PHONOLOGICAL TEAMWORK IN LAAL ROUNDING HARMONY: AN ABC ANALYSIS ABC Conference, UC Berkeley, 18-19 May 2014

Florian Lionnet UC Berkeley

UC Berkeley Phonology Lab Annual Report: ABC↔Conference

223

Introduction

  “phonological teamwork”  i.e. processes involving more than one necessary trigger

  Specifically: multiple-trigger assimilation involving subphonemic/subfeatural cumulative effects

2

UC Berkeley Phonology Lab Annual Report: ABC↔Conference

224

Introduction

  Similar to Cantonese inter-coronal fronting (Flemming 1997, 2001) *TuT > TyT (morpheme structure constraint)  kʰyt ‘decide’ kʰut ‘bracket’   tʰuk ’bald head’   tʰyt ‘take off’ *tʰut

3

UC Berkeley Phonology Lab Annual Report: ABC↔Conference

225

Introduction

  Flemming’s (1997: 11)

“cases of doubly-conditioned assimilation (…) provide evidence that coarticulation is relevant to uncontroversially phonological processes, and therefore must be represented in the phonology.” (cf. also Steriade’s (2009) P-map)

4

UC Berkeley Phonology Lab Annual Report: ABC↔Conference

226

Introduction

IN THIS TALK:   CASE STUDY:

 Rare doubly triggered rounding harmony in Laal  Laal: isolate, Chad (ca. 750 speakers)

  ANALYSIS:  Agreement by Correspondence (ABC, modified)

  I WILL SHOW THAT:  There is phonology below the phonological feature  ABC can handle this subfeatural phonology  ABC can handle local effects of assimilation as well as long-distance assimilation

5

UC Berkeley Phonology Lab Annual Report: ABC↔Conference

227

1. Laal doubly triggered rounding harmony

UC Berkeley Phonology Lab Annual Report: ABC↔Conference

228

1. Laal doubly triggered rounding harmony

  Words are maximally disyllabic:

C V1 (C) . C V2 (C) hi i ü ɨ u i -- ɨ u

mid e üo ə o e -- ə olo ia

(<ɛ)üa a ua

(<ɔ)-- -- a --

+Front -Front +Front -Front

V1 V2

7

UC Berkeley Phonology Lab Annual Report: ABC↔Conference

229

1. Laal doubly triggered rounding harmony

Double trigger[labial] [round]or or

C1 V1 (C2) C3 V2

[α height, -front]

⇒ V1>[rd]

p, b, ɓmb, m, w

oooooooooooooooooooooor]rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr ooooorrrrrrrr

1 2

eighhhhhhttttt

3

ffront]tttt

r

hi i ü u i -- ɨmid e üo o e -- ə

lo ia (<ɛ)

üa a ua (<ɔ)

-- -- a --

+Front -Front +Front -Front

V1 V2

[α he[α he

ü u

üooo o

üa aaaaaaaaa u

ɨ ə ə

a

uo

DD 8

UC Berkeley Phonology Lab Annual Report: ABC↔Conference

230

1. Laal doubly triggered rounding harmony

1) Lab, V2[rd], Height, -Front > Rounding:

a.  /ɓᵼr+-ú/ > ɓùr-ú ‘hook-pl’

b.  /wəər+-ó/ > wòòr-ó ‘mongoose-pl’

c.  /təb+-ó/ > tòb-ó ‘fish(sp.)-pl’

d.  /cᵼrm-+-ú/ > cúrm-ú ‘tree(sp.)-pl’

e.  /pəb+-ó/ > pób-ó ‘cobra-pl’

9

UC Berkeley Phonology Lab Annual Report: ABC↔Conference

231

1. Laal doubly triggered rounding harmony

2) No Rounding:

a.  /gōbər/ > gōbər ‘cloud’ (*gōbōr)

b.  /məəm-ər/> məəm-ər ‘my gd-mother’ *V2[rd]

c.  /gᵼn+-ù/ > gᵼn-ù ‘net-pl’ *Lab

d.  /ɓər+-ú/ > ɓər-ú ‘plant.sp-pl’ *Height

e.  /bìrú / > bìrú ‘burn’ *-Front

10

UC Berkeley Phonology Lab Annual Report: ABC↔Conference

232

1. Laal doubly triggered rounding harmony

  Note: the doubly triggered rounding harmony is only attested in stratum 1:

 Root-internal (MSC)

 Root + number marking suffixes (mainly nouns + a few verbs)

11

UC Berkeley Phonology Lab Annual Report: ABC↔Conference

233

1. Laal doubly triggered rounding harmony

C1 V1 (C2) C3 V2

[round]

12

Spread [round] from V2 to V1: •  if V1 and V2 = [α height, -front] •  if C1, C2, and/or C3 = [labial]

Mere descriptive generalization, not explanatory.

UC Berkeley Phonology Lab Annual Report: ABC↔Conference

234

2. Subphonemic similarity threshold

UC Berkeley Phonology Lab Annual Report: ABC↔Conference

235

2. Subphonemic similarity threshold

[labial] [round]or or

C1 V1 (C2) C3 V2

[α height, -front]

⇒ V1>[rd]oooooooooooooooooooooor

]rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr ooooorrrrrrrr

1 2

[α heighhhhhhhtttttt

3

ffront]ttttt

14

V1 needs the coarticulatory rounding of the neighboring consonant to become a target of Rounding Harmony

UC Berkeley Phonology Lab Annual Report: ABC↔Conference

236

2. Subphonemic similarity threshold

Similarity: V1 V2

First threshold: Amount of rounding coarticulation

/ɓ ᵼ r ú/ ɓùruSubphonemic: V2 = [round] V1 = non-round (subphonemically rounded)

[αheight, -front]Second threshold: Rounding similarity between V1 and V2

15

UC Berkeley Phonology Lab Annual Report: ABC↔Conference

237

2. Subphonemic similarity threshold

Similarity: V1 V2

ɓùru /ɓ ᵼ r ú/ Subphonemic: V1 = non-round (coarticulatory

rounding) V2 = [round]

[αheight, -front]Second threshold: V1 and V2 must be similar enough in

rounding

gggggggghhhhhhhhtttttttt, -fro[[[[[[[[αheig

16

UC Berkeley Phonology Lab Annual Report: ABC↔Conference

238

2. Subphonemic similarity threshold

Similarity: V1 V2

Threshold: V1 must be rounded enough (cumulative

coarticulation)

/ɓ ᵼ r ú/ ɓùruSubphonemic: V1 = non-round (subphonemically

rounded) V2 = [round]

[αheight, -front]Second threshold: V1 and V2 must be similar enough in

rounding

17

UC Berkeley Phonology Lab Annual Report: ABC↔Conference

239

2. Subphonemic similarity threshold

CV coarticulation: / / + C[+labial]

I = ɨ°I = ɨ + Lab

Measurements =center of vowel, far from transitions

18

UC Berkeley Phonology Lab Annual Report: ABC↔Conference

240

2. Subphonemic similarity threshold

  Second threshold: rounding similarity (qualitative)

/ ɓ ᵼ r ú / [ɓùrú]

[αheight, -front]

19

UC Berkeley Phonology Lab Annual Report: ABC↔Conference

241

2. Subphonemic similarity threshold

  ‘ostriches’: two alternate forms:

a. /bəəg-ú/ bəəgú b. /bəəg-ó/ bóógó

20

UC Berkeley Phonology Lab Annual Report: ABC↔Conference

242

  Rounding enhancement and rounding similarity

“worst” round V

2. Subphonemic similarity threshold

“best” round V

(cf. Kaun 2004, Terbeek 1977, Linker 1982)

21

UC Berkeley Phonology Lab Annual Report: ABC↔Conference

243

  Subphonemic rounding similarity

“worst” round V

2. Subphonemic similarity threshold

“best” round V

22

UC Berkeley Phonology Lab Annual Report: ABC↔Conference

244

  Rounding similarity scale

2.3 Rounding Similarity Scale

Degree ofsimilarity Property Similar to [u]

Phonemic level 5 [rd] u

Subphonemiclevel

4 rd/[-front]/height ɨᵒ3 rd/height ɨᵒ, iᵒ2 rd/[-front] ɨᵒ, əᵒ, aᵒ1 rd V°

23

UC Berkeley Phonology Lab Annual Report: ABC↔Conference

245

  Rounding similarity scale (threshold = level 4)

2.3 Rounding Similarity Scale

Degree ofsimilarity Property Similar to [u]

Phonemic level 5 [rd] u

Subphonemiclevel

4 rd/[-front]/height ɨᵒ3 rd/height ɨᵒ, iᵒ2 rd/[-front] ɨᵒ, əᵒ, aᵒ1 rd V°

24

UC Berkeley Phonology Lab Annual Report: ABC↔Conference

246

  Level 5 acts like a magnet

Rounding Similarity Scale

Similarity a. /gᵼn-ù/ b. /məəg-u/ c./bìru/ d. /ɓᵼr-ú/scale g ɨ n u m əə g u b i r u ɓ u r u5 [round] u4 rd +[-fr]/height ɨᵒ3 rd +height iᵒ2 rd +[-fr] əəᵒ1 rd

<1 rd ɨ

25

UC Berkeley Phonology Lab Annual Report: ABC↔Conference

247

3. Agreement by Correspondence

UC Berkeley Phonology Lab Annual Report: ABC↔Conference

248

Main insights: agreement is driven by a similarity threshold effect

  Similarity: Harmony = agreement between segments in a correspondence relation based on similarity.   Threshold: unstable correspondence (Inkelas and Shih 2013b):

 some segments are similar enough to interact,  but too uncomfortably similar to co-exist;  two possible repairs: harmony and disharmony

3 Agreement by Correspondence 27

UC Berkeley Phonology Lab Annual Report: ABC↔Conference

249

ABC is used for:

  Long-distance C agreement (Hansson 2001; Rose & Walker 2004)

  V Harmony (Sasa 2009; Walker 2009; Rhodes 2012)

  Long-distance C Dissimilation (Bennett 2013)

  Local effects of assimilation/dissimilation

(Inkelas & Shih 2013a,b; Shih 2013)

3 Agreement by Correspondence 28

UC Berkeley Phonology Lab Annual Report: ABC↔Conference

250

3.1CORR-XX and IDENT-XX redefined

  CORR-XX: establishes correspondence between phonologically similar segments (i.e. shared phonological features).

  IDENT-XX: enforces identity in a particular feature between two segments in correspondence

29

UC Berkeley Phonology Lab Annual Report: ABC↔Conference

251

IDENT-XX[F]Segments in an output string agree in the phonological feature [F] 1) if they are in the correspondence relation defined as CORR-XX(P≥n), 2) and if [F] ⊂ P.

CORR-XX (P≥n)Segments in an output string are in correspondence if their

similarity in the ponetic property P is at least n on the P-similarity scale.

[F] ⊂ P

3.1CORR-XX and IDENT-XX redefined

re inP is ae.

is

Tree in the ph

30

UC Berkeley Phonology Lab Annual Report: ABC↔Conference

252

3.1CORR-XX and IDENT-XX redefined

  Laal Rounding Correspondence Hierarchy.

Similarity scale Correspondence hierarchy Degree 4: rd/[-front]/height CORR-VV(rd≥4) Degree 3: rd/height ⟩⟩ CORR-VV(rd≥3) Degree 2: rd/[-front] ⟩⟩ CORR-VV(rd≥2) Degree 1: rd ⟩⟩ CORR-VV(rd≥1)

31

UC Berkeley Phonology Lab Annual Report: ABC↔Conference

253

3.1CORR-XX and IDENT-XX redefined

  CORR-XX and IDENT-XX are co-dependent

IDENTα-VV[RD] CORRα-VV(RD≥4)

CORR-VV(RD≥3)

CORR-VV(RD≥2)

CORR-VV(RD≥1)

32

UC Berkeley Phonology Lab Annual Report: ABC↔Conference

254

3.2 ABC ANALYSIS

  Analysis: /ɓᵼr-ú/ > ɓùrú ‘fish hooks’

/ɓᵼr-ú/ IDENT-IO[RD]

CORRα-VV(RD≥4)

IDENTα-VV[RD]

IDENT-OI[RD]

a. ɓᵼᵒr-ú   *!     b. ɓùr-u   *!   * c. ɓᵼᵒαr-úα     *!  

d. ɓuαr-úα       * e. ɓᵼᵒr-ᵼ *!      

33

UC Berkeley Phonology Lab Annual Report: ABC↔Conference

255

3.2 ABC ANALYSIS

  Analysis: /mèn-ù/ > mènù ‘hoes’

/mèn-u / IDENT-IO[RD]

CORRα-VV(RD≥4)

IDENTα-VV[RD]

IDENT-OI[RD]

a. mèᵒn-ù         b. müòn-u       *! c. mèᵒn-ᵼ *!      

34

UC Berkeley Phonology Lab Annual Report: ABC↔Conference

256

4. A purely phonological alternation

UC Berkeley Phonology Lab Annual Report: ABC↔Conference

257

  Is this alternation:  purely phonetic?

 purely phonological?

 both: phonology has access to phonetic information?

4. A purely phonological alternation 36

UC Berkeley Phonology Lab Annual Report: ABC↔Conference

258

  Argument 1:

Slow speech rate / pause between 1 and 2 does not undo the harmony

it is not the actual coarticulatory effect and phonetic realization that are driving the harmony

4. A purely phonological alternation 37

UC Berkeley Phonology Lab Annual Report: ABC↔Conference

259

  Argument 1:

Slow speech rate / pause between 1 and 2 does not undo the harmony

it is not the actual coarticulatory effect and phonetic realization that are driving the harmony

4. A purely phonological alternation 38

UC Berkeley Phonology Lab Annual Report: ABC↔Conference

260

Argument 2: Opacity of intervening /w/ :

a.  /wəər+-ó/ > wòòr-ó ‘mongoose-pl’

b.  /səw+-ò/ > səw-ò ‘warthogs’ (*sówò)c.  /məw+-ó/ > məw-ó ‘scorpions’ (*mówó)

NB: Also a general MSC: *Uw

(no exception in 2200 word lexicon)

4. A purely phonological alternation 39

UC Berkeley Phonology Lab Annual Report: ABC↔Conference

261

  Undominated *Uw constraint:

Interesting case where the system “chooses” to keep the unstable correspondence, the “uncomfortable” level of similarity unchanged.

4. A purely phonological alternation 40

/ɓᵼr-ú/ *Uw IDENT-IO[RD]

CORRα-VV(RD≥4)

IDENTα-VV[RD]

IDENT-OI[RD]

a. məᵒw-ó     *!     b. mów-o *!   *   * c. məᵒw-əᵒ   *! *    

d. məᵒαw-óα       *   e. moαw-óα *!       *

UC Berkeley Phonology Lab Annual Report: ABC↔Conference

262

  Argument 3: stratum-dependent In stratum 2, rounding harmony is systematic and unconditional

E.g. verb + object suffix:

a)  /tɨr+-ùn/ > túr-ùn ‘put her across’ *Lab

b)  /dəg+-òn/ > dòg-òn ‘drag her’ *Lab

c)  /dəg+-nǔ/ > dòg-nǔ ‘drag us (ex.)’ *Lab, *Height

d)  /léér+-nǔ/ > lüóór-nǔ ‘wrap us’ *Lab, *Height, *-Front

Coarticulation and phonetic realization are expected to be identical in both strata!

4. A purely phonological alternation 41

UC Berkeley Phonology Lab Annual Report: ABC↔Conference

263

5. An alternative (and very tentative) ABC analysis

UC Berkeley Phonology Lab Annual Report: ABC↔Conference

264

5. Alternative analysis

/ɓᵼr-ú/ → ɓùrú  Hypothesis:

 V1 [ɨᵘ] does not assimilate to V2 [u] … but to /u/ in the inventory:

  i.e. [ɨᵘ] and [u] are not perceptually contrastive enough, and [ɨᵘ] is reinterpreted as [u].s

43

UC Berkeley Phonology Lab Annual Report: ABC↔Conference

265

4. Alternative analysis

  Contrast as a systemic property (Flemming 2001, 2004; Hayes & Steriade 2004:24-25)   “Constraints favoring distinct contrasts are constraints on the differences between forms rather than on the individual forms themselves” (Flemming 2004:232) “paradigmatic constraints”, which evaluate whole sets of possible forms, rather than single output forms.

44

UC Berkeley Phonology Lab Annual Report: ABC↔Conference

266

4. Alternative analysis

  i.e. Comparison between each segment in the output form and the full phonological inventory. E.g. for vowels:

45

i ü ɨ ue üo ə oia üa a ua

ɓ ᵼᵒ r ú

UC Berkeley Phonology Lab Annual Report: ABC↔Conference

267

4. Alternative analysis

  i.e. Comparison between each segment in the output form and the full phonological inventory. E.g. for vowels:

46

ɓ ᵼ r à ɓ ᵼᵒ r ú

i ü ɨ ɨ ɨᵒ u

e üo ə o

ia üa a ua

UC Berkeley Phonology Lab Annual Report: ABC↔Conference

268

4. Alternative analysis

  PROPOSAL: Output-to-Inventory Correspondence

CORRα-VOUTVINV(RD≥4)

47

ɓᵼᵒαru ↔ { uα }

UC Berkeley Phonology Lab Annual Report: ABC↔Conference

269

4. Alternative analysis 48

/ɓᵼr-ú/ IDENT-IO[RD]

CORRα-VOUTVINV (RD≥4)

IDENTα-VV[RD]

IDENT-OI[RD]

a. ɓᵼᵒr-ú ↔ {u}   *!     b. ɓùr-u ↔ {u}   *!   * c. ɓᵼᵒαr-ú ↔ {uα}     *!  

d. ɓuαr-ú ↔ {uα}       * f. ɓᵼr-ᵼ ↔ {…} *!      

UC Berkeley Phonology Lab Annual Report: ABC↔Conference

270

CONCLUSION

UC Berkeley Phonology Lab Annual Report: ABC↔Conference

271

Conclusion

  Laal doubly triggered rounding harmony is an argument in favor of the inclusion of subphonemic / subfeatural information in phonology

50

UC Berkeley Phonology Lab Annual Report: ABC↔Conference

272

Conclusion

  Enrichment of ABC: ABC accounts for subphonemic/sub-featural similarity effects Both local and long-distance effects of assimilation can be insightfully captured by one and the same model Potentially interesting account of paradigmatic similarity effects (à la Flemming)

If ABC is a theory of similarity driven processes, it should be able to account for processes driven by perceptual distinctiveness and contrast effects.

51

UC Berkeley Phonology Lab Annual Report: ABC↔Conference

273

Conclusion

  Enrichment of ABC:  ABC accounts for subphonemic/sub-featural similarity effects

Both local and long-distance effects of assimilation can be insightfully captured by one and the same model Potentially interesting account of paradigmatic similarity effects (à la Flemming)

If ABC is a theory of similarity driven processes, it should be able to account for processes driven by perceptual distinctiveness and contrast effects.

52

UC Berkeley Phonology Lab Annual Report: ABC↔Conference

274

Conclusion

  Enrichment of ABC:  ABC accounts for subphonemic/sub-featural similarity effects  Both local and long-distance effects of assimilation can be insightfully captured by one and the same model

Potentially interesting account of paradigmatic similarity effects (à la Flemming)

If ABC is a theory of similarity driven processes, it should be able to account for processes driven by perceptual distinctiveness and contrast effects.

53

UC Berkeley Phonology Lab Annual Report: ABC↔Conference

275

Conclusion

  Enrichment of ABC:  ABC accounts for subphonemic/sub-featural similarity effects  Both local and long-distance effects of assimilation can be insightfully captured by one and the same model  Potentially interesting account of paradigmatic similarity effects (à la Flemming) If ABC is a theory of similarity driven processes, it should be able to account for processes driven by perceptual distinctiveness and contrast effects.

54

UC Berkeley Phonology Lab Annual Report: ABC↔Conference

276

Conclusion

  Enrichment of ABC:  ABC accounts for subphonemic/sub-featural similarity effects  Both local and long-distance effects of assimilation can be insightfully captured by one and the same model  Potentially interesting account of paradigmatic similarity effects (à la Flemming)   If ABC is a theory of similarity driven processes, it should be able to account for processes driven by perceptual distinctiveness and contrast effects.

55

UC Berkeley Phonology Lab Annual Report: ABC↔Conference

277

THANK YOU!

56

UC Berkeley Phonology Lab Annual Report: ABC↔Conference

278

References 1/1

  Bennett, William G. 2013. Dissimilation, Consonant Harmony, and Surface Correspondence. Ph.D. dissertation, NJCU, Rutgers.

  Flemming, Edward S. 1997. Phonetic Detail in Phonology: Towards a unified account of assimilation and coarticulation. In Suzuki, K. and D. Elzinga (eds.), Southwest Workshop on Optimality Theory: Features in OT (SWOT), Coyote Papers.

  Flemming, Edward S. 2002. Auditory Representations in Phonology. Routledge: New York & London.

  Flemming, Edward S. 2004. Contrast and perceptual distinctiveness. In B. Hayes, R. Kirchner and D. Steriade (Eds.), 2004, Phonetically Based Phonology. Cambridge Unviersity Press.

  Hansson, Gunnar Ólafur. 2001. Theoretical and Typological Issues in Consonant Harmony. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of California, Berkeley.

  Inkelas, Sharon and Stephanie Shih. 2013. ABC+Q: Contour segments and tones in (sub)segmental Agreement by Correspondence. Paper presented at Phonology 2013, UMass, 8-10 Nov. 2013.

  Inkelas, Sharon and Stephanie Shih. Unstable surface correspondence as the source of local conspiracies. Paper to be presented at NELS 44, University of Connecticut, Oct. 18-20, 2013.

  Kaun, Abigail. 2004. The typology of rounding harmony. In B. Hayes et al. (eds.), Phonetically Based Phonology. 2004. Cambridge: CUP

57

UC Berkeley Phonology Lab Annual Report: ABC↔Conference

279

References 2/2

  Linker, Wendy. 1982. Articulatory and acoustic correlates of labial activity in vowels: A cross-linguistic study. Doctoral dissertation, UCLA. Published in UCLA Working Papers in Phonetics 56.

  Rhodes, Russell. 2012. Vowel Harmony as Agreement by Correspondence. Annual Report of the UC Berkeley Phonology Lab (2012), pp.138-168.

  Rose, Sharon and Rachel Walker. 2004. A typology of consonant agreement as correspondence. Language 80:475-31.

  Sasa, Tomomasa. 2009. Treatment of Vowel Harmony in Optimality Theory. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Iowa.

  Shih, Stephanie. 2013. Consonant-tone interaction as Agreement by Correspondence.

  Terbeek, Dale. 1977. A cross-language multidimensional scaling study of vowel perception. PhD dissertation, UCLA. Published in UCLA Working Papers in Phonetics 37.

  Walker, Rachel. 2009. Similarity-sensitive blocking and transparency in Menominee. Paper presented at the 83rd Annual Meeting of the Linguistic Society of America. San Francisco, California. 9 January 2009. http://www-bcf.usc.edu/~rwalker/MenomineeLSAHdt.pdf

58

UC Berkeley Phonology Lab Annual Report: ABC↔Conference

280

Acknowledgments:

  Many thanks to my Laal consultants and the Laal-speaking community in Chad.

  Larry Hyman, Sharon Inkelas, Stephanie Shih, Donca Steriade, John Sylak-Glassman for helpful comments

  Audiences at UC Berkeley, Stanford University, UMass, LSA 2014 and OCP11.

  This work is supported by the Volkswagen Foundation DOBES program (grant #85538)

59

UC Berkeley Phonology Lab Annual Report: ABC↔Conference

281

Appendix: Lowering of the threshold

  One exception with a front vowel:  pıır-u p ǘǘru ‘compounds’

60

UC Berkeley Phonology Lab Annual Report: ABC↔Conference

282

Appendix: Lowering of the threshold

  Different co-indexation:

61

CORR-VV(RD≥4)

IDENTα-VV[RD] CORRα-VV(RD≥3)

CORR-VV(RD≥2)

CORR-VV(RD≥1)

UC Berkeley Phonology Lab Annual Report: ABC↔Conference

283

Appendix: Lowering of the threshold

  + re-ranking CORRα-VV(RD≥3) :

a. CORR-VV(RD≥4)

IDENT-OI[RD]

CORRα-VV(RD≥3)

62

UC Berkeley Phonology Lab Annual Report: ABC↔Conference

284

Appendix: Lowering of the threshold

  + re-ranking CORRα-VV(RD≥3) :

a. CORR-VV(RD≥4) b. CORR-VV(RD≥4),

IDENT-OI[RD]

CORRα-VV(RD≥3) CORRα-VV(RD≥3)

IDENT-OI[RD]

63

UC Berkeley Phonology Lab Annual Report: ABC↔Conference

285

a. /bìru / bìru ‘burn’

Appendix: Lowering of the threshold

/bìr-u/ IDENT-IO[RD]

CORRα-VV(RD≥4)

IDENTα-VV[RD]

IDENT-OI[RD]

a. bìr-u   b. bür-u   *! c. bìr-ı  *!

64

UC Berkeley Phonology Lab Annual Report: ABC↔Conference

286

a. /bìru / bìru ‘burn’

b. /pıır-u/ p ǘǘru ‘compounds’

Appendix: Lowering of the threshold

/bìr-u/ IDENT-IO[RD]

CORR-VV(RD≥4) IDENT-VV[RD] IDENT-

OI[RD]a. bìr-u  

b. bür-u   *! c. bìr-ı  *!

/bìr-u/ IDENT-IO[RD]

CORR-VV(RD≥4)

CORRα-VV(RD≥3)

IDENTα-VV[RD]

IDENT-OI[RD]

a. pııᵒr-ú   *! b. p ǘǘr-ú   *! * c. pııᵒr-ᵼ *! d. pııᵒαr-úα *!

e. p ǘǘαruα   *

65

UC Berkeley Phonology Lab Annual Report: ABC↔Conference

287