Some inventory-related asymetries in the patterning of tongue root harmony systems

Earlier studies (e.g., Casali 2003, 2008) have presented evidence of significant differences in assimilatory tendencies in vowel systems that have an [ATR] contrast in high vowels (“/2IU/ systems”) and those that have an [ATR] contrast only in non-high vowels (“/1IU/ systems”). Whereas assimilatory...

Descripción completa

Guardado en:

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autor principal:	Roderic F. Casali
Formato:	article
Lenguaje:	EN FR
Publicado:	LibraryPress@UF 2016
Materias:	vowel harmony advanced tongue root typology markedness vowel length vowel inventories Philology. Linguistics P1-1091
Acceso en línea:	https://doaj.org/article/790f6a7c9e5446cba05e5ef2c35aa5b7
Etiquetas:	Agregar Etiqueta Sin Etiquetas, Sea el primero en etiquetar este registro!

id	oai:doaj.org-article:790f6a7c9e5446cba05e5ef2c35aa5b7
record_format	dspace
spelling	oai:doaj.org-article:790f6a7c9e5446cba05e5ef2c35aa5b72021-11-19T03:52:14ZSome inventory-related asymetries in the patterning of tongue root harmony systems10.32473/sal.v45i1.1072540039-35332154-428Xhttps://doaj.org/article/790f6a7c9e5446cba05e5ef2c35aa5b72016-06-01T00:00:00Zhttps://journals.flvc.org/sal/article/view/107254https://doaj.org/toc/0039-3533https://doaj.org/toc/2154-428XEarlier studies (e.g., Casali 2003, 2008) have presented evidence of significant differences in assimilatory tendencies in vowel systems that have an [ATR] contrast in high vowels (“/2IU/ systems”) and those that have an [ATR] contrast only in non-high vowels (“/1IU/ systems”). Whereas assimilatory dominance of [+ATR] vowels is highly characteristic of the former, [-ATR] dominance is more typical of the latter. This paper investigates some further differences in the characteristic patterning of the two systems. I present evidence that /2IU/ and /1IU/ systems show essentially opposite markedness relations in respect to their non-low vowels, as diagnosed by distributional restrictions and positional neutralization. In /2IU/ systems it is quite common for [-ATR] vowels [ɪ], [ʊ], [ɛ], [ɔ] to be more widely distributed than their [+ATR] counterparts [i], [u], [e], [o], suggesting that the former are unmarked. In contrast, /1IU/ systems characteristically treat [-ATR] [ɪ], [ʊ], [ɛ], [ɔ] as marked relative to their [+ATR] counterparts. Low vowels do not show the same kind of striking reversal of markedness tendencies in the two systems that non-low vowels do. I argue, nevertheless, that some system-related differences can be observed in the patterning of low vowels as well.Roderic F. CasaliLibraryPress@UFarticlevowel harmonyadvanced tongue roottypologymarkednessvowel lengthvowel inventoriesPhilology. LinguisticsP1-1091ENFRStudies in African Linguistics, Vol 45, Iss 1 (2016)
institution	DOAJ
collection	DOAJ
language	EN FR
topic	vowel harmony advanced tongue root typology markedness vowel length vowel inventories Philology. Linguistics P1-1091
spellingShingle	vowel harmony advanced tongue root typology markedness vowel length vowel inventories Philology. Linguistics P1-1091 Roderic F. Casali Some inventory-related asymetries in the patterning of tongue root harmony systems
description	Earlier studies (e.g., Casali 2003, 2008) have presented evidence of significant differences in assimilatory tendencies in vowel systems that have an [ATR] contrast in high vowels (“/2IU/ systems”) and those that have an [ATR] contrast only in non-high vowels (“/1IU/ systems”). Whereas assimilatory dominance of [+ATR] vowels is highly characteristic of the former, [-ATR] dominance is more typical of the latter. This paper investigates some further differences in the characteristic patterning of the two systems. I present evidence that /2IU/ and /1IU/ systems show essentially opposite markedness relations in respect to their non-low vowels, as diagnosed by distributional restrictions and positional neutralization. In /2IU/ systems it is quite common for [-ATR] vowels [ɪ], [ʊ], [ɛ], [ɔ] to be more widely distributed than their [+ATR] counterparts [i], [u], [e], [o], suggesting that the former are unmarked. In contrast, /1IU/ systems characteristically treat [-ATR] [ɪ], [ʊ], [ɛ], [ɔ] as marked relative to their [+ATR] counterparts. Low vowels do not show the same kind of striking reversal of markedness tendencies in the two systems that non-low vowels do. I argue, nevertheless, that some system-related differences can be observed in the patterning of low vowels as well.
format	article
author	Roderic F. Casali
author_facet	Roderic F. Casali
author_sort	Roderic F. Casali
title	Some inventory-related asymetries in the patterning of tongue root harmony systems
title_short	Some inventory-related asymetries in the patterning of tongue root harmony systems
title_full	Some inventory-related asymetries in the patterning of tongue root harmony systems
title_fullStr	Some inventory-related asymetries in the patterning of tongue root harmony systems
title_full_unstemmed	Some inventory-related asymetries in the patterning of tongue root harmony systems
title_sort	some inventory-related asymetries in the patterning of tongue root harmony systems
publisher	LibraryPress@UF
publishDate	2016
url	https://doaj.org/article/790f6a7c9e5446cba05e5ef2c35aa5b7
work_keys_str_mv	AT rodericfcasali someinventoryrelatedasymetriesinthepatterningoftonguerootharmonysystems
_version_	1718420617144827904

Some inventory-related asymetries in the patterning of tongue root harmony systems

Ejemplares similares