1 / 32

Opacity and prominence in Crimean Tatar

Opacity and prominence in Crimean Tatar. Darya Kavitskaya Yale University darya.kavitskaya@yale.edu CUNY Conference on the Phonology of Endangered languages January 14, 2011. The language.

maegan
Download Presentation

Opacity and prominence in Crimean Tatar

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Opacity and prominence in Crimean Tatar Darya Kavitskaya Yale University darya.kavitskaya@yale.edu CUNY Conference on the Phonology of Endangered languages January 14, 2011

  2. The language • Crimean Tatar (CT) is an understudied and endangered language of the West Kipchak branch of the Northwestern subgroup of the Turkic family (Johanson 1998). • CT is spoken in Ukraine’s Crimean peninsula and also in Uzbekistan, Russia, Bulgaria, Romania, and Turkey (Samoilovich 1916, Bogoroditskii 1933, Sevortian 1966, Memetov 1993, Izidinova 1997, Useinov, Mireev & Sahadzhiev 2005, Kavitskaya 2010). • The data come from the author’s fieldwork in 2002, 2003, 2009 in Crimea, Ukraine.

  3. Processes • Harmony • Backness • Rounding • Syncope of high vowels • Initial • Medial • Stress

  4. CT vowels -back +back -round +round -round +round +high i y ɯ u -high e ø a o • i and ɯ have undergone an almost complete phonetic merger, but remain phonologically distinct.

  5. Backness harmony bil-mek ‘know’ juv-maq ‘wash’ ket-mek ‘go’ qorq-maq ‘be afraid’ tyʃyn-mek ‘think’ qɯr-maq ‘rub’ tøk-mek ‘pour’ ajlan-maq ‘turn’

  6. Rounding harmony • Triggered by any round vowel, targets high vowels only. dost-u ‘friend-3sg.poss’ tʃift-i ‘pair-3sg.poss’ • Rounding harmony is active only in the first two syllables of a word. a. dost-um ‘friend-1sg.poss’ kyz-lyk ‘autumn-adj.suf’ bul-un-maq ‘find-pass-inf’ b. tuzluɣ-ɯm ‘salt shaker-1sg.poss’ syrgyn-lik ‘deportation-adj.suf’ tykyr-in-mek ‘spit-pass-inf’

  7. Dialectal variation and harmony • In the Southern dialect of CT, rounding harmony affects all high vowels in a prosodic word (low vowels are blockers), and in the Northern dialect of CT rounding harmony is lost; the feature [round] is licensed only in the initial syllable of the word (like in some Altaic languages, such as Vogul, Bashkir, Ostyak (Steriade 1995: 161-162)).

  8. Syncope of high vowels • Syncope targets high vowels, in word-initial (a) and word-medial syllables (b). • Syncope of a high vowel in an initial syllable can create word-initial onsets that do not obey the CT phonotactics (a). • Word-medially, syncope is blocked if it results in structures not acceptable by the phonotactics of the language. • In the native vocabulary, complex onsets are not allowed. • Complex codas are maximally CC and obey the SSP. a. kitap [ktap] ‘book’ tɯʃlemek [tʃlemek] ‘to bite’ bilem [blem] ‘I know’ sɯkmaq [skmaq] ‘to push, press’ qɯsqa [qsqa] ‘short’ b. aldɯlar [aldlar] ‘they took’ otura [ot.ra] ‘s/he sits’ ketirip [ket.rip] ‘having brought’ øldyrmek [øldyrmek] *[øldrmek] ‘to kill’

  9. Syncope of high vowels • The leftmost vowel in a word deletes(c). • The vowel may delete even when it is the absolute initial in a word (d). • Final (stressed) high vowels never delete (e). c. tyʃyrdik [tʃyrdik] ‘they dropped’ tykyrem [tkyrem] *[tykrem] ‘I spit’ piʃirem [pʃirem] *[piʃrem] ‘I cook’ d. iʃlemek [ʃlemek] ‘to work’ e. berdi [berdi] *[berd] ‘she gave’

  10. A spectrogram of /tykyrmek/ ‘to spit’

  11. Stress • Each word in Crimean Tatar has exactly one main stress. • The default stress position is word-final. • It has been argued for Turkish (Levi 2005) that its default final stress is postlexical that seems to be the case for the related CT as well. a. araˈba ‘cart’ araba-ˈlar ‘carts’ cart-pl   araba-lar-ˈdan ‘from carts’ cart-pl-abl b. baʃla-ˈdɯ-m ‘I began’ begin-past-1sg baʃ-lar-ɯmɯz-ˈnɯ ‘our heads’ head-pl-1pl.poss-acc

  12. Stress • Final stress is overriden by lexical stress in both roots and pre-stressing suffixes. a. ˈnasɯl ‘which, how’ ˈmitlaqa ‘definitely’ ˈtezden ‘quickly’  b. aˈʃar-ɯm ‘I eat’ iˈtʃer-im ‘I drink’ c. geˈdʒe-lejin ‘at nights’ aʃɯq-tʃanˈlɯq-nen ‘in a hurry’ aˈna-dʒasɯna ‘in a motherly manner’ d. bar-ˈdɯ ‘he went’ ˈbar-ma-dɯ ‘he didn’t go’ bil-ˈmek ‘to know’ ˈbil-me-mek ‘to not know’

  13. An opaque interaction between harmony and syncope • Harmony and syncope in rule terms: tyʃ-Ir-Em ‘fall-caus-1sg.pres’ a. UR tyʃ-Ir-Em 1. Harmony tyʃyrem 2. Syncope tʃyrem Surface tʃyrem b. UR tyʃ-Ir-Em 1. Syncope tʃIrEm 2. Harmony tʃirem Surface *tʃirem

  14. A classic OT account • LicenceRd(σσ) (after Walker 2005) • Feature [round] must be associated to positions in two syllables. • Dep(round) • Assign a violation mark for every instance of the feature [round] in the output that has no correspondent in the input (=don’t insert the feature [round]). • *Nuc/i,u,y,ɯ >> *Nuc/e,o,a,ø (informally, *Nuc/high >> *Nuc/low) • (Gouskova 2003 on differential syncope, see also Prince and Smolensky 1993, de Lacy 2004, 2006). • MaxV • Assign a violation mark for every input vowel that has no output correspondent (=don’t delete a vowel).

  15. CT opacity in classic OT

  16. Harmonic serialism and vowel harmony • Serial Harmony avoids some undesirable typological predictions with respect to feature spreading, present in classic OT (McCarthy 2009, to appear; Kimper 2008; Pruitt 2008; Wilson 2003, 2004, 2006; Wolf 2008, Zentz 2011). • See, in particular, Padgett 1995, McCarthy 2003 on the sour-grapes property of local agreement constraints.

  17. Assumptions of Serial Harmony (McCarthy 2009: 1-2) • Distinctive features are privative (present/absent), and not equipollent (positive/negative). • Harmony is motivated by a constraint on autosegmental representations, Share(F), that is violated by any pair of adjacent segments that are not linked to the same [F] autosegment. • The input for the [tʃyrem] ‘I drop’ is: [round] | t y ʃ i r e m

  18. Constraints • Share(F) (McCarthy 2009: 8) • Assign one violation mark for every pair of adjacent segments that are not linked to the same token of [F]. • Share(back) • Share(round) • Initial(F) penalizes leftward spreading of a feature F (20), and Final(F) penalizes rightward spreading of the feature F (McCarthy 2009). • The harmony in CT is progressive, thus Initial(F) >> Share(F) >> Final(F) (where F is back and round). • Harmonic Serialism has the same problem as classic OT with the analysis of counterbleeding opacity (see McCarthy 2007: 37).

  19. OT with candidate chains (OT-CC, McCarthy 2007) • The output is reached from the input via a series of steps (a candidate chain) • Gradualness: one violation of one basic faithfulness constraint per step (a localized unfaithful mapping, LUM) • The first step is the most harmonic faithful parse of the input • Harmonic improvement: each step must improve harmony • Each chain has a correspondent set of LUMs (the L-set) and an ordering of the elements in the set (rLUMSeq).

  20. Valid chains for the input /tyʃ-ir-em/ ‘I drop’ a. <tyʃirem> Ø, Ø (faithful) b. <tyʃirem, tyʃyrem> {Dep(rd)@4}, Ø c. <tyʃirem, tʃirem> {MaxV@2}, Ø d. <tyʃirem, tyʃrem> {MaxV@4}, Ø e. <tyʃirem, tyʃyrem, tʃyrem> {Dep(rd)@4, MaxV@2}, {<Dep(rd)@4, MaxV@2>} f. <tyʃirem, tyʃyrem, tyʃrem> {Dep(rd)@4, MaxV@4}, {<Dep(rd)@4, MaxV@4>}

  21. Opacity in OT-CC • Within OT-CC, we account for opacity with a precedence constraint Prec(A, B), which requires that all violations of B are preceded by and not followed by violations of A. • Prec(Dep(round), MaxV) requires violations of Dep(round) (harmony) to precede and not follow violations of MaxV (syncope).

  22. An OT-CC tableau for the input /tyʃ-ir-em/ ‘I drop’

  23. Prominence and the interaction of harmony and syncope • In CT the prominence status of the initial syllable is different for different processes. • The initial syllable is a common privileged position associated in the literature with phonological strength effects (see Barnes 2006; Beckman 1997; Kaun 1995, 2004). • Northern CT: roundness is limited to the initial syllable. • The same position is also weak, and is thus the best syncope site, as it is the furthest away from the final stress. • CT does not show any evidence for secondary stress or further footing. • The conflicting requirements on prominence are the source of opacity in the system. • Support: a word nasɯl ‘which, how’ is stressed on the first syllable. The second (high) vowel is reduced and often deleted.

  24. An analysis • To formalize the proposal, we modify OT-CC to include a family of constraints on the preference of the direction of iteration, Prefer(Fx, Fx+1), where F is a faithfulness constraint. • Prefer(Maxx, Maxx+1) • Assign one violation mark for a candidate chain that has a violation of Max and a competitor chain in which this violation occurs earlier in the form.

  25. A modified tableau for the input /tyʃ-ir-em/ ‘I drop’

  26. Conclusions • Conflicting prominence in CT is the source of opacity. • Vowel harmony is driven by spreading of a feature from the initial (most prominent) syllable. • Syncope of high vowels prefers the initial syllable since it is the least prominent, being the furthest away from stress. • The decision between the initial and medial syncope cannot be made by metrical constraints since there is no evidence for further footing in CT, beyond the final stressed syllable. • In order to account for these data, we proposed a constraint on the preference of the direction of iteration.

  27. Acknowledgements • I thank Eric Ciaramella and Matt Wolf for their insightful comments on this paper. I am indebted to Remzije Berberova and to my other Crimean Tatar consultants for sharing their language with me.

  28. Selected references • Beckman, J. 1997. Positional faithfulness, positional neutralisation and Shona vowel harmony. Phonology 14: 1-46. • Berta, Árpád. 1998. West Kipchak languages. In L. Johanson, & E. Csato, eds., The Turkic languages. New York: Routledge. 301–317. • Bogoroditskii, V.A. 1933. Dialektologicheskie zametki. V. O krymsko-tatarskom narechii. Kazan. • de Lacy, Paul. 2004. Markedness conflation in Optimality Theory. Phonology 21: 145-199. • de Lacy, Paul. 2006. Markedness: reduction and preservation in phonology. Cambridge, CUP. • Gouskova, Maria. 2003. Deriving economy: syncope in Optimality Theory. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst. • Izidinova, S.R. 1997. Krymskotatarskii iazyk. In E.R. Tenishev (ed.), Iazyki mira. Tiurkskie iazyki. Moscow: Indrik. • Johanson, Lars. 1998. The history of Turkic. In Johanson, L. & E. Csato (eds.) The Turkic languages. New York: Routledge. 81–125. • Kaun, Abigail. 1995. The typology of rounding harmony: an Optimality Theoretic approach. PhD dissertation, UCLA. • Kaun, Abigail. 2004. In Bruce Hayes, Robert Kirchner, and Donca Steriade, eds. Phonetically Based Phonology. Cambridge University Press. • Kavitskaya, Darya 2010. Crimean Tatar. LINCOM Europa. • Kimper, Wendell. 2008. Local optionality and harmonic serialism. Unpublished manuscript, University of Massachusetts, Amherst. ROA-988. • Memetov, A. 1993. Krymskie tatary:istoriko-lingvisticheskii ocherk. Simferopol: Anaiurt. • Pruitt, Kathryn. 2008. Iterative foot optimization and locality in stress systems. Unpublished manuscript, University of Massachusetts, Amherst. ROA-999.

  29. Levi, Susannah V. 2005. Acoustic correlates of lexical accent in Turkish. JIPA 35: 73-97. • McCarthy, John J. 2003. OT constraints are categorical. Phonology 20: 75-138. • McCarthy, John J. 2007. Hidden Generalizations. Equinox, London. • McCarthy John J. 2008. The serial interaction of stress and syncope. NLLT 26: 499-546. • McCarthy, John J. 2009. Harmony in harmonic serialism. Unpublished manuscript, University of Massachusetts, Amherst. ROA-1009. • Samoilovich, A. N. 1916. Opyt kratkoi krymsko-tatarskoi grammatiki. Petrograd. • Sevortian, E. 1966. Krymskotatarskii iazyk. In N. Baskakov et al, eds., Iazyki narodov SSSR 2, Nauka, 234-259. • Steriade, Donca. 1995. Underspecification and markedness. In John Goldsmith, ed., The Handbook of Phonological Theory. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell Publishers. • Useinov, S., V. Mireev, & V. Sahadzhiev. 2005. Qırımtatar tilini ögreniñiz. Simferopol: Ocaq. • Walker, Rachel. 2005. Weak triggers in vowel harmony. NLLT 23: 917-989. • Wilson, Colin. 2006. Unbouded spreading is myopic. In Workshop on Current Perspectives on Phonology, vol. 23. • Wolf, Matthew A. 2008. Optimal interleaving: serial phonology-morphology interaction in a constraint-based model. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA. ROA-996. • Zentz, Jason. 2011. Progressive front vowel harmony in Warlpiri: a Serial Harmony approach. Paper to be presented at the CUNY Conference on the Phonology of Endangered Languages, January 14, 2011.

More Related