From the introduction:  The nasalization of vowels in Sharanahua can be explained on the basis of consonants present in the underlying form of the morphemes, but the underlying consonants are not always nasal consonants. The explanation proposed here for oral consonants producing nasal vowels exploits the notion of sequential constraint rules ordered among or after other phonological rules

Loos, Eugene E.

English

UND Scholarly Commons (University of North Dakota)

Work Papers of the Summer Institute of Linguistics, University of North Dakota Session Volume 19 Article 3 1975 Nasalization in Sharanahua Eugene E. Loos SIL-UND Follow this and additional works at: https://commons.und.edu/sil-work-papers  Part of the Linguistics Commons Recommended Citation Loos, Eugene E. (1975) "Nasalization in Sharanahua," Work Papers of the Summer Institute of Linguistics, University of North Dakota Session: Vol. 19 , Article 3. DOI: 10.31356/silwp.vol19.03 Available at: https://commons.und.edu/sil-work-papers/vol19/iss1/3 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by UND Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Work Papers of the Summer Institute of Linguistics, University of North Dakota Session by an authorized editor of UND Scholarly Commons. For more information, please contact und.commons@library.und.edu. SIL-UND Workpapers 1975NASALIZATION IN SHARANAHUA Eugene Loos The nasalization of vowels in Sharanahua1 can be explained on the basis of consonants present in the underlying form of the mor-phemes, but the underlying consonants are not always nasal conson-ants. The explanation proposed here for oral consonants producing nasal vowels exploits the notion of sequential constraint rules ordered among or after other phonological rules. A syllable-final nasal consonant in Sharanahua causes the vowel of the closed syllable to be nasalized. The nasal consonant is then deleted by a rule which deletes all syllable-final stops. Then non-consonantal segments adjacent to the nasalized vowel are also nasal-; zed: (1) 'Go away.' /ka-tan-wi/ go-away-impv katllnw=i-kataw=i-[katawf] surface form ~orphemes and stems that have three syllables lose the vowel of a final open syllable. Compare the subject and object forms of 'duck': subject objective indicator case (2) 'duck' (a) /nonoma-n/ (b) /nonoma/ nonom nonoman nonesm [ nonoma] [ nona] Trisyllabic nouns with oral consonants beginning the third syllable, and bisyllabic verb stems which become trisyllabic by prefixation undergo the same shortening via vowel deletion and deletion of syl-lable-final stops, but the vowel of the syllable which at one stage is closed is still nasalized: (3) subject indicator 'alligator' (a) /kap+ta-n/ (b) kaptt~n [ kaptt~] objective case /kap-i-ta/ kap:i-t kaptt [ kapt] SIL-UND Workpapers 1975- 25 -Imperative (4) (a) 'Lower it. 1 /pakf-wi/ surface forms [pak;w;] ( b) ' Lower the top of it! Imperative /ma-paH-wi/ m~apakwf mbap'akwf m ap-aw; [mbap'a'w'l] Continuants do not produce nasalization and do not delete: (5) 'fingernail' /mitisi/ mitis [mitis] One possible explanation would be that simplification has occurred. A rule (6a) which nasalized vowels in nasal-closed syllables formerly referred to both nasality or voicing and continu-ancy in its environment and by simplification (6b) dropped the feature specifying nasality or voicing: (6) (a) ( b) V--) [+nas] /_ ~+ob~ rci -cnt l# 5 +nas V --+ [ +na s ] /_ [~~~~] f ~ J Rule (6b) would nasalize the vowel of any syllable closed by a stop. However, it is difficult to see why a feature [+nas], which is the obvious conditioning factor, would be lost. Such an argument based on simplicity alone would be making a claim that simplification leads to unexpected and undesirable generaliza-tions, since we would expect assimilation to be caused not by an oral consonant but by a nasal. If the lost feature were [+vd] instead of [+nasJ the same objection would be raised: rule (6a) would constitute the claim that the nasalization of the vowel is unrelated to the feature of nasality in the following consonant even though that consor1ant is the conditioning factor in the nasalization. A hypothesis that seems to me to be more plausible incor-porates the notion of sequential constraint rules ordered where necessary before or after some of the phonological rules, but otherwise ordered late, near the output of the phonological component. Sharanahua morphemes allow only strident continuants and nasal stops as the first members of two-consonant clusters. It might be argued that nasals are continuants in the underlying form, and that later rules change them to non-continuants. This would allow us to claim that only continuants are found as the first members of con-sonant clusters, but would require a later rule to mark the voiced SIL-UND Workpapers 1975consonants as stops. (7) k+ska-aw+ska pa~na ain~o [al~o] 'like' 'how' 'dog' 'wife' - 26 -However, as in the case of [ai~o] above, in all Panoan languages where syllable-final deletion of p, t, and k occurs, all syl-lable-final nasals are also deleted with nasalization remaining as a trace of the nasal consonant. The level of abstraction necessary to make the claim about nasals being continuants in the underlying forms has no surface evidence to support it. The constraints on Sharanahua consonant clusters (in the underlying forms) can be stated as a prediction that if the first member is a continuant it will be strident, and if it is non-continuant it will be nasal. This sequential constraint rule (morpheme structure rule) would, if applied after some of the ordered phonological rules, still account for the consonant cluster possibiltites found in morphemes, and if applied to a consonant cluster produced by the elision of third vowels as shown earlier, would also account for Sharanahua nasalization when the underlying form has no nasal con-sonant, for the rule would change the features of the syllable-final oral stop converting it to a nasal stop. The sequential constraint rule then not only predicts redundancies but makes sequences con-fonn to specific feature content. With this hypothesis of sequential constraint rule applica-tion, the difference between Sharanahua and other Panoan nasali-zation would only be in the point at which the sequential constraint rule operates. However, it would be difficult to see why a mor-pheme structure rule should drop from the set of Morpheme Struc-ture Rules ordered prior to all other phonological rules. If, on the other hand, MS-rules were not necessarily ordered before all other phonological rules but preceded them or were interspersed where relevant and otherwise ordered after them, they would still accomplish their purpose. · If with regard to the stated domain of a rule it can be assumed that a generalizing process takes place in which rules move 'up' in rank from morpheme-level to word-level, (rather than vice-versa), it could be expected that a morpheme-level rule ordered late in the series of phonological rules would move up the series as it changed from morpheme-level to word-level. But it would not be a move up 'rule by rule' until it came to rest where we now find it. It would be a move to that point in the rules where it could find conditions in the derivations that met the specifications of its environment. SIL-UND Workpapers 1975- 27 -The notion of MS-rules ordere~ among the phonological rules is not new. Hanns (1968.90) cites a case for Russian where a P-rule would have the same form and accomplish the same thing as its MS counterpart. Consequently, insistence on keeping all MS-rules in a separate component would constitute the claim that the P-rule was in some sense different from the MS-rule. In the case of Sharanahua, the facts warrant the conclusion that sequential constraint rules do more than serve as a matching operation to determine whether a sequence fits the pattern of the language. It changes the features of a sequence to make them con-form to those patterns, and when ordered among the P-rules it serves both as a P-rule and an MS-rule and can bring about a re-structuring of morphemes. A Sharanahua child who hears only the nasalized apocopated form of a morpheme cannot tell that it has an oral consonant in its underlying form until he hears its longer form. Consequently some speakers occasionally reconstruct the long form with new underlying consonants: (8) Footnotes 'duck' 'alligator' Short form: nono kapt Original form: nonoma kapfta Reconstructed form: nonopa kapfma 1. Sharanahua data are provided by Marie Scott. See Loos, Eugene "La senal de transitividad del sustantivo en los idiomas panes" in Loos, Estudios Panos, Institute Linguis-tico de Verano, Peru. 1973 2. Harms, Robert T. Introduction to Phonological Theory. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey. 

Nasalization in Sharanahua

https://commons.und.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1208&context=sil-work-papers

Nasalization in Sharanahua

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

UND Scholarly Commons (University of North Dakota)