Li6 Assignment #2 Answer Key 11-11-06
A general note, based on students’ performance on this assignment:
• Be sure to make rule formulations as general as possible, e.g. by using as few
features as possible. (This was discussed and exemplified on one of the lecture
slides.)
1. Farsi has three rhotic allophones that are in complementary distribution. Based on
the data given below,
a. State the phoneme from which these allophones derive. /r/
b. Write the rules necessary to derive the allophones from their UR.
rah
road
ruz
day
bazgīr towel
omr
life
ziRa
because
siRini pastry
ran
paint
barg
leaf
farsi
Persian
biRan pale
/r/ Æ [-voice] / _ #
/r/ Æ [R] / V _ V
2. Render the following rule formalisations into insightful prose, such as “word-final
vowels delete”.
a. Ø → [t] / l _ s #
Insert t in word-final ls clusters (as in some English idiolects)
b. V → Ø / #CVC_CV
Delete the vowel in the second syllable if the syllable is open (as in Armenian)
c. s → [S] / r # _
Retract word-initial s when immediately preceded by an r (as occurs in some English
idiolects)
d. l → Ø / C _ #
Delete post-consonantal l word-finally
e. [-cons, +son] → [+stress] / _ (C0)#
Stress the last vowel in a word (as in French, modulo schwa)
3. Write the following rules in formal notation.
a.
Insert t at the end of a word
ØÆt/-#
b.
Delete word-initial vowels
VÆØ/#_
c.
Glottalize syllable-final voiceless stops
[+cons, -son, -cont, -voice] Æ [+constricted glottis] / _ $
d.
Devoice word-final high vowels
[-cons, +son, +high] Æ [-voice] / _# (as in Tigrinya)
e.
Delete an unstressed low vowel between two non-identical consonants
[-cons, +son, +low, -stress] Æ Ø / C1 _ C2
f.
Flap t and d after a non-nasal sonorant before an unstressed vowel
t, d Æ R / [-nasal, +son] _ [-cons, +son, -stress]
g.
Insert -b´ after every vowel
Ø Æ bə / V _
1
4. Light and dark l are in complementary distribution in most varieties of English.
Based on the following data, state for this speaker’s grammar the UR for these
allophones and the rule(s) producing their surface distribution.
[lAjf]
[lip]
[luz]
[ilop]
[d´lAjt]
[slip]
•
•
•
‘life’
‘leap’
‘lose’
‘elope’
‘delight’
‘sleep’
[pHI…]
[fi…]
[hE…p]
[b√…k]
[so…d]
[f´…]
‘pill’
‘feel’
‘help’
‘bulk’
‘sold’
‘full’
NB this problem has (at least) two possible solutions, one with /l/ and one with
/ł/, since neither allophone is more simply described as an elsewhere case.
Be careful not to assume /l/ just because it is a more “basic” sign than < ł>…
If one doesn’t use syllable notation, one can argue that /ł/ is underlying, since
one doesn’t then need to use these disjunctive environments:
/l/ Æ [ł] / { _ C, _ #}
•
With syllable notation, though, the following are equally plausible:
R
(where R = syllable Rime)
|
/l/ Æ [ł] / _
O
|
/ ł / Æ [l] / _
(where O = syllable Onset)
NB using Rime is better than Coda, since it predicts that vocalic l will surface as dark.
5. Georgian also has light and dark l allophones. Based on the following data, state the
UR from which the two allophones derive and the rule(s) necessary to derive them.
łamazad
leło
saxłši
łxena
kbiłs
zarali
kała
pepeła
prettily
goal
at home
joy
tooth
loss
tin
butterfly
kleba
erthxeł
xeli
xoło
tshetshxli
vxlečh
tsholi
reduce
once
hand
however
fire
I split
wife
/ł/ Æ [-back] / _ [-back]
• In other words, it’s a simple assimilation rule.
2
6. Yawelmani Yokuts has two phonological rules that play a role in the data
set below: (i) rounding harmony (between vowels of same height), and (ii)
lowering of long vowels. Based on the data below, what is the ordering of
these two rules? (You don’t need to formalize the rules, but you do need to
provide at least one derivation showing why the rules have to apply in this
order.)
•
•
•
There’s an error here: ?otnut should be ?otnit.
You all correctly identified that harmony counterbleeds lowering.
Some of you didn’t provide a formal sample derivation. It is important to
know how to do this.
3
7. The following data show that Capanahua, a Peruvian language, has two
phonological rules that are ordered relative to one another. State the rules and the
order in which they apply, and give at least one sample derivation showing why they
have to apply in that order.
UR
/banawi/
/cipoŋki/
/wiranai/
/wiran/
/waran/
a.
b.
•
•
→
→
→
→
→
SR
[bãnawi]
[cipõŋki]
[wirãnai]
[wirã]
[warã]
gloss
plant it
down river
I pushed it
to push
squash
You all correctly got that nasalisation counterbleeds final nasal deletion, and
almost all of you formalised the rules well.
Again, some of you didn’t provide sample derivations.
4
8. Opaque rules (i.e. ones whose activity is obscured by application of later
rules) are cognitively implausible and unlearnable. Discuss.
Here is a good answer by one of our students:
1. What is an opaque rule?
In general, a rule is relatively more opaque if it is more difficult to determine from the
surface representations the conditions under which the rule operates. If rule A applies
to a structure, even though a subsequent application of rule B destroys the conditions
under which rule A operates, then rule A is more opaque than if only rule B applied.
In other words, a phonological rule will be opaque to the extent to which, either there
are phonetic counterexamples to it, or there are sounds in the phonetic representations
derived by the application of the rule, which appear in an environment other than that
under which the rule operates.
In rule-based phonology, opacity is the usual result of applying rules in a
counterbleeding or counterfeeding order. An example of opacity resulting from
applying a pair of rules in a counterfeeding order can be found in Bedouin Arabic.
Bedouin Arabic has a raising rule (/a/ → [i]/__ CV) and a vowel epenthesis rule (Ø →
V/C__C#) which apply in a counterfeeding order, as the derivation below shows:
Underlying
Raising
Vowel epenthesis
Surface
/gabr/
___
gabur
[gabur]
‘a grave’
Opacity results from the counterfeeding order of application as the epenthesis rule
alters the context that made raising inapplicable. If the pair of rules applied in the
opposite order, epenthesis would feed raising, resulting in transparency: /gabr/ →
[gabur] → *[gibur].
In feeding and bleeding ordering relations, rule B is transparent in sense that it states a
generalisation that holds over the phonetic representation. We can see that from the
above example, and also from the Karok example in Bright (1957). Karok has a
palatalisation rule which changes an [s] to [ʃ] when preceded by [i] and an optional
intervening consonant and a vowel truncation rule which deletes the second vowel in
a sequence of two vowels. At the phonetic level we never find [s] after [i], we always
find [ʃ]. This transparency generalisation is maintained by ordering palatalisation after
truncation, that is in a feeding relationship. If palatalisation had been ordered before
truncation then an [i] that came to precede an [s] as a result of the application of the
truncation rule would not induce palatalisation. Under such a counterfeeding relation,
the palatalisation rule would be opaque.
It has been claimed that opaque processes are not productive, they are merely the
lexicalised residue of sound changes. In this sense, opaque rules are said not to be
psychologically real. However, Al-Mozainy’s (1981) study of Bedouin Arabic
presents strong empirical evidence against this view. An opaque process is the raising
of low vowels in open syllables and this applies in loan words. The Turkish word
5
kabak was borrowed into Bedouin Arabic as kibak and the Standard Arabic word
madrasah was borrowed as madrisah. Further evidence that opaque processes are
productive can be provided if we consider a secret language in Bedouin Arabic which
permutes the consonants of the roots. Raising in Bedouin Arabic is inapplicable after
a guttural consonant such as [ʕ], or before a guttural consonant or a coronal sonorant
that is itself followed by [a]. The permutations of consonants in the secret language
can effect the position of gutturals or coronal sonorants in relation to the position of
the potentially raised vowel. From the data below we see that when the position of
such consonants changes, the vowel raises or fails to raise in conformity with the
above generalisations:
/dafaʕ/
difaʕ
fidaʕ
daʕaf
faʕad
Underlying representation
Unpermuted form
Raising as expected
No raising before guttural and [a]
No raising before guttural and [a]
2. Can children learn opaque rules?
In Kiparsky (1971) it is claimed that the natural interaction of a pair of rules is for
them to apply in a sequence in such a way as to minimise opacity. The principle of
opacity replaces the principle of maximal-utilisation proposed in Kiparsky (1968b).
The latter principle specifies that since sequencing rules in feeding or counterbleeding
orders maximises the utilisation of rules of the grammar, these orderings are more
natural than bleeding and counterfeeding orders which allow only one of a pair of
rules to apply. The former principle, which uses the concepts of transparency and
opacity in an attempt to explain rule interaction can give a straightforward account of
why a feeding rule ordering might be more natural. In cases where rules are ordered in
a counterfeeding way, the surface representations contain sequences that appear to
violate the fed rule.
Kiparsky claims there is some evidence that exceptions are more difficult to learn
than regular forms, and from this we can conclude that apparently irregular forms
would be more difficult to learn than regular forms.
The principle of opacity has an obvious learnability implication. Transparent rules are
easier to learn since all the information required for the formulation of a rule is
present in surface representation. However, Kisseberth (1973a) objects to the
principle of opacity. He argues that the frequent occurrence of opaque rules in
phonological structure suggests that they are not in fact marked. Kisseberth further
argues that opaque relations can play a functional role in helping to preserve the
underlying phonological contrasts. An example of this can be found in the case of the
writer-rider contrast. The application of the flapping rules neutralises the underlying
voicing contrast. However, the application of the a vowel lengthening rule in rider
signals that a voiced stop follows in the underlying representation. Opaque relations
may provide clues which help in the recovery of the underlying representation in
acquisition.
6
It is often claimed that children cannot learn an opaque ordering. However, when we
consider the process of phonological acquisition there seems to be no convincing
reason why children cannot posit an opaque ordering. In the Bedouin example given
above, the two rules would apply to many other words and in some cases just one of
these rules will apply. In these cases the children can easily identify the rule. It is only
when it seems that two rules apply in a sequence that children must identify the
sequence, and as we shall see below children can and do propose an opaque ordering
in some instances.
When children are required to order rules, Optimality Theory claims that they choose
the transparent ordering. However, from looking at chain shifts in phonological
acquisition, we can see that children do postulate an opaque ordering. In acquisition
children may replace a target sound with another sound, as in the replacement of
target /θ/ with [f]. This can co-occur with another substitution process, such as the
replacement of /s/ by [θ], and the interaction of the two processes gives the effect of a
chain shift. The output of one process is not allowed to serve as the input to another
process, that is in the above situation /s/ is not replaced by [f]. Chain shifts are also
common in second language acquisition. An example of such a chain shift is provided
by some English learners of Italian and consists of the replacement of medial /t/ with
a flap and the replacement of a medial geminate with [t]. If we return to the chain shift
identified above which occurs in English children, in order to achieve the output
identified in Dinnsen and Barlow (1997), where /s/ is not replaced by [f], the rule
which changes /θ/ to [f] must apply before the rule which changes /s/ to [θ]. The two
rules are ordered in a counterfeeding relation. This rule ordering is opaque as the child
produces certain phonetic structures which meet the conditions for the application of
rule 1, yet rule 1 does not apply. From these data, we can conclude that children do
not have a problem in postulating an opaque relationship between two rules which
results from applying these rules in a counterfeeding order, contrary to the OT claim
that children always postulate a transparent ordering. If children did always choose
such an ordering, we would expect to find a merger of /s/ and /θ/ in their output.
7