Positional Faithfulness for weak positions Paroma Sanyal EFL- University

Positional Constraints A Positional Faithfulness to Strong position Beckman (1998), Lombardi (1999) B Positional Markedness to Strong position De Lacy (2000, 2001), Smith (2000, 2002) C Licensing Restriction on weak position Kager (1996), Zoll (1998)

Strong and Weak positions Strong PositionWeak Position! Word InitialWord Final Head of FootNon-head of Foot Stressed syllableUnstressed syllable RootAffix ……

Positional Faithfulness Positional Faithfulness is interpreted as positional faithfulness to a strong position Ident-Pos [F]: Segments in position (Pos) in the output sequence for the feature [F] should correspond to segments in position (Pos) for the feature [F] in the input sequence Ident-Pos [F] >> Ident [F]

Neutralization restricted to weak position Ident [F]/ Str >> *M >> Ident [F]

Positional Augmentation Positional augmentation is a term coined by Cheryl Zoll to refer to refer to the markedness requirement of licensing more salient segmental material in strong positions. This markedness when dominating constraint may result in a variety of faithfulness and markedness constraint violations.

Jennifer Smith (2002) σʹ High-sonority peak Zabiče Slovene (Crosswhite 1999); Mokshan Mordwin (Kenstowicz 1994) Onset Dutch (Booij 1995), Western Arrernte (Strehlow 1942; Davis 1988; Downing 1998) Low-sonority onset Pirahã (Everett & Everett 1984), Niuafo'ou (Tsukamoto 1998; de Lacy 2000, 2001) C [+rel] Supra-laryngeal place Chamicuro (Parker 2001) V: High-sonority Yawelmani Yokuts (Newman 1944; Kuroda 1967; Kisseberth 1969; Archangeli 1984) σ 1 Onset Arapaho (Salzmann 1956), Guhang Ifugao (Newell 1956, Landman 1999) Low-sonority onset Mongolian (Ramsey 1987), Kuman (Lynch 1983; Blevins 1994), Mbabaram (Dixon 1991), Campidanian Sardinian (Bolognesi 1998)

Positional Constraints for weak positions Interaction of positional reduction or augmentation with another phonological process in a common context. The “other” process may be phonologically or morphologically motivated. The logical possibilities as well as natural language data available are complex and many. But….

Guugu Yimidhirr Ist σ heavy waaɽigan‘moon’ waaḏa‘crow’ guuɽumugu‘meat hawk’ 2 nd σ heavy dawaaɽ‘star’ gambuugu‘head’ ḏamaaɽbina‘magpie goose’ 1 st and 2 nd σ heavy buuɾaay‘water’ muuluumul‘dove’ daaɾaalŋan‘kangaroo’ ɗiɽaayŋguɽ‘old man’

Morphological environment /maŋal-nda/ma.ŋaal.nda‘clay’ /wuluŋguɾ-nda/wu.luŋ.guɾ.nda ‘lightning’ * wu.luŋ.guuɾ.nda

Bangla Vowel Harmony No prominence induced augmentation or reduction All vowels in all positions! Initial /a/ resists any alternation Final /a/ shows up as lexical variation Initial /i/ shows lexical variation Final /i/ is without any alternation

Conclusion Strong and weak positions are not very different from each other in the context morphological and phonological processes Strong positions prefer augmentation. This might be blocked by dominant faithfulness requirement in the language. Weak positions prefer reduction. Again this might be blocked by dominant faithfulness requirement in the language. Additionally strong positions do not prefer to undergo reduction and weak positions resist augmentation

Summarizing Positional IdentityPositional markedness Strong position PI/Str: Positional Identity for strong position Block neutralization in Strong position *M/Str: Positional markedness for strong position Motivate augmentation in strong position Weak positionPI/Wk: Positional Identity for weak position Block augmentation in weak position *M/Wk: Positional markedness for weak position Motivate neutralization in weak position

Some more interesting cases Dutch- Jennifer Smith Obligatory onset in strong position ONSET/σ’ >> IDENT >> ONSET or IDENT/σ̆ >> ONSET >> IDENT Shimakonde- Laura J.Downing Stress controlled reduction Vowel harmony

Thanks