From the introduction:  This brief paper is largely an exercise in lily-gilding, building upon Frantz\u27s insightful analysis of Cheyenne phonology. What I will attempt to do in this paper is to rework some of his rules relating to the devoicing of vowels and raise some questions as to whether these rules confirm the need for a controversial device in the theory of grammar

Rhodes, Richard

English

UND Scholarly Commons (University of North Dakota)

Work Papers of the SummerInstitute of Linguistics,University of North DakotaSessionVolume 16 Article 71972Cheyenne vowel devoicing and transderivationalconstraintsRichard RhodesSIL-UNDFollow this and additional works at: https://commons.und.edu/sil-work-papersThis 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 SummerInstitute of Linguistics, University of North Dakota Session by an authorized editor of UND Scholarly Commons. For more information, please contactzeineb.yousif@library.und.edu.Recommended CitationRhodes, Richard (1972) "Cheyenne vowel devoicing and transderivational constraints," Work Papers of the Summer Institute ofLinguistics, University of North Dakota Session: Vol. 16 , Article 7.DOI: 10.31356/silwp.vol16.07Available at: https://commons.und.edu/sil-work-papers/vol16/iss1/7SIL-UND Workpapers 1972Cheyenne Vowel Devoicing ::ind Transderivational Constraints Richard Rhodes This brief paper is largely nn exercise in lily-gilding, buil.d-ing upon Frantz's insightful analysis of Cheyenne phonology. 1 What I will attempt to do in this paper is to rework some of his rules relating to the devoicing of vowels and raise some questions as to whether these rules confirm the need for a controversial device in tho theory of gr~.J.r. 2 In the feature system that I will use here, Cheyenne has the following specifications for systematic phonemes (given here are only the relevant features for the purposes of this paper). The Systematic Phonemes of Cheyenne3 ? h a o e m n p t k s x w syllabic consonnntal obstruent nasal continuant voiceless high back apicc.l labial - - /. I- I- --f f f f f I f I - -f f f I- -f -- - - - - f f - - - - - -- f f f -f - - - f I f f f - - - - - f f I f f -- f f - - - - f - f f f f - f - - - f - f f - - f - f - f - f - f - f - - f Now there arc essentially three principles eJ:>Verning the devoic-ing of vowels in Cheyenne. (1) V ~ [-/vls] / {[/cons], I} __ r-cont] e '--/obs (Unaccented vowels devoice before E£, te, and ke if they are the first segment of c. morpheme, or if they follow a true consonant.) (2) V ~ [/.vls] / pre-pause (An unaccented vowel devoices before a pause.) 52. SIL-UND Workpapers 197253. (3) V ~ [fvls] / [fcons] ~ [-syl] k,ont (An unaccented vowel is devoiced before an~'~' or h if it follows a true consonant.) As these rules stand, they are slightly too strong. For example, it is not totally clear whether rule (1) should not be constrained to apply only when the~ in the environment is the last segment of a morpheme or not. At the moment, however, clear counterexamples are lacking in my data, so I leave the rule as is. Examples of the action of these rules is given below. (4) Rule (1) , tgpeno , , na-oke-mesehe , m0teke men-ote (5) Rule (2) , , na-::met-o cf. [tApeNO] [na.O~emeseE] [motsEl,:YEJ4 [meNOtsEJ [nametO] 'flute' 'I regularly eat' 'knife' 'chokecherries' 'I give it to him' na-met-Q moteke [nfun.etomotsE~E] 'I give him (the) knife' (6) Rule (3) , kQsan-e ne-xe-o?o , , e-notgx:-ewe mah ta? soon.a [kOsaNE] [NEseyo?QJ (?enotAxe~E] [MAta?sooMAJ 'sheep (obj.)' 'your uncles' 'he is (a) scout' 'shadow' Notice, however, that the forms in (7) fail to undergo the rules as expected; namely, they do not undergo rule (3). (7) (a) kosa [kosAJ 'sheep' n~-xe [nesE] 'your uncle' mahpe [ma,A.pE] 'water' (b) hatehke [hatseskYE] 'ant' , okohke [?okoxkYE] 'crow' (c) , aen.2,ho (?aenoO] 'hawk' , nahkohe [na.A,koE] 'bear' SIL-UND Workpapers 1972From these examples it appears that we can simply remedy that by ordering (2) before (3), and adding onto (3) the condition (3') Rule (3) does not apply unless there is a voiced vowel in the following syllable. So, for example, in the derivation of kosa (from (7a)) rule (3) could not apply. (8) UF kosa (2) kosA (3) does not apply Surf ace kosA Now then, to get a form like na-htahtoono [NAtAtooNO] 'my spine' we have to specify rule (3) as (3 11 ) Rule (3) applies iteratively from left to right. But this doesn't mean much, since there is ample reason to believe that all phonological rules apply either iteratively from left to right or iteratively from right to left. So all we've done is to figure out which of these two kinds of rules this one is. (9) UF (2) (3) 1st application ~d application Other rules , na-htahtoono nahtahtoonO nAhtahtoonO nAhtAhtoonO NAtAtooNO However, there are several serious problems with·the approach. For example, two syllable words, like those in (7a) still do not undergo rule (3) even if they fail to undergo rule (2) because they are not pre-pause. In fact, it is true of all the words in (7) that they do not undergo rule (3) even if they fail to undergo rule (2). (10) mahpe ewoohta [ma.A-pe?ewooQtA] 'he sees the water' t2xeha o?he?e [t0xweha?o? 0 he?E]'near the river' And condition (3 1 ) will not derive hehtohkoxe [hestoxkOxwE] 'his axe' correctly. SIL-UND Workpapers 1972(11) UF (2) (3) 1st application 2nd application Other rules heh-tohkoxe hehtohkoxE hehtOhkoxE does not apply *hestOkoxwE 55. There are a large number of forms which have the second last syllable voiceless by virtue of the application of rule (3) like this last form. Then even if there were some way to get the vowel in the second last syllable to devoice correctly, condition (3") would run amuck as (11) also shows. But the situation is worse yet. Consider the forms in (12). (12) aenoho aenoho (?aenoO] [?aenNo] 'hawk' 'hawk (obj.)' This seems to confirm our original hunch that the devoicing of the final vowel is somehow involved. In the form aen9ho the final o may be devoiced by rule (2) so the Qin the previous syllable may not be devoiced. But in aenoho the final o may not be devoiced by rule (2) and so the o in the previous syllable may be. So I will propose the following notion for Cheyenne. (13) A vowel is devoiceable if it is unaccented and is the last vowel of a word, i.e. if in some derivations of the word it will be devoiced by rule (2). We will adjust the conditions on rule (3) as follows. (3 111 ) Rule (3) is iterative from right to left. (3''' ') (i) Rule (3) does not apply unless there is a voiced, non-devoiceable vowel in an adjacent syllable, i.e. does not apply in two syllable words. (ii) Rule (3) does not apply if the following two vowels are both voiceless, or if one is devoiced and the next devoiceable. (iii) Rule (3) does not apply to vowels before~ if the following vowel is either devoiced or devoiceable. The following derivations show the effect of these constraints when the words are derived a though they were phrase medial and rule (2) SIL-UND Workpapers 197256. is therefore not applicable. The words are hohkoxe 'axe', hohkoxete 'axes', hehtohkoxe 'his axe', hehtohkoxewa 'with his axe', aenoho 'hawk', aenoho 'hawk (obj.)', toxeha 'near', hatehke 'ant', mahpe 'water', mahpete 'waters', ~ahpewa 'in (the) water'. (14) UF (1) hohkoxe hohkoxete hehtohkoxe hehtohkoxewa hohkoxEte (3) 1st (3) 2nd hohkOxe d.n.a.(ii) hehtohkOxe hehtohkOxewa d.n.a.(ii) hehtOhkOxewa Other rules hoxkOxwe hoxkoxwEtse hestoxkOxwe , w hestOkOx eea UF (1) (3) 1st (3) 2nd aenoho aenoho d.n.a.(iii)aenOho Other rules ?aenoho UF (1) (3) 1st (3) 2nd mahpe mahpete mahpEte d.n.a.(i) d.n.a.(ii) or (iii) Other rules matpe ma,A.pEtse toxeha hatehke d.n.a.(iii) tOxeha tOxweha d.n.a.(iii) hatseskYe mahpewa m.Ahpewa l"IApeea (d.n.a. = does not apply, ( i) means because Of (3 1 I I 1 )(i), likewise (ii), and (iii)) At this point it is worth pointing out that a devoiceable vowel and a voiceless vouel act identically in all three of the constraints on rule (3) expressed in (3''' '). This appears to be an excellent instance of u transderivational constraint. Here the effect of a rule is felt in u derivation where the rule does not apply, but it is felt because there are other similar derivations of the same morpheme in t1hich the rule must apply. Footnotes: 1. Frantz, Donald G. "Cheyenne Distinctive Features and Phonological Rules" IJAL 38.l pg.6-13. 2. I would like to thank Don Olson for making available to me his Cheyenne data. 3. Space does not permit me to argue that~ ands are the same under-lying phoneme, more than to say that they never contrast in stems. However, the argument of this paper does not depend on this assump-tion. 4. I have left out a late rule of ~-gobbling for clarity's sake. 

Cheyenne vowel devoicing and transderivational constraints

https://commons.und.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1164&amp;context=sil-work-papers

Cheyenne vowel devoicing and transderivational constraints

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

UND Scholarly Commons (University of North Dakota)