On the Stress Assignment of Tohono O’odham …washo.uchicago.edu/pub/stress.pdfOn the Stress Assignment of Tohono O’odham (comments appreciated) Alan Yu [email protected]

On the Stress Assignment of Tohono O'odham(comments appreciated)

Alan [email protected]

February 11, 1998On the Stress Assignment of Tohono O'odham Alan Yu

2

Table of Contents

1. Introduction

1.1. An Overview of TohonoO'odham Morphology

1.2. Stress Pattern in Monomorphemic Words

1.3. Stress Pattern in Polymorphemic Words

1.4. Summary

2. Analysis of Stress Assignment in Tohono O�odham.

2.1. Analysis of Stress Assignment

2.1.1. Co-phonologies in Sign-Based Morphology

2.1.2. Co-phonologies in Tohono O'odham

2.1.2.1. Analysis of Monomorphemic Words

2.1.2.2. Analysis of Polymorphemic Words

2.2. Alternative Analysis I: Lexical Phonology

2.3. Alternative Analysis II: MORPHEME-TO-STRESS PRINCIPLE

2.3. Summary

3. The Latent Vowel in Tohono O'odham

3.1. Argument Against Epenthesis

3.2. Interaction between the Latent Vowel and Stress

3.3. Analysis of Stress in Cases with the Latent Vowel

3.4. Summary

4. Truncation

4.1. General Descriptions

4.2. Analysis of the Truncation

4.3. Stress in Truncatum: Cases without the Latent Vowel

4.4. Stress in Truncatum: Cases the Latent Vowel

4.5. Analysis of Stress in Truncation

4.6. Alternative Analysis: MSP and SMP Revisit.

4.7. Summary

5. Conclusion

6. References


3

0 Introduction

Tohono O'odham is a Uto-Aztecan language spoken primarily in southern Arizona andSonora, Mexico. The stress patterns of the monomorphemic words and the morphologicallycomplex ones differ. Fitzgerald (1996, 1997) claims that the bifurcation depends on thenumber of morphemes. She presents an Optimality Theoretic (Prince and Smolensky 1993)treatment using the MORPHEME-TO-STRESS PRINCIPLE and the STRESS-TO-MORPHEME PRINCIPLE. This paper is a re-examination of the stress patterns ofTohono O'odham.

1

I will in the course of this discussion, depart from the noncyclic analysisproposed by Fitzgerald (1996, 1997), motivating a cyclic co-phonology account whicheliminates the necessity to make explicit reference to the number of morphemes whenassigning stress.

1. Tohono O'odham Morphology and Stress Assignment

1.1. An Overview of Tohono O'odham Morphology

The majority of Tohono O'odham (TO) lexical items can be classified into three classes: g-word, s-word and zero-words. This classification is based on the combinatory possibility ofthese lexical items with the two prefixal "elements": g- and s-. The class of lexical items thattake the g- prefix by and large refers to nominal objects, such as animals. The class that takess- prefix constitutes of lexical items that refer to an attribute or a property. The zero-wordstake neither of the two prefixal elements. All words in this class refer to an event such asrunning and speaking.

1.2. Stress Pattern in Monomorphemic Words

In this section, the stress pattern in monomorphemic word of Tohono O'odham isdescribed.

(1) Stress in monomorphemic words:

a. σq N�qÛ 'house'

WRqÛQ 'knee'b. σqσ S�qÛED 'pipe'

KDqLZDQ� 'cow'c. σqσσ PXqVLJR 'musician'

V�qPLQMXO 'cemetery'd. σqσσqσ S�qPLDzQGR 'pepper'

SDqNRRzOD 'Pascola dancer'

1

I am indebted to Sharon Inkelas and Larry Hyman for their detailed discussion and their insightful commentson the numerous earlier versions of this paper. All data of the present analysis are drawn directly fromFitzgerald (1996 & 1997). Judgements on the placement of stresses in Fitzgerald (1996 & 1997) are based onthe intuition of two native speakers of Tohono O'odham interviewed by her.


4

The distribution of stress in monomorphemic forms is shown in (1). The primary stress isalways on the first syllable of both mono- and poly-morphemic words. No secondary stressis assigned to disyllabic and trisyllabic monomorphemic words (1b, c), but secondary stressesare assigned to the odd-numbered syllables of polysyllablic words as long as the syllable isnon-final (1d). Monomorphemic native Tohono O'odham words are rarely larger than twosyllables. The words in (c, d) are borrowings.

1.3. Stress Pattern in Polymorphemic Words

In this section, the polymorphemic word stress pattern of Tohono O'odham is described.

(2) Stress in morphologically complex words

a) σ� + Suffix(es)σ + Suffix K�qP-DG 'will be walking'

working-future imperfectiveσσ + Suffix FLqNSDQ-GD{P 'worker'

work-one whoσσσ+Suffix PDÛqJLQDz-NDP 'one with a car'

car-one withσσσσ+Suffix S�qPLDzQGR-PDzG 'adding pepper'

pepper-addingb) RED+σ�

RED+σ WRq-WRQ� 'ants'plural-ants

RED+σσ SLq-SLEDz 'pipes'plural-pipe

RED+σσσ SDq-SNRRzOD 'Pascola dancers'plural-Pascola dancers

c) RED+σ�+Suffix(es)RED+σ+Suffix KLq-KLP-DzG 'will be walking, plural

plural-walk-future imperfectiveRED+σσ+Suffix KLq-KLGRzG�-D 'the cooking, plural'

plural-cooking-nominalRED+σσσ+Suffix KDq-KDLZDzQ�-JD-NDzP 'ones having cattle'

plural-cow-possession-one who

A list of Tohono O'odham words that are morphologically complex is shown in (2). Thestress pattern stays the same regardless of the morphological bracketing. The primary stressis always on the first syllable, regardless of whether the first syllable is part of the stem or partof the reduplicative prefix (2a-2). Secondary stresses consistently fall on odd-numbersyllables (2b, c, d) even in the word final-position. The only difference between the stresspattern in polymorphemic words and the monomorphemic ones is that even the final odd-


5

syllable gets secondary stress in polymorphemic words. This phenomenon can be seen as atype of non-derived environment blocking effect (NDEB) (see e.g. Kiparsky 1993).

1.4. Summary

In sum, Tohono O'odham assigns stress to odd-numbered syllables. Final stress isprohibited in monomorphemic words but allowed in polymorphemic forms.

2. The Analysis of Stress Assignment in Tohono O�odham.

In section 2.1, I will first present a two-level analysis for the data using co-phonologies. InSection 2.2, I will then compare my analysis to the one-level analysis previously proposed byFitzgerald (1996, 1997).

2.1 Analysis of Stress Assignment

2.1.1 Co-phonologies in Sign-Based Morphology

Before I go on to the main topic of this section, I will briefly clarify the theoreticalmechanism that I am assuming for my analysis.

Sign-Based Morphology (Orgun 1996, 1997) is a constituent structure-based theory,utilizing the basic tools one finds in any constituent structure-based approach to linguistics.It assumes that both terminal and non-terminal nodes bear features and that non-terminalnodes also include the phonological information along with the usual syntactic and semanticinformation (for a more detailed discussion of Sign-Based Morphology, see Orgun 1996).

Following Inkelas, Orgun and Zoll (1994), I will assume that each morphologicalconstruction, e.g. an inflectional affix, an derivational affix and so on, has its own associatedphonology which will be called "co-phonology". Co-phonologies are then the phonologicalfunctions that relate the daughter node to the mother node. In the Lexical Phonologyapproach to linguistics, co-phonologies are the phonological functions that are associatedwith each morphological level. Similarly, co-phonologies are used in Sign-BasedMorphology to encode all cases of morpheme- or construction- specific phonology.

An important corollary in assuming a Sign-Based Morphology (abbreviated from here onSBM) approach to linguistics is the cyclic application of phonology triggered by eachaffixation. Since affixes are represented in SBM as partial constituent structure trees,cyclicity and non-cyclicity can be derived depend on whether the constituent structure isbranching(3) or flat (4) respectively.

(3)F(sting

3, string

4) = string

5

F(sting1, string

2) = string

3


6

string1

string2

string4

(4)

F(sting1, string

2, string

3) = string

4

string1

string2

string3

Evidence for cyclicity in Tohono O'odham will be illustrated in Section 4. Noncyclicity willbe demonstrated in Section 2 and 3.

Another corollary to SBM is the Bracket Erasure effect (Orgun 1997). Since eachmorphological construction is assigned a co-phonology in SBM, the internal makeup of thedaughters participating in the construction, therefore, is not accessible to the co-phonologyof the mother node. Evidence in support of this prediction will mainly be discussed inSection 4 on the analysis of stress in truncation.

2.1.2 Co-phonologies in Tohono O'odham

In section 1, I have described the stress pattern of both monomorphemic andpolymorphemic words in Tohono O'odham. In order to account for the two different stress

patterns, I propose that there are the root-specific phonology ϕroot

and a affixation-specific

phonology ϕaffix

. The schematic representation of the interaction between the morphologyand phonology in SBM is illustrated in (5).

(5) A SBM evaluation of a bimorphemic word ϕaffix

(DVXJDO, W) 'to make sugar'.

ϕaffix(DqVXJDO, W) = [DqVXJDzOW]

ϕroot(DVXJDO) = [DqVXJDO]

DVXJDO W

The stem /DVXJDO/ 'sugar' is first subjected to ϕroot

co-phonology. Word initial stress is

assigned. The output of this will then be fed into the affix-level where the suffixation of -Wand evaluation by the ϕ

affix co-phonology take place. Crucially, however, the stem /DVXJDO/

'sugar' is also a well-formed word by itself. According to SBM, /DVXJDO/ 'sugar' will only be

subjected to the ϕroot

co-phonology (6).

(6) A SBM evaluation of a monomorphemic word /DVXJDO/ 'sugar'.

ϕroot(DVXJDO) = [DqVXJDO]


7

/DVXJDO/

This analysis hinges on the intuition captured by the Level Economy analysis proposed inInkelas and Orgun (1995). Level Economy advocates that not all forms are subject to thephonology of all levels. Thus the phonology associated with a particular level is applied onlywhen a form undergoes the morphological operation at that level.

ϕroot

and ϕaffix

will both preserve the stress assigned by previous phonology, if any. (In Section

4, I will discuss an additional co-phonology, ϕtrunc

, associated with the truncationconstruction that is non-stress-preserving.)

The phonology will be treated here in terms of constraints developed in Optimality Theory(Prince and Smolensky 1993; McCarthy and Prince 1993). The constraints, taken mostlyfrom Fitzgerald (1996, 1997), are summarized in (7).

(7) Summary of constraints

FOOTFORM (abbreviated FTFM) Heads are on the left edge of the foot.

PARSE-σ (abbreviated PARSE) Syllables must be parsed into feet.

*CLASH Adjacent stresses are not permitted.ALIGN(PROSODIC WORD)(abbreviated ALIGN)

The left edge of every prosodic word coincides withthe left edge of some foot.

IDENT-STRESS (ID-Stress) Stress presents in the input must be presented in theoutput.

FOOTBINARITY (abbreviated FTBIN) Feet are analyzable as binary on the syllabic level.

2.1.2.1. Analysis of Monomorphemic Words

An analysis of the monomorphemic word /DVXJDO/ 'sugar' is given in (8).2

Since there is no

affixation, /DVXJDO/ 'sugar' only undergoes ϕroot

phonology. The constraint hierarchy in (8)

exemplifies the phonology ϕroot.

3

It correctly predicts that (8a) wins mainly because it incursno FOOTBINARITY violation while the most serious competing candidates (8b, c) do.Other candidates (8d, e, f, g) fatally violate ALIGN or FOOTFORM, the two most cruciallydominating constraints.

(8) Evaluation of /DVXJDO/ 'sugar' using ϕroot

co-phonology

ϕroot(/DVXJDO/) 'sugar' ALIGN FTFM *CLASH ID-Stress FTBIN PARSE

)a. ([DqVX)JDO] *

b. ([DqVX)(JDzO]) *!

c. ([DqVXJDO]) *!

d. [D(VXqJDO]) *! *

2

Parentheses indicate feet; square brackets indicate morphemes.3

The constraint hierarchy proposed by Fitzgerald 1997 in her one-level analysis of Tohono O'odham stress isadopted here.


8

e. [DVX(JDqO]) *! * **

f. [D(VXJDqO]) *! * *

g. ([DVXq)(JDzO]) *! * *

2.1.2.2. Analysis of Polymorphemic Words

The constituent structure tree of the polymorphemic word /KD-KDLZDQ�-JD-NDP/ 'pl-cow-

owning-agent' is shown in (9).4

(9)ϕaffix (KDqKDLZDzQ�JD��NDP) = [KDqKDLZDzQ�JDNDzP]

ϕaffix (KDqKDLZDzQ�, JD) = [KDqKDLZDzQ�JD]

ϕaffix (RED, KDqLZDQ�) = [KDqKDLZDzQ�]

ϕroot (KDLZDQ) = [KDqLZDQ�]

RED KDLZDQ� JD NDP

For the sake of clarity of presentation, I will only demonstrate the two most crucialevaluations with respect to (9): the reduplication (10) and the final suffixation (11).

(10) Evaluation of the word ϕaffix

(RED-KDLZDQ�) 'pl-cow'

ϕaffix (RED, KDLZDQ�) ALIGN FTFM *CLASH ID-Stress

PARSE FTBIN

)a. ([KDq@[KDL)(ZDzQ�]) * *

b. ([KD@[KDqL)ZDQ�] *! * *

c. ([KDq@)([KDLZDzQ�]) *! * *

d. ([KD@[KDqL)(ZDzQ�]) *! * *!

e. ([KDq@)([KDzLZDQ�]) *! * *

f. [KD@([KDzLZDQ�]) *! ***

(11) Evaluation of the word ϕaffix

(KDqKDLZDzQ�JD��NDP�) 'one owning cows'

ϕaffix (KDqKDLZDzQ�JD��NDP) ALIGN FTFM *CLASH ID-Stress PARSE FTBIN

)a. ([KDq@[KDL)(ZDzQ�][JD@[)(NDzP]) *

4

Since the meaning of the word is ambiguous, namely it can mean 'ones with a cow' or 'one with cattle', I amassuming a flat structure which captures the ambiguity observed here.


9

b. ([KDq@[KDL)(ZDzQ�][JD@�)[NDP] *!

c. ([KDq@)([KDzLZDQ�])([JDz@[NDP]) *! *! *

d. ([KDq@)([KDzLZDQ�])([JDz@)([NDzP]) *! *! ***

e. ([KDq@)([KDLZDzQ�])([JD@[NDzP]) *!* *

In the stress assignment of the reduplication in (10), the ϕaffix

co-phonology correctly predictsthe ultimate winning candidate (10a), which allows final odd-syllable secondary stress.

5

Although ϕaffix

co-phonology is generally stress preserving, however, other cruciallydominating constraints, such as ALIGN and *CLASH, force stresses to be "reassigned". The

stress preserving property of the ϕaffix

co-phonology is illustrated in (11). The dominatingID-Stress constraint guarantees that, other things being equal, stress assigned by previousphonology will be preserved.

Phonologies ϕroot

and ϕaffix

differ crucially on the relative ranking between PARSE andFOOTBINARITY.

(11) Ranking of the Two Co-phonologies ϕaffix

and ϕword

.

ϕroot

: ALIGN >> FTFM, *CLASH >>ID-Stress >> FTBIN >> PARSE

ϕaffix

: ALIGN >> FTFM, *CLASH >>ID-Stress >> PARSE >> FTBIN

In sum, simple and complex words are subjected to different co-phonologies. The twohierarchies capture the relation between the stress pattern of the monomorphemic andpolymorphemic words, namely, they are only minimally different from each other. Theaffixation-specific co-phonology will only affect derived forms. Unaffixed root forms are

intrinsically exempted from the ϕaffix

. The relative ranking between FOOTFORM, *CLASH,

and ALIGN-ROOT-FOOT is not important as long as they crucially dominate PARSE-σ and

FTBINARITY.

2.2. Alternative Analysis I: Lexical Phonology

In the previous section, I have illustrated a co-phonology approach to the different stresspatterns in Tohono O'odham. This analysis hinges on the intuition captured by the LevelEconomy analysis proposed in Inkelas and Orgun (1995). Level Economy advocates thatnot all forms are subject to the phonology of all levels. Thus the phonology associated with aparticular level is applied only when a form undergoes the morphological operation at thatlevel. In a standard Lexical Phonology (Kiparsky 1982; Mohanan 1982) analysis of theinterleaving between the morphology and phonology, however, a form is required toundergo the phonologies of all levels, regardless of whether the morphology of a particularlevel is applied to the form or not. The Strict Cycle Condition (SCC) (e.g. Kiparsky 1982,1993) is responsible for the blocking of the phonologies being applied at some particular

5 For the purpose of this paper, I will not be concerned with the distinction between primary and secondarystress. Presumably, the location of the primary stress will be formulated as an alignment constraint wherethe main stress must be aligned with the left edge of a word. Furthermore, the evaluation of thereduplication per se will not be discussed here since it has no consequence to the point being made here.


10

levels to nonderived forms. For the purpose of illustration, I will assume that there exist twolevels 1 and 2 in Tohono O'odham for the root and affixation levels respectively. This lineof treatment can correctly predict the final output form of a morphologically complex word(12).

(12) The derivation of a bimorphemic word /DVXJDO +W/ 'to make sugar'.

Input /DVXJDO+W/Level-1 DVXJDO → DqVXJDOLevel-2 DqVXJDO+W → DqVXJDzOWOutput DqVXJDzOW

In (12), the root /DVXJDO/ of /DVXJDO +W/ is assigned a primary stress by the Level-1

phonology, ϕ1.6 It then feeds into the Level-2 where /-W/ is suffixed and the Level-2

phonology applies. As a result, the derivation correctly generates an output form with stresson all odd syllable positions. This analysis, however, fails in the derivation of the outputform of the monomorphemic words. This is illustrated in (13).

(13) The derivation of a monomorphemic word /DVXJDO/ 'sugar'.

Input /DVXJDO/Level-1 DqVXJDO → DqVXJDOLevel-2 DqVXJDzO → DqVXJDzOOutput *DqVXJDzO

The input form /DVXJDO/ correctly receives a primary stress in the Level-1. Even though no

morphology is required for this monomorphemic word, it is nonetheless forced by the theory

to enter Level-2 and undergo the ϕ2

phonology. Consequently, an unattested output isgenerated because a secondary stress is assigned.

One could stipulate that the Level-1 cophonology assigned ternary feet, thus blocking thebinary feet assignment at Level-2, since Level-2 phonology is stress preserving. However,this will fail to derive the stress pattern in the polymorphemic forms since the ternary footassigned in Level-1 must be preserved, thus preventing the secondary stress assignment intrisyllabic word, e.g. /DVXJDO+W/ or forcing the secondary stress to land on the fourth syllable

in polysyllabic forms.

In this section, I have shown that one can derive the attested pattern, with associated NDEBeffects, by assuming 2 levels, but only if Level Economy is assumed. In the next section, Iwill contrast this analysis with the one-level approach proposed by Fitzgerald (1996, 1997).

2.3. Alternative Analysis II: MORPHEME-TO-STRESS PRINCIPLE

6 This co-phonology will presumably be the same as the root co-phonology presented in (11), namely itdoes not allow word final stress.


11

Fitzgerald (1996, 1997) proposes a one-level phonology in Tohono O'odham, which forcesher to come up with some novel mechanism to account for the paradoxical relation betweenthe stress patterns of mono- and poly-morphemic words. She introduces the MORPHEME-TO-STRESS PRINCIPLE to account for the stress pattern in Tohono O'odham. TheMORPHEME-TO-STRESS PRINCIPLE (abbreviated MSP) is stated in (14).

(14) MORPHEME-TO-STRESS PRINCIPLE (Fitzgerald 1997:120)

For every morpheme, there exists some stressed mora that falls in the domain of thatmorpheme.

(15) Evaluation of /RED-SDÛGR/ 'pl-duck'

/RED-SDÛGR/ 'pl-duck' FTFM *CLASH ALIGN MSP FTBIN PARSE

)a. ([SDq][SD)(GRz]) *

b. ([SDq][SD)GR] *! *

c. ([SDq])([SDGRz]) *! *

d. ([SDq])([SDzGR]) *! *

e. [SD]([SDqGR]) *! * *

(15) is a typical tableau using the MSP constraint. Since Fitzgerald collapses the stresspatterns of the mono- and poly-morphemic words into a single phonological mapping , sheneeds the MSP in order to rule out the most serious contender (15b). (15b) would havebeen the actual winner if it was a monomorphemic word. The MSP correctly rules out(15b) because the stem [SDÛGR] does not bear any stress.

Fitzgerald argues that the MORPHEME-TO-STRESS PRINCIPLE and the STRESS-TO-MORPHEME PRINCIPLE, which will be discussed in Section 3, account for howmorphology influences stress. She also wants to accomplish this in a way that parallels theinfluence of weight upon stress proposed in Prince (1990). Although her motivation is well-founded, her data from Tohono O'odham does not exclusively support her motivating theMORPHEME-TO-STRESS PRINCIPLE. The necessity of the MSP is further cast indoubt by the existence of the single consonant suffix -W and the stress pattern found in

truncated words (the latter will be discussed in Section 4).

To account for the final odd-syllable stress after the suffixation of the causative -W (e.g.[DqVXJDzOW] 'to make sugar'), Fitzgerald (1997) stipulates a percolation convention that allows

an underlyingly stressed consonant suffix, which constitutes a stressed mora, to percolate itsstress to the syllable, which this suffix is a part of, in order to rescue the MSP. Such apercolation convention is unnecessarily ad hoc.

As I have pointed out in Section 2.1.2, the stress patterns of the mono- and poly-morphemic

words only differ in the relative ranking of PARSE-σ and FOOTBINARITY. By separatingthe phonologies for the monomorphemic and polymorphemic words, the necessity for the


12

MSP constraint vanishes, thus eliminating the ad hoc and problematic requirement for everymorpheme to receive stress. Furthermore, the MSP constraint has never been show togeneralize to other languages while the co-phonology treatment not only captures the closerelation between morphology and stress by assigning different co-phonologies to differentlevel of morphological complexity, it is also independently needed (i.e. Turkish (Inkelas1998), Manam (Buckley 19xx)).

2.4. Summary

In this section, I have demonstrated an analysis of the stress patterns in Tohono O'odham.The paradoxical relation between the stress patterns of mono- and poly-morphemic words isresolved by assigning different co-phonologies according to the level of morphologicalcomplexity. The two co-phonologies only differ minimally in the relative ranking of the two

constraints: PARSE-σ and FOOTBINARITY. I have also argued against the previoustreatment proposed by Fitzgerald (1996, 1997). I assert that her treatment fails to recognizethe subtle distinction between the two stress patterns, and that the previous unnecessaryMSP constraint should be abandoned.

3. The Latent Vowel in Tohono O'odham

In this section, the interaction between the latent vowel and stress assignment in TohonoO'odham is described and an analysis of it is proposed. I will then argue that thephenomenon observed here supports the co-phonologies approach proposed in Section 2.It will lead to the cyclic analysis of stress assignment in this language discussed inSection 4.

3.1. Argument Against Epenthesis

In Tohono O'odham, certain consonant-initial suffixes, when affixed to a base ending in aconsonant, prompt the appearance of an [D] between the base and the suffix (16). No vowel

appears when the base is vowel-final (17). The distribution of the inserted [D] is illustrated

in (16) and (17).

(16) Distribution of the inserted [D]:

Verb Verb+suffix Gloss of Suffixed Forma. wDqNRQ ZDqNRQ-D-NXzGC 'go and wash'

b.SDqÛQ-W SDqÛQ-W-D-NXzGC instrument for making bread'

c.F�LNSDQ F�LqNSDQ-D-GDzJ 'good at working'

(17) Absence of -a in vowel-final verbs:

Verb Attested Gloss of Suffixed Form Unattesteda. wDqLOD ZDqLOD-NXzGC 'instrument for dancing' *ZDqLOD-a-NXzGCb. FLqFwL FLqFwL-GDzJ 'to be good at playing' *FLqFwL-a-GDzJ


13

c. wDq-SDLODz wDqSDLODz-NXzGC 'instruments for dancing' *wDqSDLODz-a-NXzGC

Zepeda (1984) and Fitzgerald (1997) argue that the appearance of [D] is due to epenthesis.

The epenthetic [D] has no semantic meaning or syntactic function and only occurs in

phonologically characterizable restricted environments, namely CC clusters.

However, the language as a whole allows consonant clusters and there is no evidence forother epenthesis in the grammar. A minimal pair is shown in (18). The stem in both casesis /FLNSDQ/ 'working'. -GDP means 'the one who' and -GDJ means 'ability'. Only -GDJ

induces the insertion. This comparison demonstrates that the insertion cannot be inducedby phonological factors alone.

(18) Regular suffix vs. suffix with inserted vowel

a. /FLNSDQ+GDP/ 'one who works' [F�LNSDQGDP]b. /F�LNSDQ+GDJ/ 'good at working' [F�LNSDQDGDJ@

This "epenthetic vowel" only appears along with a restricted number of suffixes and it onlysurfaces between two consonants. To capture these facts, I argue that the so-called"epenthetic vowel" is actually a latent vowel that is part of some suffixes, but not others. Itsurfaces to optimize syllable structures. Otherwise, it is deleted. Following Zoll (1994,1996), I will treat the latent segment as lacking a root node. The representation of the latentsegment is a floating V-place feature [+low]. A list of constraints relevant to this evaluationappears in (19).

(19) Summary of constraints for the evaluation of latent segments

NOCODA Avoid codas (Prince and Smolensky 1993)CONTIGUITY

IOThe portion of S

j and S

0 standing in correspondence forms a

contiguous string 'Input strings must be corresponding contiguouswith the output string'(McCarthy and Prince 1995)

MAXIO(SEG)

Every segment in Sj has a correspondent in S

0

(McCarthy and Prince 1995)MAX

IO(SUBSEG)Every subsegment in S

j has a correspondent in S

0 (Zoll 1996)

DEPIO(SEG)

Each element in the output must have a correspondent in the input(McCarthy and Prince 1995)

An evaluation of the /F�LNSDQ+ [+low]GDJ/7 'good at working' is shown in (20). The

materialized latent vowel is underlined.

(20) An evaluation of /F�LNSDQ+ [+low]GDJ/ 'good at working'

7

Subsegments will appear as superscripts.


14

/F�LNSDQ+ [+low]GDJ/'good at working'

MAX IO(SEG) DEPIO(SEG) CONTIG IO8 NOCODA MAX IO(SUBSEG)

)a. F�LNSDQDGDJ **

b. F�LNSDQGDJ **!* *

c. F�LNSDGDJ *! **

d. F�LNSDQ GDJ *! ** *

e. F�LNDSDQGDJ *! **

The tableau above correctly predicts that (20a) is the winning candidate. The latent vowelmaterializes only to reduce the violation of the NOCODA constraint.

9 Candidate (20d)

demonstrates that in the case of real epenthesis, namely the insertion of the [ ], the

candidate fatally violates the high ranking DEPIO(SEG)

. Tableau (21) shows the suffixation ofan affix with a latent vowel to a vowel-final stem. This tableau illustrates that realization ofthe latent vowel is only required in optimizing the NOCODA requirement.Diphthonization is prohibited by the *VV constraint which penalizes consecutive vowelsequences.

(21) An evaluation of /FLFwL- [+low]GDJ/ 'to be good at playing'

/FLFwL- [+low]GDJ/ 'tobe good at playing'

MAX IO(SEG) CONTIG IO *VV N OCODA MAX IO(SUBSEG)

)a. FLFwLGDJ ** *

b. FLFwLDGDJ *! **

c. FLFDwLGDJ *! **

Since the grammar allows codas and diphthongs in general, these are cases of TETU, theEmergence of the Unmarked (McCarthy and Prince 1994). The NOCODA and the *VVconstraints are only affective during the evaluation of the latent segment. Epenthesis,indicated in outlined form in (21b), is prohibited due to its fatal DEP

IO(SEG) violation.

Deletion is prohibited by MAXIO(SEG)

(21c).

3.2. Interaction between the Latent Vowel and Stress

In the previous section, I have demonstrated the distribution and the analysis of the latentsegment in Tohono O'odham. I will now focus on the interaction between the latentsegment and stress assignment. Fitzgerald (1997) observes that the "epenthetic" vowel doesnot get stressed in either even (22) or odd (23) syllable position, even when it falls twosyllables to the right of another stress.

8

The CONTIGIOconstraint will not be violated by the realization of the latent vowel since the base and the

suffixes are not linearly ordered in the input.9

Fitzgerald 1997 also proposes a similar treatment of the "epenthesis". She argues that the constraint hierarchyconsists of a dominating NOCODA constraint which is marked by some diacritic. Only input forms markedwith the same diacritic will be subjected to this NOCODA constraint. Her analysis is similar to the oneproposed here. The analysis adopted in this paper crucially differs from hers on the explicit reference to theexistence of two co-phonologies.


15

(22) Stress distribution of the latent vowel in even position

a. σqσσz SDqÛQW-DNXzGC instrument for making bread'

b.σqσσzσσz F�qSRV-LzG-DFXzG 'cause someone to brand'

c. σqσσzσσzσ SLq-SLVDzO-W-DNXzGC-NDj 'by scales'

(23) Stress distribution of the latent vowel in odd position

Syllable count Attested Gloss Unattested

a. σqσσσz ZDqNRQDNXzGC 'go and wash' *ZDqNRQDzNXGC

d. σqσσσzσ F�LNSDQ-DNXzGC-GDP 'one with a tool' *F�LNSDQDzNXGCGDzP

c. σqσσσzσ ZDqNRQDNXzGC-GDP 'one with a basin' *ZDqNRQDzNXGCGDzP

In the next section, I will demonstrate how this exception in the stress pattern of TohonoO'odham fits into the analysis I proposed in Section 2.

3.3. Analysis of Stress in Cases with Latent Vowel

In Section 2, I presented the analysis of the stress patterns of both mono- and

polymorphemic words. The constraint hierarchy for the phonology ϕaffix

is repeated in (24):

(24) ϕaffix:

ALIGN >> FTFM, *CLASH >> ID-Stress >> FTBIN >> PARSE

The account of the unstressability of a latent vowel in odd-number syllable position caneasily be accommodated in the analysis of the polymorphemic forms. However, somemodification is required. I propose the STRESS-SEGMENT constraint that penalizes stress-bearing entities which are not FULL segments.

10

The proposed constraint appears in (25):

(25) STRESS-SEGMENT (abbreviated STESS-SEG)(i) The nucleus of a stressed mora must be a FULL segment.

(ii) ∀x∃y(StressMoraNucleus(x) ∧ FullSegment(y))"Only a full segment can bear stress."

The evaluation of a suffix with latent vowel /[+low]NXGC/ 'instrument for', affixing to a stem

/KLGRGC/ 'cooking' is illustrated below in (26).

(26) Evaluation of ϕaffix

(KLqGRG�, [+low]NXGC) 'instrument for cooking'

ϕaffix(KLqGRG�, [+low]NXGC)'instrument for cooking'

ALIGN FTFM *CLASH STRESS-SEG

ID-Stress

PARSE FTBIN

)a. ([KLqGRGC])D([NXzGC]) * *

10

A FULL segment is defined in terms of correspondence here. Informally, if the segment is stressed in theoutput, it must correspond a segment with a root node in the input.


16

b. ([KLqGRGC])(Dz[NXGC]) *!

c. ([KLqGRGC])(D>NXzGC]) *!

d. ([KLq)(GRzGC]D)([NXzGC]) *! **

e. [KL(GRqGC]D)([NXzGC]) *! * * *

Stressing the latent vowel which appears in the odd syllable position (26b), thoughconforming with the stress pattern of other polymorphemic words, violates the undominatedSTRESS-SEG which prohibits subsegments from getting stress. It is, therefore, more optimalto leave a syllable unparsed (26a). Other candidates violate the crucially dominating FTFM(26c), *CLASH (26d) and ALIGN (26e).

Fitzgerald (1997) proposes the STRESS-TO-MORPHEME PRINCIPLE (abbreviatedSMP) to account for the unstressed "epenthetic" vowel. SMP and STRESS-SEG are similarin spirit but differ in the variables used in formulating the constraints. SMP is stated in (27).

(27) STRESS-TO-MORRPHEME PRINCIPLE (abbreviated SMP)(i) For every stressed mora, there exists a morpheme such that the mora is within

the boundaries of the morpheme.

(ii) ∀STRESSED MORA ∃MORPHEME such that the STRESSED MORAfalls within the domain of that MORPHEME. (Fitzgerald 1997: 181)

While the variables in SMP are the stressed moras and morphemes, STRESS-SEG refers tothe nuclei of all stressed moras and full segments. The choice between the two constraintshinges on the approach one takes in treating the inserted [D]. Fitzgerald (1997) treats the

inserted [D] as a case of epenthesis, thus her SMP will correctly predict that epenthetic

materials cannot be stressed. The present proposal assumes that the inserted vowel is in facta latent segment, thus STRESS-SEG proves to be the relevant constraint. Ultimately, theSTRESS-SEG should be favored over SMP since STRESS-SEG does not have to makereference to the morphological status of the segment or segments. Also, Fitzgerald's analysismakes no claim about lexical sensitivity of the inserted [D] while the present analysis captures

this idea intrinsically by assuming that the inserted [D] is a latent segment that comes with

certain affixes.

3.4. Summary

In this section, I have shown that the so-called epenthetic [D] is a latent vowel which only

materializes to minimize the NOCODA violation. The unstressability of the latent vowelresults from the enforcement of the undominated STRESS-SEG constraint that penalizessubsegments that receive stress.

4. Truncation

In the previous sections, I have demonstrated that the co-phonologies analysis I advocatehere can account for the subtle relations between the two stress patterns of TohonoO'odham. In this section, I will illustrate the interaction between the truncation and stress


17

assignment in Tohono O'odham. From the analysis of the stress pattern of the truncatum, Iwill illustrate the crucial argument for the cyclic application of co-phonologies triggered bymorphological constructions. This analysis will also lend support to the Bracket Erasuregeneralization in morphology.

4.1. General Descriptions

In Tohono O'odham, one segment is truncated from the right edge of the word to form theperfectives (28a, b). Two segments are truncated from the right edge of the imperfective,however, when the antepenultimate segment is a coronal followed by a high vowel (28c).

(28) Comparison between imperfectives (untruncated) and perfectives (truncated)

Imperfective Perfectives Gloss of ImperfectiveD��KLqZD KLqZ 'rubbed against object'

rubbing rubbing-perfectiveE��VLqNRQ VLqNR 'hoed object'

hoe hoe-perfectivec. F�qSRV-LzG F�qSRV 'branded object'

brand-benefactive brand-benefactive-perfective

4.2. Analysis of the Truncation

For the purpose of this analysis, I will present a treatment of truncation based on the oneproposed in Fitzgerald (1997) and Fitzgerald and Fountain (1995) but with some serioustheoretical modification. Fitzgerald (1997) and F & F (1995) argues that the perfectivemorpheme is a subtractive morpheme and will be present in the input as an emptymorpheme TRUNC. I differ from her on this point, namely, I assume that the truncation

construction is associated with a co-phonology ϕtrunc

. Similar to the RED constraintemployed in the analysis of reduplication, a TRUNC constraint is proposed. It only requiresthe output string to contain fewer segments that the input. The actual size of the winningcandidate will be determined by the constraints summarized in (29).

11

This co-phonology

will consist of the hierarchy proposed in (30) and the ϕaffix

hierarchy and the constraint

hierarchy (30) will rank above the ϕaffix

constraint hierarchy. Unlike the general affixation-

specific co-phonology ϕaffix

and ϕword

, this ϕtrunc

co-phonology will be non-stress-preserving.Therefore, phonology assigned by the morphology, such as stress, prior to the truncation

construction will be erased with respect to the ϕtrunc

co-phonology evaluation.

(29) Summary of constraints for the truncation construction (McCarthy and Prince1995)

L-ANCHOR The left edge element of the Input corresponds to the left edge ofOutput (=TRUNC)

TRUNC The Output string, TRUNC, must contain fewer segments than theInput (Fitzgerald 1997)

11 All constraints presented in (29) are adopted from Fitzgerald (1997).


18

*COR-HI No sequence of features [+coronal][+high] (Fitzgerald 1997)CONTIGUITY

IOThe portion of S

j and S

0 standing in correspondence forms a

contiguous stringMAX

IOEvery segment in S

j has a correspondent in S

0

(30) L-ANCHOR >> TRUNC >> CONTIGIO

>> *COR-HI >> MAX IO

An evaluation of ϕtrunc

(F�qSRVLzG) 'branded object' is shown (31)

(31) Evaluation of ϕtrunc

(F�qSRVLzG) 'branded object'

ϕtrunc (F�qSRVLzG) L-ANCHOR TRUNC CONTIGIO *COR-HI MAX IO

)a. F�SRV * **

b. F�SRVL *!

c. �F�SRVLG *! ** *

d. F�SR * *!**

e. SRVLG *! ** **

Tableau (31) correctly predicts that candidate (31a) is optimal because it only incurs twoMAX

IO violations while minimizing the violation of the *COR-HI constraint.

4.3. Stress in Truncatum: Cases without the Latent Vowel

The stress pattern in the truncatum is essentially the same as its non-truncated counterpart,namely, only odd syllables get stress (32). Like other morphologically complex forms,

truncatum also allows final odd syllable to receive secondary stress since the ϕtrunc

, like ϕaffix

,

ranks PARSE-σ above FOOTBINARITY.

(32) Stress in imperfectives (untruncated) and perfectives (truncated)

Imperfective Perfectives GlossD��VLqNRQ VLqNR 'to hoe object, perfective'

hoe hoe-perfectiveb. F�qSRV-LzG F�qSRV 'to brand object, perfective'

brand-benefactive brand-benefactive-perfectivec. wDqFXwLz-FXG wDqFXwLzF 'to make someone bathe, perfective'

bathe-causative bathe-causative-perfective

4.4. Stress in Truncatum: Cases with the Latent Vowel

The latent vowel, as pointed out in Fitzgerald (1997), receives stress even though it is in theodd syllable position and was previously unstressable.

(33) Stress distribution of the truncatum with the latent vowel


19

Before truncation Gloss After truncation GlossD��ZDqNRQ-DP�zGC 'to go and wash' ZDqNRQ-DzP 'went and washed'

wash-to go wash-to gob. F�LqNSDQ-DFXzG 'to make someone work' F�LNSDQ-DzF 'made someone work'

work-causative work-causative

Two forms are given in (33). Prior to the truncation, both forms contain an unstressablelatent vowel. Thus, the secondary stress, in both cases, falls onto the fourth syllable, ratherthan the third. After the formation of the perfective, however, stress is reassigned in bothforms and the previously unstressed latent vowel receives stress, even though it is in the thirdsyllable position. This stress assignment contradicts directly the stress pattern of forms withlatent vowel, namely, the latent vowel cannot bear stress even when it surfaces at the oddsyllable position as discussed in Section 3. In the following section, I will draw on thisevidence and attribute the Bracket Erasure effect as the source of this "contradiction."

4.5. Analysis of Stress in Truncation

The stress pattern in the truncatum is assigned according to the ϕtrunc

co-phonology.

However, since the only difference between ϕtrunc

and the general affixation-specific co-

phonology ϕaffix

is the additional constraints required by the truncation construction, I willtherefore only supply the constraints relevant to the evaluation of stress assignment in therest of the presentation. As pointed out in Section 4.2., the stress assignment in the

truncatum mimics the ϕaffix

hierarchy laid out in Section 2 proposed for all polymorphemic

forms (34). However, ϕtrunc

is the non-stress-preserving while ϕaffix

is.

(34) Evaluation of the ϕtrunc

(ZDqNRQDP�zGC) 'to go and wash'

ϕtrunc (ZDqNRQDP�zGC) ALIGN FTFM *CLASH PARSE FTBIN

)a. ([ZDqNR)(QDzP]) *

b. ([ZDqNR)QDP] *!

c. ([ZDq)(NRzQDP@) *! *

As mentioned in Section 4.2, the previously unstressed latent vowel receives stress aftertruncation. This demonstrates the Bracket Erasure effect in the stress assignment of TohonoO'odham. It also lends support to the cyclic approach to stress assignment in thisconstruction. Unlike other morphological constructions in Tohono O'odham, which flat-structure producing, stress is reassigned in this morphological operation (35).

(35)

ϕtrunc (F�LqNSDQDFXzGC) = [F�LqNSDQDzF]

ϕaffix (F�LqNSDQ, [+low]FXGC) = [F�LqNSDQDFXzGC]


20

ϕroot (F�LNSDQ) [+low]FXGC

The latent vowel will not be stressed if stress assigned only once after all morphologicalconstructions since the subsegment status of the latent vowel will be accessible to thephonology. The Bracket Erasure effect observed here is a logical corollary to the theoreticalapproach of Sign-Based Morphology. In SBM, each morphological construction can beassigned a co-phonology. Therefore, the internal makeup of the daughters participating inthe construction is not accessible to the co-phonology of the mother node. Thus, eventhough the unstressable latent vowel escapes stress assignment during the suffixation, itsstatus as a latent vowel is not long available to the co-phonology associated with thetruncation. The tableau in (36) illustrates this.

(36) An evaluation of the ϕtrunc

(F�LqNSDQDFXzGC) 'to make someone work'

ϕtrunc ([F�LqNSDQDFXzGC]) ALIGN

FTFM *CLASH STRESS-SEG

PARSE FTBIN

)a. ([F�LqNSD)(QDzF]) *

b. ([F�LqNSD)QDF] *!

c. ([F�LqN)(SDQDzF) *!

d. ([F�LqN)(SDzQDF) *! *

The input to this evaluation is [F�LqNSDQDFXzG�], which in turn is the output of the /[+low]FXG�/suffixation. The internal complexity of the [F�LqNSDQDFXzG�] and its stress contour is nolonger accessible by the co-phonology associated with truncation construction. Thus, thelatent vowel is treated as a full segment and is assigned secondary stress appropriately(35a). STRESS-SEG is never violated by any candidates because the histories and theinternal makeup of the input strings are no longer available, i.e. the "latent" segment.

4.6. Alternative Analysis: MSP and SMP Revisit.

In section 2.3, the MSP was discussed in the context of accounting for the word finalstress in polymorphemic word. In section 3.2, the Fitzgerald's SMP was mentioned in thediscussion of the treatment of latent segments. In this section, further evidence for theinappropriateness of MSP and SMP as a viable analysis for the stress pattern of TohonoO'odham is presented.

The MSP asserts that for every morpheme, there must be some stressed mora that falls inthe domain of that morpheme. This requirement will only be effective during candidatesevaluation if the morpheme that was in the input, or some remnant of it, is present in theoutput. The prediction under such principle is that in the case of zero morphology, stresswill be assigned similar to those of the underived monomorphemic forms since noadditional morpheme is present in the output. Although Tohono O'odham has no zeroderivation, a case of 'subtractive morphology', namely truncation, would offer us a


21

plausible hypothetical scenario.12 In the case of the perfectives, if a suffix that is presentin the input is truncated in the output, the MSP should be evaluated vacuously since notrace of such suffixal morpheme will be available for the principle make reference to.This fallacy is exemplified in a hypothetical evaluation of /DVXJDO-W-TRUNC/ (37).

(37) Evaluation of /DVXJDO-W-TRUNC/ 'sugar-to make-perfective'

/DVXJDO-W-TRUNC/ FTFM ALIGN MSP FTBIN PARSE

0a. ([DqVX)JDO@ *

b. ([DqVX)(JDzO@) *!

c. [DVX(JDzO@) *!

In (37), the single consonantal causative morpheme -W is truncated to form the perfective.Fitzgerald (personal communication) admits that presumably, the output form willreceive secondary stress on the final syllable. However, according to MSP, since no traceof morphological complexity is visible to the MSP, candidate (37b) fails to surface as theoptimal candidate while (37a), which has the stress pattern of a mono-morphemic word,wins.

Further difficulty that MSP faces is the implication of such principle on languagetypology. By introducing the MSP as a universal constraint, it falsely predicts that whenthe MSP is ranked high enough, there should be a language in the world that is requiredto stress every single morpheme in a word. Such prediction is highly undesirable sincethere is no evidence that such a language exist at all. In fact, the MSP must be rankedvery low in many of the world's language because more often than not, languages tend toallow one stress in per word regardless of its morphological complexity (e.g. Greek andPolish). Another difficulty in interpreting the MSP derive from the problem of definingwhat is meant by "morpheme" in general: Fitzgerald seems to rely heavily on the notionof "morpheme as morph", whereas the SBM account treats the morpheme as a complexsign that enters into a construction as in HPSG and Construction Grammar. Possiblealternative or reformulation of the MSP would be, rather than referring to morphs, theprinciple should be stated in terms of morphological bracketing. Such reformulation ishowever merely another way of representing the cyclic effect of stress assignment.

In terms of the SMP, it is unclear how the SMP would account for the stressed"epenthetic" vowel in truncation since the SMP is ranked above the MSP. The evaluationof /F�LNSDQ-FXGC-TRUNC/ 'to make someone work' is given in (38).

(38) The evaluation of /F�LNSDQ-FXGC-TRUNC/ 'to make someone work' in theMSP/SMP approach.

12 No actual data is supplied in Fitzgerald (1996, 1997). Fitzgerald (personal communication) points outthat words that are derived from the causative -W suffixation may not be truncated at all. However, sheconcurs that such cases are plausible.


22

/F�LNSDQ-FXGC-TRUNC/'to make someone work'

FTFM*CLASH

ALIGN SMP MSP FTBIN PARSE

a. ([F�LqNSD)(QDzF]) *! *

0b. ([F�LqNSD)QDF] * *

c. ([F�LqN)(SDQDzF) *! *

d. ([F�LqN)(SDzQDF) *!

Fitzgerald (1997) claims that the percolation convention for stress will allow thesatisfaction of the SMP because the coda of the final odd syllable in a truncatum with anepenthetic vowel will always be a remnant of an affix, i.e. ([F�LqNSD)QD([FXzG]) →([F�LqNSD)(Q]Dz>F). As point out in section 2.3, this percolation convention unnecessarily adhoc. The exact mechanism of this percolation convention is also yet to be demonstrated.

4.7. Summary

In sum, I have illustrated the truncation process in forming perfectives in TohonoO'odham. Stress is assigned according to the truncation-specific co-phonology. BracketErasure effect is observed from the interaction of the stress and the previously unstressedlatent vowel. This also illustrates that stress is assigned in a cyclic fashion in thismorphological construction.

5. Conclusion

This paper demonstrates that there are at least three co-phonologies in Tohono O'odham,root-, affixation- and truncation-specific phonologies. Stress is assigned cyclically incanonical affixation, as demonstrated in Section 2 & 3, evidence from the interactionbetween the stress assignment, the latent vowel and truncation construction, furtherargues for cyclicity and Bracket Erasure effect in Tohono O'odham. In the course of thediscussion, a new treatment of the so-called epenthetic [D] is proposed. Previoustreatment, I argue, has been ad hoc and lacks empirical support. The interaction betweentruncation and stress is also examined. This study demonstrates that the MSP isunnecessary in a cyclic-phonological account, which automatically provides a generalexplanation as to why stress depends on the morphological structure of words (giving theimpression that it is "counting morphemes"). It concludes that the multi-level analysis,couched on a Sign-Based Morphology style of co-phonologies, surpasses the one-levelaccount of the bipartite stress pattern in Tohono O'odham.

6. References:

Fitzgerald, Colleen M. 1994a. The meter of Tohono O’odham songs. Unpublishedmanuscript, University of Arizona.

Fitzgerald, Colleen M. 1996a. Degenerate feet and morphology in Tohono O’odham. Toappear in the Proceedings of WCCFL XV.

Fitzgerald, Colleen M. 1997. O’odham rhythms. Ph.D. dissertation, University ofArizona.


23

Fitzgerald, Colleen M. under review. The Morpheme-to-Stress Principle in TohonoO'odham. San Jose State University.

Hale, Kenneth. 1959. A Pagago Grammar. Ph.D. dissertation, Indiana University.Hill, Jane and Ofelia Zepeda. 1992. Derived words in Tohono O'odham. IJAL 58. 355-

404.Inkelas, Sharon and Cemil Orhan Orgun. 1995. Level ordering and economy in the

lexical phonology of Turkish. Language 71:763-793.Inkelas, Sharon and Cemil Orhan Orgun. in press. Level (Non)ordering in recursive

morphology: evidence from Turkish. Morphology and its relations to syntax andphonology. eds. by S. Lapointe et. al. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.

Inkelas, Sharon, C. Orhan Orgun and Cheryl Zoll. 1994. Subregularities as cogrammars:the theoretical status of nonproductive patterns in grammar. Unpublishedmanuscript. University of California, Berkeley.

Kiparsky, Paul. 1982. From cyclic to lexical phonology. The structure of phonologicalrepresentations, part I, ed. by H. van der Hulst and N. Smith. 131-175. Dordrecht:Foris.

Kiparsky, Paul. 1993. Blocking in non-derived environments. Phonetics and phonology4: studies in lexical phonology. eds. by Sharon Hargus and Ellen Kaisse. 277-313.San Diego: Academic Press.

Mathiot, Madeleine. 1973. A dictionary of Papago usage. Bloomington: IndianaUniversity.

McCarthy, John and Alan Prince. 1993. Generalized alignment. Yearbook of morphology1993, ed. By G. Booij and J. van Marle. 79-153. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

McCarthy, John and Alan Prince. 1994. The emergence of the unmarked. Proceedings ofNELS 24, ed. by M. Gonzazlez. 333-379. Amherst, MA: GLSA.

McCarthy, John & Alan Prince. 1995. Faithfulness & reduplicative identity. In JillBeckman, Laura Walsh Dickey, & Suzanne Urbanczyk, eds., University ofMassachusetts occasional papers in Linguistics 18: papers in Optimality Theory.Amherst, MA: Graduate Linguistic Student Association. Pp. 249-384. Also inRene Kager, Harry van der Hulst, & Wim Zonneveld, eds., The ProsodyMorphology Interface.

Mohanan, K. P. 1982. Lexical phonology. Doctoral disseration, Massachusetts Institute ofTechnology.

Orgun, C. Orhan. 1994. Monotonic cyclicity and Optimality Theory. Proceedings of theNortheastern Linguistic Society 24, Mercez Gonzazlez, ed., 461-74.

Orgun, C. Orhan. 1996. Sign-based morphology: A declarative theory of phonology-morphology interleaving. Ph.D. dissertation, UC Berkeley

Orgun, Cemil Orhan. 1997. Reviving bracket erasure. Unpublished manuscript,University of California, Davis.

Prince, Alan. 1990. Quantitative consequences of rhythmic organization. CLS 26, 355-398.

Prince, Alan and Paul Smolensky. 1993. Optimality theory: constraint interaction ingenerative grammar. To appear, MIT Press. TR-2, Rutgers University CognitiveScience Center. Pp. 234.


24

Zepeda, Ofelia. 1984. Topics in Papago morphology. Ph.D. disseration, University ofArizona.

Zepeda, Ofelia. 1988. A Papago grammar. Tucson, Arizona: University of Arizona Press.Zoll, Cheryl. 1994. Subsegmental parsing: floating features in Chaha and Yawelmani.

Phonology at Santa Cruz 3.Zoll, Cheryl. 1996. Parsing below the segment in a constraint based framework. PhD

Dissertation, University of California, Berkeley.

Documents

On the Stress Assignment of Tohono O’odham …washo.uchicago.edu/pub/stress.pdfOn the Stress Assignment of Tohono O’odham (comments appreciated) Alan Yu [email protected]