sonority-driven stress. All other relevant faith- fulness constraints like those against deletion, epenthesis, metathesis, and so on must also outrank Ident[high] (28). (28) Chamorro vowel sonorization in stressed syllables The fact that main-stressed high vowels always become more sonorous can be accounted for by having *HdPrWd/@,i
u outrank Ident[high] in all regis- ters; the optionality of sonorization for secondary stress can be explained by allowing *HdFt/@,i
u to vary in its ranking with Ident[high] (see Anttila Ch.22). The most common sonority-related neutralization involves vowels in foot non-heads or unstressed syllables becoming less sonorous. Often this involves all such vowels becoming [@] or [
] (i.e. ‘vowel reduction’), but it can also involve raising vowel height, thereby lowering sonority (e.g. in Sri Lankan Portuguese Creole unstressed syllables /æ/![e], /a/![@], and /O/![o] – Smith 1978, Crosswhite 2000). Such cases can be analyzed using *non- HdPrWd/x or *non-HdFt/x constraints outranking relevant Ident constraints (Crosswhite 2000). There are complications with this pattern because un- stressed vowels can sometimes become more sonorous; for recent discus- sion and proposals see Crosswhite (1999, 2004), de Lacy (2006:Ch.7), Harris (2005), and references cited in these works. For discussion of sonority–stress interactions elsewhere (especially with regard to onsets in stressed syllables) see de Lacy (2001) and Smith (2002). Neutralization also happens for tone and stress. For example, in Lithu- anian low tone becomes high in stressed syllables under the influence of *HdFt/L: e.g. /prànèSù/ ! [("pránè)Sù] ‘I announce’ (Blevins 1993:244, de Lacy 2002a: Sec.4.1). 12.6.2 Deletion (Non)head-sonority and -tone constraints can also force deletion. For example, when [a] would appear in the non-head of a foot (or perhaps more generally an unstressed syllable), it deletes in Lushootseed (29) (Urbanczyk 1996, Gouskova 2003 Sec.4.6.1). ‘red’ is a reduplicativemorpheme. The footing in (29) is mine. 302 P A U L D E L A C Y Comp. by: PAnanthi Date:19/10/06 Time:06:58:45 Stage:1st Revises File Path:// spiina1001z/womat/production/PRODENV/0000000009/0000000186/0000000005/ 0000059683.3D Proof by: QC by: Author: de Lacy it would violate *HdFt/

@: i.e. *[k’ we("s@t@s)]. The solutions to *HdFt/

@ identified in previous sections are blocked in Saanich. The metrical constraint Align-R (Ft,PrWd) requires penultimate stress, so foot retraction *[("k’wes@)t@s] is ruled out. Epenthesis is banned by Dep: *[k’wes@("a ¯ t@s)]. Ident[F] rules out vowel sonorization: [k’w@("sat@s)]. Finally, deletion is ruled out by Max: *[("k’west@s)]. Instead, Saanich responds by coalescence and metathesis. The underlying root vowel and affix /@/ merge so that: /k’we1s-@2t-@s/ ! [("k’wse1,2t@s)]. Coales- cence is an essential part of the analysis; if the /@/ instead deleted, therewould be no reason for the root vowel to metathesize with the following consonant (i.e. the outcome should be *[("k’west@s)]; note that medial [st] is otherwise permitted: e.g. [spes ¯ t ¯ @n’@æ] ‘American’, [q@?j@stetS@l] ‘newcomer’). Tableau (33) illustrates this analysis. Lin(earity) bans metathesis, and Unif(ormity) bans coalescence. (33) Sonority-driven metathesis in Saanich There are other candidates to be ruled out. For example, the candidate *[("k’we1,2st@s)] can be ruled out by preventing morphemes from splitting (in this form the affix’s /@/ is not adjacent to its /t/). In the winner [("k’wse1,2t@s)] /@/ effectively takes on [e]’s features, so feature change without metathesis (i.e. *[k’ws@1("set@s)]) must be ruled out (probably by OI-∃ident[F], which requires every output segment to have the same features as some input segment – after Struijke 2000a). Finally, *[("k’west@2,3s)]) with coalescence of the two suffix schwas must be ruled out, probably by a restriction on coalescence of segments of different affix classes. Metathesis (movement of a segment to themetrically prominent position) is a rare response to sonority requirements. However, it is a fairly common response for tone, as discussed by Yip (10.3.2) (also see Goldsmith 1987, Downing 1990, 2003b, Bamba 1991, Bickmore 1995, de Lacy 2002a Sec.3). 12.7 Conclusions This chapter has focused on a theoretical device that combines markedness hierarchies (i.e. sonority and tone) with prosodic heads and non-heads to The interaction of tone, sonority, and prosodic structure 305 Comp. by: PAnanthi Date:19/10/06 Time:06:58:46 Stage:1st Revises File Path:// spiina1001z/womat/production/PRODENV/0000000009/0000000186/0000000005/ 0000059683.3D Proof by: QC by: Author: de Lacy form constraints. This approach was compared with representational ones which seek to account for the range of behaviour documented above by appealing to either differences in moraic content or sparseness of featural structure; representational approaches were argued to be inadequate. The theory relates many disparate areas of research, including marked- ness theory, tone, sonority, and the influences on the form and position of metrical structure (and in fact, all levels of the prosodic hierarchy). In terms of empirical phenomena, it shows that there is a common motivation behind many cases of neutralization (i.e. vowel reduction and raising), dele- tion, epenthesis, metathesis, and location of prosodic constituents; further- more, its influencewas argued to extend throughout the prosodic hierarchy. As with any area of research, many questions remain to be answered. At a fundamental level, if a functionalist approach to phonology is assumed (e.g. Gordon Ch.3), what is the motivation for sonority- and tone-driven stress? Is the same functional factor responsible for the similar effects seen in all the different empirical phenomena discussed above? For some recent discussion along these lines, see Gordon (1999, 2002b, 2004) and Ahn (2000). In contrast, if a formalist approach is assumed, one might expect a small number of mechanisms (e.g. constraint schemata) to be able to account for all the patterns identified here (as hinted at here). The empirical generalizations for many of the phenomena discussed here have emerged only recently. In contrast to areas such as syllable structure, metrical stress, and tone, there is a rather small empirical base to areas like sonority-driven deletion, epenthesis, stress, and metathesis. However, the amount of research in this area is increasing rapidly, as is work on much more well-known areas such as vowel reduction and the influence of prosodic structure on tone. Notes My thanks to José (Beto) Elı́as-Ulloa, Kate Ketner, Michael O’Keefe, and Laura McGarrity for their comments. 1 Structural elements such as onsets and non-moraic codas may also influence prosodic structure, but they will not be discussed here due to lack of space (see Everett & Everett 1984, Davis 1985, 1988b, Halle & Vergnaud 1987, Everett 1988, Goedemans 1993, 1998, Hayes 1995:Ch.7, de Lacy 1997, 2001, Rosenthall & Hulst 1999, Gordon 1999, to appear, Smith 2002, Hajek & Goedemans 2003, McGarrity 2003, Elı́as-Ulloa 2005, Topintzi 2006 and others cited in these works). 2 There is no particular reason to consider the vocalic and consonantal parts of the sonority hierarchy as separate. The prediction is that stress should avoid consonants with even more vigor than central vowels. For example, in my dialect of New Zealand English, [@] is allowed in main stressed syllables (e.g. ["p@n] ‘pin’, ["b@Q@] ‘bitter’), but consonants 306 P A U L D E L A C Y Comp. by: PAnanthi Date:19/10/06 Time:06:58:46 Stage:1st Revises File Path:// spiina1001z/womat/production/PRODENV/0000000009/0000000186/0000000005/ 0000059683.3D Proof by: QC by: Author: de Lacy are not. In fact, stress actively avoids consonants through epenthesis: /ejbl/ ‘able’ surfaces as ["ej.b% ], but when main stress would shift onto the [l] in suffixation, a vowel is inserted: /ejbl-@ti/ ‘ability’! [@."b@  .l@.i], *[@".b% .@.i]). 3 There is evidence from phenomena such as vowel reduction that mid- high vowels (e.g. [e o]) are distinct from mid-low vowels (e.g. [e O]) in sonority. As there are no known stress systems that make this distinc- tion, I will omit it for convenience. 4 See Gouskova (2003) for the view that there is no constraint against every hierarchy element (or, in Fixed Ranking terms, against the least marked element) For the opposing view, see de Lacy (2006 Sec.8.7.3). 5 The winner could be [ka("na.o)rig] if Align-R(Ft,PrWd) outranks Iamb. As there is no phonetic realization of foot boundaries, there is no way to tell which ranking is correct in Takia. See Section 12.3 for further discussion of the interaction of metrical structure and sonority. Thanks to José Elı́as-Ulloa and Laura McGarrity for raising this point. 6 As Ftbin must outrank a faithfulness constraint which in turn must outrank all foot-locating constraints, no winner can have a degenerate foot in Takia, so candidates like [ifi("ni)] were not considered. 7 The lack of a *HdFt/a constraint raises the question of why such a constraint cannot exist. The answer is beyond the scope of this chapter; it derives from general theories of markedness and its relation to constraint form (Prince & Smolensky 2004, de Lacy 2002a, 2006). 8 Halle & Vergnaud (1987) also analyze stress systems which refer to features other than weight or edges. In a sense, their proposal is to employ a combination of a metrical and prominence grid: syllables project gridmarks based on their internal properties, both moraic and non-moraic. As with Hayes’ (1995) approach, Halle & Vergnaud’s theory did not restrict the form of such rules. 9 José Elı́as-Ulloa raises the issue of whether the non-head constraints refer to consonants as well as vowels. If they did, the most harmonic unstressed nucleus would be one that contains a stop. Similarly, neu- tralization could force unstressed nuclei to become liquids or nasals. Given the relative rarity of languages that permit non-vocalic nuclei, it is not clear that this prediction is obviously wrong. 10 My thanks to Timothy Montler for discussing the details of Saanich with me. 11 The first schwa in [m@  ("tSat@N)] is epenthetic, motivated by a general condition banning word-initial clusters of a sonorantþC. The interaction of tone, sonority, and prosodic structure 307