Covert Feature Effects

Covert Feature Effects Douglas Pulleyblank University of British Columbia 1. Introduction This paper contrasts certain implications of two opposing hypotheses about the nature of distinctive features. According to one view (e.g., Chomsky and Halle 1968), Universal Grammar contains a defined set of distinctive features, with all languages exhibiting contrasts based on a subset of the universal inventory. Alternatively, distinctive features can be viewed as emergent (e.g., Lindblom 1992), with features derived on a language-specific basis in response to categories encountered by a learner. The focus of the paper is a particular pattern of covert featural impact, where a feature not active in an inventory nevertheless plays a crucial role in phonological patterning. In a theory with a universally determined feature set, such behavior is expected. Detailed consideration of the type of feature involved, however, will be shown to suggest the exact opposite interpretation. If features and constraints are universal, we would expect such covert patterns, but we would expect them for a wider range of feature and constraint types than actually attested. What is actually observed seems to be narrowly constrained. Only those features for which there is overt evidence seem to exhibit covert effects. 2. Glottalization in Wakashan: Nuu-chah-nulth and Oowekyala Both Nuu-chah-nulth (‘Nootka,’ Southern Wakashan: Stonham 1999; Kim in prep; Kim and Pulleyblank 2003; etc.) and Oowekyala (Northern Wakashan: Howe 2000; etc.) are typical of the Wakashan language family in that they exhibit a complex consonant inventory including place distinctions between labial, alveolar, velar, labio-velar, uvular, labio-uvular and glottal consonants, with both plain and glottalized stops and affricates, plain and glottalized resonants, and a series of voiceless fricatives. Nuuchah-nulth also exhibits pharyngeal stops and fricatives. Of particular interest to the discussion here, Nuu-chah-nulth exhibits a class of coronal obstruents that includes alveo-palatals, while Oowekyala exhibits voiced stops in addition to plain and glottalized.

© 2003 Douglas Pulleyblank. WCCFL 22 Proceedings, ed. G. Garding and M. Tsujimura, pp. 398-422. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.

Pulleyblank

399

q

Glottal

kv Kv xv w W

Uvular

k K x

Labio-velar

j J S y Y

Velar

Alveo-palatal

z Z l

Pharyngeal

m M

tc TC s n N

Lateral

p P

Labio-uvular

Stops Glottalized Fricatives Resonants Glottalized

Alveolar

Labial

(1) Nuu-chah-nulth consonant inventory

Xv

H

h

?

/

qv

Stops Voiced Glottalized Fricatives Resonants Glottalized

m M

y Y

qv GV Qv Xv

Glottal

q G Q X

Labiouvular

kv gV Kv xv w W

Uvular

k g K x

LabioVelar

Velar

z D Z l l L

Alveopalatal

t c d dz T C s n N

Lateral

p b P

Alveolar

Labial

(2) Oowekyala consonant inventory

h /

2.1. Glottalization – Nuu-chah-nulth Both Nuu-chah-nulth and Oowekyala exhibit patterns of glottalization, but the patterns differ in significant respects. For Nuu-chah-nulth, I consider the Ahousaht dialect (Rose 1976; Kim in prep; Kim and Pulleyblank 2003; etc.), which differs in certain respects from other dialects examined in work such as Sapir and Swadesh (1939); Rose (1981); Stonham (1999); etc. In Ahousaht, a stop is systematically glottalized when preceding a glottalizing suffix, while a nasal systematically fails to glottalize.1 (3) Nuu-chah-nulth: glottalization of stops/affricates and nasals black (something) black in a boat a. tup[k] tup[K]aHs b. huqsu[m] geese huqsu[m]/aHs geese in a boat For detailed exemplification and analysis, see Kim (in prep). 1. Glides do not occur morpheme-finally in Nuu-chah-nulth, making it impossible to test their behavior under glottalization.

400

WCCFL 22

The point of crucial interest for this paper is that fricatives exhibit two distinct patterns in this context (Kim in prep; Kim and Pulleyblank 2003) that are roughly evenly distributed. For some fricative-final morphemes, glottalization results in the addition of a glottal stop. (4) Fricative class 1: glottalization deriving a glottal stop nice a. zu[l] zu[l/]aHs (something) nice in a boat b. tim[s] garbage tim[s/]aHs garbage in a boat to take something new c. Cu[S]-uk new Juu[S/]iz small urchin small urchins in a boat d. Hii[x] Hii[x/]aHs For other fricative-final morphemes, glottalization results in a final glottalized glide. (5) Fricative class 2: glottalization deriving a glottalized glide locative there is (s.t.) in a boat a. hi[l] hi[Y]aHs to move 1 pos. ?uyaa[Y]aHs moving one position to b. ?uyaa[s] to another another in a boat all to take all c. hi[S]-uk hi[Y]iz a hole in the ground d. Haj[xv]-ii deep Haj[W]as Three factors enter into an adequate analysis of the patterns of glottalization attested with fricatives: (i) the general analysis of glottalization, (ii) the distinction between the two fricative classes, and (iii) the absence of distinction within the classes of stops and nasals. In developing an analysis of glottalization (Kim in prep), it is necessary to distinguish between two classes of glottal-initial suffixes, one where the initial consonant of the suffix is consistently a glottal stop and one where the suffix induces glottalization – sometimes surfacing as a glottal stop (as in (3b) and (4)) and sometimes inducing glottalization (as in (3a) and (5)). Following work such as Zoll (1996) and Akinlabi (1996), Kim (in prep) proposes that this distinction follows from the consistent glottal stop being represented underlyingly with a root node, while the glottalizing suffix has a glottal element that is underlyingly rootless. When such a glottal element can associate to a compatible segment (as in (3a) and (5)), the result is faithful to the glottal feature without requiring the insertion of a root node; when the available anchors for the glottal feature are incompatible with it (as in (3b) and (4)), then faithfulness to the glottal feature necessitates the insertion of a root node. These points will be illustrated below. The crucial point with respect to fricatives is why class 1 fricatives should be incompatible with the glottal feature while class 2 fricatives are eligible anchors. Following Kim (in prep) and Kim and Pulleyblank (2003), I consider this difference to fall out of assuming that underlying representations are featurally unconstrained (Prince and Smolensky 1993;

Pulleyblank

401

Archangeli and Pulleyblank 1994, etc.). Invoking the features [sonorant] and [continuant] to distinguish between (obstruent) stops, fricatives, nasals and glides, there are nine possible input representations:

Input

0

Output

(6) Stops, Fricatives, Nasals, Glides: contrast at the level of the feature 3 5 8 9 1 2 4 6 7 Stop

Stop

Fric

Stop

Nas

Stop

Nas

Fric

Glide

−cont −son

−cont −son

+cont −son

−cont −son

−cont +son

−cont −son

−cont +son

+cont −son

+cont +son

−cont

+cont

−son

+son

−cont −son

−cont +son

+cont −son

+cont +son

Relevant here are the combinations 3 and 8, cases where input values of [+cont] and [+cont, −son] result in surface fricatives. To implement this, I assume that stops are less marked than continuants (*[+cont] >> *[−cont]), and that obstruents are less marked than sonorants (*[+son] >> *[−son]), but that faithfulness to input values of [sonorant] and [continuant] outrank such markedness constraints. (MAX[±F]: If [αF] is present in the input, then a corresponding value of [αF] is present in the output.) An example of how this will derive a surface fricative is given in (7). (7) Segment type 3 (fricative), not in a glottalization context Faithfulness Markedness MAX MAX /?uyaas/ * * * /s/ = [+cont] ±cont ±son +cont +son −cont * a. ?uyaa[s] s = +cont, −son b. ?uyaa[t] *! * t = −cont, −son c. ?uyaa[y] * *! y = +cont, +son

* −son * *

Assuming that surface segments are specified both for [son] and [cont], faithfulness to input values causes the lexical [+cont] to be retained; markedness fills in [−son]. The same surface representation would also result if the input were specified for both [−son] and [+cont]. What then happens in a glottalization context? Here, the two representations produce distinct surface results. Since glottalized fricatives are disallowed (*FRIC/CG: The combination [+cont, −son, +constricted glottis] is ill-formed), the addition of a [+constricted glottis] specification requires some deviation from a simple additive feature structure (8c). If a fricative is underlyingly specified as [+cont, −son], then it is impossible for

402

WCCFL 22

a.

*!

*−son

*−cont

*+son

*+cont

DEPRoot

MAX±cont

MAX±c.g.

tim[s]aHs

*FRIC/CG

(8) Segment type 8 (fricative), glottalized /tims+[+cg]aHs/ /s/ = [+cont, −son]

MAX±son

a single segment to obey *FRIC/CG and be faithful to [constricted glottis] (‘cg’), [continuant] (‘c’) and [sonorant] (‘s’) (8a,d,e). The result is a form such as tim[s/]aHs ‘garbage in a boat’ (4b/8b) with an overt glottal stop.

*

*

*

*

*

*

s = +c, −s, −cg b.

tim[s/]aHs

*

s = +c, −s, −cg c. d. e.

tim[s']aHs s' = +c, −s, +cg tim[T]aHs T = −c, −s, +cg tim[Y]aHs Y = +c, +s, +cg

*! *!

* *!

*

*

*

*−son

*

*−cont

*!

*+son

*+cont

MAX±cont

MAX±c.g.

?uyaa[s/]aHs

DEPRoot

a.

*FRIC/CG

(9) Segment type 3 (fricative), glottalized /?uyaas+[+cg]aHs/ /s/ = [+cont]

MAX±son

In contrast, for a fricative specified underlyingly only as [+cont], there is no [sonorant] value of relevance for faithfulness. Thus while [−son] is fully compatible with [+cont] in general, it is incompatible with the values [+cont, +c.g.]. Given the irrelevance of faithfulness to [son], the optimal output retains the lexically specified values of [+cont] and [+c.g.].

*

s = +c, −s, −cg b. c.

?uyaa[T]aHs T = −c, −s, +cg ?uyaa[Y]aHs Y = +c, +s, +cg

*!

* *

*

*

Since DEPRoot outranks the featural markedness conditions, a glottal stop cannot surface unless there is no other way to satisfy featural faithfulness. Before extending this analysis to other processes in Nuu-chah-nulth and to patterns of glottalization in the related language, Oowekyala, it is

Pulleyblank

403

important to address the issue of why stops and nasals do not exhibit the same sort of variable behavior under glottalization. The answer is simple. Incompatibilities of the type seen with fricatives do not arise. Consider the case of (obstruent) stops/affricates. As seen in (6), there are four possible input representations that give rise to stops: [∅], [−cont], [−son], and [−cont, −son]. With or without the addition of [+c.g.], all four representations are compatible with the least marked values for [cont] and [son], namely [−cont] and [−son]. The result is that with or without glottalization, the same surface features result, the features for a stop. The case for nasals is similar, though complicated by the fact that glottalization in Ahousaht does not affect nasals. Featurally, there are two possible input representations for nasals: [+son] and [−cont, +son]. Both representations include the marked value [+son], and since featural faithfulness outranks featural markedness, the [+son] value must be retained in the output. With respect to continuancy, markedness will result in [−cont] being assigned to the [+son] type, neutralizing the input distinction and resulting in surface nasals for both types. The interesting aspect of the pattern involving nasals is that glottalization fails to affect nasals, in spite of glottalized nasals being attested in the language. For discussion, see Kim (in prep). The crucial point for the purposes of this paper is that no difference between types of nasals is predicted by the proposed feature analysis. In summary, it has been proposed that the behavior of fricatives under glottalization follows from allowing the free ranking of [cont] and [son] in inputs, and ranking featural faithfulness above featural markedness. This proposal accounts for both the divergent patterns of fricatives and the uniform patterns of stops and nasals. In the following section, the related pattern of glottalization in Oowekyala is considered. Fricatives again exhibit two classes, though of a somewhat different nature than in Nuu-chah-nulth. I then return to Nuuchah-nulth to demonstrate that the representations for fricatives proposed in this section play an additional role with respect to another process, lenition. 2.2. Glottalization – Oowekyala Like the related language Nuu-chah-nulth, Oowekyala exhibits morphologically induced glottalization (Howe 2000). In significant respects, glottalization in the two languages is comparable. For example, just as in Nuu-chah-nulth, stops and affricates are consistently glottalized. (10) Oowekyala: stops/affricates always undergo glottalization mud ;u[P]s muddy ground a. ;u[p]a Mu[F]s lump on the ground b. Mu[f]@la heaping full outside; small hill

404

WCCFL 22

Unlike Nuu-chah-nulth, glides are possible morpheme-finally, and also unlike Nuu-chah-nulth, both nasals and glides undergo glottalization. (11) Oowekyala: sonorants always undergo glottalization to walk t@[W]inuXV good at walking a. t@[w]a to point CaC@[M]a to try to point b. C@[m]a to pull, haul dad@[N]a to try to pull or haul c. d@[n]a For this paper, the crucial cases are those involving fricatives. The Oowekyala patterns are both similar and dissimilar. The general pattern is unlike Nuu-chah-nulth in that most fricatives exhibit a single result under glottalization. Consider the forms in (12). (12) Oowekyala: glottalization of fricatives to heap up, rise, wawu[L]a a. wu[;]a uprising, riot (a wave) oolichan ZaZa[W]a b. Za[xV]n (candlefish) to dance, to make yaya[W]a c. y[XV]a dancing movements d.

m [x ]a

e.

ni[X]a

punch, strike with the fist, knock (on the door), beat (a drum) to pull (hair)

mama[N]a nani[X/]a

to try to heap up

to get oolichans, to try to catch oolichans to try to dance, to have a penchant for dancing to try to punch

to try to pull someone or something

Under glottalization, lateral fricatives surface as glottalized laterals (12a); labio-velar and labio-uvular fricatives surface as glottalized labio-velar glides (12b,c); plain velar fricatives surface as a glottalized coronal nasal (12d); plain uvular fricatives surface with a fricative-glottal stop sequence. The primary generalization is that continuancy is unaffected (12a-c), but in special cases continuancy and nasality may be shifted (12d) or a glottal stop may be inserted (12e). For none of the fricatives in (12) is there more than a single pattern under glottalization. Setting aside the two special cases, the primary generalization can be encoded by fairly minimal modifications of the analysis proposed for Nuuchah-nulth. First, glottal stop insertion is rendered more marked by raising DEP[Root] above MAX[±cont] and MAX[±son]. This results in glottalization being preferred over the insertion of a glottal stop, even if a fricative is converted into a sonorant (12a-d) or a stop (12d). Second, if a choice must be made between retaining the [+cont] or [−son] of a fricative, then [+cont]

Pulleyblank

405

a.

ZaZa[x'v]a

*−son

*−cont

*+son

MAX±son

DEPRoot

*+cont *

*

*!

*

*

= +c, −s, +cg *!

ZaZa[Kv]a

*

*

= −c, −s, +cg *

ZaZa[W]a

W

*

= +c, −s, −cg

Kv

e.

*!

ZaZa[xV/]a

x'v

d.

*

= +c, −s, −cg

xV

c.

*!

ZaZa[xV]a xV

b.

MAX±c.g.

*FRIC/CG

(13) Segment type 3 (fricative), glottalized /RED+Za[xV]+[+cg]a/ /xV/ = [+cont]

MAX±cont

wins: MAX[±cont] >> MAX[±son]. The effects of these two changes can be seen by considering a case like ZaZaWa ‘to get oolichans, to try to catch oolichans.’ Consider first an input-output mapping where we assume that the input representation of /ZaxV/ has a fricative specified as [+cont]:

*

= +c, +s, +cg

a.

ZaZa[xV/]a xV

b.

*

*−son

*−cont

*+son

*+cont

MAX±son

DEPRoot

*!

*

= +c, −s, −cg

ZaZa[W]a

W

MAX±c.g.

*FRIC/CG

(14) Segment type 3 (fricative), glottalized /RED+Za[xV]+[+cg]a/ /xV/ = [+cont, −son]

MAX±cont

As in Nuu-chah-nulth, glottalized fricatives are not an option (13c). To combine [+c.g.] with the lexically specified [+cont], the optimal output is therefore a glottalized glide. Unlike Nuu-chah-nulth, however, the same output is optimal even if the input fricative is specified as [+cont, −son]. The violations for candidate outputs for such an input are essentially as in (13), with the difference that a violation of MAX[±son] is incurred.

*

*

*

= +c, +s, +cg

Unlike Nuu-chah-nulth, where the fricative-glottal stop sequence is optimal for such an input, in Oowekyala, the high ranking of DEPRoot rules out the sequence in favor of the output violating MAX[±son]. Additional constraints are relevant for the special cases, those

406

WCCFL 22

involving the glottalization of x as N and of X as X/. I will not discuss these special factors here both for reasons of space and because the issues involved do not bear directly on the central concerns here. Both cases can be argued to involve the interaction of glottalization with constraints governing the Oowekyala consonant inventory; see Howe (2000) for discussion. The crucial point to note, one made at the beginning of the discussion of fricatives, is that the fricatives considered so far show no evidence of dual behavior. As seen, this difference between Oowekyala and Nuu-chah-nulth is derived by the relative ranking of DEPRoot and the constraints governing faithfulness to [cont] and [son]. The picture for Oowekyala is not complete, however, as the coronal fricative /s/ has not yet been considered. Here, we see that two patterns emerge under glottalization. For some morphemes, the result under glottalization is analogous to /xV, XV/: the output is a glottalized glide: (15) Oowekyala: glottalization of /s/: glottalized glide Plain fricatives Glottalised to shave, scrape off kaku[Y]a to try to shave or a. ku[s]a with a knife (skin, scrape fur, fish-scales) YaYida[Y]a to try to get oarlock b. Yida[s] oarlock hau[Y]inuXV tallyman c. hau[s]a to count, to tally to use the longline /a[Y]inuXV person good at d. /a[s]a to catch halibut longlining for halibut For other morphemes, the result under glottalization is an ejective stop: (16) Oowekyala: glottalization of /s/: ejective Plain fricatives Glottalised to plant lala[C]a to try to plant a. la[s]a to plant la[C]inuXV farmer b. la[s]a yayiMa[C]a to try to get a chief c. yiMa[s] chief p@Wi[C]inuXV person who is always hungry d. p@Wi[s] hungry These cases present the same basic problem as seen earlier for Nuuchah-nulth, but for a more restricted class. Following Howe (2000), I propose here that the relevant distinction is based on the feature [anterior]. Consider the possibilities for featural combination in coronal fricatives assuming (i) that inputs need not be fully specified, and (ii) that inputs are not constrained. Identification numbers refer back to (6).

Pulleyblank (17) Combinatorial possibilities for /s/ Input 3a 3b 8a +cont +cont +cont +ant −son Output

[s ] +cont −son +ant

[s ] +cont −son +ant

[s ] +cont −son +ant

407

8b +cont −son +ant [s ] +cont −son +ant

a.

hau[s/]inuXv

*!

*

*−son

*−cont

*+son

*+cont

MAX±son

DEPRoot

MAX±ant

MAX±c.g.

*FRIC/CG

(18) Segment type 8a (fricative), glottalized /haus+[+cg]inuXv/ /s/ = [+cont, −son]

MAX±cont

Assuming the input specifications in (17), an analysis of the dual behavior of /s/ in Oowekyala is available that parallels the analysis proposed for fricatives in Nuu-chah-nulth. When a glottalizing morpheme introduces [+c.g.] to an /s/, the preference is to be faithful to the [+cont] specification, introducing or shifting to [+son] to make the [+c.g., +cont] specifications permissible. This is exemplified with hauYinuXV ‘tallyman.’

*

s = +c, −s, −cg b.

hau[C]inuXv T

c.

hau[Y]inuXv Y

*!

*

*

= −c, −s, +cg *

*

*

= +c, +s, +cg

This tableau is comparable to (13), except that the input for /s/ is assumed to have [+cont, −son] specifications, as in (14), rather than only [+cont] as in (13). Note that if the input were considered to have an /s/ specified only for [+cont], the tableau would be identical except for the violation in candidate (18c) of Max[±cont] – the same candidate output is identified as optimal no matter which input is assumed.2 The situation alters significantly if the input is assumed to contain the specification [+ant]. Consider the tableau for laCinuXV ‘farmer.’ As seen 2. Assuming that MAX[±c.g.], MAX[±cont] and MAX[±son] outrank MAX[±ant], all of which outrank DEPRoot, the presence or absence of [+ant] in Nuu-chah-nulth will not create any pattern of glottalization not already considered.

408

WCCFL 22

a.

*!

la[s/]inuXv

*

*−son

*−cont

*+son

*+cont

MAX±son

MAX±cont

MAX±ant

MAX±c.g.

*FRIC/CG

(19) Segment type 8a (fricative), glottalized /las+[+cg]inuXv/ /s/ = [+cont, −son, +ant]

DEPRoot

above, the insertion of a root node is a last resort not required here (19a).

*

s = +c, −s, −cg, +a b.

T

c.

*

la[C]inuXv

la[Y]inuXv

Y

*

*

= −c, −s, +cg, +a *!

*

*

*

= +c, +s, +cg, −a

The crucial difference can be seen by comparing candidates (19b,c) with their counterparts (18b,c). When the lexical value of [+cont] is lost in (18b), the violation of MAX[±cont] is fatal. The situation is different in (19) because of the highly ranked constraint MAX[±ant]. MAX[±ant] is irrelevant in (18) because the input does not happen to be specified as [+ant], but in (19), the constraint is critical in eliminating the candidate *laYinuXv. 2.3. Comparison and discussion To assess this proposal, the use of [±ant] to distinguish two classes of fricatives is critical and warrants discussion. Note that consonants exhibit different values for anteriority in Oowekyala, but that the values are completely predictable. A consideration of the inventory in (2) shows that coronal stops, affricates, fricatives, nasals and laterals are all [+ant] while coronal glides are [−ant] (Howe 2000). While redundant, this determination of [±ant] is critical for a word like laCinuXv: a coronal specified [+cont, +son] (a glide) must be [−ant], but for a root specified as [+ant], this would force a deviation from faithful correspondence. However, while this solution may work technically, can it be justified? Is it the blatant use of a phonological feature for a diacritic function (Kiparsky 1982)? This latter issue is neither easily resolved nor easily dismissed. Historically, it seems to be the case that proto-Wakashan included both alveolars ([+ant]) and alveopalatals ([−ant]) (Howe 2000). While both classes have been retained in Nuu-chah-nulth, the alveo-palatal class has been lost in Oowekyala except for glides. We can therefore speculate that the [+ant] variants of /s/ correspond to proto-alveolars while the unspecified variants of /s/ correspond to the proto-alveo-palatals although evidence in terms of cognates has not been investigated. However, even if this was the case historically, does this motivate a synchronic analysis in terms of the feature

Pulleyblank

409

[±ant]? That is, even if it turned out to be a plausible explanation for the establishment of the two fricative classes, can it be justified as a synchronic account? To address the issue of justification, it is useful to consider what would be involved in eliminating the [±ant] analysis – or the [+cont] ~ [+cont, −son] analysis of the fricatives of Nuu-chah-nulth. Given Richness of the Base (Prince and Smolensky 1993), it is not obvious how these analyses could be ruled out. Clearly, the type of constraint required would need to be a constraint on inputs, hence a constraint of a very limited kind. That is, given fairly standard assumptions of Optimality Theory, the putative constraint could not be a member of Con, but would need to be a property of Gen. Consider, for example, a condition that both inputs and outputs be fully specified. If all well-formed representations were required to be fully specified, then a lexical distinction between [+cont] and [+cont, −son] would be impossible, and the proposed analysis of Nuu-chah-nulth fricatives would be eliminated. Such a condition on representations would be problematic, however. Work such as Keating (1988), Pierrehumbert and Beckman (1988) and Cohn (1990) has argued that the phonological representations providing input to phonetic implementation are not fully specified. If the input to the phonetics is not fully specified, then it follows that the input to the phonology cannot be. Another problem with assuming that all inputs are fully specified is that many phonological features are assumed to be monovalent. For example, work since Sagey (1986) has commonly assumed that place features involve the specification for labial, coronal, and dorsal articulators. It cannot be the case that all segments are specified for all articulators, and indeed, it is frequently assumed that at least certain types of laryngeals are placeless, hence specified for none of these articulators. Even if we were to assume that ‘root’ features are special (McCarthy 1988) and obligatorily fully specified in inputs, this might rule out the analysis of Nuu-chah-nulth (involving the root features [±cont] and [±son]) but would not rule out the analysis of Oowekyala (involving the coronal dependent [±ant]). Thus, while one might like or dislike this kind of recourse to features not motivated by contrast, it is difficult to rule out their use. We return to this issue below. Within a version of OT that allows the free assignment of feature specifications in inputs and controls outputs through constraints – standard OT – it is predicted that grammars such as those proposed for Nuu-chahnulth and Oowekyala should exist. This point can be made schematically. A language that exhibits a contrast for F must rank faithfulness to F above at least some markedness constraint on F; a language where F is predictable ranks markedness constraints on F above faithfulness to F.

410

WCCFL 22

(20) Contrastive and non-contrastive use of F a. F is contrastive: Faith-F >> Markedness-F b. F is not contrastive: Markedness-F >> Faith-F The cases proposed here illustrate an additional level of complexity predicted by OT. If a feature F is non-contrastive, it should still be able to play an active role in a grammar if faithfulness to F outranks faithfulness to some other relevant feature G. (21) Non-contrastive features: sub-types a. F is non-contrastive and inert: Markedness-F >> Faith-G >> Faith-F b. F is non-contrastive and active: Markedness-F >> Faith-F >> Faith-G In the schema in (21b), which has been proposed here for Nuu-chah-nulth and Oowekyala, F constitutes a covert contrast. Although F does not result in surface contrasts because of the effect of markedness conditions, it plays a role through its interaction with other constraints. 3. Lenition in Wakashan: Nuu-chah-nulth and Oowekyala Additional patterns exhibiting covert contrast can be seen in a pattern of lenition that is widely attested in the Wakashan family. We begin by the consideration of an overt contrast in Oowekyala, then show how the same contrast is active but covert in Nuu-chah-nulth. 3.1. Contrastive voicing in Oowekyala In the unmarked case, sonorants are voiced and obstruents are voiceless. (22) Markedness conditions on voicing a. SONVOI:If [+sonorant] then [+voiced]. b. OBSVOI: If [−son] then [−voiced]. In Oowekyala (23a), there is a voicing contrast in obstruents but not in sonorants, a ranking of type (20a). (23) Sub-grammars for voicing a. Oowekyala: SONVOI >> MAX[±voiced] >> OBSVOI b. Nuu-chah-nulth: SONVOI >> OBSVOI >> MAX[±voiced] As we will see below for Nuu-chah-nulth, the voicing grammar is somewhat different, with voicing playing a covert role. The following data illustrate laryngeal contrasts in Oowekyala. Stops

Pulleyblank

411

exhibit three laryngeal settings: voiceless, voiced and glottalized (ejective). (For examples at all places of articulation, see Howe 2000.) (24) Laryngeal contrasts in stops Unmarked Voiced (voiceless) a. p@Wis [p]6Wis] b@wikV [b6wik{V] hungry pregnant b. tmqa [t]mq