Kramer, M. - Vowel Harmony and Correspondence Theory

Vowel Harmony and Correspondence Theory
Studies in Generative Grammar 66
Editors
Harry van der Hulst

Jan Koster
Henk van Riemsdijk
Mouton de Gruyter
Berlin New York
Vowel Harmony
and Correspondence Theory
by
Martin Krmer
Mouton de Gruyter
Berlin New York
2003
Mouton de Gruyter (formerly Mouton, The Hague)

is a Division of Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co. KG, Berlin.
The series Studies in Generative Grammar was formerly published by

Foris Publications Holland.
Printed on acid-free paper which falls within the guidelines
of the ANSI to ensure permanence and durability.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Krmer, Martin, 1969
Vowel harmony and correspondence theory / by Martin Krmer.
p. cm. (Studies in generative grammar ; 66)
Includes bibliographical references and index.
ISBN 3-11-017948-2 (alk. paper)
1. Grammar, Comparative and general Vowel harmony. I. Title.
II. Series
P234.K73 2003
415dc22
2003018529
ISBN 3-11-017948-2
Bibliographic information published by Die Deutsche Bibliothek
Die Deutsche Bibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche
Nationalbibliografie; detailed bibliographic data is available in the
Internet at http://dnb.ddb.de.
Copyright 2003 by Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co. KG, D-10785 Berlin.
All rights reserved, including those of translation into foreign languages. No part of this
book may be reproduced in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including
photocopy, recording, or any information storage and retrieval system, without permission
in writing from the publisher.
Cover design: Christopher Schneider, Berlin.
Printed in Germany.
Contents
Abstract
Acknowledgements
Abbreviations
ix
xi
xii
Part I: The phenomenon and the theoretical background

Chapter 1
An introduction to vowel harmony
1.1
1.1.1
1.1.2
1.1.3
1.1.4
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.4.1
1.4.2
1.4.3
1.5
1.6
Harmonic features
Single feature harmonies
Multiple feature harmonies
Restricted harmonies
Summary and discussion
The role of consonants in vowel harmony
The domain of harmony
Opacity and transparency
Opaque vowels
Transparent vowels
Trojans and Hybrids
Dominance, morphological control, and Umlaut
Setting the scene
Chapter 2
Optimality Theory and the formalisation of harmony
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.4.1
2.4.2
2.4.3
Violability and conflict

Markedness and faithfulness
Positional faithfulness
Be faithful to your neighbour
assimilation in Correspondence Theory
Feature alignment
externally motivated harmony
Assimilation as correspondence
3
5
6
9
15
16
21
24
26
27
28
33
35
43
49
49
54
59
61
62
66
69
vi
2.5
Vowel harmony and correspondence theory
Constraint coordination
Chapter 3
Cyclicity and phonological opacity as constraint coordination
and positional faithfulness
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
3.5
3.6
Morphological control as a matter of integrity

Asymmetries and anchoring
Vowel transparency as local conjunction
Trojan vowels and local conjunction
Parasitic harmony
Summary
77
89
90
96
104
107
108
109
Part II: Case studies

Chapter 4
Edge effects and positional integrity
113
4.1
4.2
4.2.1
4.2.2
4.2.3
4.3
4.3.1
4.3.2
4.3.3
4.4
4.5
4.6
4.6.1
4.6.2
4.6.3
4.7
4.7.1
4.7.2
4.7.3
4.8
113
115
116
117
119
120
121
123
126
133
135
137
137
140
145
147
147
148
149
152
Introduction
Yoruba and anchoring
Harmony and the right word edge in Yoruba
An anchoring analysis of the asymmetry in roots
Harmony, anchoring, and affixation
Turkish anchoring and integrity
Left-anchoring
Root control and integrity
The exceptions
Dgma and integrity
Diola Fogni dominance as local conjunction
Pulaar affix control as positional faithfulness
The data
An analysis as affix control
Possible alternatives to affix control
Recent accounts
The alignment approach to harmony
First syllable faithfulness
The SAF approach to root control
Conclusion
Contents
vii
Chapter 5
Vowel transparency as balance
157
5.1
5.1.1
5.1.2
5.1.3
5.1.4
5.2
5.2.1
5.2.2
5.2.3
5.3
5.3.1
5.3.2
5.4
158
158
160
161
163
172
173
174
180
182
182
183
186
The case of Finnish a grammar of balance

The Finnish harmony pattern
Finnish feet and balanced vowels
The basic constraint set-up
The conjunction of balance in the Finnish grammar
Wolof ATR harmony and balanced vowels
The Wolof harmony pattern
ATR balance in Wolof harmony
The opaque vowel
Previous analyses
Transparency as neutrality
Targeted constraints and sympathy
Conclusion
Chapter 6
Trojan vowels and phonological opacity
6.1
6.1.1
6.1.2
6.1.3
6.1.4
6.2
6.2.1
6.2.2
6.3
6.4
6.4.1
6.4.2
6.4.3
6.4.4
Hungarian Trojan vowels in backness harmony

A preliminary harmony grammar for Hungarian
Hungarian Trojan vowels
Hungarian balanced vowels reconsidered from
the learning perspective
Summary
Yoruba high vowels
Trojan vowels and root controlled ATR harmony
High vowels and mid vowels
A Trojan grammar for Yoruba
Nez Perce a Trojan vowel in dominant-recessive
ATR harmony
Yawelmani opacity
The basic harmony pattern
and the Yawelmani inventory
Yawelmani uniformity and opacity
as constraint interaction
Yawelmani epenthesis and shortening
Previous approaches to Yawelmani opacity
187
188
189
191
194
200
200
200
201
209
215
217
219
232
237
viii
6.5
6.6
Previous analyses of Trojan vowels

Conclusion
242
244
Chapter 7
General conclusion
247
7.1
7.2
7.3
7.4
7.5
247
250
254
256
259
Overall summary
The ghosts of serialism
Underspecification and Lexicon Optimization
Factorial typology and constraint coordination
Outlook
Notes
Appendix I: Constraints
Appendix II: Languages
References
Index
263
271
277
283
299
Abstract
The aim of this book is twofold. One goal is to give a broad overview of the
patterns of vowel harmony that can be found in the world's languages. The
second and central goal is to give a unified account of these patterns within
Optimality Theory (henceforth OT, Prince and Smolensky 1993) and its
extension to Correspondence Theory (McCarthy and Prince 1995).
With respect to the second aim the question is justified why this should
be necessary, given the large amount of research that has been done on
vowel harmony within the framework of OT in recent years. In optimalitytheoretic accounts of vowel harmony a rich inventory of theoretical devices
has been applied and developed to explain various aspects of vowel harmony like vowel transparency, cyclicity and phonological opacity, relating
to the question whether OT can be maintained as a non-derivational
parallelist framework. I claim that this theoretical wealth is unnecessary
and propose an account of the relevant patterns in terms of local constraint
coordination (Crowhurst and Hewitt 1997, It and Mester 1998, ubowicz
1999, Smolensky 1993, and others) and positional faithfulness (McCarthy
and Prince 1995, Beckman 1995, 1997, 1998). The phenomenon of vowel
harmony proves an especially fruitful field for the application and further
development of the theory of local constraint coordination, since it reveals
some of the limits of constraint interaction and how these interactions and
their restrictions can be motivated on external grounds. Moreover, this
book gives additional arguments for the treatment of assimilation as
syntagmatic correspondence (Krmer 1998, 1999, 2001).
The book is divided in two large parts. First, I will give an overview of
vowel harmony patterns (chapter 1), showing in particular that we have to
add the pattern of affix controlled harmony to the typology of vowel harmony. After this I will introduce the fundamentals of Optimality and Correspondence Theory (chapter 2). The introductory section is completed by
the basic outline of my own proposal (chapter 3). In the second part I will
apply the proposed theory to a range of languages. Each case study is intended to contribute a specific piece to the puzzle. Yoruba, Turkish, and
Dgma show us how root control works in languages with prefixation,
suffixation, and both types of affixation, respectively. They provide insights into the intertwining of phonological faithfulness and morphological
organisation. In Diola Fogni, this morpho-phonological interaction is
broadly ignored by the phonology itself. Futankoore Pulaar is an illustration
for the existence of the mirror image of root control, affix controlled
harmony, which was considered as unattested in the literature. To account

for this pattern we have to assume that a faithful realisation of affixes is
more important than faithful realisation of roots in the grammar of Pulaar, a
situation which was assumed to be non-existent by McCarthy and Prince
(1995). Finnish and Wolof are two well-known cases of vowel transparency, one displaying backness harmony, the other tongue root harmony.
Transparency is analysed as an effect of a local constraint conjunction of
OCP and harmony constraints. Finally, Hungarian, Yoruba, Nez Perce, and
Yawelmani all contribute a different aspect of phonological opacity to the
multifarious picture. In all these languages the underlying form of vowels,
though deviant from their surface form has an impact on the surface representation of their environment.
Acknowledgements
This book grew out of my work in Janet Grijzenhout's research project on
lexical phonology and constraint-based phonology at the Heinrich-HeineUniversitt Dsseldorf. An earlier version was submitted as my PhD thesis
to the faculty of philosophy at the Heinrich-Heine-Universitt Dsseldorf.
This book would have been much poorer without the help of many,
many people. Bits and pieces of this work were presented at the Manchester
Phonology Meeting, GLOW 2001 in Braga, Portugal, the 'Jordanstown Linguistics Day' 2001, the SFB conference 'The Lexicon in Linguistic Theory'
in Dsseldorf, 2001, various SFB colloquia in Dsseldorf and Wuppertal,
and at the 19th SCL in Troms, Norway, 2002 and improved through the
critical comments of the audiences. I would like to thank the organisers and
the participants of these conferences on this occasion. The participants of
the Forschungsseminar and the Phonologie-Zirkel at the Heinrich-HeineUniversitt Dsseldorf had to endure various presentations of earlier versions of the ideas and analyses in this book. In particular I would like to
thank Diana Apoussidou, Heather Goad, Dafna Graf, Wolfgang Kehrein,
Paul Kiparsky, Sebastian Lbner, Albert Ortmann, Alexandra Popescu,
Carsten Steins, Barbara Stiebels, Jeroen van de Weijer, Richard Wiese and
Dieter Wunderlich for all their appalling and encouraging comments, suggestions and questions. More than anybody else I have to thank Janet
Grijzenhout for her support and guidance, who read various versions of
every chapter and never gave up.
Thanks go also to Orla Lowry and Alison Henry for reading and correcting the pre-final version. Tnde Vallyon, her husband Miklos, Andrea
Velich, Chris Pion, and Tuulikki Virta kindly helped me with the Hungarian and Finnish data.
The Sonderforschungsbereich 282 "Theorie des Lexikons" and the
University of Ulster supported the research reported in this work.
Finally, a big hug for my family and friends, and particularly for
Emanuela and Alessio for their encouragement, support, and inspiration.
Of course, nobody of all these people is to blame for any errors or
misconceptions in this book. The responsibility lies with the author.
Abbreviations
Abbreviations of optimality theoretic constraints are listed with the
definitions of constraints in appendix I.
AC
AG.NOM
ATR
bk
C
Cx
CG
CLASS
CON
CT
dat.
DIM
DIM.PL
EVAL
F
GCat
GEN
hi
imp.
ind.
IPA
L
LC
LCC
LCD
lo
LPM-OT
m.
MCAT
neg.
NOM
OCP
ODT
OT
Association Convention
agentive nominaliser
Advanced Tongue Root
back
Consonant
Constraint
Clitic Group
noun class marker
constraint set
Correspondence Theory
dative
diminutive
diminutive plural
Evaluation function in OT
feature
Grammatical category
Generator function in OT
high
imperfective aspect
indicative
International Phonetic Alphabet
left
Local constraint conjunction
Local constraint conjunction
Local constraint disjunction
low
Lexical Phonology/Morphology- OT
masculine
morphological category
negation
nominative
Obligatory Contour Principle
Optimal Domains Theory
Optimality Theory
Abbreviations
PCat
pl.
pres.
Pwd
R
rd
RTR
SAF
seg.
sg.
SPE
V
Phonological category
plural
present tense
Prosodic/phonological word
right
round
Retracted Tongue Root
Stem-Affixed-Form Faithfulness
segment
singular
Sound Patterns of English
Vowel
xiii
Part I:
The phenomenon and the theoretical
background
Chapter 1
The first issue to be addressed in this work is, of course, identifying the
phenomenon of vowel harmony. Even though vowel harmony is one of the
standard examples of phonological feature interaction in almost every
introductory textbook on linguistics, whatever its theoretical orientation,
there is little consensus on which phenomena exactly may be labelled
'vowel harmony' and which ones do not deserve this name, or which
characteristic property sets vowel harmony apart from other types of phonological assimilation. On this issue, see for instance the discussion in
Clements (1976) and Anderson (1980). For the current purpose, a rather
rough statement will be fully sufficient. I regard vowel harmony as the
phenomenon where potentially all vowels in adjacent moras or syllables
within a domain like the phonological or morphological word (or a smaller
morphological domain) systematically agree with each other with regard to
one or more articulatory features. The presence of a certain feature specification (either underlyingly or in the surface form) on a vowel triggers a
systematic alternation in vowels which are in direct neighbourhood on the
syllabic or moraic level of representation with the result that the involved
vowels look alike with respect to the active feature.
(1) Vowel harmony
a. disharmony1
[+F] [-F]
b. harmony2
[+F]
[+F]
V
[+F]
This description even though very vague excludes many types of Umlaut,
where (as in German) a neutral affix vowel imposes fronting on the preceding root vowel. Consequently, I will have nothing to say about umlaut in
this work.
The generalisation that adjacent vowels agree with respect to a certain

feature is often overshadowed by other conflicting phonological wellformedness conditions in a given language. For one or the other reason certain
vowels may be excluded from harmony. They behave as neutral in that they
either do not undergo harmony, or do not trigger harmony in the neighbouring vowels, or reject both the role as trigger as well as that as a target of
harmony. One of the most discussed examples of an obscured harmony pattern is the vowel harmony found in Yawelmani (Archangeli 1985, Archangeli and Suzuki 1997, Cole and Kisseberth 1995, Dell 1973, Goldsmith
1993, Hockett 1973, Kenstowicz and Kisseberth 1977, 1979, Kisseberth
1969, Kuroda 1967, Lakoff 1993, McCarthy 1999, Newman 1944, Noske
1984, Prince 1987, Steriade 1986, Wheeler and Touretzky 1993) in which
the harmony requirement is obscured by the additional restriction that only
vowels of the same height have to agree in backness. A further complication results from the interaction of harmony with a pattern of vowel
lowering. Lowered vowels behave as if they were high vowels with regard
to harmony. As root vowels, they trigger agreement in high affix vowels
but not in low ones, which results in a surface violation of the height
restriction. I will go into the details of these patterns later.
The view of vowel harmony as given above still covers a large range of
phenomena attested in diverse languages scattered on all continents of the
earth. In the following I will briefly discuss which types of vowel harmony
occur with regard to the features that are affected (section 1.1.1), with
regard to the attested combinations of features (section 1.1.2), featural
interaction with consonants (section 1.2), the question within which domain
the process is found to apply (section 1.3), as well as other typological possibilities of distinguishing harmony systems, like the distinction between
systems containing opaque vowels (section 1.4.1) and those having transparent vowels (section 1.4.2), as well as the difference between root control
(or morphological control) and dominance (section 1.5). I hope to give the
reader an impression of the wide range of topics which relate to vowel harmony. I will first discuss those aspects of harmony which I will have nothing or little to say about in the remainder of this work, and afterwards I will
deal with those phenomena which are the central subjects of this study.
Harmonic features
1.1
Harmonic features
In this section, I will give a brief overview on which phonological features

can be active in harmony systems. The features which will be referred to in
the following are articulatorily based, as proposed by Chomsky and Halle
(1968).3 They denote the relative placement of the articulator in comparison
to its neutral position: [back], [high/low] refer to the relative placement
of the back of the tongue in the oral cavity, [ATR] specifies the position
of the tongue root (whether it is advanced or retracted), and [round],
specifies whether the lips are rounded during the articulation of a vowel or
not. This classification differs only slightly from that made in the International Phonetic Alphabet (revised to 1993, updated 1996), where the height
dimension is conceived of as the degree of opening of the articulatory apparatus, with the high vowels being 'close' and the low vowels being 'open' at
the ends of the continuum.4
(2) The IPA vowel chart
There are, however, other possibilities to express the differences and

similarities among vowels, such as, for instance, the Jakobsonian (1951)
feature inventory, which reduces all properties of vowels as well as consonants to the three features 'gravity', 'compactness', and 'diffuseness'. These
features are based on acoustic criteria. Another possibility is the reference
to the involved articulator or place of articulation as proposed by Clements
and Hume (1995). In utilising feature labels like 'labial', 'palatal', 'coronal',
and 'dorsal', again an attempt is made to unify vocalic and consonantal features, acknowledging the various ways of interaction among both segment
types. Yet another possibility is an analysis in terms of abstract primitives
or radicals which eventually combine to more complex vowels, as proposed
in work by Kaye, Lowenstamm and Vergnaud (e.g., 1985). They assume
the three radicals I, U, and A to be the basic abstract components to derive
all other vowels.
There are two reasons for not using the latter three choices here. The
first is mere convenience, driven by the fact that the SPE/IPA-style features
are used in most of the literature. The second reason is that I do not intend
to contribute any argument in favour of one or the other approach, even
though the feature geometric approach to unified consonantal and vocalic
features as well as privative feature theory will be touched upon, where
they are relevant for the current discussion (see in particular sections 1.2
and 1.6, respectively). Similarly, I will only briefly enter the discussion
whether features are organised hierarchically as in feature geometry
(Clements 1985, see in particular Odden 1991 on vocalic feature geometry)
or not (as in the unstructured matrices in Chomsky and Halle 1968).
Instead, I will work on the hypothesis that vocalic features may be anchored prosodically, rather than in any root nodes or segments, but even
this statement serves as a working hypothesis only.
After these clarifying remarks on the nature of assumed features I will
advance to the actual topic of this section, an overview of attested harmony
patterns in terms of the affected features.
1.1.1 Single feature harmonies
One type of harmony affects the dimension of backness or palatality. This
type of harmony can be found in the Finno-Ugric languages (Kiparsky
2000a), as well in Turkic languages, Caucasian languages, in the NorthAmerican language Yawelmani (or Yowlumne)5, in Chamorro (van der
Hulst and van de Weijer 1995 and references cited there), and in many
other languages. In the example below some Finnish words are listed which
contain exclusively front vowels (3a) or exclusively back vowels (3b).
Harmonic features
(3) Backness (or palatal) harmony in Finnish

a. Front vowel words
vkkr 'pinwheel'
kyr
pyt
'table'
tyhm
'curve'
'stupid'
b. Back vowel words

makkara 'sausage'
kaura
'oats'
pouta
'fine weather'
tuhma
'naughty'
(Ringen 1975, Kiparsky 1981, van der Hulst and van de Weijer 1995: 498)
Roundness (or labial) harmony is attested in Southern-Payute, KhalkhaMongolian and many Turkic languages (Kaun 1995a,b). Below I give an
example from Turkish. The vowel in the suffix alternates in accordance
with the root vowel in backness and roundness, but not height.
(4) Roundness harmony in Turkish (combined with backness harmony)
a. Unrounded words
b. Rounded words
kilim-im
'my carpet'
gl-m
'my rose'
ev-im
'my house'
ky-m
'my village'
'my girl'
kuV-um
'my bird'
kiz-im
'my goose'
koz-um
'my walnut'
kaz-im
(Kaun 1995: 79)
Languages displaying solely labial harmony seem to be quite rare or nonexistent (van der Hulst and van de Weijer 1995: 523). Usually labial
harmony occurs together with another type of harmony or is restricted to
vowels which accidentally agree with respect to a second feature like height
or backness.
Height harmonies are found predominantly among African languages.
The dimension of height is directly affected in Bantu languages like Shona
or Kikuyu. An example from Shona is given below. In the leftmost column
the first vowel of the affix is preceded by a nonhigh vowel (i.e., e or o) and
surfaces as e, while it surfaces as i in the other column where the affix
vowel is preceded by a high vowel (i.e., i or u).
(5) Shona height harmony

a. Nonhigh vowels
per-era
'end in'
son-era
'sew for'
vere1g-eka 'be numerable'
b. High vowels
ip-ira
'be evil for'
bvis-ika
'be easily removed'
tond-esa
om-esa
sek-erera
'make to face'
'cause to get dry'
'laugh on and on'
bvum-isa
pind-irira
'make agree'
'to pass right through'
(Beckman 1997: 1)
The position of the tongue root, with an advanced tongue root (ATR), as,
e.g., in the vowel [o], in opposition to a retracted tongue root (RTR), as in
the vowel [o], is the active feature in Niger-Congo languages (e.g. Yoruba,
Wolof, Fula, Diola Fogni) and many Nilo-Saharan languages (Kalenjin,
Pkot, Maasai, Luo). Below are listed some Yoruba words, which have
only mid vowels. In such words, all vowels have to have the same ATR
specification. Forms like *CeCo or *C(Co (with 'C' standing for any consonant) are not attested in Yoruba. They violate the harmony requirement
on the ATR specification of vowels in a word. With words containing high
or low vowels as well the Yoruba pattern is more complex as will be discussed in chapters 4 and 6.
(6) Yoruba ATR harmony among mid vowels
a. ATR words
b. RTR words
eb
'heap for yams'
(s(
'foot'
epo
'oil'
(ko
'pap'
ol
'thief'
ob(
'soup'
ow
'money'
oko
'vehicle'
(Archangeli and Pulleyblank 1989: 177)
Geographically isolated occurrences of tongue root harmony henceforth
'ATR harmony' can be found for example in Nez Perce, a native North
American language, as well as in the two Afro-Asiatic languages Somali
(Cushitic) and Tangale (Chadic) (see Hall et al 1973 for an overview of
ATR harmony systems in African languages, and Hall and Hall 1980 and
Anderson and Durand 1988 on Nez Perce).
Additionally, there are several types of harmony which involve other
features than vocalic place features. In particular we find nasal harmony
Harmonic features
and retroflex harmony (see van der Hulst and van de Weijer 1995: 525).
For reasons of thematic and theoretical restriction, I will not go into the
details of these phenomena. For work on nasal harmony the reader may
consult Cole and Kisseberth (1994), Walker (1996, 1998), and much of the
work of Glyne Piggott (1992, 1996 and elsewhere).
1.1.2 Multiple feature harmonies
Besides the types of harmony which involve only one feature, there are
some combinations of features attested. In multiple feature harmony,
agreement between vowels is not only required for feature x in a language
but also for feature y. This pattern must be distinguished from cases where
a vowel changes two features to be opportune to a harmony requirement on
only one of the two features because the vowel system lacks the respective
allophonic vowel which differs only with regard to the active feature.
Warlpiri and Yawelmani are such cases. Warlpiri (Nash, 1979, 1986, van
der Hulst and Smith, 1985, Sagey, 1990, Cole 1991, Inkelas, 1994, Berry,
1998) has only the three vowels i, u and a (Nash, 1986: 65). In Warlpiri,
suffixes agree with their lexical host in terms of roundness and backness, as
shown in (324a,b).
(7) Warlpiri harmony
a. kurdu-kurlu-rlu-lku-ju-lu
'child-Prop-Erg-then-me-they'
'as for the children, they are with me'
b. maliki-kirli-rli-lki-ji-li
'dog-Prop-Erg-then-me-they'
'as for the dogs, they are with me'
c. minija-kurlu-rlu-lku-ju-lu
'cat-Prop-Erg-then-me-they'
'as for the cats, they are with me'
(Nash 1986: 86 cit. op. Inkelas 1994: 291, Berry 1998: 139)
However, if we consider (324c) as well it emerges that the harmonic feature
has to be backness, since with the root-final vowel a, the harmonic suffixes
turn out with a back vowel, which is disharmonic with the root vowel in
10
roundness. The conclusion is that roundness harmony is just a by-product

of backness harmony, triggered by the limits of the vowel inventory. Warlpiri has neither a back unrounded high vowel nor a front rounded vowel. If
a nonlow vowel changes its backness specification in agreement with a
neighbouring vowel, it has to change its roundness specification as well,
because the system lacks a front rounded vowel as an allophone for the
back vowel and a back unrounded vowel as an allophone for the front unrounded vowel likewise.
In languages like Warlpiri, roundness harmony is triggered by the restricted vowel inventory, rather than by a harmony rule or a harmony constraint.6 In contrast to this a mixed harmony system is one in which
agreement of more than one feature is not a consequence of an impoverished vowel inventory. Among such multiple harmonies we can further
distinguish those in which separate rules or constraints require agreement
of two or more features from systems in which one rule or constraint operates on a set of features.
The most well-known case of vowel harmony affecting two features
may be the combination of backness with roundness harmony in Turkish
and other Turkic languages (see 4, on p. 7). All vowels in a Turkish word
have to agree in backness, while agreement on the feature roundness is restricted to high vowels only. Low vowels in affixes are never rounded even
if the preceding root vowel is rounded.7 This is illustrated with the plural
affix -ler/-lar below. In (8c,d,g,h), the suffix vowel in column 3 is preceded
by a round root vowel. Though it agrees with the root vowel in backness, it
does not with respect to roundness. The genitive suffix in the next column
has a high vowel which agrees with respect to both features.
(8) Turkish backness and roundness harmony
nom.sg.
nom.pl.
gen.sg.
gen.pl.
ip-in
ip-ljer-in
a. rope
ip
ip-ljer
b. girl
kz
kz-lar
kz-n
kz-lar-n
c. face
yz
yz-ljer
yz-n
yz-ljer-in
d. stamp
pul
pul-lar
pul-un
pul-lar-n
e. hand
elj
elj-ljer
elj-in
elj-ljer-in
f. stalk
sap
sap-lar
sap-n
sap-lar-n
kjy-ljer
kjy-n
kjy-ljer-in
g. village
kjy
h. end
son
son-lar
son-un
son-lar-n
(Clements and Sezer 1982: 216)
Harmonic features
11
In this case, roundness harmony is not triggered by the limits of the vowel
inventory, since Turkish has the rounded and unrounded variants of both
the high front vowels as well as those of the high back vowels.
That in Turkish backness harmony can occur without roundness harmony is an indicator that here two rules or constraints are operative. Odden
(1991) discusses Eastern Cheremis and Tunica in which both features can
be analysed as being subject to one rule or constraint only.
I am not aware of languages where roundness harmony and height harmony co-occur. In Yawelmani (Kuroda 1967), only those vowels harmonise which are of the same height. The restricted vowel inventory does not
allow a decision on whether roundness or backness is the harmonic feature.
If Yawelmani turns out to be a case of rounding harmony (which I doubt),
then this instance of harmony is at least tied to height harmony. Height harmony is no active process in this language, but if vowels agree in height,
then this agreement triggers rounding harmony.
Labial harmony may co-occur with ATR harmony, as attested in the
Niger-Congo language Dagaare (Bodomo 1997) or in Chumburung and Igbo (see van der Hulst and van de Weijer 1995, p. 523 and references cited
there). However, the few instances of roundness harmony combined with
ATR harmony are quite dubious in that the second harmonising feature
could also be backness instead of roundness.
Compare in this respect the examples from Dagaare, cited from Bodomo
(1997: 24). In Dagaare, the imperfective suffix -ro/ -ro/ -re/ -r(/ -ra alternates not only with respect to ATR but also with respect to roundness according to Bodomo. In (9a) we find words with round vowels only, while
the vowels in the words in (9b) are all nonround. At the same time, the suffix vowels alternate in backness. One of both alternations, i.e. either backness or roundness alternation, is triggered by the asymmetry of the vowel
system, which has only front unrounded and back rounded vowels, and
lacks front rounded as well as back unrounded vowels (with the exception
of the vowel D). Since the suffix vowel is forced to change always both
feature specifications (i.e., backness and roundness), in order to harmonise
with the preceding vowel with respect to one of the two features, it cannot
be determined whether the active feature is backness or roundness. The
usual case is that roundness harmony occurs only in systems with a
phonemic rounding contrast among both front as well as back vowels. The
same holds for ATR harmony. Systems which do not distinguish phonemically between ATR and RTR vowels are unlikely to display ATR
harmony. Dagaare lacks the rounding contrast, but, nevertheless, has a
12
contrast in the dimension of backness. So the active feature might also be

[back].
(9) Dagaare multiple feature vowel harmony
verb root
imperfective form
a. do
'to climb'
duoro
'climbing'
tu
'to dig'
tuuro
'digging'
ko
to get dry'
koro
'getting dry'
bo
mo
b8
'to look for'

'to wrestle'
'to discuss/plan'
b8oro
m8oro
b88ro
'looking for'
'wrestling'
'discussing/planning'
'to rain
'to discover'
'to grind roughly'
miire
piire
gbiere
'raining'
'discovering'
'grinding roughly'
s,,r,
1m(
kp(
'to touch'
'to beat'
'to enter'
s,,r(
1m,(r(
kp,(r(
'touching'
'beating'
'entering'
c. kpa
la
mar,
'to boil'
'to laugh'
'to paste'
kpaara
laara
mara
'boiling'
'laughing'
'pasting'
b. mi
piiri
gbe
The data in (9c) suggest that the feature height or lowness plays an active
role here as well, since the affix vowel surfaces as nonlow with nonlow
root vowels and as low with a low root vowel.
According to Akinlabi (1997), the language Kalabari (Niger-Congo)
displays an instance of restricted backness harmony combined with ATR
harmony. This language has no phonemic rounding contrast either. Kalabari, however, shows evidence that the second harmonising feature (besides
ATR) is backness, not roundness. The low vowel a combines with high
vowels of either backness value, but it is not found with instances of e in
adjacent syllables within a word. Since a can hardly be described as being
rounded Akinlabi concludes that the harmonically active feature has to be
backness.
A more straightforward example of a combination of height harmony
with ATR harmony can be found in the Bantu language Kimatuumbi
Harmonic features
13
(Odden 1991, 1996). Van der Hulst and van de Weijer (1995: 520, and
references cited there) mention Klao and Togo-remnant languages in this
respect as well. According to Odden, Kimatuumbi has a set of super high
vowels L and X, and a set of high vowels i and u, which are roughly equivalent to the sets i and u versus , and 8, which differ in their ATR specification (Odden 1991: 281, 1996: 5). The mid vowels e and o are lax, i.e.
RTR, and the low vowel D is retracted as well. Within a word, all vowels
have to agree with respect to ATR and height. The vowel D does not participate in this pattern. It occurs freely with all sorts of vowels. The pattern
can best be observed with the causative suffix -iy which surfaces as -iy, -,y,
or -(y, depending on the quality of the preceding root vowel in (10).
(10) Height and ATR harmony in Kimatuumbi
a. Root plus low affix vowel
b. Root plus nonlow affix vowel
t-a
'to pull'
t-iy-a
'to make pull'
yb-a
'to steal'
yb-iy-a
'to make steal'
y8y88t-a
'to whisper'
y8y88t-,y-a
'to make whisper'
b,,k-a
'to put'
b,,k-,y-a
'to make put'
goonj-a
'to sleep'
goonj-(y-a
'to make sleep'
ch((ng-a
'to build'
ch((ng-(y-a
'to make build'
kat-a
'to cut'
kat-iy-a
'to make cut'
(Odden 1991: 281)
Hyman (2002), citing data from Paulian (1986a,b, 2001), describes a
harmony pattern involving three features. Klo1, a Bantu language spoken
in southern Cameroon, displays a combination of ATR harmony with
front/backness harmony and rounding harmony. In the examples in (11),
the last vowel of the word alternates according to the ATR, backness and
roundness specification of the preceding vowel. Underlying /a/ can be
realised as either a, e, (, o or o depending on the context. (Note that the
vowel u in the prefix in all these words has no possible more harmonic
alternants, i.e., the vowels 8, y, <, , are not part of the Klo1 vowel
system. For this reason, the language allows disharmony between this
prefix and the root vowel.)
(11) ATR, backness and roundness harmony in Klo1
a. /k-tm-/
k-tm-
'creuser'
/k-fk-/
k-fk-
'fermer'
14
b. /k-fn-/
/k-s(l-/
k-fn-
k-s(l-(
'ddaigner'
'plucher'
c. /k-ps-/
/k-kok-/
k-ps-
k-kok-o
'aboyer'
'tirer'
d. /k-yn-/
k-yn-
'to play'
(Hyman 2002)
Complete copying of all vocalic place features from one vowel to the next
is observed in a variety of languages, such as, for instance, Yucatec Maya,
a native Central-American language (Krmer 1999, 2001) or Ainu, which is
spoken in Japan (It 1984). This instance of total harmony does not apply
across the board but is restricted to vowels in some morphemes only, as
illustrated by the data in (12). The imperfective and the subjunctive suffix
for intransitive verbs in (12a,b) always surface with the vowel quality of the
preceding root vowel, while the imperfective suffix for transitive verbs and
the perfective marker in (12c,d) have invariable feature specifications.
(12) Yucatec Maya complete harmony and disharmony:
a. Intransitive imperfective
b. Intransitive subjunctive
ah-ak
wake.up-SUBJ
ah-al
wake.up-IMPF
ok-ol
enter-IMPF
ok-ok
enter-SUBJ
lub'-ul
fall-IMPF
lub'-uk
fall-SUBJ
wen-el
sleep-IMPF
wen-ek
sleep-SUBJ
kim-il
die-IMPF
kim-ik
die-SUBJ
c. Transitive imperfective
yil-ik
see-IMPF
tsol-ik
explain-IMPF
put6-ik
hit-IMPF
d. Perfective
yil-ah
see-PERF
tsol-ah
explain-PERF
put6-ah
hit-PERF
(Krmer 1999: 184f.)
Since rounding is redundant in the vowel systems of languages like Ainu

and Yucatec, which have basically 5 vowels, disregarding length and tone,
(i, e, a, o, u), such instances of complete harmony can be described nonredundantly as affecting the dimensions of backness and height only (see
Krmer 2001, on Yucatec). One might argue, however, whether these patterns fall under the category of vowel harmony or should rather be treated
Harmonic features
15
as reduplication, since harmony applies only between the root vowel and a
few affix vowels and the process is not iterative. Given that this type of
complete harmony affects maximally one vowel in a word it could be
regarded as separate from vowel harmony, just as umlaut.
In the following paragraphs I will introduce harmony systems in which
only a subset of the vowel inventory is subject to a harmony requirement as
well as cases in which both the trigger and the target have to meet a criterion which activates the process.
1.1.3 Restricted harmonies
In many languages, vowel harmony applies only if the target and/or the
trigger of harmony meet certain criteria which can usually be defined in
terms of features which themselves are potential harmonic features. For
instance I have mentioned already that in Yawelmani vowels have to agree
in height in order for backness or roundness harmony to be applicable. The
affix -hin/ -hun is realised with the front high vowel when preceded by a
front high vowel and it has a back high vowel when preceded by a back
high vowel in (13a). In combination with a root containing a nonhigh
vowel, the high affix vowel invariably turns out as i (13b). The nonhigh affix vowel in (13c,d) agrees in backness and roundness only with nonhigh
root vowels. In combination with a high vowel in the root, it surfaces as D,
regardless of the backness/roundness specification of the root vowel.
(13) Yawelmani height uniform harmony
a. xil-hin
'tangles, non-future'
dub-hun
'leads by the hand, non-future'
b. xat-hin
bok'-hin
'eats, non-future'
'finds, non-future'
c. xat-al
bok'-ol
'might eat'
'might find'
d. xil-al
'might tangle'
dub-al
might lead by the hand'
(Cole and Kisseberth, 1995: 1f)
In Turkish, rounding harmony affects only high vowels. Only these vowels
alternate in their rounding specification in order to meet the rounding harmony requirement. Nonhigh affix vowels are invariably unrounded.
16
Kaun (1994) gives a typology of triggering factors for rounding harmony. She reports on languages where the undergoer of rounding harmony
must be a high vowel as in Turkish. Hixkaryana, Kachin and Tsou allow
rounding harmony only among high vowels. In Eastern Mongolian dialects,
Murut and Tungusic languages, both trigger and target must be nonhigh
vowels. Yakut allows rounding harmony only if trigger and target are of the
same height or if the target is a high vowel. In Chulym Tatar and
Karakalpak, rounding harmony applies among all front vowels, but among
back vowels the target must be a high vowel in order to show rounding
harmony. Kyzyl Khakass shows the same pattern of front vowels as the
latter two languages but is more restrictive with back vowels in that among
these trigger and target have to be high vowels. Finally, Kaun lists KirghizB and Altai where harmony applies unlimited among front vowels while
back vowels have to agree in height or the back target has to be a high
vowel.
Donnelly (2000) reports on Phuthi, a Bantu language, in which tongue
root harmony applies only among vowels of the same height. High vowels
agree in tongue root position with other high vowels, and mid vowels agree
with mid vowels, while the only low vowel is excluded from the pattern,
and neither high vowels trigger tongue root alternations in mid vowels nor
is the reverse the case. Tunica (Odden 1991) allows alternation to conform
to backness/roundness harmony only in low vowels.
What is most obvious from all these examples is that harmony patterns
are shaped by the dimension of height in most cases, and that the choice
between rounding and unrounding is more restricted in back vowels than in
front vowels.
1.1.4 Summary and discussion
So far we have seen which features can function as harmonic features and
which combinations of features are attested in the world's languages to
date. Chart (14) shows possible harmony types and possible combinations
of features in harmony. & marks attested types, while ' marks unattested
harmonies, and those harmony types of which no clear instances have been
found are indicated by a question mark.
Harmonic features
(14) Types of vowel harmony

a. Single feature harmonies
& Palatal or backness harmony
? Labial or Rounding harmony
& Height harmony
& Tongue root (ATR/RTR) harmony
& Nasal harmony
& Retroflex harmony
' Length harmony
b.
i.
ii.
iii.
iv.
v.
vi.
vii.
viii.
ix.
&
&
&
&
?
'
&
?
?
Feature combinations
backness + roundness
backness + height
backness + ATR/RTR
height + ATR/RTR
roundness + ATR/RTR
roundness + height
backness + roundness + ATR
backness + roundness +height
backness + height + ATR
17
example language
Finnish
Warlpiri?
Shona
Yoruba
Kikongo
example language
Turkish; Eastern Cheremis
Yucatec Maya (see also viii.)
Kalabari
Kimatuumbi
-Klo1
Yucatec Maya ?
Dagaare
The fact that roundness harmony predominantly co-occurs with backness

harmony, but not with height harmony and only in dubious cases with ATR
harmony, while height and ATR readily co-occur, has given rise to the
postulation of geometric hierarchies for vowel features in the literature.
Goad (1993) and Odden (1996) have argued for a height constituent
consisting of the two dimensions height and ATR/RTR, and Odden (1991)
has argued for a back/round, or 'colour' constituent within the theory of
feature geometry (Clements (1985).
(15) A feature geometric organisation of vocalic place features
X
height
ATR/RTR
high
colour
low
back
round
The idea behind such a representation is that according to association

conventions, a node is delinked from its root node (the X in the
18
representation above) and instead the root node is associated with a neighbouring node of the same type as the delinked node. Contrary to this
assumption it seems as if two-feature harmonies in many cases involve
separate actions, i.e. separate rules or separate instances of constraint interaction. The harmony pattern in a language like Warlpiri can quite elegantly
be analysed as double linking of the colour constituent, since vowels automatically change their roundness specification, when backness alternation
is required by the harmony rule or constraint. However such an analysis
either ignores the fact that the alternation of two features is triggered by the
restricted vowel inventory, or it accounts for this fact redundantly. Harmony systems like the Turkish one cannot be analysed by the assumption
of a rule affecting the whole colour node, since backness harmony applies
even if rounding harmony is blocked. We would expect a pattern where the
inapplicability of harmony with regard to one of the two features blocks
harmony of the other feature. Furthermore, with such a representation it
seems somewhat astonishing that backness harmony is paired with ATR
harmony in some instances.
From an articulatory perspective it seems only natural that height and
ATR/RTR harmony co-occur since it is more natural for low vowels to
have a retracted tongue root, while it is more natural for high vowels to
have an advanced tongue root position in the sense that the articulatory
gestures are easier to combine than the opposite combinations (i.e., low
plus advanced and high plus retracted respectively, realised by a movement
of two parts of the tongue into the opposite direction, and which should be
particularly inconvenient for the latter feature combination). Hall et al.
(1974) argue that it is also more natural for advanced vowels to be front
rather than to be back, which can also be explained on grounds of the involved articulatory movement of the different parts of the tongue. They cite
in this respect the example of Somali (as described in Tucker and Bryan
1966: 496), a language with ATR harmony in which all ATR vowels are
front, but vowels with retracted tongue root position occur as front and as
back. In this language all back vowels which are [+ATR] have become
fronted historically and retained their original rounding specification. The
result is the quirky vowel system in (16), which is asymmetric in the sense
that the ATR set lacks back vowels, while it is overcrowded with front
vowels, and the RTR set in contrast contains the basic set of front and back
vowels.
Harmonic features
(16) The Somali vowel system

ATR set
front back
high i,
mid e,
low
4
19
RTR set
front
back
,
8
(
o
a
The Somali harmony data in (17a) seen in isolation could mislead a linguist
to assume backness harmony to be at work here. The suffix vowel is back
with a back root vowel and front with a front root vowel. The data in (17b)
bring light into the misty scenery, which is obscured by the asymmetry of
the inventory. Here we see that it is not the backness of the root vowel
which triggers alternation in the affix vowel but rather the difference in
tongue root position in the root vowel which causes the alternation of the
low vowel from retracted to advanced tongue root, which is accompanied
by a backness alternation. In the first item in (17b), the root vowel is front,
but the affix vowel is disharmonically back. Thus, the harmonic feature
must be ATR/ RTR, not backness.
(17) Somali vowel harmony
singular
plural
a. sab
sab-o 'outcast'
'4d
'4d- 'piece of meat'
b. r((r-ka
gees-k4
'the village'
'the horn'
(Hall et al. 1974: 261)
From a historical perspective one might imagine that we see a system here
which is about to change from an ATR type of harmony to a mixed system,
including also backness harmony. If in a next historical step, the front retracted vowels are moved backwards to minimise the articulatory tension
between tongue root position and the position of the back of the tongue, as
well as to maximise the contrast between the pairs i ~ ,, and e ~ (, respectively, we end up with a system similar to that of Turkish. The backwards
movement of unrounded front vowels creates an apparent roundness
contrast among back vowels just as fronting of advanced rounded back
vowels has created an apparent rounding contrast within the set of front
vowels. Former ATR harmony can now be reinterpreted as backness
harmony. This is illustrated in the table in (18).
20
(18) Potential historical movement from ATR to backness

ATR set / front set
RTR set / back set
(front)
(back)
(front)
(back)
(,)
8
high
i,
(()
) o
mid
e,
low
4
a
With the observation as background that being front is articulatorily preferred among ATR vowels, the co-occurrence of ATR/RTR harmony with
backness harmony also seems to be more likely than the combination of
ATR/RTR harmony with rounding harmony.
Furthermore it can be observed in most vowel systems that front vowels
tend to be unrounded while the back vowels are usually rounded. This
interrelation of backness with roundness suggests that articulatorily it is
more likely that backness harmony combines with rounding harmony than
with height, and that roundness harmony is less prone to combine with
height harmony since the latter two features are largely independent from
each other (except the fact that the lowest vowel is rarely rounded).
In the chart below I listed the feature combinations which are articulatorily most convenient to be expressed on one segment, compared with the
most common feature combinations in multi-feature vowel harmony systems. The correlation is intriguing.
(19) Natural feature combinations
a. In single segments:
[ATR] & [high]
[ATR] & [-back]
[back] & [round]
b. In vowel harmonies:
ATR & height
ATR & backness
backness & roundness
To include the correlation of backness and roundness is not correct here if

we speak only of articulatorily natural pairs, since lip rounding and tongue
positioning are not physically related, in contrast to the physical troubles
caused by upward movement of the back of the tongue and downward
movement of the tongue root at the same time, which emerge during the
articulation of a high retracted vowel (i.e., 8 or ,). The universal correlation
between backness and roundness in five-vowel-systems may instead be the
result of contrast maximisation, either purely phonologically or also in
terms of sonority. Articulation in the backward part of the articulatory
apparatus combined with lip rounding maximally reduces the sonority of a
The role of consonants
21
vowel (Maas 1999), while the front unrounded vowels can be said to use all
feature dimensions except height to optimise sonority.
The low vowel D does not need to explore the backness dimension
because it already is maximally sonorous, the exhaled air has got the maximum space to escape. Fronting would be accompanied by raising and, thus,
reduce sonority in this case, whereas with all other vowels fronting increases sonority, as does spreading of the lips.
A drawback to this assumption is of course that usually a sonority hierarchy is assumed where D is more sonorous than e, which is more sonorous
than o which is more sonorous than i, which is more sonorous than u. According to the above argument, the sonority relation between o and i should
be the reverse.
Odden (1991) gives an argument from acoustic phonetics for his back/
round and height/ATR constituents. Backness and roundness are reflected
in the height of the second formant, while height and ATR have an impact
on the first formant. With respect to the back/round correlation also Kaun
(1993) observes that rounding lowers the second formant of a vowel and a
relatively low value of the second formant is the characteristic feature of
back vowels as well. Hence, (de)rounding enhances the backness contrast
(at least among nonlow vowels), in Kaun's view.
In short, there is a natural correlation of backness and roundness, but the
motivation might be different from that of the other featural correlations in
single segments as well as in harmony systems. I will leave this issue at this
point and move on to a brief discussion of the role of consonants in vowel
harmony.
1.2
The role of consonants in vowel harmony
Consonants may participate in various ways in vowel harmony. Van der

Hulst and van de Weijer (1995) list three basic types of consonantal interference: Consonants may alternate in their secondary place specification in
accordance with the surrounding vowels; they may influence the vowel harmony pattern by their secondary place feature; or they may influence the
harmony process by their primary place feature. I would like to add one
more type of intervention: consonants may also entirely block the harmony
process.
The most harmless case is consonants alternating in their secondary
articulation in agreement with the surrounding harmonic vowels. Van der
22
Hulst and van de Weijer cite as an example the language Bashkir, which
has backness and roundness harmony. In words with front vowels only,
dorsals are realised as velar, and in words with back vowels, the dorsal
consonants are uvular. Turkish is slightly more complicated. It has the
palatal and non-palatal variants of the consonants k, g, and l (Clements and
Sezer 1982: 233f.). There are minimal pairs among stems which only differ
in the palatality of one of these consonants. However, most of these consonants agree in palatality with the vowel with which they share a syllable.
Some disharmonic stem-final consonants behave less harmlessly: they
trigger palatal assimilation to their specification in following affixes. Alternation of the primary place feature is found for instance in the interaction of
consonants and vowels in Warlpiri. Labial consonants are always followed
by u in this language (van der Hulst and van de Weijer p. 529, Berry 1998).
A case where consonants shape the vowels of the whole word can be
found in Coeur d'Alene (Doak, 1992, Mithun, 1999, and references there).
Coeur d'Alene has a set of 'faucal' consonants (T, T
, Tw, T
w, [. , [. w, ,
, w,
w,
r. , r
. ), which cause retraction or lowering in preceding vowels. The pattern is
illustrated in (20). The vowels which change to conform with the retraction
of the consonant are underlined, triggers are boldfaced.
(20) Coeur d'Alene
a. c-t
c(-alTw
'it is long'
'he is tall'
i/(
b. [. (c-p
t-[. $c-[. c-us
'he became curious'

'he has curious eyes'
(/$
c. s-tpm-lxw
s-pom-$lqs
'hide with fur'

'fur coat'
u/o
(Doak 1992: 3-4)
In these examples, i is retracted or lowered to (, ( is retracted to $, and u is

retracted to o when followed by one of the faucal consonants. The fact that
( can be the output of harmony derived from underlying /i/, while ( is itself
lowered to $ suggests that this is a kind of chain shift operation and thus
slightly different from what was conceived of as vowel harmony here.
The last type of consonantal interference is blocking. In Yucatec Maya,
the harmony pattern exemplified above in (12) is blocked when more than
one consonant stands between trigger and target. In this case the affix
vowel always surfaces as D, regardless of the quality of the intervening
The role of consonants
23
consonants. Krmer (2001) proposes a prosodic analysis in which

consonants in moraic position can block harmony, because the process
applies between adjacent moras. Consonants in onset position are transparent because they are not moraic and, hence, neither trigger nor target of
harmony.
In Tunica, back and round harmony targets low vowels only. Harmony
may spread through laryngeal consonants (i.e., glottal stop and h) but is
blocked by all other consonants (Odden 1991: 275). There are different
possibilities to handle this instance of blocking. One may assume that in
Tunica vowel harmony goes from place node to place node and therefore is
blocked by all consonants except those that lack a place node (i.e., laryngeals), while in other languages vowel harmony applies at the level of the
syllable head, and is thus not blocked by consonants (Archangeli and
Pulleyblank 1987). Odden proposes to explain the data by assuming a condition on the target of harmony in Tunica. Targets must be [+low] in his
view, which is the feature that unites low vowels and laryngeal consonants.
Clements and Hume (1995) propose a feature geometry in which vowels
and consonants are characterised by the same place features. They only
differ in that the consonantal place node is closer to the root node, while for
vowels an additional vocalic place node is inserted in the hierarchy between
C-place node and the actual place features.
(21) Unified feature geometry for vowels and consonants
a. Consonants
b. Vocoids
oral cavity
vocalic
[continuant]
aperture
C-place
V-place
...
[labial]
[labial]
[coronal]
[coronal]
[dorsal]
[dorsal]
(Clements and Hume 1995: 276)
To my knowledge there have been found no clear instances of consonants

triggering harmony in entire words, that is, for example, an instance where
a word-initial consonant determines roundness or palatality in all following
consonants and vowels in the word. From the absence of such a pattern and
from the absence of long-distance spreading of consonantal place features,
24
N Chiosin and Padgett (1997) conclude that assimilation applies strictly

locally from segment to segment.
In their view, there are different place features for vowels and consonants. Vocalic place features can be linked to consonants as secondary articulations, while consonantal place features would also impose consonanthood on a vowel if linked to it (the 'bottleneck effect' in their terminology).
Thus, assimilation of a vowel to consonantal place features would turn the
vowel into a consonant, resulting in a vowel-less segment chain, which
cannot be syllabified. A labial consonant which triggers rounding in a following vowel should have a vocalic place feature labial in addition to its
consonantal place feature labial, then, in order to be able to trigger rounding in the following vowel. Technically, also nonlabial consonants should
be able to bear the vocalic labiality feature and trigger rounding in adjacent
vowels, which is unattested so far.
Besides the lack of evidence for harmony over an entire word triggered
by a consonant there is clear evidence of the featural interaction of vowels
and consonants, such as palatalisation for instance. Such interactions could
likewise be analysed as treating the intersegmental features as syllabically
licensed or as effects of a unified feature geometry for vowels and consonants.
I will depart here from these issues and devote the next passages to the
question of in which domain the process of vowel harmony applies.
1.3
The domain of harmony is usually conceived of as that of the prosodic or

morphological word or a smaller morphological unit. This distinguishes
vowel harmony from other assimilatory processes like voicing assimilation
or tone sandhi, which both go over word boundaries and apply within
phrases. Likewise, this equates vowel harmony with consonantal place
assimilation, which also does not apply beyond word boundaries crosslinguistically.
There are a few cases in which vowel harmony takes place in a larger
domain than that of the word. According to Hall et al. (1974: 261), the
harmony process in Somali covers entire clauses. The clauses in (22a,b)
differ in that (22a) has only retracted vowels and (22b) has advanced
vowels only. The alternation is triggered by one of the two last elements,
25
s4 meyei. According to Hall et al., the harmony pattern of the whole clause
is shaped by the last element, the verb in both cases.
(22) Somali clause harmony
a. b(ra '8s8b ba lo b(ra,
'New gardens were cultivated for them'
b. ber4 'sb b4 l s4 meyei
'New gardens were made for them'
(Hall et al. 1974: 261)
Cahill and Bodomo (2000) found that particles in Konni agree with their
syntactic host with respect to the feature ATR, and that here the syntactic
configuration is crucial rather than any morphological or prosodic category.
In Finnish, harmony is restricted to the same domain as stress assignment and syllabification. Main stress is assigned to the first syllable of a
word. Since Finnish is a suffixing language, the stress-bearing unit is always the first syllable of the root. Proclitics, which do not influence the
placement of stress, only participate in vowel harmony in fast speech
(Skousen 1975). From the inactive behaviour of clitics with regard to both
processes, it can be concluded that the domain of vowel harmony coincides
with that of the prosodic word in Finnish.
In Turkish, the issue is a little more complicated. Harmony affects all
affixes, but also postclitics, which are clearly outside the domain of stress
assignment (Kabak and Vogel 2000, in press). Kabak and Vogel (2000)
base their claim that Turkish harmony applies rather within the domain of
the Clitic Group (Nespor and Vogel 1986) than within the prosodic word
on the participation of clitics in harmony. Some affixes in Turkish block the
harmony process and start their own harmonic domain. These affixes behave irregularly with regard to stress assignment as well. On the basis of
this observation Kabak and Vogel (in press) argue that vowel harmony in
Turkish simply goes from an underlyingly specified vowel up to the next
specified vowel. It remains an open question in this analysis why disharmonic affixes are also irregular with respect to stress assignment.
Problematic for a clearer definition of the domain of vowel harmony is
also the fact that in most languages compounds consist of as many harmonic domains as compound members. If each of these stems also constitutes a single domain of syllabification and stress assignment of its own one
may again posit the prosodic word as the domain of vowel harmony. In
derivational accounts, the autonomy of each compound member is seen as
26
evidence for the claim that vowel harmony is a lexical process while
compounding applies post-lexically.
Van der Hulst and van de Weijer (1995) argue that because disharmonic
affixes often do not constitute a prosodic unit of their own with regard to
syllabification, and because of the fact that in many languages we find
many roots which have disharmonic vowels, vowel harmony refers to some
morphological unit and happens somewhere within the morphological derivation. If vowel harmony is indeed linked to the morphology, this may be
an indication on the function of vowel harmony. One possible function
could be to mark certain morphological boundaries to deliver a cue for the
listener in the interpretation of speech. Vroomen, Tuomainen and de Gelder
(1998) report that Finnish test persons find it easier to detect word boundaries if there is a mismatch in vowel harmony preceding them than without such a mismatch. From their comparison of word detection tasks performed by Finnish, Dutch and French test persons, they conclude that stress
as well as vowel(dis)harmony are language-specific cues to the retrieval of
word boundaries.
The other often claimed motivation behind vowel harmony is simply
ease of articulation. This would explain why in Finnish fast speech for example the harmony domain is extended to the proclitics.
Now that I have discussed the basic issues of which features can be active in harmony, whether the phenomenon is restricted to vowels or not and
in which domain it applies, it is time to move to those aspects of vowel harmony which will be central for this book.
1.4
Under certain circumstances a word may consist of two harmonic stretches

with different specifications of the harmonic feature, or a sequence of harmonic vowels may be interrupted by one or more vowels. Such patterns are
usually triggered by vowels which are referred to in the literature as opaque
vowels and transparent / neutral vowels, respectively.
There is, however a third type of vowel which behaves as phonologically opaque in that the neighbouring vowel always has to have the feature
specification antagonistic to that of this triggering vowel. I will refer to
such vowels as Trojan vowels and discuss them in section 1.4.3. In subsection 1.4.3 also those vowels are addressed which allow for free variation
in the neighbouring vowel. For ease of reference I will call them 'hybrids'.
27
This section starts with an introduction to opaque vowels (1.4.1), goes on

with transparent vowels (1.4.2), and then turns to Trojan and hybrid vowels
in the remaining subsection.
1.4.1 Opaque vowels
Opaque vowels resist assimilation to the feature specification of the adjacent potentially triggering vowel. Instead, opaque vowels start a new harmonic domain with their own feature specification. This is why they are
called opaque: the harmony process stops in front of these vowels and cannot permeate through them. As an example I will take the low vowel D in
Tangale, a language with ATR harmony (van der Hulst and van de Weijer
1995: 496f.).
(23) Tangale harmony (a) and the Tangale opaque vowel (b,c,d)
a. 18ld(d(
'dog'
b. n kas-ko
'I have cut'
seb-u
'look' (imp.)
a-no
'my belly'
k(n-8
'enter' (imp.)
war-8
'go' (imp.)
tug-o
'pounding'
w8d-o
'farming'
c. top-a
top-a
peer-na
p(d-na
la-pido
la-18ld(d(
'start' (nom.)
d. ped-na-n-go
'untied me'
'answer' (nom.)
peer-na-n-go 'compelled me'
'compelled'
ob-na-g-g8 called you' (pl.)
'untied'
ib-na-m-g8 'cooked for us'
'tree' (dim.)
kulag-do
'her frying pan'
'dog' (dim.)
(van der Hulst and van de Weijer 1995: 497)
In (23a), we see that affixes, such as u/8 and o/o, alternate in their ATR
specification in accordance with the adjacent root vowel. (23b) illustrates
the triggering capacity of the low vowel D in case it is a root vowel and is
followed by a potential undergoer of harmony. (23c) shows that root
vowels do not assimilate to the low vowel, regardless of whether the low
vowel precedes the potential target vowel in the root or follows it. Finally
(23d) shows that when the low vowel is preceded by a disharmonic root
vowel, the vowel following the low vowel agrees with the low vowel,
rather than with the root vowel, with regard to ATR. The low vowel is
28
opaque in the sense that the ATR spreading action or harmony rule cannot
pass through it. Instead, the opaque vowel initiates a new harmonic domain.
This is rather trivial and gives evidence for the theoretical claim that
harmony applies somehow locally in that it affects adjacent vowels only.
However, this fact can also be used as evidence for serial derivation of
output forms or the directionality of vowel harmony.
The issue becomes more interesting when another kind of harmony,
namely affix-controlled harmony (to be introduced in section 1.5) is considered in chapter 3.6. The behaviour of opaque vowels in such a system
reveals that vowel opacity is anything else but evidence for serial or cyclic
derivation. However, I will postpone this discussion to the indicated chapters and go on with transparent vowels.
1.4.2 Transparent vowels
Transparent vowels, in contrast to opaque vowels, pose a problem for the
assumption that phonological feature assimilation is local per se. A transparent vowel is one that is immune to assimilation as well, but instead of
initiating its own harmonic domain to one side, the vowel lets the harmonic
feature specification 'pass through' from one side and affect the vowel to its
other side.
Regard in this respect the examples from Wolof. Wolof has ATR harmony like Tangale, which is illustrated by (24a). High vowels trigger advancement of the tongue root in affix vowels (24b). If a high vowel intervenes between two nonhigh vowels, the rightward nonhigh vowel is not affected by its direct neighbour but surfaces with the ATR specification of
the far away nonhigh vowel (24c).
(24) Wolof harmony and transparency
a. r(r-on
'had dinner'
rer-on
'was lost'
b. gis-e
sul-e
nir-o
jit-le
'to see in'

'to bury with'
'to look alike'
'to help with'
(Pulleyblank 1996: 320f.)
c. t(r-uw-on 'welcomed'
t(k-ki-l(n 'untie!'
29
The high vowels are transparent in that they are skipped by harmony.
Progressive assimilation proceeds on the right side of these vowels notwithstanding their antagonistic feature specification. This phenomenon has led
phonologists to a variety of assumptions about the nature of phonological
features and their interaction in the generation of speech. In his summary of
the main types of analysis applied to transparency, Bakovi (2000) lists
three basic approaches.
One group of authors simply abandons the assumption of locality and
assumes that the harmony process literally skips the transparent vowels
(i.e., Anderson 1980, Archangeli and Pulleyblank 1987, Booij 1984, Cole
and Kisseberth 1994, Ka 1988, Kiparsky 1981, Ringen 1975, Smolensky
1993, Spencer 1986, Steriade 1987, Vago 1988). These types of analysis do
not acknowledge, however, that most instances of phonological feature
assimilation are indeed strictly local, like consonantal place assimilation,
and that even vowel harmony respects certain restrictions on the distance in
which the process applies.
In the account of Calabrese (1995), and Halle, Vaux and Wolfe (2000)
for instance, it is assumed that harmony is not spreading of the harmonic
feature from segment to segment, feature node to feature node, or feature
bearer to feature bearer, but rather applies only to those segments which are
contrastively specified for the harmonic feature.
(25) Locality of harmony with a contrastive feature
X
Y
(Halle, Vaux and Wolfe 2000: 399)8
[back]
where
(or [ATR])
X = a segment contrastively specified for [back] (or [ATR])
Y = a segment that can bear a [back] (or [ATR])
specification
Any transparent vowel Z could be placed between segments X and Y in the

diagram (25) without blocking the spreading of [back] or [ATR], because
of Calabrese's (1995) and Halle, Vaux and Wolfe's (2000) assumption that
the transparent vowels do not bear the harmonic feature. They do not contrast with respect to backness (in the case of Uyghur, which is discussed in
Halle, Vaux and Wolfe). Applied to our example of Wolof, given in (24),
30
this means that the two high vowels are ignored by the rule spreading
[ATR] because they do not bear this feature contrastively.
The difference between languages with transparent vowels and languages with opaque vowels then lies in the exact formulation of the spreading rule. We will see below in chapter 6 that Yoruba high vowels are
opaque to ATR harmony and that the Hungarian high front vowel is opaque
to backness harmony. The difference between these two languages and
Wolof and Finnish (which displays backness harmony with transparent i
and e, see chapter 5), respectively, then lies in the different definition of the
trigger and target in the spreading rules of each language. The spreading
rule operative in Wolof and Finnish applies to contrastively specified
vowels only, while the respective spreading rule in Yoruba and Hungarian
has to apply to all segments specified for the harmonic feature.
Though this account saves at least a relativised notion of locality, it
raises the question why languages should make such a subtle difference in
their rules at all. A further question arising in the context of this analysis is
why the low vowel which served as an example of an opaque vowel in (23)
does not behave as transparent in many languages (see also the behaviour
of the low vowel in Akan; Clements 1976).9 Either such a low vowel is repaired with another nonhigh vowel, which does not exactly match the feature profile of the low vowel or it behaves as opaque to the harmony process. The last objection is tied to the role of the transparent vowel in the
harmony process. In such an analysis, the vowel is not only transparent, it
is also inactive as a trigger (i.e., it is supposed to be completely neutral).
Thus, we would expect that alternating affix vowels would surface with
their underlying feature specification when preceded by a transparent/
neutral vowel only. As will be shown in chapters 5 and 6, such 'transparent/
neutral' vowels impose severe restrictions on their environment, which runs
counter to the prediction made by such accounts.
A similar idea underlies accounts in which vowel transparency is seen
entirely as an effect of different representations for the different vowels. A
theory of this kind is advocated by van der Hulst and Smith (1986) for instance. Since they attempt to explain the behaviour of Trojan vowels as
well with their theory I popstpone discussion of this account until after the
introduction of these vowels.
In the second type of approach feature copying is assumed instead of a
spreading device (Archangeli and Pulleyblank 1994, Pulleyblank 1996).
The copying mechanism assumed by Pulleyblank (1996) crucially relies on
featural alignment constraints. I will argue later that the device of featural
31
alignment is not appropriate to handle phonological feature assimilation,

since it is not capable to account for both, vocalic as well as consonantal
assimilation.
The third strand explores the possibility that transparency involves derivational opacity in one or the other sense. In derivationalist transformational accounts the harmony rule changes the feature specification of the
transparent vowel by agreement with the neighbouring vowel to one side.
At this stage the transparent vowel has a form which is unattested in surface
forms. The transparent vowel itself then triggers assimilation of the vowel
to its other side. In a later step of derivation, the harmonic feature of the
transparent vowel is set back to its initial state by further rule application.
This is the classical case of the Duke-of-York-Gambit (Pullum 1976) or
phonological opacity (Kiparsky 1971, 1973).
(26) Wolof transparency as derivational opacity:
Input /t((r-uw-oon/
Vowel harmony
1. /u/ 8/V[-ATR]_, 2. /oo/ oo/V[-ATR]_
t((r-8w-oon
Repair
8u
Output [t((r-uw-oon]
Instances of phonological opacity have always been regarded as the most
important argument in favour of serialist derivations of linguistic structures.
One approach to model phonological opacity within Optimality Theory
without reference to different steps of derivation is Sympathy Theory
(McCarthy 1999), which will be discussed in more detail below in chapters
5 and 6. However, as Bakovi (2000) points out, the failure of such an
account is that it still crucially refers to more representations than just the
input and the output. Even though Sympathy Theory does away with the
assumption of intermediate representations between input and output, it
relies on faithfulness relations between the output and specific failed candidates. Furthermore, as will become clear in section 5.3, in the theoretical
boundaries set by McCarthy, the type of opacity displayed by transparency
is technically intractable in Sympathy Theory.
Bakovi (2000) and Bakovi and Wilson (2000) model transparency as
an effect of constraint targeting and cumulative candidate evaluation.
Under this account candidates are not compared as a whole set, as usual,
but pairwise constraint by constraint. A certain targeted constraint imposes
32
an ordering on selected pairs of candidates, which is compared to the

pairwise candidate orderings of other lower ranked constraints.
The more plausible nontechnical intuition behind this is that the grammar, no matter on which dubious paths, selects the candidate as optimal
which resembles most the completely harmonic form. To put it simple, in a
case like Wolof, the phonologically opaque form with a transparent high
vowel t(ruwon is chosen as optimal because it looks more like the completely harmonic form *t(r8won than the phonologically transparent form
with an opaque high vowel *t(ruwon.10 Seen from this perspective constraint targeting is the same as stepwise candidate evaluation in the sense of
Kiparsky's (1999) LPM-OT, where three chronologically ordered stages of
evaluation are assumed and candidates are always in direct correspondence
with the output of the preceding stage that serves as the input for the stage
actually at work. More detailed discussions of the Sympathy approach as
well as the targeted constraints analysis will follow the analyses of transparent vowels in chapter 4.
In the current work I will go into an entirely different direction in the
analysis of transparent vowels. The basic idea is that these vowels are not
deficient or excluded from vowel harmony, but rather that by their
asymmetry with regard to the vowel system, they receive a special status.
This special status enables these vowels to impose a rigid requirement on
their environment. These vowels either agree with both surrounding vowels
or they disagree with both. An imbalanced state of affairs where the 'transparent', or better balanced, vowel agrees with one neighbour and disagrees
with the other with respect to the harmonic feature is excluded. This will be
formalised quite straightforwardly as an instance of local constraint conjunction in chapter 3 and will later be applied to Finnish and Wolof in
chapter 5.
One may categorise languages now into those having opaque vowels,
those with transparent vowels, and those which have both. Turkish and
Tangale for instance have opaque vowels, while Finnish and Wolof have
transparent vowels apart from fully harmonic vowels. The latter, Wolof,
additionally has an opaque vowel. The long low vowel is immune to harmony and triggers alternation to RTR in the following vowel (see 27,
especially c). Wolof, thus, has both transparent vowels and an opaque
vowel.11
(27) The Wolof low long vowel

a. xar-(
'to wait in'
jay-l(
'to help sell'
b. yab-at-(
wow-al(
'to lack respect for'

'to call also'
c. dor-at-(
genn-al(
33
'to hit usually'

'to go out also'
(Pulleyblank 1996: 316)
Apart from opaque and transparent vowels there is, however, a third and
fourth type of vowel which display a remarkable behaviour with regard to
their neighbours, viz. the one group systematically disagrees with its neighbour, while the other causes free alternation in adjacent potentially harmonic vowels. These vowels may be best illustrated with an example from
Hungarian.
1.4.3 Trojans and Hybrids
Hungarian displays backness harmony, but lacks the back alternant to the
two front nonlow vowels i and e. Usually, vowels following one or more of
these two vowels in a word have the backness specification of the vowel
preceding the neutral or transparent one.
In some mono-syllabic roots which contain one of these two vowels, the
vowel triggers the front alternant of potentially harmonic suffix vowels to
surface (28a), which is just what one would expect since the triggering
vowel is a front vowel as well. In other mono-syllabic roots containing one
of the two vowels under discussion, the suffix vowels occur as back (28b),
which is quite astonishing at first sight, since this creates a harmony mismatch. In a third group, the same suffix vowels occur sometimes as back
and sometimes as front (28c).
(28) Hungarian strange vowels
root
gloss
adess.
a. kz
'hand'
kznl
film
'film'
filmnl
b. hd
cl
'bridge'
'aim; target'
ablative
hdtl
cltl
34
c. pozitv
balk
'positive'
'fool, greenhorn'
delative
pozitvrl /
pozitvrl
balkrl /
balkrl
adessive
pozitvnl /
pozitvnl
balknl /
balknl
(Olsson 1992: 79)
The first group of vowels is rather unspectacular, while the other two are
more interesting. In a serialist approach, the 'neutral' vowels in (28b) can be
analysed as underlyingly back and harmony is assumed to occur at a stage
where the vowel still has its underlying feature specification. After the
application of harmony, the triggering vowel is changed from [+back] to
[-back] by another rule. In an alternative non-serialist view, Ringen and
Vago (1998) posit a floating feature [+back] as belonging to the respective
root.
In reminiscence of the former view I will refer to these vowels as
'Trojan vowels', since superficially they look like peaceful front vowels,
which is not what they really are, and they 'invade' their neighbour by imposing their underlying feature specification on this target vowel. Under
this view they are of the same type as a particular class of vowels in Yawelmani, which apparently contradict the generalisation that harmony applies
only to height-uniform vowels. These vowels are long low vowels which
trigger harmony in adjacent high vowels but not in low ones. The pattern is
exemplified and analysed in more detail in chapter 6, section 4.
The group of Hungarian vowels in (28c) behaves as hybrid, and these
stems are labelled as 'vacillating stems' in the literature (see Olsson 1992).
Such data suggest two treatments, either they might be underspecified or
we have to store two separate items for each stem, one with a back and one
with a front vowel underlyingly. Under the first analysis one might wonder
why the backness specification of the preceding non-neutral vowels does
not simply permeate through the underspecified item. Therefore I opt for
the second choice, i.e., that two variants of the respective stems are stored
in the lexicon.
Trojan vowels occur in systems with opaque vowels (Yoruba), as well
as in systems with transparent vowels. I should add here that the existence
of transparent vowels in Hungarian becomes questionable on the grounds
of the analysis proposed in chapter 6. This, however, is rather a side effect.
The basic analysis of Trojan vowels will follow the path provided by that of
balanced (i.e., transparent) vowels in that the behaviour of Trojan vowels
35
will be shown an effect of local constraint conjunction. This allows us to

dispense with any variety of serialist account of this phenomenon, as well
as to abandon assumptions like floating features or similar devices.
1.5
Harmony systems can also be categorised according to the morphophonological characteristics of the triggering and the target vowels.
Along these lines harmony systems are traditionally divided in rootcontrolled versus dominant-recessive patterns. In this section I would like
to add the pattern of affix-controlled harmony to this typology and finally
draw attention to stress-driven harmony as well.
Most examples which have been given in this introduction so far have
been of the root controlled type. In this type of harmony, the specification
of the harmonic feature is induced on the whole word by one of the root or
stem vowels, if there is no opaque vowel. Such opaque vowels shape only
those vowels which are more marginal in the word than the opaque vowel
itself. In these systems it never happens that an affix vowel determines the
quality of a root or stem vowel, and any vowel situated between a root
vowel and an opaque affix vowel with a conflicting feature specification
always gets the specification of the root vowel.
In the affix controlled type of harmony, which is also sensitive to the
categorical status of the morpheme the triggering vowel belongs to, it is the
affix vowels which systematically trigger harmony. In affix-controlled
harmony, the vowel between triggering affix vowel and opaque vowel
always harmonises with the affix vowel. Anderson (1980) states that "there
are apparently no systems in which suffixes exclusively control harmony".
McCarthy and Prince (1995) claim that affix-controlled harmony is impossible as an effect of the universal meta-ranking of root faithfulness over affix faithfulness. Bakovi (2000) excludes this pattern in his OT account of
vowel harmony. However, Noske (2001) argues that Turkana is just of that
type. Here, Fula (as reported in Paradis 1992 and Breedveld 1995) will
serve to illustrate this kind of harmony, because it is a much more straightforward case. Before coming to this pattern I will discuss markedness
driven dominance.
In dominant-recessive systems, in contrast to morphologically controlled ones, the categorial status of the morpheme bearing the triggering
vowel plays no role at all. In such systems, one feature specification is
36
dominant, and if it occurs in one morpheme the whole word has to look the
same. The language is not sensitive to whether the morpheme containing
the dominant feature specification is a root or an affix.
In Kalenjin, for instance, the dominant feature is [+ATR]. If all morphemes contain only retracted vowels, these surface as such (29a), but if
only one morpheme, regardless whether it is an affix or a root, contains an
advanced vowel, this vowel triggers tongue root advancement in all other
vowels (29b,c). In (29b) the root kHr contributes the advanced tongue root
position, which alters the ATR specification in the other vowels. In (29c) it
is the suffix -e which causes the alternation from retracted to advanced
tongue root in the other vowels, including the stem vowel as well.
(29) Kalenjin ATR harmony
a. K,$k(r
DIST.PAST 1SG shut
b. K,DIST.PAST
c. K,DIST.PAST
$kHr
1SG See
[k,$g(r]
'I shut it'
-m
2SG
$k(r -e
1SG Shut NON.COMPL.
[kingHrin]
'I see you(sg.)'
[kingere]
'I was shutting it'
(Bakovi 2000: 52)
In this context, also the question arises which feature (specification) it is

that spreads. Is ATR or RTR the relevant feature in Kalenjin? From the
point of view that harmony is a kind of neutralisation and neutralisation
goes always from the marked to the unmarked value of a feature, one has to
conclude that it is the feature Retracted Tongue Root which is active in
Kalenjin, rather than Advanced Tongue Root. Under this view [+RTR]
vowels are marked and remain as such if no unmarked feature value is present in a word. If one vowel lexically contributes [-RTR], the unmarked
feature value, this is extended onto all other vowels reducing the overall
markedness of the word in question.
A further issue that arises here with regard to the nature of phonological
features is whether some or all features are privative or binary. Privative
features do not have a two valued possibility of specification as either
minus- or plus-valued. They are either absent or salient. Under a privative
view (on ATR/RTR as privative features see the work of Pulleyblank for
instance), RTR cannot be the active feature in Kalenjin, because any RTR
37
which is salient on a feature bearer would be extended via spreading to all

other vowels. If RTR is absent (i.e., on advanced vowels) there is nothing
that can spread or cause the neighbouring vowels to look the same. For
instance in the privative system proposed by Kaye, Lowenstamm and Vergnaud (1985) and van der Hulst and Smith (1986) the radical for the tongue
root dimension is A, representing advancement of the tongue. Van der
Hulst and Smith's analysis of dominant-recessive ATR harmony holds that
dominant vowels contribute the A feature which spreads to all the other
featureless vowels. If this feature theory were correct we would not expect
the reverse picture in any language. Dominance of RTR should not occur.
There are however languages, such as Nez Perce (Aoki 1966, 1970, Bakovi 2000) which seem to be of that type. In Nez Perce a single vowel with a
lexically retracted tongue root causes retraction in all other vowels in the
word. For Nez Perce one would have to introduce a parameter which
chooses either A or R as the ATR feature for each language.
There are numerous arguments for and against either position (i.e., ATR
as active, RTR as active, ATR as privative, ATR as binary, RTR as privative, RTR as binary feature) which I will not reproduce here.
In the literature there have also been numerous discussions on the privativity/binarity of other features. In particular the feature roundness has been
assumed to be privative by many linguists (Archangeli and Pulleyblank
1994, Steriade 1987, and others). Clements and Hume (1995) assume that
all features referring to specific articulators are unary (i.e., privative) while
the rest are binary (such as [consonantal]).
The question of whether features are binary or privative is closely related to the question of underspecification. Archangeli (1988) discusses
three reasons for underspecification, which all result in different patterns of
(under)specification in underlying as well as surface forms. Some feature
bearers might be inherently underspecified for certain features due to their
nature, for instance sonorants might be underspecified for the feature
[voice], because they are almost always voiced. The voice feature is then
inserted via a redundancy rule or a co-occurrence constraint. On the other
hand, voiceless obstruents might be seen as underspecified for voicing because being voiceless seems to be the natural state for an obstruent. A second view may favour specification of contrastive features only which results in underspecification of all other features. A third option, radical underspecification, is specification of all and only unpredictable features. Features that are predictable by the nature of a feature bearer, by the occurr-
38
ence of other unpredictable features via co-occurrence restrictions, or by a

phonological rule or process are said to be underspecified now.
The latter aspect, namely that alternating features are underspecified, is
picked up in Inkelas' (1994) theory of Archephonemic Underspecification
and Lexicon Optimization in Optimality Theory. Optimality Theory demands that even predictable features are specified underlyingly, because
every insertion of a feature incurs violations of anti-insertion constraints.
In this theory, the input/underlying form is chosen for an output/surface
form which produces the least constraint violations in the input-output
mapping. The underlyingly underspecified form violates anti-insertion constraints, which the underlyingly fully specified form satisfies. From this
logic it results also that alternating features are underspecified, because this
saves the candidates from violations of faithfulness constraints. Root-controlled vowel harmony is then due to the circumstance that all or almost all
affixes in a language are underspecified for a given feature. Roots never
alternate in root-controlled harmony, and, hence, are fully specified for the
harmonic feature underlyingly. The latter point, full specification of all root
vowels in languages displaying root-controlled vowel harmony, has been
questioned by Harrison and Kaun (2000) on the basis of data from word
games. However, assuming that root control arises out of the underspecification of affixes with regard to the harmonic feature would be circular. The
question left open would be why affixes are prone to underspecification
while roots are reluctantly underspecified in the world's languages. I will
come back to this issue later in chapter 3 and advance to the third possibility besides root control and dominance.
This third option apart from root control and dominance is affix control.
Van der Hulst and van de Weijer mention Turkana as a language which
might be of that type. Also Noske (2001) argues for this view. However,
Bakovi (2000) analyses Turkana as of the dominant-recessive type.
Paradis (1992) examines a dialect of Fula, which, in my view, gives clearer
evidence for affix controlled harmony. In Futankoore Pulaar (a dialect of
Fula), affixation goes rightward and ATR harmony goes strictly leftward.
This is illustrated in (30). The root vowel always agrees with the following
affix vowel with regard to ATR. This can be be inferred from the comparison of the same roots in combination with different affixes in (30a) and
(30b).
(30) Pulaar mid root vowels and harmony

a. ATR words Gloss
b. RTR words
sof-ru
'chick'
cof-on
ser-du
'rifle butt'
s(r-on
peec-i
'slits'
p((c-on
dog-oo-ru
'runner'
dog-o-w-on
lef-el
'ribbon'
l(f-on
keer-el
'boundary'
k((r-on
39
(Paradis 1992: 87ff.)
Even though affix control is extremely rare, the pattern is quite robust in
Fula. Breedveld (1995) reports the same harmony pattern also for other
Fula dialects.12 The Fulfulde pattern poses severe problems for Bakovi's
(2000) account of vowel harmony, where root control is modelled as an
instance of base-output correspondence, since this approach systematically
excludes affix control. This issue will be subject to a more thorough discussion in chapter 4.
A more widespread pattern where root vowels depend on the quality of
affix vowels is Umlaut, which can be found in Veneto Italian for instance
(Walker 2001). However, in such languages the feature specification of the
affix has an influence only on the neighbouring root vowel, as can be seen
from the data in (31). Mid root vowels are raised before a high affix vowel
in the Veneto dialect of Italian. The harmony process affects only the
stressed vowel preceding the affix. From this fact it must be concluded that
this is an instance of parasitic licensing rather than vowel harmony.13
(31) Affix-induced feature change in Veneto Italian
a. vdo
te vdi
'I see/you see'
kro
kri
'believe 1sg./2sg.pres.ind.'
cro
te cri
'I run/you run'
tso
te tsi
'boy sg./pl.'
b. tornvo
benedto
morso
tornvi
benedti
morsi
'return 1sg./2sg.imp.ind.'
'blessed m.sg./pl.'
'lover m.sg./pl.'
(Walker 2001: 2)
In her analysis, Walker assumes that the height of the affix vowel is marked
in unstressed affix position. Thus, it occupies also the preceding root
vowel, which is in a strong, i.e., stressed position, which provides a licenser
40
for the feature [+high]. The feature [+high] is allowed in this position, but
not in others. If the feature is linked to the stressed syllable, it can also be
extended on the adjacent unstressed syllable, where it belongs to
underlyingly. Of course one could argue that vowel harmony is nothing
else than a case of parasitic licensing. The feature specification in all assimilated vowels is licensed by the triggering vowel which is in a strong
position (such as the first syllable, for instance). This form of licensing is
then less marked than the licensing of each feature realisation by each
associated segment or mora or syllable. This is the view advocated for by
Beckman (1997). If this were the motivation behind harmony, we would
expect the phenomenon attested in Veneto Italian or Icelandic (where
roughly the same happens, see Grijzenhout 1990 and references cited there)
to literally go much further, that is to affect more vowels of the root than
just one or two.
For this reason, I will regard such cases not as instances of vowel
harmony, but as metaphony or umlaut, which should be treated differently
from harmony, what is obviously done in the analysis in Walker (2001).
A second argument for treating vowel harmony and affix-induced
Umlaut as different phenomena comes from the fact that Umlaut often
causes the realisation of a feature specification in the target which is not
present in the trigger. This is illustrated for the case of Icelandic here. In
Icelandic, the dative plural affix -um causes raising, rounding, and fronting
of the last low vowel in the root.14
(32) Icelandic Umlaut
pakki + um
tala + um
almanak + um
apparat + um
pkkum
tlum
almankum
appartum
'parcel-dat.pl'
'to speak-3.pl'
'almanac-dat.pl'
'apparatus-dat.pl'
(Grijzenhout 1990: 57f.)
However, being front is neither a property of the vowel D nor of the vowel
u. To find out about the place feature of the low vowel D in Icelandic one
may have a look at Icelandic diphthongs.
According to Kspert (1988), Icelandic has five diphthongs ei, y, ou,
Di, and Du which all have a short/long distinction additionally. Braunmller
(1991) also regards je as a diphthong. Except for the diphthongs containing
the low vowel the two parts of each diphthong have to share or agree in
41
their backness specification. If D were a front vowel, the diphthong Du

should be excluded from the Icelandic inventory.
However, i-umlaut gives evidence for D being definitely not a front
vowel phonologically, since i-umlaut consists of fronting (see Anderson
1969:67), and tense D is fronted to e, lax D becomes 4. Assuming that D is
underspecified for backness or [+back] underlyingly, its raised allophone
should be o according to general assumptions of markedness, not . Thus,
the feature [-back] or [+front] must be contributed by the u-umlaut
operation, even though the trigger has the opposite feature specification.
This is untypical of vowel harmony, where features which are present in the
trigger extend to the targets. Vowel harmony does not add a feature
specification it extends or copies a present feature specification, while
Umlaut can add a feature.15
Having this argument set, I would like to discuss briefly one last type of
harmony, stress dependent harmony. In Pasiego Montaes (McCarthy,
1984), height harmony is consistently triggered by the stressed vowel in the
word. All vowels within a word must be either high or mid. The low vowel
is neutral. The data in (33) illustrate this. I have added Castilian Spanish
forms to McCarthy's data to allow for a better comparison of the
distributional data in (33a). The pattern is also visible in the morphology as
shown in (33b).
(33) Pasiego Montaes stress-dependent height harmony
Pasiego
gloss
Castilian Spanish
a. bindi7r
'to bless'
bendecr
k8nt,nt8
'happy(count)'
contnto
b. bebr
bibs
'to drink'
'drink-2pl.pr.ind.)'
(McCarthy 1984: 295f.)
Pasiego Montaes displays a tense/lax or ATR harmony as well. McCarthy

observes that height harmony is exceptionless within words containing lax
vowels, but that there is a considerable number of exceptions to height
harmony in words containing tense vowels. I will neither go deeper into the
intricacies of Pasiego harmony nor discuss McCarthy's analysis here since
the case served only to exemplify one additional pattern of harmony for the
typology.
With this last pattern the following typology of vowel harmony arises.
42
(34) The basic types of vowel harmony

a. Morphologically driven
&
root control
&
affix control
b. Phonologically driven
&
markedness controlled: dominance
&
stress controlled
Classic cyclic rule application can easily explain morphologically controlled harmony systems in which root vowels are triggers, but as we have
seen above, there are (even though rare) cases of affix control.
In a cyclic derivation, a base form (i.e., the root or stem) is derived and
all phonological rules apply including the harmony rule and feature
insertion rules (redundancy rules). After this process, the first affix is
attached, brackets are erased and the affix is subsequently subject to vowel
harmony. With the next affix the procedure is repeated, and so on until a
whole word form is generated. Since all features are inserted already in the
vowels of the stem at the time when the first affix is attached and the
harmony rule applies again, the (even inserted) features of the stem shape
the feature profile of the affix vowel(s).
This kind of derivation is mimicked in Bakovi's (2000) Stem-AffixedForm-Faithfulness approach (henceforth SAF-approach), where a complex
form has to be faithful to all its simpler bases, which are the output minus
one affix, the latter form minus one affix and so forth. Dependent on how
many affixes a form has, it has one base less than affixes. I will discuss this
approach in more detail in chapter 4.6, following my analysis of morphological control.
In a derivational approach, suffix controlled harmony could be modelled
by the assumption of a post-lexical harmony rule operating from right to
left. Generally, it must be said that to date there exists no satisfactory
account of the typological observation in (34) in parallelist Optimality
Theory, since there is one group of analyses which must be rejected on
independent theoretical grounds (the alignment approach) and one (the
SAF-approach) which actually reintroduces cyclic derivation in OT. The
former will be discussed in chapter 2.5, where I will discuss the issue
whether vowel harmony is best treated as an effect of the interaction of
positional faithfulness with markedness (as proposed by Beckman 1997),
an instance of featural alignment (as proposed by Smolensky 1993,
Setting the scene
43
Kirchner 1993, and many others), or the satisfaction of intra-representational surface correspondence constraints (as proposed by Krmer 1998,
and further developed by Bakovi 2000).
1.6
Setting the scene
We have seen in the preceding sections that languages which display vowel
harmony are characterised by the feature or feature combination which is
active, by the occurrence of opaque, transparent or otherwise quirky vowels
or a mixture of these types, by whether the harmony is morphologically
controlled or dominant, and by the domain in which harmony applies. All
of these characterising aspects of harmony raise interesting questions and
posit quirky puzzles. Some of these patterns raise questions which are of
particular interest for the generativist theoretical linguist, and theoretical
questions snowball if one looks at some aspect of vowel harmony. Besides
phonetic, psycholinguistic or socio-linguistic aspects of harmony (see for
instance Boyce 1990, Campbell 1980, Vroomen, Tuomainen and de Gelder
1998), research in vowel harmony can be divided in two larger fields, one
of which is concerned with the nature of the features as such.
In this direction one has to examine which features harmonise, which
group together and which do not, in how far do vocalic features interact
with consonants and vice versa, whether features are privative, binary or
ternary. One deals with the question which instantiation of a feature is the
marked one phonologically and phonetically (do languages explore RTR or
ATR? Does backness spread or frontness?), and which features have to be
assumed at all. For research in this direction see Halle, Vaux and Wolfe
(2000), Calabrese (1995), Clements and Hume (1995), van der Hulst and
Smith (1986), Padgett (1995), Odden (1991) and the references cited in
these works.
The other direction in which research can lead regards the interaction of
phonology and morphology. Here it becomes relevant which factors other
than featural shape the vowel harmony patterns in the languages of the
world, and whether there are connections between the grammar and the
systemic properties of vowels and their interaction. Do underlying
representations and structures shape individual harmony patterns or do
languages diverge in the grammars which have an influence on the output
forms; and if the differences are to be found in the grammars, of which
nature are these differences? Can the cross-linguistic patterns be described
44
by different interactions of the same set of universal constraints on output

forms? Do we have to assume derivations of differing complexity, i.e., with
different numbers of levels for different languages?
The discussion within this book aims to contribute to the latter
perspective. The issues which will be under special consideration here are
the theoretical treatment of transparency/opacity because of the tie to the
locality issue which is central to phonological theory, the modelling of
morphological control and dominance within Optimality Theory because of
the potential insights to the question whether phonological processes are
directional or not, and if not, what determines directional tendencies, and
the relation to the ever prevailing issue whether language production is a
derivational, serialist process or a parallel action, and last but not least the
interaction of vowel harmony with other phonological requirements, since
it promises answers to the latter issue of serialism versus parallelism as
well.
However, the distinction between the two latter directions of research
could be artificial. For instance the assumption of derivational opacity in
the analysis of transparent or Trojan vowels may be obviated by insights
into the nature of vocalic features. If vocalic features are privative and
neutral vowels are assumed to be characterised by the absence of the active
feature the spreading across the neutral vowel can be explained without
reference to an intermediate step of derivation. Likewise could vowel
opacity also be just a side effect of the representation of the opaque vowel.
Van der Hulst and Smith (1986) for instance propose an account of neutral
vowels which links insights from autosegmental theory and theories of
privative features and seeks to explain the distributional facts solely by
reference to phonological representations.
As noted above van der Hulst and Smith (1986) assume vocalic features
to be privative in the sense of Kaye, Lowenstamm and Vergnaud (1985).
They link Kaye, Lowenstamm and Vergnaud's abstract vowel elements
with the formalism of autosegmental theory.
The unary feature for the front/back dimension is assumed to be a
radical [i], for frontness. Roundness is represented by abstract [u], and
height is codified by an [a] feature, referring to low. An additional
dimension like tongue root position can further be added by an [A] element,
which stands for advancement of the tongue root. In van der Hulst and
Smith's approach these features can be associated to segments or morphemes in a range of ways. Transparent vowels are linked to their segment via
an association line. The 'usual' case, however, is that a feature is in the
Setting the scene
45
scope of a segment but not associated to it or a segment has no feature at

all. In addition to different representations they invoke association conventions to determine to which segments a feature can be linked. That is, if
a segment is accompanied by a floating feature this is associated with as
many segments as possible (35a). If a segment is lexically associated with a
feature no association conventions (AC's) apply and the surrounding
segments receive the default value (35b).
(35)
a.
CV CV CV
AC's
F
b.
CV CV CV
F
CV CV CV
CV CV CV
F
The structure in (35b) is van der Hulst and Smith's representation for transparent vowels. In case the transparent vowel is preceded by another transparent vowel this analysis generates a disharmonic form at first glance, as
illustrated in the lefthand representation of (36). Van der Hulst and Smith
refer to the Obligatory Contour Principle (OCP, Leben 1973, Goldsmith
1976, McCarthy 1986) to avoid such a configuration. According to the
OCP adjacent autosegments with the same specification are not allowed.
The OCP thus transforms this representation into the one on the right in
(36).
(36)
CV
CV
CV
OCP
CV
CV
CV
In this approach neither locality has to be sacrificed nor have extra derivational steps to be introduced. The approach has problems of a different nature. First, we encounter technical problems with monosyllabic roots. If a
root has only one vowel and this is a neutral vowel the vowel should not
spread. The feature is lexically associated with the vowel and according to
van der Hulst and Smith these features do not spread. Data from Wolof
above (especially 24b) show that for instance in ATR harmony affix vowels
46
always surface with the marked value when attached to a monosyllabic root
with a neutral vowel. The only solution in van der Hulst and Smith's model
is to deny the monosyllabic root with a neutral vowel the lexical association
of the feature, as sketched in (37b). Why are neutral vowels in monosyllabic roots different from neutral vowels in polysyllabic roots?
(37)
a. CV
-CV
F
b. CV
F
CV -CV
F
-CV
CV -CV
OCP
F
This explains the different behaviour of neutral vowels in Hungarian (the

Trojans), but not why languages which don't explore both possibilities usually opt for choice (b) with mono-syllabic roots but representation (a) in all
other environments. Another possibility which opens up here is that the affix vowels can occur with their own lexical specification in words with
mono-syllabic roots. Affixes without a feature just get the default value,
since the root vowel does not spread, while affix vowels with the lexical
feature will agree with the root vowel. This usually doesn't happen and
accordingly all affix vowels have to be regarded as underspecified. This
underspecification does not derive independently from the theory and has
to be stipulated. In this book I will explore a principled solution to the observation that in root control the affix vowels are systematically targeted
and do not surface with their lexical specification even in the environment
of a neutral vowel.
Furthermore, with respect to van der Hulst and Smith's approach the
question arises why vowels which have a harmonising counterpart do not
behave as transparent. In an ATR harmony system we could imagine a mid
vowel with the A feature lexically associated to it. If this is preceded by a
vowel without a lexical feature specification and followed by an affix
vowel (which is underspecified by convention) we should observe transparent behaviour. Thus the association of the lexical value has to be restricted to those vowels which lack a counterpart with the default value.
Since this threefold way of combining feature and segment cannot
account for opaque vowels van der Hulst and Smith have to introduce a
Setting the scene
47
fourth possibility. Apart from being in the scope of a segment features can
also be bound to a segment or syllable. This is a different way of linking a
feature to a segment than via association. In this form of lexical
specification a segment projects its boundaries onto the plane on which the
respective autosegmental feature resides. In such a case no feature outside
this binding domain can extend an association into this domain. On the
other hand a feature residing in this domain can establish associations with
segments outside its domain. With this possibility of extending segmental
domains on autosegmental tiers the theory is thus enriched by three new
types of feature bearing units. Altogether we arrive at six different
possibilities for one autosegmental tier already where theories with binary
features usually allow two choices (maximally four if the options for underspecification and floating features are included). The idea of feature tiers
being bound to segmental domains explains cases of disharmony and can
also be extended to the Trojan vowels. The inconvenient aspect of the
theory is that the unary feature has six different ways of pairing with its
feature bearer and that the lexical association of the feature with the transparent segment has to be stipulated. Furthermore, in this approach it has to
be stipulated for every language whether all affix vowels have to be
underspecified or specified for the harmonic feature.
Another point of criticism arises with regard to the choice of the marked
and unmarked configuration of the privative features. It is debatable
whether frontness is the marked state in the front/back dimension, and in
the discussion of dominance we have seen data challenging the postulation
of a universal A element for advanced tongue root.
It is unlikely that patterns which are apparently shaped by morphological asymmetries can be explained with reference to phonological representations alone. Furthermore, as will be shown in more detail in chapters 3
and 4, languages with suffixation show a greater variety of contrasts in the
first syllable of the root while languages with prefixation show a greater
variety and immunity in the last syllable of the root, and languages with
suffix control show relaxation of general markedness requirements in the
last syllable of the word. To explain these patterns goes beyond a purely
phonological theory. Optimality Theory with its assumption of constraint
interaction offers itself here since optimality-theoretic constraints refer to
all aspects of linguistic analysis rather than being restricted to a particular
component of grammar such as morphology or phonology within one
constraint hierarchy. The discussion in this book will center around the
topics listed in (38). The analyses provided can also be transferred into a
48
theory of non-equipolent features. However, the choice of feature theory

alone cannot answer the questions to be asked in this book and the related
discussion is therefore avoided where possible.
(38) The central patterns and issues in this book
Morphological control and dominance
Opaque vowels
Transparent vowels
Trojan vowels
Phonological opacity
The next two chapters will set the theoretical basis for the case studies in
the second part of the book. I will first give a brief introduction to Optimality Theory and its particular subtheories of Correspondence, Alignment/Anchoring, and constraint coordination. After this I will give a schematic outline of my own proposal to deal with the phenomena under discussion and
the theoretic problems tied to them. In the second part of the book I will
illustrate how the theory works when individual languages are considered.
Chapter 2
Optimality Theory and the formalisation of
harmony
In the second chapter I will introduce the theoretical framework to be used.
This part serves also to establish the view that assimilation is a correspondence relation which is a driving force behind large parts of the analysis to
be proposed in chapter 3. On the one hand, the analysis of harmony as triggered by a locally operating correspondence constraint, which is negatable
as well as conjoinable with other constraints, opens the doors for the analysis of cyclicity effects and cases of apparent derivational opacity as epiphenomena of constraint interaction in a parallel evaluation of output forms
(see chapters 5 and 6). On the other hand, this conception of harmony as
correspondence causes some of the vital problems to be discussed (such as
the fate of the medial vowel under root control and affix control, respectively; see sections 3.1, 4.3.2, and 4.6.2).
Before going into the details let us begin with the basics. I will start with
an introduction to the basic assumptions of Optimality Theory. Since this is
not intended to be a general introduction to this framework I will restrict
the discussion to those aspects of the theory which will be essential in the
treatment of the vowel harmonic patterns to be dealt with in this book.
2.1
Optimality Theory (Prince and Smolensky 1993) is based on the following

assumptions: Languages, or better, the words and phrases in individual
languages are shaped by the interaction of universal violable constraints on
output forms. These universal constraints stand in conflict and they are
ranked with regard to each other. The notion of constraint conflict means
that it is often only possible to satisfy one constraint on the cost of violating
another. The notion of constraint ranking means that satisfying some constraints is more important than satisfying others. Inter-language variation
emerges by the language particular ranking of the constraints rather than by
50
Optimality Theory
different language-particular rules or different underlying representations of

phonological structures. This is expressed by the 'richness of the base'
hypothesis. Prince and Smolensky (1993) emphasise the irrelevance of
input forms in contrast to the role of wellformedness constraints on surface
forms:
" the significant regularities [of linguistic structures] were to be found
not in input configurations, nor in the formal details of structuredeforming operations, but rather in the character of the output structures,
which ought by rights to be nothing more than epiphenomenal. We can
trace a path by which 'conditions' on wellformedness start out as peripheral annotations guiding the interpretation of rewrite rules, and, metamorphosing by stages into constraints on output structures, end up as the
central object of linguistic theory." (Prince and Smolensky 1993: 1)
Here we find one characteristic difference of OT to other generative
approaches to linguistic variation. Where in many approaches the differences between languages are to be found in different structure representations, it is the grammar, in particular the language-specific constraint ranking in which languages diverge under the perspective of OT.
A second difference lies in the conception of how output structures are
computed. In most generative approaches an output is derived from an input by serially ordered operations on this input which change the underlying form until we arrive at the actual output. In OT, one input is matched
with a possibly indefinite set of possible outputs in a parallelist evaluation
by a function labelled EVAL. These potential outputs, which are generated
by a largely unspecified function GEN, are compared with each other in
how good or bad they fulfil the requirements of the universal constraints.
The output candidate is chosen as the winning output which has the least
violations of the constraints which are regarded as most important in a
language.
(39) Central components of OT
a. inputs
underlying forms
b. candidate set
the set of possible output forms for a given input,

generated by GEN
51
c. constraint set
set of universal wellformedness conditions on

surface structures
d. constraint ranking
language-particular ordering of universal

constraints
e. GEN
function which generates the members of the

candidate set
f. EVAL
function which chooses the winning candidate

from the candidate set on the basis of the ranked
constraint set
The shift of attention from underlying structures and/or derivational structure changing and filling operations to wellformedness constraints and their
interaction is, thus, implemented in the basic architecture of the theory.
Constraint tableaux serve to illustrate the selection procedure. The
example tableau below has to be read as follows: the second column lists
possible output candidates above which an (assumed) underlying representation is displayed with which these outputs have to match. To the right of
the input, relevant constraints are listed. Constraints to the left are more important than constraints to the right. Those divided by a complete line are
ranked with respect to each other, while those which are divided by a
dotted line are unranked. The asterisks symbolise violations of the constraint in the column by the candidate in the respective row. Asterisks
additionally marked with an exclamation mark denote fatal constraint violations in that this violation excludes the candidate from being chosen as the
optimal form. The latter is indicated by the pointing finger to its left.
(40) Example tableau
/input/
a. candidate 1
b. candidate 2
c. candidate 3
) d. candidate 4
CONSTRAINT A
*!
*!
*
*
*
*
*!
To illustrate the whole issue, let us consider syllabification. It is generally

assumed among linguists that the unmarked syllable structure is CV, a
syllable having a consonantal onset and a vocalic nucleus. Codas are not
52
Optimality Theory
found in all languages. Some languages don't allow for codas at all, others
try to get rid of codas whenever they can in the morphology. To avoid
codas in output forms a language has two strategies, either delete a potential underlying consonant which would be syllabified in coda position or
add an extra vowel to bring the endangered consonant in an onset position.
The story is a bit different with onsets. Some languages permit syllables
without onsets others epenthesise a consonant if no onset is available from
lexical material.16 These typological observations tempted Prince and Smolensky (1993) to propose the following constraints on syllable structure.
(41) Constraints on syllable structure (Prince and Smolensky 1993)
a. H-NUC: A higher sonority nucleus is more harmonic than one of
lower sonority.
b. ONSET: Every syllable has an onset.
c. NOCODA: Syllables do not end in a consonant.
d. PARSE: Segmental material has to be parsed into syllable structure in
the output.
e. FILL: Syllable positions are filled with segmental material.
A language which has the constraint PARSE ranked higher in the constraint
hierarchy than the constraint NOCODA allows for closed syllables, as
illustrated in (42i), while the opposite ranking describes a language in
which all syllables end in a vowel (42ii). In the case where an underlying
form has a consonant at its right edge, these two constraints stand in
conflict. Each output necessarily violates one of both constraints.
(42) Conflicting constraints I
i.
/bob/
) a. bob
b. bo
PARSE
NOCODA
*
*!
ii.
/bob/
a. bob
) b. bo
NOCODA
53
PARSE
*!
*
The same interaction of FILL with ONSET describes a typological variation

with regard to the obligatory epenthesis of consonants and lack thereof. A
language with ONSET above FILL will require a consonantal onset for each
syllable even if underlyingly no such segment is available, hence choose
epenthesis as the optimal solution, as shown in (43i).17 The opposite ranking is an analysis of a language which allows onsetless syllables (43ii).
(43) Conflicting constraints II
i.
/oti/
a. o.ti
) b. o.ti
ii.
ONSET
FILL
*!
*
/oti/
) a. o.ti
b. o.ti
FILL
ONSET
*
*!
If we now also consider a candidate with an epenthesised vowel for the

input in (42), we see how a third constraint, i.e. FILL can interact with the
other two constraints, PARSE and NOCODA. If ranked above FILL, the latter
two choose the candidate which violates the lower ranked FILL. In this
case, both higher ranked constraints are satisfied on the cost of a third one.
The same holds for the scenario where FILL is top-ranked.
(44) Conflicting constraints III
PARSE
i.
/bob/
a. bob
b. bo
*!
) c. bo.b
ii.
/bob/
) a. bob
b. bo
c. bo.b
PARSE
NOCODA
FILL
*!
*
FILL
NOCODA
*
*!
*!
54
Optimality Theory
iii.
/bob/
a. bob
) b. bo
c. bo.b
FILL
NOCODA
PARSE
*!
*
*!
The more constraints we consider the more room we create for crosslinguistic variation on the grounds of the conflict potential of the involved
constraints.
2.2
Markedness and Faithfulness
The constraints introduced so far can be divided into two larger families.
The constraints ONSET and NOCODA reflect the assumption that onsetless
syllables as well as closed syllables count as marked structures. Structures
which do not violate these constraints are less marked. They are preferred
cross-linguistically. Other markedness constraints militate against structure
in output forms (the most general being probably *STRUC 'Have no
structure at all.' Prince and Smolensky 1993: 25, footnote 13). In the field
of subsegmental phonology, markedness constraints against the articulation
of single features or against specific feature combinations within single
feature bearing units and the ranking of these constraints account for
markedness relations among segments (Prince and Smolensky 1993,
chapter 9). For instance, one might assume a constraint against rounded
vowels, abbreviated as *[+round] or a more complex markedness constraint
against front rounded vowels *[+round, -back] or a more general one
against front rounded and against back unrounded vowels, *[round,
-back]. The latter two account for the fact that in most five-vowel systems
all front vowels are unrounded and all (nonlow) back vowels are rounded.18
The other big family of constraints is that of faithfulness constraints.
PARSE and FILL are such constraints. However, PARSE and FILL only refer
to the proper prosodification of segmental material, that all underlying
segments are parsed in the surface form and that these surface segments
look like their underlying counterparts with respect to their phonological
features is not accounted for by these constraints. To cover more aspects
than just proper syllabification, McCarthy and Prince (1995) proposed a
broader view of faithfulness constraints in the subtheory of Correspondence, replacing the prosodically defined constraints PARSE and FILL by
the more general constraint schemes of MAX and DEP.
55
(45) Correspondence (McCarthy and Prince 1995)

Given two related strings S1 and S2. Correspondence is a relation
from the elements of S1 to those of S2. An element S1 and any
element S2 are referred to as correspondents of one another when
.
One characteristic of the first faithfulness approach involving PARSE and
FILL was the assumption of containment. Underlying material not parsed
into prosodic structure was nevertheless assumed to be present in all output
candidates. With the modified view of faithfulness as reflected in Correspondence Theory this assumption has been abandoned. The function GEN
is thus free to alter underlying forms by addition as well as deletion of material. The three basic types of correspondence constraints are given in (46).
(46) Correspondence constraints (McCarthy and Prince 1995: 264)
a. MAX-IO: Every segment in S1 has a correspondent in S2. ('No
deletion!')
b. DEP-IO: Every segment in S2 has a correspondent in S1. ('No
insertion!')
c. IDENT(F): Let be a segment in S1 and be any correspondent of
in S2. If is [F] then is [F].
('Correspondent segments are identical in feature F.')
Let me first dwell on the segmental constraints MAX and DEP before
discussing the subsegmental Identity constraints.
In this theory, all segments in underlying forms receive a kind of
individual indexing and the faithfulness constraints check whether there is
one equally indexed correspondent for each input segment in the output
candidate (the task of MAX) and whether there is one equally indexed segment in an eligible output candidate for each segment in the input (the duty
of DEP). MAX assures that the maximal number of input segments survives
in the output while DEP checks whether every segment in an output
depends on a segment in the input. The former stands guard against deletion the latter against epenthesis. These two faithfulness constraints care for
the numerical identity of input and output segments, but they are not
violated if input and output don't look the same with regard to their feature
profile.
56
Optimality Theory
To cover this aspect of faithfulness, McCarthy and Prince added

identity constraints (46c) to the family of faithfulness constraints. The interpretation of such featural identity constraints is not as straightforward as
that of MAX and DEP. Unsurprisingly there are different approaches to
Identity in the literature. The question is simply whether one focuses in the
interpretation of Identity constraints on the matching of feature specifications or whether one interprets the definition broadly, counting the lack
of a feature as a violation as well. In the latter interpretation, deletion of a
segment incurs featural identity violations because the features eventually
associated with the segment underlyingly might be missing in the surface
representation as well. Whereas under the more narrow interpretation deletion of a segment or feature renders the identity constraint(s) vacuous, i.e.,
inviolable. If a feature has no correspondent there is no specification to
compare with. Or, put it the other way around, a feature bearer which is
underlyingly underspecified for a given feature might have a specification
for that particular feature on the surface due to an extra constraint demanding full specification of outputs or a general principle of GEN which
creates only fully specified output candidates for reasons of articulatory
interpretability. In the narrow view, this feature insertion is for free with
respect to Identity, in the broad view it counts as a violation. Nothing in
this book depends on the choice between either view.
However, if a choice could be made for the broad interpretation, one
could in principle abandon the MAX constraint and the DEP constraint, reformulating it as an identity constraint. This requires that MAX and DEP are
never ranked with regard to each other. Obviously they have to be ranked
with regard to each other in every language to determine whether a language allows epenthesis or prefers deletion in certain environments.
Another motivation to deflate IDENTITY and MAX constraints into one
comes from the discussion whether features are privative or binary. If features are assumed to be privative, there are no feature specifications to
compare, and identity is a matter of the presence or absence of a feature,
which is essentially what is checked by MAX and DEP constraints for segments ('are underlying segments present or absent in the output, and are
output segments present or absent in the input?'). Identity is then measured
in MAX-feature and DEP-feature violations.19 For convenience, I will assume that features are binary and leave the whole issue of how many types
of correspondence constraints are needed out of consideration throughout
this book.
57
Alignment constraints as proposed by McCarthy and Prince (1993) constitute a third family of constraints. Alignment constraints require the
mapping of the edges of certain phonological and grammatical categories
with other phonological or grammatical categories in surface forms. These
constraints regulate, e.g., the interaction of prosody with syntax and morphology. An alignment constraint is a constraint that requires for instance
the left edge of every morphological word or of a root/stem to coincide
with the left edge of a prosodic word. In cooperation with other constraints
on the layeredness of prosodic structure, the assumption of such a constraint then explains why in many languages syllabification does not cross
the left edge of a word, even though syllable wellformedness might prefer
this state of affairs.20 In German, for instance, vowel-initial suffixes resyllabify with the preceding consonant-final morpheme in order to provide an
onset for the first syllable of the affix (47a), while vowel-initial stems do
not display such a syllabification with consonant-final prefixes. Instead,
glottal stop insertion is found in the latter environment (47b).
(47) Word-affix alignment in German
a. /na,g/ 'to tend' + /-81/ NOMINALISER
[na,.g81] 'warp, trend, tendency'
b. /8n-/ NEG + /a^t/ 'manner'
[8n.a^t] 'bad habit'
c. *[na,g.81]; *[8.na^t]
Such a behaviour can be attributed to a highly ranked alignment constraint
demanding the mapping of the left stem edge with the left edge of a
prosodic unit such as the syllable or prosodic word (McCarthy and Prince
1993, Selkirk 1995) which outranks the constraint against epenthesis DEPIO. The general scheme of alignment constraints is given in (48).
(48) Generalized Alignment (McCarthy and Prince 1993: 80)
Align (Cat1, Edge1, Cat2, Edge2) =def
Cat1, Cat2 such that Edge1 of Cat1 and Edge2 of Cat2
coincide.
Where
Cat1, Cat2 PCat GCat21 and Edge1, Edge2 {Left, Right}
58
Optimality Theory
Even though there are no explicit restrictions yet on what a wellformedness

constraint has to look like, work in the theory has attempted to reduce the
number of possible constraint types. With the development of correspondence theory, McCarthy and Prince also subsumed alignment under the
family of correspondence constraints. For this purpose they reformulated
alignment as anchoring, which demands that an element which is at a given
edge (right or left) in one representation (e.g., the input or the base) is also
at this edge in the corresponding representation (e.g., the output or the reduplicant). McCarthy and Prince's (1995) definition of Anchoring is given in
(49).
(49) {Right, Left}-ANCHOR(S1, S2) (McCarthy and Prince 1999)
Any element at the designated periphery of S1 has a correspondent at
the designated periphery of S2.
Let Edge(X, {L,R}) = the element standing at the Edge = L,R of X.
RIGHT-ANCHOR. If x = Edge(S1, R) and y = Edge(S2, R) then x y.
LEFT-ANCHOR. Likewise, mutatis mutandis.
This leaves us with basically two families of constraints: markedness and
correspondence.
The dimensions of correspondence relations were extended by McCarthy and Prince from that of base-reduplicant faithfulness in languages
where systematically chunks of the stem are repeated at one edge to encode
morphological information (i.e., iterativity, plurality) to the relation
between output and input in general. Benua (1995, 1997), Kenstowicz
(1996), Kager (1999) and others extended correspondence theory to relations between different forms within paradigms (base- or output-output
faithfulness) to explain a wide variety of phenomena. It is not always clear
whether the assumed bases are actually independently occurring output
forms or just hypothetical, like the intermediate representations in serialist
derivations. Burzio (1998) even went a step further in assuming that every
surface form stands in relation with every other surface form and that
underlying representations do not exist all. In its consequence, the latter
denies the whole programme of generative linguistics, and, by this leads
itself ad absurdum. However, in this work no use will be made of such
devices as base-output faithfulness. On the contrary, I will argue that such
theoretically powerful assumptions are not neccessary at all to deal with the
phenomenon of vowel harmony. This does not mean that I argue for a
restriction of correspondence to the input-output relation alone, since in the
59
proposal to be made here featural assimilation is a correspondence effect as

well the correspondence between elements within one surface representation, i.e., syntagmatic identity. Before discussing this issue I have to introduce one more modification of correspondence theory, the notion of positional faithfulness as introduced in Beckman (1995, 1997, 1998).
2.3
Beckman (1995, 1997, 1998) motivates the assumption of faithfulness

constraints which refer to certain prominent morphological or prosodic
positions from two perspectives. On one hand it is in these positions, such
as in the domain of the stem, in the first syllable of the root or in the onset
of a syllable, where segments are less prone to be neutralised or assimilated, and where they are more likely to be the trigger of an assimilatory
alternation in neighbouring material. In such positions, segments also show
a greater variety of phonemic contrasts than in other positions. On the other
hand there is evidence from psycholinguistic research in word recognition,
word retrieval and in the detection of errors, that, for instance, word onsets
are good cues for word recognition, and they are more frequently recalled
by persons in a tip-of-the-tongue-state, as well as that errors are recognised
in onset positions better than in other positions (see the references in
Beckman 1998, chapter 2).
Positional faithfulness constraints and their general version, i.e., simple
faithfulness constraints, stand in a specific-to-general relation. An effect of
the more specific constraint is only visible if the more specific constraint
(POSFAITH) occupies a higher position in the hierarchy than the general
constraint (FAITH), and there is a conflicting constraint (*C), which outranks the general constraint but which is ranked below the specific
constraint.
(50) Where positional constraints show effects:
POSFAITH >> *C >> FAITH
For the purpose of illustration let us now consider the phenomenon of final
devoicing, as it is found in German for instance. Following Lombardi's
(1999) work on laryngeal features, I will assume for the moment that
syllable-final devoicing is a positional faithfulness effect. For another
60
Optimality Theory
proposal to deal with this phenomenon, see It and Mester (1999b) or here
section 2.5 on local constraint conjunction.
In German, obstruents are systematically devoiced when they are
syllabified in coda position, as can be seen in the singular forms in (51a).
Their underlying voicing specification can be detected by their behaviour
with vowel-initial affixes (as in the plural forms in 51a) in comparison to
the behaviour of underlyingly voiceless obstruents in singular and plural
forms (51b), which show no voicing when brought into intervocalic
position.
(51) German final devoicing
singular
plural
a. Schla[k]
Schl[g]e
Die[p]
Die[b]e
Han[t]
Hn[d]e
b. Blo[k]
Strum[pf]
Hu[t]
Bl[k]e
Strm[pf]e
H[t]e
'beat'
'thief'
'hand'
'block'
'stocking'
'hat'
That German displays a voicing contrast at all is the effect of the ranking of
faithfulness to voice above the markedness constraint against voiced
obstruents.
(52) Constraints on voice:
a. IO-IDENT(voice): Correspondent segments in the input and the output
have the same specification of the feature [voice].
b. *[+voice]: Obstruents are voiceless.
(53) Rankings
a. Contrast: IO-IDENT(voice) >> *[+voice]
b. Neutralisation: *[+voice] >> IO-IDENT(voice)
The ranking in (53a) is required to describe the voicing contrast in onsets
between minimal pairs such as Tier [ti:n] 'animal' and dir [di:n] 'youSG.DATIVE'. Unfortunately, the incompatible ranking in (53b) is required to
account for the neutralisation behaviour of obstruents in German coda
positions. The dilemma is solved if we simply assume a second faithfulness
constraint referring to syllable onsets only.
61
(54) IO-IDENTONSET(voice): Correspondent segments in the input and in

onset position in the output have the same specification of the feature
[voice].
With this additional constraint we can establish the ranking of positional
faithfulness above markedness, and markedness above general faithfulness,
which perfectly accounts for the German data under consideration.
(55) Final Devoicing in German as a Positional Faithfulness effect
/dib/
IO-IDENTONSET(voice)
*[+voice]
IO-IDENT(voice)
a. dib
**!
b. tib
*!
*
*
c. tip
*!
**
) d. dip
*
*
The question is now, in how far is all this relevant for the phenomenon of
vowel harmony? Vowel harmony is in most cases triggered by the last root
or stem vowel preceding the first affix vowel. If harmony applies to roots
as well, it is usually the first syllable of the root which is the trigger of
harmony while all following vowels are neutralised. In her analysis of
Shona height harmony, Beckman assumes therefore a positional faithfulness constraint IDENT-1, which demands particular faithfulness to those
underlying segments which are parsed in the first syllable of a root in the
output. I will come back to her analysis in 2.4.2 in the comparison of
different approaches to harmony, since Beckman proposes that harmony
can be analysed by reference to such a positional constraint in interaction
with markedness constraints and without reference to a specific constraint
demanding harmony. Whether this is feasible or not will be discussed later
on, what is more important is the finding that the direction of assimilatory
processes (or better patterns) is driven by asymmetries in faithfulness to the
participating elements. Assimilation between consonants is preferably regressive, because faithfulness to onsets (the second part of a consonant
cluster) is stronger than faithfulness to coda consonants (usually the first
part of a consonant cluster) (see, e.g., Lombardi's work on voicing assimilation). Root controlled vowel harmony is possibly determined by stronger
input-output faithfulness of stem or root vowels than of affix vowels.
In the next subsection, I will first discuss advantages and problems of
current proposals for the analysis of assimilation and then introduce the
correspondence approach to assimilation.
62
Optimality Theory
2.4
Be faithful to your neighbour assimilation in Correspondence

Theory
Within OT there are three main streams with regard to the analysis of
vowel harmony: the alignment approach (Kirchner 1993, Smolensky 1993,
Cole and Kisseberth 1994, Pulleyblank et al 1995, Ringen and Vago 1995,
Padgett 1995, Pulleyblank 1996 and many others), the positional faithfulness approach (Beckman 1997, 1998), and the view that vowel harmony
is best analysed as an instance of agreement (Bakovi 2000) or correspondence (Krmer 1998, 1999, 2001). In this section I will discuss them all in
turn and argue why the latter should be favoured. I will not discuss shorthand constraints like HARMONY (Inkelas 1994), SPREAD[feature] (Kaun
1995), which certainly are meant only as place holders for more elaborated
technical devices. Otherwise they would inflate the system of constraint
families, and for the sake of theoretical economy such an enrichment of
theoretic tools should be avoided if possible.
2.4.1 Feature alignment
The most widespread approach to vowel harmony in OT is the alignment
approach. In this account, it is assumed that certain constraints of the
Alignment family (McCarthy and Prince 1993) demand that the edges of
certain features coincide with the edges of other phonological or
morphological categories like 'word' or 'stem'.
(56) Featural Alignment (Kirchner 1993)
ALIGN (F, L/R, MCat): For any parsed feature F in morphological
category MCat (= Root, Word), F is associated to the
leftmost/rightmost syllable in MCat (violations assessed scalarly).
The ALIGNRight constraint demands that the right edge of a designated
articulatory span coincide with the right edge of a morphological or
phonological category and is therefore responsible for rightward spreading
(57a). If the target of assimilation is situated to the left of the trigger, this
requires the formulation of the mirror-image constraint, ALIGNLeft (57b).
If in a language assimilation is bi-directional, both constraints are assumed
to play a role (57c).
Assimilation in Correspondence Theory
63
(57) Spreading under Alignment (Kirchner 1993)

a. Spreading under ALIGN (F,R)
[CV CV CV CV CV] [CV CV CV CV CV]
F
b. Spreading under ALIGN (F,L)

F
c. Spreading under ALIGN (F,L) and ALIGN (F,R)

F
The major problems of an alignment approach are of theoretical nature: The

reference to the direction in the constraints is not necessarily justified and
unnecessarily bloats the constraint inventory. Directionality effects of
assimilation have been shown to emerge from asymmetries in faithfulness
to different positions (Lombardi 1996, 1999, Grijzenhout and Krmer 2001,
Beckman 1995, 1997, 1998). Furthermore, the alignment constraints are
problematic for the formalisation of consonantal assimilation (as will be
discussed below), which means we have to rely on two separate means to
formalise vocalic and consonantal assimilation. This treats both types of
assimilation as two basically different phenomena. Unless this is proven on
independent grounds such an assumption should be avoided both for
empirical reasons and for the reason of theoretical economy. If we can trace
back vowel harmony to the same source as other kinds of assimilation, i.e.,
the same sort of constraint being active, this results in a more general and
parsimonious account. I will discuss each objection in turn.
Traditionally, phonological rules have a directionality parameter incorporated via the definition of the triggering environment. This is indirectly
taken over into OT by the reference to right and left edges of designated
representations in the alignment constraints. So why should we now dispense with this? For assimilation rules it was already noted several times
that they need a mirror image counterpart. Take for instance Clements and
Sezer's (1982) analysis of Turkish vowel harmony. In Turkish, vowels in
affixes usually agree with the last root vowel in rounding and backness (see
64
Optimality Theory
above, chapter 1). This means that harmony proceeds from left to right. An
additional observation is that Turkish lacks prefixes. So if roots are
phonologically dominant, there can be no leftward spreading/assimilation,
since there are no potential targets to the left of the potential triggers (the
root vowels). Clements and Sezer (1982) discuss cases of epenthesis at the
left edge of loan words. In such words, an epenthetic vowel has to be
inserted at the left edge of the root in order to break up a consonant cluster.
The epenthetic vowel to the left of the first root vowel is a high vowel
which usually agrees with the first root vowel in backness and roundness.
(58) Turkish epenthesis:
a. grup
b. gurup
'group'
kral
kral
'king'
prens
pirens
'prince'
smok'in
smok'in simok'in
'dinner jacket'
kreV
kreV
'creche'
The forms in column (a) in (58) are pronounced in careful speech, while the
forms in (58b) are judged as colloquial. This data shows that Turkish vowel
harmony is conceived of as going from left to right only because in the
majority of cases there are no adequate targets to the left of the triggering
vowels in this language. In languages which allow affixation to both sides
of the root, such as Dgma, harmony applies bi-directionally or
directionless from the root outward. The same is observed in languages
with dominant-recessive harmony. The process as such has no directional
preference. Another example might come from voicing assimilation.
Usually voicing assimilation operates from the right to the left within
consonant clusters (as noted above already). However, there are exceptions
to this, as in Dutch for instance where devoicing is progressive if the
rightmost member of the consonant cluster is a fricative. Thus, it must be
concluded that directionality of assimilatory processes is not a property of
the process itself such that it has to be incorporated into the formulation of
the respective rule or constraint, but rather determined by the nature of
target and trigger, as well as by independent factors such as morphological
preferences. In the case of voicing assimilation it is a generally held view in
the literature now that regressivity emerges due to the relatively stronger
faithfulness of onset consonants in comparison to the weaker faithfulness of
coda consonants (cf. Lombardi in various places, Grijzenhout and Krmer
65
2000, and others). Additional arguments and evidence for the claim that
phonological assimilation is directionless by nature can be found in
Beckman (1995, 1997, 1998), Lombardi (1996, 1999), and Bakovi (2000).
To summarise this, if assimilation is not inherently directional we
should not formalise it as such. This also diminishes the number of constraints, since two constraints are necessary when the assimilation constraint refers to edges or directions while otherwise we need only one device like a constraint which says 'adjacent X-s agree in feature [F].'
There are, however, two more arguments against an analysis of
assimilation as alignment, both related to consonantal assimilation. First,
alignment constraints are not capable of covering consonantal assimilation.
In consonantal assimilation (for instance, place or voice), it is usually the
left member of a cluster that changes its feature specification in agreement
with its neighbour to the right. Here, the alignment cannot refer to morphological edges like those of roots or phonological edges like those of prosodic words, feet, syllables or so. An alignment constraint demanding the
mapping of the left edge of a voicing span with the left edge of a syllable
would have no impact on the preceding coda consonant, for instance. Thus,
the preceding coda consonant would not assimilate to the following onset
consonant in voicing. The assumption of alignment constraints referring to
higher prosodic or morphological structure and consonantal features would
a) lead to nonlocal consonantal assimilation (the next argument, see below),
or b) lead to nothing, because the two involved consonants are usually not
even in the same syllable. The only solution would be to refer to a category
like 'consonant cluster' in the formulation of the alignment constraint, e.g.
'align the left edge of the feature c-place with the left edge of the consonant
cluster'. The concept 'consonant cluster' is not required elsewhere and thus
it lacks any motivation of its role as a linguistic entity.
The second argument against featural alignment comes from the observed local restrictions on consonantal assimilation (see, e.g. Odden 1994).
There is no intrinsic ban against long distance consonantal feature
assimilation in the alignment approach, even though this is not attested in
adult language. Consonant harmony affecting the place feature is observed
in child language only. Goad (1996, 1997) presents an alignment analysis
of consonantal place harmony in child language. In her conclusion, Goad
addresses the question why long distance consonant harmony is not found
in adult speech, but she has to leave this issue open.22 The only possible
explanation would be to assume a universal ranking for adult grammars of
LOCALITY or NOGAP (Padgett 1995, It, Mester and Padgett 1995, Pulley-
66
Optimality Theory
blank 1996) higher than ALIGNL/R(feature, P-Cat) ('the left/right edge of

every feature span F coincides with the left/right edge of a phonological
category P'). However, long distance phenomena among consonants almost
always involve complete copying of all features of a segment in adult language. This lead Gafos (1998) to a convincing analysis in terms of reduplication for consonantal copying.
Arguments against an Alignment analysis of vowel harmony in Shona
can be found in Beckman (1997). She proposes alternatively to capture
vowel harmony solely by positional faithfulness and markedness constraints. This approach has its own benefits and disadvantages as is discussed in the next subsection.
2.4.2 Positional faithfulness externally motivated harmony
Beckman (1997) argues that no specific constraints are needed to account
for vowel harmony and proposes to analyse the phenomenon as an effect of
the interaction of positional faithfulness with markedness. Positional faithfulness guarantees that the underlying specification of a vowel in prominent
position triggers harmony (for instance, the one in the first syllable of a
root). Markedness militates against the realisation of feature specifications
in other, non-prominent positions. The account is rather appealing since a)
it implies a typology of vowel harmony, because harmony effects are
directly related to the markedness hierarchy, and b) it describes harmony as
an effect of the interaction of independently motivated constraints, without
reliance to a specific harmony constraint. To get an impression of how the
account works let us briefly consider Shona height harmony. Non-initial
nonlow vowels agree in height with the first vowel of the word.23 The low
vowel D never alternates.
(59) Height-harmonic Shona verbs
a. pera
'end'
per-era
sona
'sew'
son-era
vere1ga
'count'
vere1g-eka
tonda
'face'
tond-esa
oma
'be dry'
om-esa
seka
'laugh'
sek-erera
'end in'
'sew for'
'be numerable'
'make to face'
'cause to get dry'
'laugh on and on'
b. ipa
bvisa
bvuma
pinda
'be evil'
'remove'
'agree'
'pass'
67
ip-ira
'be evil for'
bvis-ika
'be easily removed'
bvum-isa
'make agree'
pind-irira
'to pass right through'
(Fortune 1955, cit. op. Beckman 1997:1)
The nonlow vowel in the affix is either nonhigh (59a) or high (59b),
according to the height of the preceding root vowel. Beckman's idea is that
multiple linking of a single feature node to several vowels is less marked
than a feature node for each vowel. In optimality-theoretic terms this means
that the respective markedness constraints have less violations in candidates
with feature nodes linked to several vowels than in candidates where each
vowel has its own feature node.
(60) Shona harmony as faithfulness and markedness (Beckman 1997: 18)
/CeCiC/
IDENT-1(hi) *MID *HIGH IDENT(hi)
C e
C
i C
a.
*
*!
[-lo] [-hi] [-lo] [+hi]
C e
C
e C
*
*
) b.
Aperture
C
[-lo] [-hi]
e
C
e
c.
**!
[-lo] [-hi] [-lo] [-hi]
C i
C
i C
*!
d.
Aperture
[-lo] [+hi]
In tableau (60), the optimal output candidate is evaluated for an underlying

form containing a mid vowel in the first syllable and a high vowel in the
second. If the first vowel shared the aperture feature of the second vowel,
this would incur a violation of IDENT-1(hi), which guards faithfulness to
height in the first syllable. This violation of a high ranking constraint
renders the candidate sub-optimal in comparison to others. The same holds
68
Optimality Theory
if the first vowel is a high vowel underlyingly and the second a mid vowel.
However, Beckman has to assume that the affected affix vowels are underlyingly specified for [-low] in order to prevent assimilation of a vowel in
the second or third or further syllable to a following low vowel.
The assumption that harmonic behaviour is solely determined by markedness is further weakened if we regard the behaviour of high vowels in
Turkish. Recall from the introduction to vowel harmony in chapter 1 that
all Turkish vowels have to agree in backness within a word. Furthermore
high vowels agree with their neighbour to the left in roundness. Low
vowels are opaque to rounding harmony. In a word where a high vowel is
situated between a high front rounded root vowel and a low unrounded
vowel, the medial vowel agrees with the preceding root vowel in backness
as well as roundness, as in (61c). This yields a front rounded vowel in this
case.
(61) Turkish medial vowels with conditional suffix
a. gel-dir-sej-di
'come (caus-cond-past)'
b. dur-dur-saj-d
'stand (caus-cond-past)'
c. gyl-dyr-sej-di
'laugh (caus-cond-past)'
d. at6-dr-saj-d
'open (caus-cond-past)'
*gyl-dir-sej-di
(Bakovi 2000: 81)
However, it is generally assumed that front rounded vowels are more

marked than front unrounded vowels, since most of the world's languages
avoid front rounded vowels (as well as back unrounded ones). Under
Beckman's account the medial vowel has the choice to share backness and
roundness with the following vowel as well. This would result in a less
marked structure. Hence, the positional faithfulness/markedness account
would predict the wrong output form *gyl-dir-sej-di. At first glance, one
could take this pattern as an argument for a directional rule or constraint on
harmony, but as was mentioned already earlier even in Turkish, harmony
also applies regressively to epenthesised vowels in loan words at the left
word margin (see 58b). Thus, we can neither dispense with a constraint on
harmony nor relie on the directional device of feature alignment.
A similar criticism applies to autosegmental analyses with bidirectional
spreading and privative features (e.g., van der Hulst and Smith 1986). A
privative rounding feature would assume roundness to be the present
69
feature and spreading of the lips absence of this feature. If roundness is

present on an opaque affix vowel and spreads to the right it should also
spread to its left. This would result of regressive harmony in the case of the
Turkish data in (61).
On the basis of data from Yucatec Maya Krmer (2001) shows that the
positional faithfulness account to harmony has also problems to account for
the behaviour of clitics. In some languages clitics participate in vowel
harmony as undergoers (as in Turkish), in others they don't, and in Yucatec
Maya, clitics constitute a separate harmonic domain. The positional
faithfulness/markedness account would predict that either clitics undergo
harmony, since their vowels are less prominent than the vowel in the root
or the first syllable of the root, or it would have to say that clitics are added
in a later step of derivation, yielding them entirely immune to harmony. If
proclitics or prefixes are regarded as part of the word for some prosodic
reason (i.e., syllabification), they should be able to trigger harmony, for the
first syllable of the word is occupied by a vowel belonging to a prefix or
proclitic. The latter is no attested pattern. Even in dominant-recessive harmony systems, where the triggering vowel can be situated in almost any
morpheme, it is never found in a prefix or proclitic.24 However, such a
wrong prediction is circumvented by restricting first syllable faithfulness to
the first syllable of roots only, as done in Beckman (1998: 52).
Thus, I conclude that neither the alignment approach nor the faithfulness/markedness account are adequate analyses of assimilation. Alternatively, I will show that harmony emerges in satisfaction of a symmetric
identity constraint on different elements within the same surface representation, which was labelled as AGREE by Lombardi (1999), Bakovi (2000),
and Surface or Syntagmatic Identity by Krmer (1998, 2001). This proposal
will be discussed and further motivated in the next paragraphs.
2.4.3 Assimilation as correspondence
What happens in harmony or any kind of assimilation is intuitively the
same as what is encoded in one of the basic faithfulness constraint families
of OT: IDENTITY(feature) says that segments in one representation (usually
the input) should agree in feature specifications with the respective segments in another representation (usually the output), i.e. they should look
alike:
70
Optimality Theory
(62) The IDENT(F) Constraint Family McCarthy and Prince (1995:264)

Corresponding segments are identical in feature F.
Accordingly, assimilation can be formalised by reference to this type of
constraint. The crucial difference being that Identity constraints in the sense
of McCarthy and Prince refer to the identity of input and output or that of
base and reduplicant, while an identity constraint preferring candidates
which display assimilation should refer to adjacent entities within one and
the same representation.
Thus, input-output correspondence and surface or syntagmatic correspondence differ in the dimensions of the respective correspondence relation. In IO-faithfulness relations, the corresponding elements are in different representations. In contrast, syntagmatic correspondence relations
hold between two distinct elements within one representation, i.e. the output. Another difference is the functional motivation of the types of correspondence. IO-faithfulness constraints optimise the chances of an accurate
interpretation of an utterance, while assimilatory correspondence optimises
articulation. That is, IO-faithfulness is driven by the desire of the speaker to
be understood, whereas assimilation is driven by the speaker's wish to minimise the articulatory effort. A further motivation for the syntagmatic correspondence relation may be the optimisation of utterance chunking. Harmony domains help the hearer to reconstruct an utterance into words.25 In
this respect, both kinds of correspondence share a function: optimisation of
interpretation.
Pulleyblank (1997) proposes to analyse consonantal assimilation as an
effect of Syntagmatic Constraints, as opposed to Input-Output constraints.26
Lombardi (1999: 272 and earlier papers) and Gnanadesikan (1997) present
similar constraints to handle laryngeal assimilation (Lombardi assuming
privative voice, Gnanadesikan a ternary voicing scale).
(63) Pulleyblank (1997:64): IDENTICAL CLUSTER CONSTRAINTS:
A sequence of consonants must be identical in voicing / place of
articulation / continuancy / nasality.
(64) Lombardi (1999:272): AGREE: Obstruent clusters should agree in
voicing.
71
(65) Gnanadesikan (1997:23): ASSIM: The output {scale} value of adjacent

segments must be identical.
Such constraints can be incorporated into the correspondence constraint
family. The first task is to define the correspondence relation as a relation
between distinct elements of the same type within one representation instead of referring to two representations. By this move, the core statement
of the above-mentioned assimilation constraints can be formulated more
generally, resulting in a uniform formalism for feature assimilation in
general, covering vocalic as well as consonantal assimilation, as I propose
in (66).
(66) SYNTAGMATIC IDENTITY(F) (S-IDENT, preliminary, Krmer 2001):27
Let x be a segment in representation R and y be any adjacent
segment in representation R, if x is [F] then y is [F].
(A segment has to have the same value for a feature F as the adjacent
segment in the string.)
Under the assumption of flat segmental structure, i.e., CVCVC, such a
constraint would rule out any kind of vowel harmony, since between each
vowel there is a consonant. This is one of the reasons why Pulleyblank
(1997), for instance, analyses consonantal assimilation as an identity
relation while he treats vowel harmony as an instance of featural alignment
in the same article. Consonantal assimilation such as place assimilation of
nasals to obstruents or voicing assimilation is local on the segmental level
in the overwhelming majority of cases, while vowel harmony is not strictly
local on the segmental tier (see Odden 1994 for a discussion of the locality
issue within feature geometry).28
The correspondence constraint in (66) is only capable of capturing
assimilatory patterns between adjacent segments. Vowel harmony is
excluded. Two solutions are possible: Either vocalic features are coproduced on consonants, while consonantal features cannot be co-produced
on vowels (as proposed by N Chiosin and Padgett 1997), or the 'segment'
referred to in the definition of the constraint is only one possible variable of
Syntagmatic Identity. This means that the interaction of vocalic features or
nasality for example does not take place on the segmental level, but rather
on prosodic categories. In the following, I will first explore the latter
possibility, drawing on and extending a proposal made in Grounded
Phonology (Archangeli and Pulleyblank 1994).
72
Optimality Theory
In the literature, it has often been assumed that vocalic assimilation

processes apply from mora to mora, syllable to syllable (see e.g. Archangeli
and Pulleyblank 1994), syllable head to syllable head, (see Humbert 1995,
van der Hulst and Piggott 1995, or the discussion in van der Hulst and van
de Weijer 1995), or foot to foot (Piggott 1996). According to Archangeli
and Pulleyblank (1994), Piggott (1996), Golston (1999, 2000) and others,
different features are associated with different prosodic entities or tiers.
Piggott (1996) argued that in Lamba, nasal harmony applies from syllable
to syllable, while in Kikongo, it goes from foot to foot. Piggott (1996:150)
gives the following typology of harmony (67).
(67) A typology of harmony
a. Segment harmony
(= segment-to-segment relation)
b. Syllable harmony
(= syllable-to-syllable relation)
c. Foot harmony
(= foot-to-foot relation)
Archangeli and Pulleyblank (1994) propose segments, moras and syllables

or syllable heads as anchors for features, ignoring the foot.
To capture harmony formally, Piggott assumes the constituent concord
constraints in (68).
(68) Constituent Concord Right/Left (CONCORD-R/L) (Piggott 1996: 150)
If constituent is specified for Nasal in an input, then constituent
to the right/left of the correspondent of in an output is also
specified for Nasal, if and are in the same domain.
The problem with this definition is that it is asymmetric in two ways: (i.)
we have a right/left parametrisation as is the case with the Alignment
approach as well (see above, section 2.4.1). (ii.) what is described here is a
harmonic relation between an input and the element following this in an
output. Technically the possibility arises that in a string of underlying
nasal-vowel-liquid sequences, e.g. NVR1VR2V, the initial nasal N triggers
assimilation of the following liquid R1, but the second liquid R2 remains
unnasalised, even though it is in the same harmonic domain in the output.
This is because the constituent concord CONCORD-R holds only with the
underlying specification of its neighbour to the left, not with its surface
specification, as illustrated below.
(69)
Harmony as Constituent Concord:

Input:
/N
V
Output:
R1
R2
V/
73
If this were the right way to analyse harmony, vowel harmonic systems
should look like this: In a language with CONCORD-R, the first two vowels
of a word should look alike with regard to the crucial feature, but the third
vowel has to look like the underlying form of its neighbour on the left, potentially resulting in a disharmonic surface form. The same holds for all following vowels. The fact is, however: harmonic languages don't look like
this.29 For this reason, I will prefer the symmetric transitive correspondence
relation within surface strings proposed in (66). On the basis of the fact that
harmony is also a relation between prosodic categories, Syntagmatic Identity can be reformulated as in (70).
(70) SYNTAGMATIC IDENTITY (S-IDENT(F)):
Let x be an entity of type T in representation R and y be any adjacent
entity of type T in representation R, if x is [F] then y is [F].
Where T is a segment, mora, syllable, or foot.
(A segment, mora, syllable or foot has to have the same value for a
feature F as the adjacent segment, mora, syllable or foot in the
string.)
The definition in (70) crucially refers to prosodic domains as feature
bearers. Under the assumption that only vocalic features can be associated
to the prosodic categories of the syllable and the mora, the locality problem
with vowel harmony is solved. Such a problem emerges when assimilation
is regarded as applying locally on the segmental tier of representation. On
the syllabic level, vowel features are adjacent to each other. Under the
assumptions made so far, dispensing with traditional planar segregation
(i.e. different consonantal and vocalic tiers in the autosegmental sense),
vowel harmony automatically skips consonants because it goes from mora
to mora or syllable to syllable, while consonantal harmony cannot permeate
through vowels, which by their vocalic nature do not bear consonantal
features. Furthermore, consonants separated by a vowel cannot be regarded
as adjacent on any level of representation if the only admitted structures are
a string of segments dominated by prosodic structure.
74
Optimality Theory
Moreover, an Identity relation can only be established between features

that are already present. Consonantal features are not salient on vowels, so
corresponding consonantal features in a CVCV string would violate the
adjacency requirement. With such a theory of assimilation, it is not necessary to assume something like a "bottleneck effect" (N Chiosin and
Padgett 1997). However, consonantal place features reduce the sonority
degree of the feature bearer, or, as N Chiosin and Padgett (1997) put it,
they are related to the degree of closure. This makes vowels bad landing
sites for consonantal features per se, but does not exclude the presence of
vocalic features on consonants.
The mora rarely acts as a feature bearer, though it is relevant in the
blocking of vowel harmony by consonant clusters in Yucatec Maya for
instance (Krmer 2001).
An important question concerning the connection of segmental features
with prosodic domains is why certain features have access to higher
domains while others have not. A preliminary answer may be that only
features which are typical for segments with high sonority, i.e., features of
segments that can constitute a syllabic peak, can have access to higher
prosodic domains. For instance, nasality can be in nucleus position in many
languages, either as nasalisation of a nucleic vowel or when following a
vowel. Nasality is a feature which can easily be articulated on real nuclei,
i.e., on vowels, because it does not entail closure of the oral tract, which is
not the case with features like frication or consonantal place, which involve
approximated or complete closure. According to N Chiosin and Padgett,
these features would simply convert the vowel into a consonant, which has
bad effects on syllabification. The reason for this might lie in the sonority
reduction which necessarily accompanies closure and frication. Since
nasality does not reduce the sonority level of a segment to such a radical
extend, it can be connected to a higher level of sonority than closure.
Therefore, nasality should be allowed to have harmony relations over
longer distances than a feature like [continuant], which never crosses
segments, while nasal harmony can go from syllable to syllable, eventually
ignoring intervening segments that are not allowed to be nasal. Thus, we
can divide the feature inventory into prosodically compatible articulatory
features and purely segmental features and get the sonority-based generalisation in (71).
75
(71) Features, sonority, prosody, and harmony

prosody-sensitive nasality, vowel place
'long-distance' harmony
features:
segmental features: c-place, manner, voice segmentally adjacent assim.
Of course this is a rather rough statement and needs further refinement.
However, the most important aspect of this exercise is to maintain the
generalisation that all phonological feature interaction is local in a certain
sense without having to refer to a rankable Locality constraint as was
proposed in parts of the literature such as Cole and Kisseberth (1994),
Padgett (1995), It, Mester and Padgett (1995). Such a locality constraint
bans gapped featural configurations of any kind as schematised in (72).
(72) No Gap / Locality30:
*
A
F
B
Without reference to locality or adjacency of the affected categories in the

syntagmatic identity constraint, and with an independent locality constraint
instead, the theory is able to build grammars which allow all kinds of
unattested long-distance assimilations. Furthermore, the violations of syntagmatic identity constraints approach incalculability. In case adjacency is
not a restriction on corresponding elements we have to calculate all identity
violations between all elements bearing the same features in a word. For
instance in the wonderful Turkish word tandklarmzdn 'from our
acquaintances' (Kabak and Vogel 2000:1), every vowel's faithfulness to
every other vowel would have to be assessed. This makes 21 possible SIdentity violations for each vocalic feature in such a seven-syllable-word.
In the diagram in (73), every correspondence relation is indicated by a
black line.
(73) Nonlocal syntagmatic correspondence relations
ta
kla
mz
dn
76
Optimality Theory
Violation assessment for correspondence relations between adjacent

elements is a comparably simple task, yielding six possible violations.
(74) Local syntagmatic correspondence relations
ta
kla
mz
dn
For reasons of empirical adequacy and ease of computability, I will opt for
simplicity here, i.e. for the locally restricted view of syntagmatic correspondence.
This, however, excludes the possibility to explain the feature specification of a vowel following a transparent vowel by its relation to the preceding non-transparent vowel in the treatment of vowel harmony. How transparent vowels can be treated without sacrificing locality will be explained
in greater detail in section 3.3. The transparent vowels show that the
assumption of prosodic entities entering into correspondence relations on
articulatory features is not the best choice, and that it might be better to
assume correspondence relations between adjacent stretches of articulatory
feature spans. In most cases, sequences of transparent vowels behave like
one transparent vowel. For reasons of understandability I will postpone this
discussion to the analysis of Finnish transparent vowels in part two of this
book, and subscribe so long to the prosodic view of harmony developed
above following Krmer (1998, 2001).
There is one last remark with respect to the locality issue necessary
here. Odden (1994) develops a theory of locality within feature geometry to
cover the topological restrictions on assimilatory patterns. According to
Odden (1994: 290) "all phonological relations (rules or constraints) are
subject to the Locality Condition, which requires elements mentioned in a
rule to be local within a plane. Relations may also be constrained by adjacency conditions which limit the distance between the target and trigger segments, by requiring segments to be adjacent at the level of the syllable or at
the level of the root node."
Even though Odden writes about relations here, he is far from conceptualising assimilation as correspondence relations. However, the locality to
which assimilation rules have to obey is incorporated in correspondence
theory in the adjacency requirement for correspondence relations. The basic
input-output correspondence relation shares this obedience to locality in
77
that the corresponding representations have to be adjacent in the sense that

there is no intermediate representation between input and output.
Even in a model where such intermediate representations are allowed,
i.e. in Kiparsky's (2000b) LPM-OT, correspondence relations exist only
between adjacent representations. For the sake of simplicity, assume that
we have an input, taken from the lexicon for which an output is evaluated
for the stem level. The output of the stem level serves as the input for the
word level, and the output of the word level serves as the input for the last,
the sentence level, in which the final output form is evaluated. In this
model, correspondence relations are assumed only between the lexical
input and the first output (the input to the word level), and between the
word level input and the output of this level.
What Kiparsky avoids is correspondence relations across these levels,
that is a direct relation between the input from the lexicon and the last output. Even though I do not believe that such levels are necessary or justified,
they illustrate a fact which is not as apparent in two-level correspondence
theory, namely that correspondence relations are locally restricted to adjacent representations, whatever the dimension of correspondence may be.
I will leave the discussion at this point and come to another aspect of
Optimality Theory which is central to my approach to phonological opacity
in vowel harmony: constraint interaction by constraint combination.
2.5
As we have seen above one central idea of Optimality Theory is constraint

interaction via ranking. Another way in which constraints can interact is the
combination of two or more independent constraints to one complex
constraint. As Crowhurst and Hewitt (1997) point out, formal logic
provides us with three logical possibilities to coordinate simplex constraints
to complex constraints, namely logical conjunction, disjunction and implication. These possibilities arise if we regard Optimality Theoretic
constraints as propositions to which truth values may be assigned. In case
the proposition implied by a constraint, i.e., 'syllables have no coda' is true,
the constraint is satisfied, if it is judged as false for a given candidate under
evaluation, the constraint counts as violated. Connecting constraints by
Boolean operators results in complex constraints that are violated under
differing conditions.
78
Optimality Theory
(75) Complex constraints

a. Disjunction: A B
'A or B'
'Either A or B has to be satisfied. (Don't violate both!)'
b. Conjunction:
AB
'A and B'
'A and B have to be satisfied. (Violate none!)'
c. Implication: A B 'if A then B'

'If A is satisfied, B has to be satisfied as well. (If you violate A you
can also violate B, but if you satisfy A you have to satisfy B as well)'
I will first discuss and illustrate the type of constraint coordination in (75a),
since this is the most used type. Under the constraint connection in (75a), a
form that violates both constraints is regarded as worse than a form which
violates only one of both. That is two otherwise lowly ranked constraints
join forces to militate against their violation. Prince and Smolensky
(1993:180) labelled this generalization pattern the "banning of the worst of
the worst". Smolensky (1993, 1995) introduced the term 'local conjunction'.
Let us now have a closer look at this form of constraint interaction, since it
will play a crucial role in the explanation of derived environment/opacity
effects in the analysis of vowel harmony patterns.
It and Mester (1998:10) give a detailed definition of Local Constraint
conjunction, which is cited in (76).31
(76) Local Conjunction of Constraints (LCC)
a. Definition
Local conjunction is an operation on the constraint set forming
composite constraints: Let C1 and C2 be members of the constraint
set CON. Then their local conjunction C1&lC2 is also a member of
CON.
b. Interpretation
The local conjunction C1&lC2 is violated if and only if both *C1 and
*C2 are violated in some domain .
c. Ranking (universal)
C1&lC2 >> C1
C1&lC2 >> C2
79
Among the infinite set of candidates for the output, the form which satisfies
either C1 or C2, satisfies the local conjunction of C1 and C2 as well. To
satisfy the local conjunction it is not necessary to conform to the requirements of both constraints. That C1 and C2 have to be violated at all is induced by one or more independent constraints, which conflict with C1 and
C2, and which themselves are ranked higher than the latter two. For the
local conjunction to have an effect at all, it must rank higher than those
constraints which force violation of C1 and C2. In the example tableau in
(77), C3 is antagonist to C1. Whenever one of both is satisfied, the other one
is violated. The same conflict situation holds for constraints C4 and C2,
respectively.
(77)
a.
b.
c.
) d.
/input/
cand1
cand2
cand3
cand4
C3
C4
C1
C2
*!
*
*!
*!
*!
*
*
With the ranking of C3 and C4 above C1 and C2, the candidate which violates both C1 and C2 is the winner. The case becomes problematic if we
have established the ranking on independent grounds, but candidate 1 or 2
is the actual output. Here the local conjunction of C1 and C2 plays the
crucial role in candidate selection. If this complex constraint is inserted
somewhere between or above C3 and C4 in the hierarchy, as in (78), we
derive the desired result. The fatality of violating both constraints is accounted for. In (78) the choice of either candidate 1 or candidate 2 as optimal can depend either on the ranking relation between C3 and C4 or the
ranking between C1 and C2, if C3 and C4 are unranked with respect to each
other, or, of course, on the impact of another constraint.
(78)
) a.
) b.
c.
1 d.
/input/
cand1
cand2
cand3
cand4
C1&lC2
C3
C4
C1
*
*!
*
*!
*!
C2
80
Optimality Theory
However, candidate 4 is doomed since it violates both lowly ranked

constraints, and, by this also the highly ranked local conjunction of both.
Candidates 1, 2 and 3 do not violate the local conjunction, because they
satisfy at least one of the conjoints.
The scope or domain of local conjunctions is assumed to be the segment
by most authors (cf. ubowicz 1999, Bakovi 2000). However, Alderete
(1997) as well as It and Mester (1998) allow larger domains to account for
various dissimilatory phenomena. I will explain the function of the local
restriction on the local domain of the segment. If an output string has
several segments , which it usually does for reasons of prosodification,
a local conjunction of constraints C1 and C2 is violated only if both constraints are violated by one and the same segment. Suppose segment violates C1 and segment violates C2. In this case, the local conjunction of C1
and C2 is satisfied by either segment, and by the candidate as a whole if
there is not an additional segment which violates both constraints. This is
because satisfies C2, and satisfies C1. If segment violates both C1 and
C2 it violates also the local conjunction C1&lC2, because it satisfies neither
conjoint.
For the purpose of illustration let us now reconsider the phenomenon of
final devoicing in German. Following It and Mester (1999b) I will assume
this time that German final devoicing is an effect of the local conjunction of
the two constraints *CODA and *VOIOBS, or *[+voice], the former prohibiting syllables ending in a consonant, the latter prohibiting voiced obstruents. For another proposal to deal with this phenomenon, see Lombardi
(1996, 1999) or section 2.1.3. A comparison of both accounts can be found
in Fry (1999), and additional evidence that both accounts are needed is
given in Krmer (2000) on the grounds of data from Breton.
The crucial forms which show syllable-final neutralisation of the voice
distinction in German are repeated in (79).
(79) German final devoicing
a. Schla[k]
Schl[g]e
Die[p]
Die[b]e
Han[t]
Hn[d]e
b. Blo[k]
Strum[pf]
Hu[t]
Bl[k]e
Strm[pf]e
H[t]e
'beat' (sg./pl.)
'thief' (sg./pl.)
'hand' (sg./pl.)
'block' (sg./pl.)
'stocking' (sg./pl.)
'hat' (sg./pl.)
81
In (80), I have listed the two crucial markedness constraints and their local
conjunction. The local conjunction is always violated when both constraints
are violated by the same segment, i.e. when a voiced obstruent is in coda
position.
(80) Final devoicing as local conjunction
a. NOCODA: Syllables do not end in a consonant.
b. *[+voice]: Obstruents are voiceless.
c. Local Constraint Conjunction FINDEV: NOCODA&l*[+voice]
These constraints now interact with a variety of faithfulness constraints.
MAX-IO and DEP-IO, the constraints against deletion and insertion,
respectively, have to rank higher than NOCODA, because German allows
for closed syllables. They also have to rank higher than the local
conjunction FINDEV, to account for the fact that neither insertion nor
deletion is an option to avoid violation of FINDEV. This is illustrated in
tableau (81).
(81) German final devoicing I
MAX-IO DEP-IO
/dib/
a. dib
b. di.b
*!
c. di
*!
/ d. dip
) e. tip
FINDEV
NOCODA
*[+voice]
*!
**
**
*
*!
*
*
In this grammar, the obstruent in coda position is neither deleted nor is the
form augmented to avoid a violation of NOCODA. Instead, the winning
form satisfies the high ranking local conjunction by satisfaction of the
constraint against voiced obstruents, in that it has a voiceless coda. This
grammar is still not suitable for German, since the optimal output also has a
voiceless onset. This form performs even better on *[+voice] than the one
which has a voiceless coda only.
However, German allows the voiced/voiceless contrast in onsets.
Therefore we have to consider one more constraint. IO-IDENT(voice)
demands that segments in the output and in the input have the same specification for the feature [voice]. To account for the voicing contrast in onsets
and neutralisation in codas likewise, the constraint has to be inserted in the
hierarchy below FINDEV and above *[+voice]. The evaluation of the
82
Optimality Theory
German word Dieb 'thief' is shown once more with the complete grammar
at work in (82). The completely neutralised form is doomed for its violation
of IO-IDENT(voice) in the onset. The other violation of IO-IDENT(voice)
cannot be avoided. This would result in a violation of the higher ranked
local conjunction FINDEV, which is fatal (see candidate a).
(82) German final devoicing II
/dib/ MAX-IO DEP-IO FINDEV NOCODA IO-ID(vce) *[+voice]
a. dib
*!
*
**
b. di.b
*!
**
c. di
*!
*
- d. dip
*
*
*
1 e. tip
*
**!
What would happen now if the local conjunction of NOCODA and
*[+voice] were not restricted to the domain of the segment? In this case any
two violations of both constraints within a candidate would count as a violation of the conjunction.
(83) German final devoicing and "global constraint conjunction"
/dib/ MAX-IO DEP-IO FINDEV NOCODA IO-ID(vce) *[+voice]
a. dib
*!
*
**
b. di.b
*!
**
c. di
*!
*
/ d. dip
*!
*
*
*
) e. tip
*
**
The favourite German form, candidate (83d) has now a fatal violation of
FINDEV, because one consonant of the form violates NOCODA and another
violates *[+voice].
This minimal analysis of German final devoicing illustrates the basic
idea of local constraint conjunction. The approach was extended from the
mere conjunction of markedness constraints to the conjunction of markedness with faithfulness constraints by ubowicz (1999). She attempts a solution to the problem of analysing derived environment effects in OT without
reliance on cyclic constraint evaluation. The conjunction of a markedness
constraint with a faithfulness constraint activates the markedness constraint
when the faithfulness constraint is violated.
83
(84) Derived environment effects = Faithfulness&lMarkedness

One example in ubowicz' study is palatalisation in Polish, which I will
briefly reproduce here to illustrate her idea. Palatalisation applies only to
stem-final consonants when an affix with a front vowel is attached. Since
palatalisation is not broadly active in Polish, ubowicz establishes the
ranking of the relevant faithfulness constraint IDENT(coronal) above the
markedness constraint demanding palatalisation of consonants before front
vowels, PAL. This, however, generally bans palatalisation from surfacing.
ubowicz's solution to the ranking paradoxon lies in the local conjunction of the constraint which is always violated in affixation with the markedness constraint against nonpalatal consonants preceding palatal vowels.
A constraint which is notoriously violated by morphologically complex
words is the Anchoring constraint demanding edge mapping of stem and a
syllable. The constraint R-ANCHOR(Stem, ), is violated whenever a
vowel-initial suffix attaches to a stem and causes resyllabification of the
last consonant of that stem.
In order for the analysis to cover as well palatalisation between affixes,
ubowicz has to assume the stem to be a recursive category, establishing a
stem boundary between every affix and the next more internal affix in the
word. Violation of Stem/syllable anchoring is illustrated in (85). In addition
to ubowicz' illustration I indicated the right stem boundary by #, and the
crucial syllable boundary by a dot.
(85) Stem/syllable misalignment in Polish
stem
affix affix
s u x#
+e
sy.
# e
'to hear'
(ubowicz 1998)
The high ranking local conjunction of the R-ANCHOR constraint with the
constraint demanding palatalisation activates the palatalisation constraint in
the environment where R-ANCHOR is violated.
The grammar is shown at work in (86). Candidate (a) violates the RANCHOR constraint by its syllabification which is not coherent with the
right stem edge. This syllabification is optimal because of higher ranking
constraints like ONSET, which are omitted from the tableau. In addition to
this, the rightmost segment of the stem violates the markedness constraint
PAL, because it is followed by a front vowel and is not palatal itself. These
84
Optimality Theory
two violations count as a violation of the local conjunction of the two constraints. The competing candidate satisfies PAL on the cost of IOIDENT(coronal). Satisfaction of this markedness constraint is sufficient to
avoid the violation of the local conjunction.
(86) Polish palatalisation as local conjunction
/sux# +e +/
PAL&lR-ANCHOR
(Stem, )
a. sy. x#e
) b. sy. #e
IO-IDENT
(cor)
*!
R-ANCHOR
(Stem, )
PAL
*
*
I will follow ubowicz' line of thought and analyse phonological opacity in

vowel harmony as an effect of local conjunctions of markedness constraints
with faithfulness constraints.
Recall from the beginning of this subsection that there are still two other
ways in which constraints can be coordinated (see figure 75). I will briefly
touch upon these possibilities, because edge effects in vowel harmony will
be found to be an effect of a logical conjunction of constraints. This type of
constraint conjunction was proposed by Crowhurst and Hewitt (1997).
A logical conjunction of constraints is violated whenever one of the two
or more conjoined constraints is violated. This does not entirely equal joint
constraint promotion, but has, as Crowhurst and Hewitt point out, also a
compression effect. Constraints are compressed by logical conjunctions in
that single constraint violations are not assessed scalarly anymore.
Whether a candidate violates only one of the conjoint constraints or both
makes no difference anymore since in both cases only one violation of the
conjunct is counted. There is also no difference in violating either the first
or second constraint. The triggering effect observed with the local conjunction (i.e., logical disjunction) of constraints is not given. This means that
actually the single constraint loses importance here. Both constraints are
co-relevant.
(87) Violations assessed by logical conjunctions
A x B
) cand1
cand2
cand3
cand4
*
*!
*!
*!
*
*
*
*
85
The little uppercase x to the right of the Boolean conjunctive operator in the
tableau indicates the scope of the constraint coordination. Locality of coordinated constraints is defined by Crowhurst and Hewitt (1997) as argument
sharing.
(88) The shared argument criterion (Crowhurst and Hewitt 1997: 12):
Only constraints whose statements specify a common argument may
be conjoined.
Constraints have a primary argument which is the entity they quantify universally over, as well as a secondary argument, which is the entity they
quantify existentially over. For instance, the constraint NOCODA (Roughly:
'For no syllable there exists a consonant/obstruent at the right edge of ')
makes a claim on all syllables but only on some consonants/obstruents.
Thus, the syllable is the primary argument and any consonant/obstruent is
the secondary argument of NOCODA. The markedness constraint *[+voice]
makes a claim on all obstruents, namely that for all obstruents there exists a
voicing specification which is minus-valued.32
Crowhurst and Hewitt do not go into the question whether the argument
that is shared by two conjoined constraints has to have the same status in
both constraints. Thus, NOCODA and *[+voice] could be logically conjoined because they both have obstruents as one of their arguments. The result should be a language in which for obstruents being in a coda is as bad
as being voiced. I will not discuss this type of constraint further here, since
it will be explored in greater detail in the treatment of the co-pattern of particular left/right-edge faithfulness with leftward/rightward affixation in section 3.2 and chapter 4.
However, it is worthwhile to rest a short moment on the last form of
constraint coordination proposed by Crowhurst and Hewitt (1997). Unfortunately they do not discuss the implicational coordination any further. An
implicational coordination of constraint A and constraint B says basically
that when you satisfy constraint A you should also do that for constraint B,
but if you violate constraint A anyway or constraint A is vacuous you don't
have to care about constraint B either.
Tableau (89) serves to illustrate that only where constraint A is nonvacuously satisfied constraint violations of B become crucial for the implicational constraint. If both constraints share an argument then constraint A
might further specify the environment in which a violation of constraint B
is particularly bad, or satisfaction of B is particularly important.
86
Optimality Theory
(89) The violation and satisfaction of a logical implication

A x B
) cand1
cand2
cand3
cand4
cand5
*
*
*!
(vac)
*
*
*
(vac)
For illustrative purposes let us regard once more the constraint ONSET,
which might be formulated as 'every syllable has a consonantal/obstruent
onset'. This constraint can be combined via implicational relation with the
faithfulness constraint on obstruent voicing IO-IDENT(voice). What we get
by this move is exactly the positional faithfulness constraint on onsets discussed earlier, IO-IDENTONSET(voice) (see 54). Whenever a syllable satisfies the constraint ONSET, the entity that satisfies this constraint, i.e., the
consonant in onset position, has to satisfy IDENT(voice) as well.
Returning to our example of final devoicing in German, one might now
be tempted to assume that such phenomena, i.e., positional faithfulness
effects, can be broken down to constraint coordination as well.33
(90) Final devoicing as logical implication
/dib/
a.
b.
c.
) d.
dib
tip
tib
dip
ONSET C
IO-IDENT(voice)
*[+voice]
ONSET
IO-IDENT
(voice)
**!
*!
*!
*
*
**
*
*
However, this treatment of positional faithfulness reveals a further restriction on the focus of coordinated constraints. In the tableau in (90) it was
assumed that the consonant in coda position is not assessed by the implicational coordination, because it neither violates nor satisfies ONSET. That is,
both constraints do not only have to share an argument, they also have to be
assessible with regard to the argument, that is the argument has to be in the
focus of both constraints. In our particular case this means that only the
consonant which satisfies onset by being an onset is also in the focus of the
implicational coordination.
87
The assumption of local conjunctions alone is exposed to the criticism

already that any constraint might be conjoined with any other constraint,
since this calls into being an enormous number of undesired, even purposeless complex constraints. This situation gets worse if we adopt the
assumption that there are several different ways in which constraints can be
coordinated.
The situation becomes less chaotic under the shared argument criterion,
and the further assumption of the most possibly restricted argument focus.
These restrictions are similar in spirit to the proposal by ubowicz (1999),
who posits a restriction to the smallest possible domain, and to the restriction of co-relevance by Bakovi (2000), which states that coordinated constraints have to be corelevant (i.e., share an argument).
Another proposal made by Bakovi is the numerical limit of constraints
within one coordination. He proposes that the maximally complex constraint consists of two simplex constraints. However, we will see in the analysis of transparent vowels that unfortunately this last restriction is not tenable unless we pay for this strictness by using additional more complex
theoretical devices.
Having the basics of the theory introduced now it is time to see how the
complex patterns of vowel harmony can be addressed with this device.
Chapter 3
Cyclicity and phonological opacity as constraint
coordination and positional faithfulness
Within Optimality Theory alone there have been numerous proposals on
how to deal with the peculiarities of vowel harmony. In this book, I attempt
to give an account of the central issues of vowel harmony, which are
related to the discussion on derivationalism, with a maximally reduced
theoretical inventory, and, nonetheless try to extrapolate generalisations
which were not possible under previous accounts. For this reason, and
reasons connected with the respective proposals in the literature I will avoid
the following theoretical assumptions:
Vocalic assimilation as an extension of the alignment scheme
(Smolensky 1993, Kirchner 1993, Pulleyblank 1996 and many
others).
Crucial underspecification in output structure to account for
transparent vowels (as proposed by Ringen and Vago 1998 for
Hungarian);
Floating features to account for Trojan vowels (as proposed by
Ringen and Vago 1998 for Hungarian);
Unexpressed feature domains in surface structure, i.e., non-surface
true analyses of output forms to account for Trojan vowels (as
proposed by Cole and Kisseberth 1995 for Yawelmani phonological
opacity);
Sympathy Theory to account for phonological opacity (transparent,
Trojan vowels, McCarthy 1999, Bakovi 2000);
90
Cyclicity and phonological opacity
Stem-Affixed-Form-Faithfulness or any other variant of

Base/Output-Output Correspondence to account for cyclicity
(proposed by Bakovi 2000 to account for root control);
Serialist evaluations, or any kind of serialism at all;
Targeted constraints and cumulative candidate evaluation (as
proposed by Bakovi 2000, Bakovi and Wilson 2000 to account for
transparent vowels).
The proposals listed here will be subject to a more detailed discussion in
the respective sections where single languages are examined with respect to
their individual vowel harmonic patterns. The choice on the formalisation
of assimilation was discussed already in the introductory section on the
treatment of assimilation in general in Optimality Theory.
I will now move on to schematically explain the techniques I will use in
the second part of this book to analyse the characteristics of vowel harmony
at stake. First I will explain how positional faithfulness can model root
control. The behaviour of opaque vowels falls out automatically from this.
The second issue to be addressed is the explanation of asymmetries in the
distribution of vowels within the word in terms of an extended interpretation of anchoring constraints, which in essence again boils down to an
extension of positional faithfulness, exploring the device of logical conjunction of constraints made by Crowhurst and Hewitt (1997). After this I
will consider transparent vowels as the effect of a local conjunction of
harmony constraints with dissimilatory constraints and with markedness
constraints. Then, the constraint conjunction approach is extended to the
explanation of Trojan vowels.
3.1
Morphological control as a matter of integrity
The most common type of vowel harmony found in the world is that where
feature specifications of roots are extended on affixes, and opaque affixal
feature specifications are extended onto more peripheral affix vowels, but
never on root vowels.
Furthermore, a vowel, which is inbetween a potentially triggering root
vowel and an opaque affix vowel always surfaces with the feature specifi-
Morphological control as integrity
91
cation of the adjacent root vowel, never with that of the affix vowel to the
other side.
The chart in (91) illustrates this observation. Form (b) where the medial
vowel between a trigger in the root and another trigger in an affix agrees
with the affix is no attested form in languages displaying root control. In
root controlled systems we always find the pattern in (c). The target in the
middle agrees with the root. Form (d) is possible in dominant systems. In
this type of harmony it does not matter in which type of morpheme the
vowel bearing the triggering feature specification is found. If the dominant
feature is found in the root, it colours the whole word (except resistent
vowels, i.e., opaque and transparent vowels), if it is in an affix it does so as
well.
(91) The medial vowel between root and opaque vowel
/root+af+Ef+af/
a. rootafEfaf
no harmony
b. rootefEfef
illicit in root control, possible under dominance
c. rootofEfef
root control
d. reetefEfef
dominance
e. reetefEfaf
affix control
The only configuration in which pattern (91b) can emerge is in a dominant
system with an opaque vowel with the recessive feature in the stem. The
form in (91e) is the expected form under affix control. The righmost affix
vowel withstands harmony and the opaque affix vowel determines the fate
of the rest of the vowels in the word.
Under the positional faithfulness account, special emphasis was given to
IO-Identity constraints. With the distinction of IO-Identity for roots versus
general Identity constraints many phenomena can be explained, but, as
Bakovi (2000) argues convincingly, not the asymmetry between stem and
affix vowels in root controlled vowel harmony.
(92) Positional Faithfulness:
IO-IDENTRoot >> IO-IDENT
How positional Identity constraints fail to account for root control in vowel
harmony is illustrated by the hypothetical case in tableau (93) once more
(but see also the discussion of Beckman's account in the preceding section).
The crucial point is the fate of the vowel in the first affix. Positional
identity constraints make no decision on the quality of this vowel. It may
92
surface in agreement with the root vowel (candidate e) as well as in

agreement with the opaque vowel of the affix to its right (candidate d).
Candidate (d) is the one which has to be generally excluded as a possible
output. Note that the harmony constraint S-IDENT(F) makes no decision
either, since, in contrast to the abandoned feature alignment constraints, it
says nothing about the preferred direction of assimilation.
(93) Positional faithfulness and the medial vowel
MARKEDNESS
IDENTroot
root+af+Ef+af
a. rootofOfof
*!
b. reetefEfef
*!
c. rootafOfof
0 ) d. rootefEfef
/ ) e. rootofEfef
S-IDENT
IDENT
**!
*
*
***
***
*
**
**
Faithfulness is not limited to the family of Identity constraints, however.

McCarthy and Prince (1995:372) propose the faithfulness constraint INTEGRITY to exclude an input from mapping to several outputs (as in gemination, diphthongisation or reduplication), as cited in (94).
(94) INTEGRITY "No Breaking"
No element of S1 has multiple correspondents in S2.
For x S1 and w, z S2, if x w and x z, then w = z.
The same concept finds its expression in Lamontagne and Rice's (1995:
218) *MC constraint, given in (95).
(95) *Multiple Correspondence (*MC)
Elements of the input and the output stand in a one-to-one
correspondence relationship with each other.
A basic defining element of both constraints is the notion "element". What
is meant by "element" by McCarthy and Prince is in fact the "segment", but
an element may also be a feature. Lamontagne and Rice (1995) interpret the
integrity constraint or *MC as being violated by the redistribution of features to more than one segment as well. "This constraint [*MC] maintains
the integrity of a segment by requiring that the Root nodes of the input and
output correspond. This in turn prevents the redistribution of input features
to other root nodes..." (Lamontagne and Rice 1995: 218). Being basically
93
concerned with the analysis of coalescence they refer to the root node providing that either all features are redistributed or none. However, they also
consider *MC to be violated in case only one feature is redistributed on two
or more segments in the output. To capture this *MC or INTEGRITY can in
principle be extended to INTEGRITY(feature), as proposed in Krmer
(2001).
(96) INTEGRITY(F) "No assimilation"
No feature of S1 has multiple correspondents in S2.
Under the premise that assimilation is a syntagmatic correspondence effect,
all assimilated feature bearers are at least in indirect correspondence with
the underlying feature specification of the triggering element.
(97) Indirect correspondence of [+F]1 and [+F]2' over [+F]1':
Output:
V[+F]1'
V[+F]2'
Input:
V[+F]1
V[-F]2
V[+F]3'
V[-F]3
If the indirect correspondents are counted as well, INTEGRITY(F) is violated

by an output such as that in (97), because the constraint says each feature
should have maximally one correspondent. Underlying [+F]1 has three surface correspondents in (97). If [+F]1 stands in correspondence with [+F]1',
and [+F]1' corresponds with [+F]2', then [+F]2' is a correspondent of [+F]1 as
well. The same holds for [+F]3' with respect to [+F]1. The effect of such a
constraint is that assimilated candidates are generally judged as worse than
candidates which lack assimilation. INTEGRITY(F) stands in direct conflict
with S-IDENTITY(F).
Now we could simply assume that INTEGRITY(F) has a positional
variant INTEGRITY(F)root, but this would not properly describe the real
situation since this predicts that roots are less prone to trigger assimilation
than are functional elements. The reality is the inversed situation as we
know from the behaviour of the vowel between two triggering vowels of
which one is an affix vowel and the other a root vowel. From the perspective of the trigger, assimilation is a prominence increasing operation. The
trigger extends its characteristics to other elements which are connected to
it. The prominence of the target on the other hand is reduced in that its
genuine feature profile is altered. Positional faithfulness is motivated by the
assumption that it is somehow prominent elements or elements in promi-
94
nent (prosodic) positions which are protected by positional faithfulness

which increases their perceptibility. This makes sense for the special status
of stems, since in an utterance where a hearer can identify all the affixes
properly but the identity of the root is uncertain an interpretation is impossible or at least difficult. An utterance might be understandable if the
functional elements are left out, but not if there are no lexical elements, to
tell which event the speaker refers to and who is involved in the event etc.
The INTEGRITY(F) constraint is a constraint against prominence augmentation. Therefore, in this special case the relation lexical ~ functional
element has to be inversed to make sure that the prominence of stems can
increase in output forms.
(98) Positional Integrity:
a. INTEGRITY(F)Affix
No feature of an affix in an input has multiple correspondents in the
output.
b. INTEGRITY(F)Root
No feature of a root in an input has multiple correspondents in the
output.
c. Universally preferred ranking:
INTEGRITY(F)Affix >> INTEGRITY(F)Root
The distinction of INTEGRITY(F) into affix integrity and lexical integrity
covers the above observation with regard to vowel harmony: Among the
languages of the world languages where affixes systematically control
harmony are extremely rare, while root control is the rule. In most cases
harmony is either controlled by a dominant feature or by the root.
Nevertheless, the ranking of S-IDENT above INTEGRITY(F)Affix, which
is automatically ranked above INTEGRITY(F)Root for conceptual reasons,
naturally allows active participation of affixes as well as root control in
harmonic systems.34 However, affixes are usually not referred to in positional faithfulness constraints. Of the two categories it is the stem which is
prominent, not the affix. This prominence relation (i.e. root > affix) is
captured in this special instantiation of positional faithfulness (i.e. INTEGRITY) by reference to the affix (or functional element) as well. It is the less
prominent element to which the usually higher ranked prominence decreas-
95
ing constraint refers, while non-affixes may be allowed more easily to increase their prominence in violation of lower ranking INTEGRITYroot.
INTEGRITY
Root
IDENT
S-
IO-ID
Root
IO-IDENT
rootofOfof
reetefEfef
rootafOfof
rootefEfef
rootofEfef
rootafafaf
INTEGRITY
Affix
a.
b.
c.
d.
) e.
f.
NESS
root+af+Ef+af
MARKED-
(99) Root control as a matter of integrity
***
*
**!
*
**!
***
***
*
**
**
*
***
***
*
**
*
*!
*!
**!
*
*
*
If IO-Identity were the decisive constraint, harmony could not change a

majority of identical feature specifications to that of a minority. It is often
specification of only one vowel which overwrites those of all others. A
proposal to avoid that the majority shapes an output is made by Lombardi
(1999) in that Identity violations may not be counted individually but rather
generically. Another proposal is that of Bakovi (2000) who attributes the
absence of majority rule cases to a universally present constraint conjunction of markedness with faithfulness.
Another nontrivial question is why the structural equivalents of candidate (99d) lose in all attested languages, as the medial vowel always assimilates to the root vowel in root controlled systems. In Bakovi's proposal this
is due to additional base-output faithfulness of the root plus the inner affix.
Since I reject base-output faithfulness, in my view the fate of the medial
vowel is determined by the ranking of Integrity constraints in (100b), which
is a determining part of root controlled harmony systems.
(100) Favoured Faithfulness relations
a. IO-IDENTRoot >> IO-IDENT
b. INTEGRITYAffix >> INTEGRITYRoot
One advantage of this analysis is that superficially unrelated phenomena
like coalescence, gemination, and harmony can be shown to be influenced
96
by one uniting factor, the Integrity constraint (or *MC in Lamontagne and
Rice's terminology).
Another peculiarity which becomes obvious from tableau (99) is that if
root identity is ranked below S-Identity, the (here unspecified) markedness
constraint triggers dominant harmony. I will follow Bakovi (2000) here in
assuming that dominance is triggered by the local conjunction of a markedness constraint on a particular feature specification with the IO-Identity
constraint for that feature.
(101) Dominance as local conjunction
a. *[+F]&lIO-IDENT(F)
b. *[+F]&lIO-IDENT(F) >> S-IDENT(F)
These general considerations regarding morphological control and dominance should suffice for the moment. The issue will be discussed further in
the sections on Turkish, Dgma, Diola Fogni, and Pulaar.
3.2
Many languages with root controlled harmony additionally show asymmetric cooccurrence patterns within words which cannot be derived from the
Integrity meta-ranking developed above. There is furthermore a close relation between vowel co-occurrence patterns and the direction of affixation.
The vowel which triggers harmony is usually situated at the opposite side
of the root than that of affixation. If we have rightward affixation, the
trigger is at the left edge of the root, if affixation goes to the left, the trigger
is usually at the right edge of the root.
Moreover, in many languages, a greater variety of vowels is permitted at
the side of the root, where no affixes are attached.
Beckman (1998) lists a number of such edge faithfulness effects for the
leftmost syllable. Turkic languages show a tendency to have low rounded
vowels preferably in the first syllable. In all other syllables low vowels are
unrounded. Stems with low rounded vowels in the second or third syllable
are usually loan words. Hungarian has mid front rounded vowels in noninitial syllables only as an effect of harmony. Tamil has no mid vowels and
no round vowels in non-initial syllables, while these are readily allowed in
initial syllables. Shona has mid vowels in non-initial syllables only as an
effect of harmony. All these languages are suffixing languages.
97
In Yoruba, which is a prefixing language, and which has ATR harmony,

mid vowels in non-final syllables always have their ATR specification from
the vowel in the final syllable. The low vowel is opaque. Mid vowels to the
left of that vowel have to agree with the low vowel in ATR. Those mid
vowels which are in the last syllable of the root can be disharmonic with
the preceding low or high vowel with regard to ATR.
On the basis of phonological as well as psycholinguistic data, Beckman
argues for a particular faithfulness constraint IO-IDENT1. This constraint
guards featural faithfulness of the first syllable in a root to its underlying
material. I will base my analysis of asymmetries on that account, but will
slightly modify her view of positional faithfulness in claiming that it is
right or left edge faithfulness which does not only shape these asymmetries
but also accounts for the connection of such asymmetries with the direction
of affixation.
The chart in (102), in particular (e,f) illustrate hypothetical forms with
ATR harmony that one would not expect to find. The trigger of assimilation
is in the middle of the word under root control here.35 An opaque vowel
may cause disharmony to one side of it (102d), but neither cause the initial
element of the word in a suffixing language to assimilate (102e), nor trigger
assimilation in the root final element in a prefixing language (102f). That
is, the direction of assimilation is connected to the direction of affixation
somehow. This connection is exactly what the positional faithfulness/markedness approach (Beckman 1995, 1997, 1998) and alignment approaches to
harmony lack, and which I will account for in this book.
(102) Hypothetical cases of root control:
/Ab(+ opaS/
a.
o p n -be
strictly left-to-right (e.g. Wolof)
b.
b(- op a
strictly right-to-left (e.g. Yoruba)
c.
o p a-b(
left-to-right with opaque vowel
d.
be- o p a
disharmonic root, affix harmony
e.
*op a -b(
unattested in root-controlled system
f.
*b H- o p n
unattested in root-controlled system
Both parameters (directionality of affixation and of harmony) can be
derived if one assumes the elements at the root edge to which no affixes are
attached to be subject to particularly strong faithfulness constraints. In the
following I will explain the technical details of a unified morphophonological analysis of the interdependence of vowel harmony and affixation in
98
languages with root controlled harmony. This analysis crucially relies on

the Anchoring constraint family, which was introduced in section 2.2 (see
the definition in 49).
To date, this constraint family has been interpreted in terms of segments. If a segment is for example at the left edge of a root in the underlying form, it should also be at the left edge of the word in the surface form.
Otherwise Left-ANCHOR would be violated. If this constraint is ranked
high, while Right-ANCHOR is ranked lower, the result is strict suffixation in
the language with this ranking. Anchoring constraints are a combination of
Alignment with faithfulness constraints, because it is not only important
that the designated edges are matched, as with Alignment constraints, but
also that the element referred to is mapped to the surface representation. If
the crucial element is simply skipped in one representation, ANCHOR is violated likewise, which is a faithfulness effect. A crucial question for the
analysis is now whether the faithfulness requirement referred to in Anchoring constraints covers the dimension of featural identity too. In my opinion
it should.
One technical variant to achieve this is to incorporate Identity into the
Anchoring correspondence relation, via "local disjunction" or logical conjunction of ANCHOR and IDENTITY(F). Logically seen this is a conjunction,
since both sentences have to be true to make the whole statement be true.
Note that local conjunctions in the sence of Prince and Smolensky (1993),
Smolensky (1993, 1995), and ubowicz (1999) are interpreted in the following way: Of the two generalisations expressed by constraint 1 and constraint 2, at least one has to be true, i.e., one constraint has to be satisfied to
satisfy the coordination of constraint 1 and constraint 2. Logically seen this
is a disjunction of two sentences.
As outlined in the preceding chapter, it is however possible to combine
two constraints in the form that both have to be satisfied in order to satisfy
the complex constraint within a local domain (see Wunderlich and
Lakmper 2001 for an application of this idea to case marking).
(103) Local constraint disjunction or logical conjunction (LCD)
a. Definition
Local disjunction is an operation on the constraint set forming
composite constraints: Let C1 and C2 be members of the constraint
set CON. Then their local disjunction (logical conjunction) C1lC2 is
also a member of CON.
99
b. Condition on arguments
Both constraints share their argument(s).
c. Interpretation
The local disjunction C1lC2 is violated iff either C1 or C2 or both are
violated in some domain , to which both constraints apply (in the
sense of b).
It is crucial, however, that both constraints apply within the specified
domain. Consider in this respect anchoring constraints. These constraints
crucially refer to the edges of given structures in the input and the output. If
we combine an anchoring constraint with an Identity constraint, we get the
following:
(104) Positional faithfulness as LCD
a. L-ANCHOR(root, pwd): The left edge of the root corresponds to the
left edge of the prosodic word.
b. IO-IDENT(voice): Consonants have identical specifications in input
and output.
c. L-ANCHORlIO-IDENT(voice): The left edge of the root corresponds
to the left edge of the prosodic word, and the left edge of the root has
the same specification of the feature [voice] as the left edge of the
prosodic word.
If the LCD in (104c) is important in a language, we have a language which
probably has a voicing contrast in the first segment of the root only, and
which is strictly suffixing. The L-ANCHOR constraint is violated whenever
a candidate has some structure at the left edge of the prosodic word which
is not at the left edge of the root, for instance affixes or epenthetic elements. The Identity constraint is violated when the correspondent of the
root at the left edge of the prosodic word is not identical with its input in
voicing. The LCD is satisfied only if a segment that corresponds to the criteria of being at the left edge of the root in the input meets the requirements
of both constraints. For the interpretation of the LCD, argument sharing is
indispensable. Otherwise, the constraint combination would result in simple
promotion of both constraints, which might be undesirable in a grammar
for independent reasons. For illustration let us consider a hypothetical case
100
of a language where all intervocalic consonants are voiced and word-final

consonants are devoiced, while the voicing contrast is maintained only
word-initially. Consider the hypothetical input /bat + -eg/.
(105) A hypothetical language
/bat + eg/ L-AlIO-ID
a. bateg
b. patek
*!
) c. badek
d. padek
*!
e. egbat
*!
f. ekpat
*!
*VC[-voi]V
*[+voi]
*!
*
**
**
*
**
IO-ID(voi)
**
**
***
**
The LCD of L-ANCHOR and IO-Identity rules out all candidates with
prefixation (e,f), because in these forms the left edge of the root and the
word do not coincide. Candidates (b, d) are suboptimal because they violate
the high ranking LCD by their unfaithfulness to the underlying voicing
specification of the segment targeted by the LCD.
We can extend this LCD as a constraint scheme now, since the features
referred to are interchangeable or even all features. As a general constraint,
we can attribute a language's choice between predominating suffixation and
prefixation as an effect of extended Left-Anchoring or extended R-Anchoring, respectively.
(106) Affixation as RIGHT/LEFT-ANCHORING:
R/L-ANCHOR(root, pwd): Any element at the right/left edge of the
root has a correspondent at the right/left edge of the prosodic word.
(107) {R/L-ANCHOR IO-IDENT(F)}: Complex constraint is violated if
minimally one of the two constraints is violated by an element,
which is subject to both constraints, i.e. in the local domain.
If two constraints are locally 'disjoined' this means that any local domain
must satisfy both constraints. This combination is different from ranking
both disjoint constraints highly in that only those double constraint violations are counted which are incurred within the same domain. Traditionally this domain has been the segment. In the account developed here I will
treat the mapping of segments to edges not strictly in order to be able to
refer to the first/last vowel in a root as well. Thus, I will refer to the edge-
101
most syllable here, like Beckman (1998) does for the IO-IDENT-1 constraint. In case of disjunction of L/R-ANCHOR with any other constraint it is
of course only those consonants/vowels which are affected by the ANCHOR
constraint as well as the other constraint that are subject to the local
disjunction. Any material in a (potential) syllable which is not at the designated periphery mentioned in the Anchoring constraint in S1 is excluded.
In the case of R-ANCHOR(root, pwd) all consonants/ vowels vacuously
satisfy the local disjunction which are not at the right root edge in their
underlying form. Whether we have to treat this affixation parameter as a
local disjunction or as a simplex constraint may be subject to further
research. For the current purposes I will refer to this strong edge faithfulness as given in (108) and (109).
(108) Suffixation as LEFT-ANCHORING (i.e. Local disjunction):
LEFT-ANCHOR(root, pwd): The leftmost consonant/vowel of the root
has an identical correspondent in the leftmost consonant/vowel of the
prosodic word.
(109) Prefixation as RIGHT-ANCHORING (i.e. Local disjunction):
RIGHT-ANCHOR(root, pwd): Any consonant/vowel at the right edge
of the root has an identical correspondent in the rightmost
consonant/vowel of the prosodic word.
In tableau (110) the possibilities to violate Left-ANCHOR are summarised.
The mirror image holds for Right-ANCHOR.
(110) Violation and satisfaction of R/L-ANCHOR:
/CV1CV2Croot +VC +VCV/ L-ANCHOR
a. VCV-CV1CV2C-VC
*
(left root edge is not aligned
with left word edge)
b. CV3CV2C-VC-VCV
*
(leftmost root vowel is not
identical to leftmost vowel of
the word)
c. CV2C-VC-VCV
*
(leftmost part of root is not
mapped to surface form)
d. CV1CV2C-VC-VCV
9
(perfect anchoring and identity
at left root/word edge)
(RIGHT-ANCHOR mutatis mutandis)
102
Strong faithfulness to a particular morphological edge now provides us

with an explanation for the triggering capacity of the leftmost vowel in
suffixing languages (like Shona, Beckman 1995) and that of the rightmost
root vowel in prefixing languages (like Yoruba, see below). A ranking of
L/R-ANCHOR above the relevant markedness constraints, which in turn
outrank general faithfulness yields the licensing asymmetries observed by
Beckman and others.
(111) Left edge asymmetry ranking:
L-ANCHOR >> MARKEDNESS >> FAITHFULNESS
A language with prefixation and asymmetries in vowel cooccurrence
patterns is characterised by the ranking in (112).
(112) Right edge asymmetries:
R-ANCHOR >> MARKEDNESS >> FAITHFULNESS
Beckman (1998) assumes that such a constraint inventory, consisting of
positional faithfulness, general faithfulness and markedness constraints is
sufficient to account for vowel harmonies like that of Shona. In the next
section, dealing with vowel transparency, we will see one more reason why
additional harmony constraints are needed.
Beckman introduces and motivates a positional faithfulness constraint
on the left edge of roots, IO-IDENT1. Given Clements' (2000) and
Bakovi's (2000) observation that prefix vowels never act as triggers in
vowel harmony this restriction of positional faithfulness on roots seems
warranted.36 Above we have reformulated the same in a more general way
to be able to include prefixing languages as well. However, in the discussion of affix control (chapter 4.6) I will argue that a faithfulness constraint on the right word edge which does not necessarily refer to a morphological category has to exist, while it turns out from the behaviour of prefixes in dominant systems that a morphologically neutral first syllable faithfulness constraint as such is inexistent in Universal Grammar.
In most languages, one of these edge anchoring constraints may be
ranked highly. The opposite constraint is usually suppressed in the hierarchy. This ranking preference is motivated by its function: increasing the
prominence of one word edge. This improves the chances of the hearer to
structure an utterance or phrase into words. Ranking both constraints high
results in a language without affixation.
103
An additional argument in favour of right edge faithfulness and a

refinement are necessary. Such a constraint is motivated empirically also
by other phenomena than vowel harmony. In Yapese (Jensen 1977, cit. op
Piggott 1999), all word-internal syllables are open. At the right word edge,
coda consonants are allowed. Eastern Ojibwa (Bloomfield 1957, cit. op
Piggott 1999), for instance, allows only fricatives and nasals in wordinternal codas, but the full consonant inventory is allowed word-finally.
Similar patterns can be found in many other languages as well. Such inconsequent patterns of coda neutralisation can be accounted for in a variety of
ways (see Piggott 1999). One quite simple account would be to assume
positional faithfulness constraints on onsets and on the right word edge,
which outrank markedness, which in turn outranks simple faithfulness.
(113) Word-internal coda neutralisation:
OnsetFAITH, Right-edgeFAITH >> MARKEDNESS/CODACOND >>
FAITHFULNESS
The result of such a grammar is neutralisation of all codas except those at
the right word margin. I will not go into the details of this issue here since
it only served to give an idea of possible effects of edge faithfulness.
However, elements at the right edge which do not obey otherwise regular
markedness restrictions can be either morphologically affiliated with
affixes or roots (compare Yoruba and Futankoore Pulaar below). Therefore
I propose the following general right edge faithfulness constraint.
(114) IO-IDENTRight: Elements at the right edge of a word are identical to
their underlying form.
After this discussion, I owe the reader an explanation of the claim that the
parallel left edge faithfulness constraint IO-IDENTLeft does not exist. Leftedge faithfulness effects are found only in suffixing languages. Furthermore, as noted above, harmony triggered by prefixes is unattested so far. If
the constraint IO-IDENTLeft where present in Universal Grammar we would
expect to find dominant prefixes. Tableau (115) shows this. In this
hypothetical grammar, left edge identity outranks the harmony constraint.
Of the three candidates which satisfy the harmony requirement the one is
chosen which does so without violating faithfulness to the left edge of the
word, which is a prefix in this case. The result is the unattested pattern of
prefix-controlled harmony.
104
(115) A potential prefixed trigger (unattested)

/pi1- #pa2# -po3/
IO-IDENTLeft
S-IDENT
a. pi1pa2po3
*!*
0 b. pi1pi2pi3
c. pa1pa2pa3
*
d. po1po2po3
*
IO-IDENTroot
*
*
*
Attributing left-edge faithfulness effects to a logical conjunction of the

Left-ANCHOR constraint on roots with a simplex Identity constraint gives
us exactly the desired result: Only root material can show strong faithfulness effects at the left edge of the word. Prefixes are excluded from this
privilege, because every prefix intervenes between the left root edge and
the left word edge. Without a constraint IDENTLeft there is no constraint preferring output forms with prefixes or even proclitics as triggers of harmony.
These issues will be discussed in more detail in chapter 4.
In the next section, I will outline my proposal of how to account for
vowel transparency.
3.3
Vowel transparency emerges (but not necessarily) where a potentially

harmonic vowel has no alternant, because the particular vowel which would
surface in this case is not allowed in the respective language.37
In Finnish, for instance, the nonlow vowels i and e behave as transparent. Would they participate in backness harmony as undergoers as well,
they would have to surface as and ), respectively, in words with back
vowels only, or they would have to change their height or roundness specification. The vowels and ) never surface in Finnish, neither as independent phonemes nor as the result of phonological processes (a phenomenon
known as structure preservation).
The same holds for the [-ATR] counterparts of [+ATR] high vowels in
languages with ATR harmony and transparent vowels. These vowels cause
an imbalance in the phonemic inventory of the language. Where all other
vowels of different rounding and height may contrast in backness/ATR,
they do not. On the other side, these transparent vowels behave as balanced
with respect to their neighbours. The observation is the following: A transparent vowel is always either harmonic with respect to both its non-transparent neighbours or it is disharmonic with respect to both.
105
(116) Vowels and their neighbours

i. Balance (transparency)
a. harmony
b. disharmony
V VB V
V VB V
[F] [F] [F]
[F] [-F] [F]
ii. Imbalance (opacity)
a. harmony
V VI V
[F] [F] [F]
b. disharmony
V VI V
[F] [-F] [-F]
As an alternative to the proposal that harmony permeates through the

neutral vowel, one could likewise say that the vowel harmonises with its
neighbour to one side if it is harmonic with its neighbour to the other.
Disharmony to one side of the neutral vowel is triggered by disharmony to
the other side, which is a kind of hidden effect of the Obligatory Contour
Principle (OCP, Leben 1973, Goldsmith 1976, McCarthy 1986). In the following I will develop the technical aspects of such a generalisation, and explain the role of the OCP in this pattern.
The first thing needed for such an account is an OCP constraint which
demands dissimilation of two (syllabically or moraically) adjacent vowels.
Such a constraint can be found at work in languages like Ainu or Yucatec
Maya for instance (It 1984, Krmer 1998, 1999, 2001). In these languages, certain vowels dissimilate in backness with their neighbours. In
Yucatec, we find an additional morphologically restricted pattern of height
dissimilation. The responsible constraints can be formalised as negations of
the respective harmony constraints.
(117) OCP: *S-IDENTITY(F) (Krmer 2001):38
Let x be a feature bearing unit in representation R and y be any
adjacent feature bearing unit in representation R, if x is [F] then y is
not [F].
A local conjunction of this constraint with the respective harmony constraint is violated by a vowel which is inbetween two other vowels whenever the medial vowel agrees with only one of its neighbours or disagrees
with only one of its neighbours.
106
(118) Local conjunction of BALANCE (first version): S-IDENT(F)&l*SIDENT(F): A vowel may exclusively agree with its neighbours or
exclusively disagree with its neighbours with respect to feature F.
(119) Violation of LC BALANCE I:
BALANCE:
S-ID(F)&l*S-ID(F)
a. harmonic V[+F] V[+F] V[+F]

b. transparent V[+F] V[-F] V[+F]
c. opaque
V[-F] V[+F] V[+F]
9
9
*
S-ID *S(F) ID(F)
9
**
*
**
9
*
At first sight, such a constraint inventory prefers harmony in languages

where S-ID(F) is ranked above its negation *S-ID(F), which should be the
usual case in languages displaying vowel harmony. If the identity of an
element disharmonically preceding the balanced vowel is furthermore
protected by an ANCHOR constraint or root identity, the result is dissimilation also to the other side, which is exactly the pattern which is traditionally understood as transparency. In the account proposed here, the balanced
vowel is anything but neutral or transparent. It is particularly active. This
activity becomes even more specific in languages which have transparent
high vowels and opaque low vowels. For such languages the BALANCE LC
is further restricted in that the markedness constraint violated by the
transparent vowel, i.e., *[+high] or *[-low] is additionally integrated in the
LC as the element triggering the activity of BALANCE.
(120) BALANCE: *[-low / +high]&lS-ID(F)&l*S-ID(F)
Bakovi and Wilson (2000) argue that the markedness constraint on high
vowels, banning high vowels with retracted tongue root position from surfacing, deserve a special status. According to them the distinction of
[+ATR] and [-ATR] in high vowels is perceptually weak. Furthermore, the
[-ATR] high vowels are acoustically quite similar to [+ATR] mid vowels,
which is why they fuse in many languages and the ATR contrast is eliminated in high vowels.
A similar explanation might be suitable for the backness dimension.
Back nonlow unrounded vowels, those which a backness harmonic system
with transparent vowels lacks, are acoustically not particularly easy to discriminate from their rounded counterparts and from other lower or more
centralised vowels.
107
The observation to be kept is not simply that high vowels are particularly prone to behave as transparent or balanced, no matter what the
harmonising feature is. Low vowels may behave as balanced as well, in
case they cause an asymmetry to the vowel inventory with regard to the
harmonising feature (as observed in Kinande by Schlindwein 1987).
Therefore, it is not the markedness constraint against high vowels with
retracted tongue root position which deserves a special status, it is the
markedness constraint on vowels which do not have a counterpart with
exactly the same feature profile except the specification of the harmonically
active feature.
The pattern exhibited by Trojan vowels is a peculiarity of surface
asymmetric vowels as well.
3.4
Trojan vowels are those vowels which exceptionally trigger disharmony in

an adjacent potential target of harmony. In many if not most approaches,
such vowels are analysed as bearing underlyingly the opposite feature
specification than in the surface realisation. The feature change from underlying form to surface form is triggered by restrictions on the vowel inventory.
In Hungarian, for instance, back nonlow unrounded vowels are not
allowed in surface forms, but they are present underlyingly. As mentioned
already in the discussion in the introduction to vowel harmony, the behaviour of such vowels has led to a variety of analyses. I will add one
which runs conform with the general account to be presented here.
Surface disharmony in my view is triggered whenever a vowel is not
faithful to its underlying feature specification. Such an active disharmony is
usually conceived of as dissimilation. Dissimilation has been formalised
above as the negation of syntagmatic correspondence. In terms of local
conjunction we can combine the triggering condition, i.e. IO-IDENT(F) with
the constraint responsible for the triggered pattern, i.e. *S-IDENT(F). The
constraint IO-IDENT(F) can be said to have a triggering status, because this
constraint is always and inevitably violated by vowels which underlyingly
bear a feature profile which is generally banned from surfacing in a given
language.
108
(121) Local conjunction TROY(F) (first version):

IO-IDENT(F)&l*S-IDENT(F)
This alone does not suffice since such a local conjunction, if ranked high
would cause dissimilation throughout the language. Thus, we have to add a
second triggering condition, the markedness constraint which is violated by
the unfaithful vowel, *[-low / + high].
(122) Local conjunction TROY(F):
*[-low / +high]&lIO-IDENT(F)&l*S-IDENT(F)
By this extension, the local conjunction is activated only for those vowels
which render the vowel system asymmetric with regard to backness or ATR
on the surface, the high vowels in the cases of Hungarian and Yoruba. This
makes sense insofar as this local conjunction has a function: It serves to
maintain a contrast and a symmetry of the system in underlying forms,
which it lacks on the surface.
3.5
Parasitic harmony
Parasitic harmony is for instance height-uniform harmony as found in

Yawelmani (see chapter 6.4) or Phuthi (Donnelly 2000). In such a pattern
only those vowels agree with regard to a particular feature, which already
agree (in most cases lexically) in another feature dimension.
Kaun (1994) introduces the constraint UNI[RD] to account for this
pattern in height-uniform rounding harmony, which militates against
autosegments which do not have a uniform execution mechanism during
their articulation span. The constraint looks like the following:
(123) UNI[RD]:
a.
[RD]
b.
*[RD]
[H]
[H]
[H]
[-H]
In the approach developed here, reference to autosegmental structures like

those above is not necessary. Furthermore, it is not necessary to assume a
new constraint to account for uniformity conditions on harmony. Such
Summary
109
patterns can be accounted for by almost the same local conjunction as in the
initial proposal for transparent vowels above, the harmony constraint is
conjoined with a disharmony constraint. Only the features have to be different in both constraints. If the harmony constraint refers to the feature
rounding while the disharmony constraint refers to the feature height, and
furthermore IO-Identity on height is assumed to be more important than IOIdentity of rounding, we get the desired result.
(124) Local conjunction of UNIFORMVH: S-IDENT(F1)&l*S-IDENT(F2)
In the local conjunction on BALANCE, two conflicting constraints on the
same feature attracted each other. In this case it is two conflicting
constraints on different dimensions of the feature matrix, which are
conjoined. I will use this LC lateron in the analysis of Yawelmani harmony.
Further research will have to show why it is the height features which are
involved as the uniformity condition so often, and which other features can
take on this role as well.
3.6
Summary
In this section I have laid out the technical aspects of the theory which I
propose to analyse vowel harmony. Three points should have become obvious already: Vowel harmony is a prosodically governed phenomenon in the
sense that the elements which stand in correspondence are the prosodic
units of the mora or that of the syllable. Vowel harmony is also strictly tied
to morphology, as can be seen from the connection between asymmetries in
vocalic patterns within words and the parametrisation of affixation, which
is determined by a positional faithfulness constraint on phonological structure. The third point to be made is that the variation attested in the world's
languages regarding the aspects of vowel harmony under discussion can be
theoretically accounted for solely by reliance on positional faithfulness and
local constraint coordination within Optimality Theory.
Of course one could object that the use of the powerful means of constraint coordination opens the doors to arbitrariness. Arbitrariness is
avoided here from two angles: the possibilities of constraint coordination
are reduced by the shared argument condition (Crowhurst and Hewitt) on
the one side and by functional motivation on the other. The latter means
that an instance of constraint coordination has to serve a certain higher
110
purpose. Constraint coordination is used in the languages to achieve a

higher degree of interpretability, or to compensate an asymmetry of the
system by symmetry in another dimension (i.e. for the purpose of elegance)
or to maintain a phonemic contrast which would get lost otherwise.
The second part of this book will be devoted to the detailed analysis of
individual languages of which each serves to illustrate different aspects of
vowel harmony.
Part II:
Case Studies
Chapter 4
4.1
Introduction
Many languages displaying vowel harmony with root control have

affixation only in one direction. The direction of harmony is the same as
that of affixation in almost all of these languages (compare the examples of
Finnish, Hungarian, Shona, Turkish, Yoruba). Usually the directionality of
both processes is not tied to one and the same source in analyses thereof. In
this chapter, I attempt to show that there is a reason for this strong correlation, but that the connection of both processes can also be disrupted, as is
the case in Futankoore Pulaar, a dialect of Fula. Therefore, the grammatical
mechanisms shaping the connection between vowel harmony and morphology must be compositional in nature, as is suggested here by the fusion/coordination of anchoring and identity constraints.
The point will be illustrated with the examples of Yoruba, Turkish,
Dgma, Diola Fogni and Futankoore Pulaar. Almost all these languages
display root control, while Futankoore Pulaar has affix controlled harmony.
The example of Diola Fogni serves to apply the analysis to a case of
dominant-recessive harmony.
Yoruba has leftward affixation (i.e., prefixation) only, and ATR harmony proceeds from right to left. Disharmony within stems occurs only
when a potential target of harmony is situated to the right of an opaque
vowel, one which resists harmony. In that case the vowel at the right edge
of the word may disagree with the opaque vowel to its left in its ATR specification (see (129b), p. 117). If the same vowel is situated to the left of such
an opaque vowel it has to agree with the latter in the feature ATR.
Turkish has backness and roundness harmony and rightward affixation
(i.e., suffixation) only. In native roots and affixes, the occurrence of nonhigh round vowels is restricted to the leftmost syllable in a word. All
following low vowels have to be unround. This is in most respects the
mirror image of the Yoruba pattern. Both cases will be explained as the
effect of an Anchoring constraint combined with a faithfulness constraint.
114
This analysis has the advantage that it excludes languages with root
controlled harmony where harmony is triggered by the vowel which is
situated in the root at the side where affixation takes place. The analysis
explains furthermore why in strictly suffixing languages regularisation of
loanwords is triggered by the vowel in the first syllable in most cases and
by the vowel in the last stem syllable in prefixing languages.
The Turkish data as well as the Futankoore Pulaar data will also serve to
explain "the fate of the medial vowel". Suppose we have a word with a
stem containing several vowels and with two or more affixes with a vowel
each. If the most peripheral affix has an opaque vowel, one which opens up
its own harmony domain, the question arises what happens to the affix
vowel between stem and opaque affix vowel. In all languages with root
control the medial vowel agrees with the next stem vowel. Under an
analysis which does not assume directionality to be a parameter of the harmony constraint itself the medial vowel could also assimilate to the more
peripheral opaque affix vowel.
The answer to this question lies in the observation that assimilation
maximises the perceptual prominence of the morpheme which contains the
trigger of assimilation, while it reduces the prominence of the morpheme
containing the target of assimilation. Conceptually roots are more important
than affixes, which means that they also deserve greater phonological
prominence.
Technically, the prominence asymmetry between roots and affixes can
be described as an effect of positional variants of the constraint against assimilation. McCarthy and Prince (1995) introduced the constraint INTEGRITY, which was defined as a constraint against gemination by disallowing
the mapping of one input structure onto more than one output correspondent. If the definition of this constraint is extended to the featural level of
structure, it is violated by assimilation, since assimilation is correspondence
with the neighbour in the framework developed here, and as such an indirect correspondence relation with the underlying feature of the neighbour
which is the trigger of harmony. As a faithfulness constraint, INTEGRITY
has a positional variant, which determines the fate of the medial vowel in
vowel harmony.
The example of Dgma, which is a language with root controlled ATR
harmony and affixation to both sides of the root, serves to show how root
control is regulated by positional INTEGRITY in a language where both LeftANCHOR and Right-ANCHOR are ranked very low in the hierarchy.
115
Diola Fogni is similar to Dgma in most respects except that the language displays the dominant-recessive type of harmony instead of root
control. This example serves to illustrate how the root control grammar
developed before can be neutralised by a local conjunction of markedness
with faithfulness (as proposed by Bakovi 2000) such that ATR dominance
results.
The last case study shows how in an unorthodox reranking of positional
constraints affix control can arise.
Before I come to the details of this approach I will show that asymmetries in the cooccurrence patterns of Yoruba vowels are effects of the
Anchoring constraint that is also the source of the direction of affixation.
4.2
Yoruba is a language which has only prefixation and displays root-controlled ATR harmony. The Yoruba vowel inventory is given in (125).
(125) Yoruba vowel inventory (Pulleyblank 1996: 297)
front
advanced
i
high
retracted
advanced
e
mid
retracted
(
advanced
low
retracted
a
back
u
o
o
The system is asymmetric with regard to the harmonic feature ATR, in that
the ATR high vowels do not have retracted counterparts. These vowels
never alternate with regard to ATR. They don't even alternate with regard
to height to make a word more harmonic. High vowels are specific in that
they display patterns which are seen as results of derivational opacity in the
literature. The second asymmetry is caused by the low vowel, which is
retracted and has no counterpart in the system which is [+ATR]. I will postpone the discussion of high vowels to the chapter on Trojan vowels. In this
section, I will concentrate on the patterns found with the mid vowels and
the low vowel.
116
4.2.1 Harmony and the right word edge in Yoruba

If a prefix containing a mid vowel is attached to a root the prefix vowel
agrees with the root vowel with regard to ATR, as in (126). In (126a), all
root vowels are [+ATR] and the affix vowel o surfaces as [+ATR] too. In
(126b), all root vowels are [-ATR] and the same affix vowel now surfaces
as retracted as well.
(126) Harmony with prefixes
a. [o6ewe] 'publisher'
[oowu] 'jealous person'
b. [okos(]
/o + /6w/
/o + /jow/
'publish a book'
'be jealous'
'person who refuses to /o + /ko/ /i6(/ 'refuse' 'message'

run errands'
The language has enclitics to the right side of stems. These clitics do not
undergo harmony.
(127) No harmony with enclitics
a. gbgb r( 'forget it'
b. p o
'call you'
(Pulleyblank 1996: footnote 7)
In roots containing only mid vowels all vowels agree with regard to ATR.
(128) Yoruba words containing only mid vowels
a. ATR words
b. RTR words
eb
'heap for yams'
(s(
'foot'
epo
'oil'
(ko
'pap'
ol
'thief'
ob(
'soup'
ow
'money'
oko
'vehicle'
With words which contain a low vowel and mid vowels, the situation is
more complicated. In words with D in the rightmost syllable, only retracted
mid vowels occur (129a). If D is in the first syllable, the mid vowel to the
right can be either advanced (129b) or retracted (129c). In the roots with
the low retracted vowel followed by an advanced mid vowel, the ATR
harmony requirement is ignored.
117
(129) Yoruba roots and positional prominence

a. [(ED@
'food made from gr'
*[eba]
[(gba@
'whip'
*[egba]
b. [afe]
[awo]
[adi]
'Spotted Grass-mouse'
'plate'
'palm-nut oil'
c. [a(@
'witch'
[ab(r(@
'needle'
[a6o]
'cloth'
This pattern has led Archangeli and Pulleyblank (1989) and Pulleyblank
(1996) to assume that Yoruba vowel harmony is a directional process
applying from the right to the left in a word or satisfying a Left-Alignment
constraint, respectively. If harmony operates bidirectionally in other languages (see the discussion of Turkish and Dgma below), why should it be
directional in Yoruba? Furthermore, the alignment approach has been
rejected on general grounds above. An argument for a unified analysis of
affixation and directionality effects of vowel harmony is the observation
that there are no languages in which harmony is systematically triggered by
the root vowel at the edge of the root to which no affixes attach (as schematised in chapter 3).
4.2.2 An anchoring analysis of the asymmetry in roots
Both parameters (directionality of affixation and of harmony) can be
derived if one assumes the elements at the root or stem edge to which no
affixes are attached to be subject to particularly strong faithfulness constraints. In Yoruba, prefixation and the harmony pattern are shaped by the
constraint in (109), which is a combination of an Anchoring constraint and
a featural Identity constraint. The general pattern of this constraint was
motivated in section 3.2.
(130) Prefixation as RIGHT-ANCHORING (i.e., LCD):
RIGHT-ANCHOR(root, pwd): Any syllable at the right edge of the root
has an identical correspondent at the right edge of the prosodic word.
In Yoruba, as we have seen, retracted as well as advanced mid vowels can
stand at the right edge of a word, whether a low (invariably retracted)
vowel precedes them or not. To account for this the constraint R-ANCHOR
118
has to rank above the constraint demanding ATR harmony, i.e. SIDENT(ATR).
(131) Syntagmatic Identity S-IDENT(ATR): Adjacent syllables are identical
in their specification of [ATR].
Satisfaction of the harmony constraint must be more important in Yoruba
than faithfulness to underlying ATR specifications. Otherwise we would
observe no harmony at all. This is accounted for by the ranking of SIDENT(ATR) above IO-IDENT(ATR). The invariability of D with regard to
ATR is an effect of an undominated markedness constraint against the
feature combination [+low, +ATR].
(132) *[+low, +ATR]: Low vowels are not advanced.
This markedness constraint has to rank even higher than the Anchoring
constraint. The latter is a faithfulness constraint and would eventually cause
low advanced vowels to surface at the right edge of words if it were more
important than the markedness constraint.
Bringing all these assumptions together we arrive at the ranking below.
(133) Yoruba ranking:
*[+low, +ATR] >> R-ANCHOR >> S-ID(ATR)
>> IO-ID(ATR) ... >> L-ANCHOR
In tableau (134), the correct output from the underlyingly disharmonic stem
afe 'Spotted Grass-mouse' is evaluated against the Yoruba constraint
hierarchy.
(134) Stem-internal disharmony [afe] 'spotted grass-mouse'
/afe/ *[+lo, +ATR] R-ANCHOR S-ID(ATR) IO-ID(ATR)
a. af(
*!
*
b. nIH
*!
*
) c. afe
*
The most harmonic candidate (a) violates R-ANCHOR, because even though
the rightmost vowel of the root is also the rightmost vowel of the word it is
unfaithful to its underlying ATR specification. The second candidate is
suboptimal in that it violates *[+lo, +ATR]. The only candidate left is
119
candidate (c) which is disharmonic but satisfies the highest ranked

constraints.
Mid vowels to the left of a low vowel have another fate. They are not
subject to the R-ANCHOR constraint. For this reason inputs like the one in
tableau (135), with a hypothetical advanced mid vowel surface harmonically. The most faithful candidate (a) loses due to its violation of S-IDENT.
The next candidate (b) has a low advanced vowel instead of the underlying
retracted one. This satisfies S-IDENT, but violates both the markedness constraint against low advanced vowels and R-ANCHOR.
(135) Stem-internal harmony from potential disharmonic /egba/
/egba/ *[+lo, +ATR] R-ANCHOR S-ID(ATR) IO-ID(ATR)
a. egba
*!
b. egbn
*!
*
*
) c. (gba
*
This grammar, which neutralises the ATR contrast in mid vowels before
the low vowel, determines the optimal underlying forms of such words.
Since the contrast can never surface in this environment, language learners
will choose an underlying representation which is as close as possible to the
surface form, i.e. /(gba/ is preferred to /egba/.
4.2.3 Harmony, anchoring, and affixation
The last pattern to be evaluated is a root plus an affix, to show that this
grammar regulates both affixation as well as root or root control quite
naturally. For the sake of explanation I posited the input /o + 6(w/ for the
output [-6w] 'publisher' in tableau (136). In the absence of low vowels
the markedness constraint *[+lo, +ATR] is satisfied vacuously by all
candidates. Candidates (d-g) fare better on R-ANCHOR than their competitors (a, b, and c). Candidates (a, b) have not matched the right root edge
with the right word edge by suffixing the nominalising affix. In candidate
(c), the rightmost root vowel is the rightmost vowel of the word, but it is
not faithful to the underlying ATR value of this vowel, which makes it odd
with regard to R-ANCHOR. The remaining competing forms are candidates
(d-g) now. Out of these the one is chosen which satisfies best the harmony
constraint S-IDENT.
120
(136) Harmony and affixation [-6w] 'publisher'

/o + 6(w/
*[+lo, +ATR] R-ANCHOR S-ID(ATR)
a. 6wo
*!
*
b. 6wo
*!
c. o6(w(
*!
d. 6(w
*!*
e. o6(w
*!
f. o6w
*!
) g. 6w
IO-ID(ATR)
*
**
*
*
**
In interaction with the harmony constraint, the constraint R-ANCHOR has

regulated affixation and induced root control on the harmony pattern. As
was said above I will come back to Yoruba in chapter 6.2. The discussion
of previous approaches to Yoruba is postponed until after the analysis of
Turkish.
The next issue to be pursued is to show the mirror image pattern of root
control and prefixation, i.e., a language in which the high ranking of LeftANCHOR has an impact on the surface forms of words. The language under
examination is Turkish. With this language I will encounter another problematic issue, which is the right outcome of vowels in the middle of a word
which find themselves between a root vowel and an opaque vowel.
4.3
Turkish has the vowel system given in (137). The system is completely
symmetric in that every vowel has a counterpart with the opposite backness
or roundness specification. This richness is explored in the Turkish vowel
harmony, which covers the features backness and roundness.
(137) Turkish vowels
high
low
round
round
front
i
[y]
e
[2]
back
[]
u
a [$]
o
121
Even though phonetically the low vowels are not all of the same height, the
system is assumed to have only a twofold height distinction by most
authors (see van der Hulst and van de Weijer 1991: 12).
4.3.1 Left-anchoring
Roundness harmony is restricted in that it is fully operative only among
high vowels. This restriction has been described by Kirchner (1993) as an
effect of a Markedness constraint which prohibits roundness on nonhigh
vowels *[-high, +round]. Since the epenthetic vowel in Turkish is high and
the language has only two levels in the height dimension, I would favour
the assumption that the marked height is low, and the whole height
distinction is encoded by the phonological feature [low]. So the active
markedness constraint should be *LORO / *[+low, +round].
In most Turkish roots, the two vowels o and are allowed only in the
first syllable. All affixes containing nonhigh vowels have unrounded
vowels. The only exception is the progressive marker yor which I will
discuss in 4.3.3. In the current approach, the fact that Turkish is a suffixing
language is explained by high ranking of the constraint L-ANCHOR. This
results also in particularly strong faithfulness to the vowel at the left edge
of roots.
(138) Suffixation as LEFT-ANCHORING (i.e., LCD):
LEFT-ANCHOR(root, pwd): Any syllable at the left edge of the root
has an identical correspondent at the left edge of the prosodic word.
If we rank L-ANCHOR above the markedness constraint against low
rounded vowels, which in turn is ranked above general IO-Faithfulness, we
describe exactly the Turkish pattern: The vowels o and emerge in the first
syllable only.
(139)
L-ANCHOR >> *LORO >> IO-IDENT(round) ... >> R-ANCHOR
The data in (140) show the basic harmony pattern. Affixes containing a low
vowel (like the plural marker ler/lar) agree with the root vowel in backness. Roundness harmony does not take place with these affix vowels as is
shown by the nominative plural forms in (140c,d,g,h). High affix vowels
agree in backness and roundness with the preceding vowel, regardless
122
whether this is an affix vowel or a root vowel. Compare the genitive

singular forms with the genitive plural forms in (140).
(140)
a. rope
b. girl
c. face
d. stamp
e. hand
f. stalk
g. village
h. end
nom.sg.
ip
kz
yz
pul
elj
sap
kjy
son
nom.pl.
ip-ljer
kz-lar
yz-ljer
pul-lar
elj-ljer
sap-lar
kjy-ljer
son-lar
gen.sg.
gen.pl.
ip-in
ip-ljer-in
kz-n
kz-lar-n
yz-n
yz-ljer-in
pul-un
pul-lar-n
elj-in
elj-ljer-in
sap-n
sap-lar-n
j
k y-n
kjy-ljer-in
son-un
son-lar-n
Tableau (141) shows the Turkish harmony grammar at work and illustrates
what would happen to a hypothetical underlyingly rounded low vowel in an
affix.
(141) Turkish kjy-ljer 'villages' from hypothetical underlying /kjy-lor/
/kjy -ljor/ L-ANCHOR *LORO S-ID(bk,rd)
IO-ID(rd)
a. kjyljor
**!
*(bk)
b. kjyljr
**!
*
c. kjeyljer
*!
***
) d. kjyljer
*
*(rd)
**
The high ranking markedness constraint *LORO sorts out all forms
containing low rounded vowels (a,b) except one (d). Candidate (d) violates
*LORO by the rounded low vowel in the first syllable, but it fares better
with regard to Left-ANCHOR than its competitor (c). Candidate (c) has an
unrounded first vowel in satisfaction of *LORO, but this first root vowel is
subject to Left-ANCHOR. Unfaithfulness to roundness in the leftmost
syllable of the root violates this constraint. All other underlyingly rounded
low vowels trivially satisfy Left-ANCHOR, because they are not at the left
root edge underlyingly. Their input-output mapping is therefore determined
by *LORO. Since *LORO is more important than S-IDENT(rd), disharmony
with regard to roundness is readily accepted by the output mapping from a
potential harmonic input like /kjy-lor/.
Assuming an input like /-lor/ for the affix demonstrates that the shape of
the vowel in question is completely determined by the grammar, except for
123
its height. The underlying roundness specification of suffix vowels is in

fact irrelevant to the output. For reasons of lexical economy such vowels
might end up as being stored underspecified with respect to roundness and
backness in the lexicon. Underspecification in non-initial syllables,
however, cannot be regarded as the reason for the pattern under the
'richness of the base' hypothesis (Prince and Smolensky 1993), but rather as
a side effect.
We have now seen why Turkish low vowels are opaque to rounding
harmony. A question that arises is what happens to a potentially harmonic
vowel if it is inbetween a round root vowel and an opaque unrounded
vowel.
4.3.2 Root control and Integrity
In root controlled systems the outcome is always the same: The fate of the
medial vowel is determined by the stem vowel, never by the affix vowel.
This is illustrated for Turkish by the data in (142). The high vowel of the
causative suffix is embedded between rounded as well as unrounded root
vowels to its left and the unrounded opaque low vowel in the affix to its
right. The low affix vowel is opaque to rounding harmony only. The
interesting cases are (142b,c), where the potential undergoer of rounding
harmony has a rounded vowel to the left and an unrounded vowel to the
right. The medial vowel surfaces with the roundness specification of the
vowel to its left, that of the root vowel. The opaque low affix vowel
determines only the rounding quality of its neighbour to the right.
(142) Turkish medial vowels with conditional suffix
a. gel-dir-sej-di
'come (caus-cond-past)'
b. dur-dur-saj-d 'stand (caus-cond-past)'
*dur-dr-saj-d
c. gyl-dyr-sej-di
*gyl-dir-sej-di
'laugh (caus-cond-past)'
d. at6-dr-saj-d 'open (caus-cond-past)'
(Bakovi 2000: 81)
The harmony grammar developed so far, relying on L-Anchoring, IOfaithfulness, and a directionless harmony constraint theoretically allows for
both, assimilation to the root vowel or to the affix vowel. With the input
124
structures assumed in (143), the lowly ranked faithfulness constraints

choose the wrong output among the two most harmonic candidates (c,d),
which do not violate L-ANCHOR (as done by candidate e).
(143) Turkish durRoot-durAffix-sajAffix-dAffix 'stand (caus-cond-past)'
/dur -dir -sej -du/
L-ANCHOR S-ID(bk, rd) IO-ID(rd) IO-ID(bk)
a. durdirsejdu
**! **
b. durdirsejdi
**!
*
*
) c. durdrsajd
*(rd)
*
**
/ d. durdursajd
*(rd)
**!
**
e. dirdirsejdi
*!
**
**
In the case we assume fully specified underlying representations in the way
it was done in (143), IO-Identity decides for the wrong candidate. Of
course one could simply stipulate different underlying representations, but
this does not save the analysis either. If it is assumed that the alternating
vowels are underspecified for the alternating feature, the decision is passed
down to markedness. The involved markedness constraint again chooses
the wrong candidate, as is shown in the following tableau.
(144) Turkish durRoot-durAffix-sajAffix-dAffix
/dur -dIr -sAj -dI/
S-ID(bk, rd)
IO-ID(bk, rd)
) a. durdrsajd
*
/ b. durdursajd
*
...
*[+rd]
*
**!
One solution to this dilemma has been seen in the assumption that affixes
are not attached simultaneously to a stem but serially. In OT terms this
means that we first evaluate a form of a stem plus one affix. This output
(whether it exists or not) is the input for affixation with the next morpheme,
the opaque one in this case. This has been formalised as Stem-AffixedForm-Faithfulness by Bakovi (2000). The disadvantage of this solution is
that it crucially relies on multiple base-output correspondence. And it is
anything but clear whether all postulated bases in languages with rootcontrolled harmonies are actually occurring independent output forms. The
second disadvantage is that serialism creeps back into the theory through
the backdoor.
The proposal I want to make here relies on the division of faithfulness
into positional and general faithfulness. McCarthy and Prince (1995) dis-
125
tinguished root faithfulness from affix faithfulness, where root material is

more faithful to underlying forms than affix material to increase perceptual
prominence of this kind of material. The proposal made here works as
follows: Assimilation is a type of prominence maximisation. Prominence
maximisation makes sense only for items which deserve that prominence,
i.e. stem-like entities. The INTEGRITY constraint by McCarthy and Prince is
extended to featural INTEGRITY in Krmer's (2001) proposal and reads as in
(96, p.93).
Featural INTEGRITY constraints are constraints against assimilation.
They prohibit the mapping of an underlying feature specification to more
positions in a surface representation than it was associated with underlyingly.
A prerequisite to this analysis is that harmony as correspondence is a
kind of (indirect) correspondence of an underlying feature with more than
one surface anchor. In satisfaction of a harmony constraint, several vowels
within one representation stand in correspondence with each other regarding the identity of the specification of a feature [F]. One of these
feature specifications, the one that determines the shape of the others, is
usually linked via a faithfulness relation to its underlying correspondent,
while the others are unfaithful to their underlying forms. As proposed
above, the asymmetry between roots and affixes with regard to their
triggering capacity is the result of the two positional variants of INTEGRITY
constraints, one demanding integrity of root elements and one demanding
integrity of affix elements, and their favoured ranking (98, p.94). The ranking is motivated on conceptual/perceptual grounds.
To determine the fate of Turkish medial vowels INTEGRITYAffix has to
rank below S-IDENT to allow affix vowels to trigger harmony and it has to
rank above IO-IDENTITY. The latter prevents the grammar from a majority
rule decision. If INTEGRITY were allowed to rank below IO-IDENTITY, the
number of faithfulness violations would decide once more on the optimal
output and choose the wrong candidate again. In tableau (145), violations
of INTEGRITYRoot are counted whenever the faithful surface correspondent
of an underlying root feature specification is adopted by another vowel in
satisfaction of S-IDENTITY. INTEGRITYAffix violations are tolerated by this
grammar as long as they contribute to optimisation of the candidate with respect to S-IDENTITY. Of the two candidates (b,c) which tie on S-IDENTITY,
and do not violate higher ranked constraints the one is preferred which has
optimised performance on S-IDENT on the cost of lower ranking
126
INTEGRITYRoot. The one with the violations of INTEGRITYAffix is doomed

at this point of the evaluation.
(145) Turkish durRoot-durAffix-sajAffix-dAffix as a question of integrity
/dur -dir -sej -di/
a.
1 b.
)- c.
d.
durdirsejdi
durdrsajd
durdursajd
dirdirsejdi
LS-ID
ANCHOR (bk, rd)
**!
*
*
*!
INTEGRITY
Affix
*!*
**
IO-ID INTEGRITY
(bk, rd)
Root
***
****
**
***
****
4.3.3 The exceptions

As mentioned above, there are some exceptions to the generalisation that o
and occur in the first syllable only in Turkish. We find non-initial o's and
's in a number of stems and in the progressive affix -yor.
Let us first have a look at the affix. The suffix yor invariably surfaces
with a rounded low vowel, regardless of the quality of the preceding vowel.
Compare in this respect the forms (146a,b), which are harmonic with regard
to rounding, with the forms (146c,d), in which the o in the progressive
marker causes disharmony. In (146b,c), the o of the progressive also causes
disharmony with regard to backness. In all forms the vowel to the right of
-yor agrees with the vowel of this affix in backness and roundness, regardless of the quality of the vowel preceding -yor.
(146) The Turkish progressive affix
a. /ko-I-yor-Im/
kouyorum
'run (progressive-1sg)'
b. /gl-I-yor-Im/
glyorum
'laugh (progressive-1sg)'
/ *glyrm
c. /gel-I-yor-Im/
geliyorum
'come (progressive-1sg)'
/ *geliyerim
d. /bak-I-yor-Im/
bakiyorum
'look (progressive-1sg)'
/ *bakiyarim
127
This affix is idiosyncratic in another respect as well. Stress falls on the

syllable preceeding -yor (Lewis 1967: 109). The same generalisation holds
for clitics. Usually stress falls on the last syllable of the word in Turkish, no
matter how many affixes follow a root (see e.g., van der Hulst and van de
Weijer 1991). This is shown in (147).
(147) Turkish stress
tan
'know'
tan-dk
'acquaintance'
tan-dk-lr
'acquaintances'
tan-dk-lar-m
'my acquaintances'
tan-dk-lar-m-z
'our acquaintances'
tan-dk-lar-m-z-dn 'from our acquaintances'
(van der Hulst and van de Weijer 1991: 15; Kabak and Vogel 2000: 1)
The regular stress pattern and the behaviour of -yor with regard to stress
give rise to the suspicion that the progressive marker does not belong to the
same prosodic word as the root it is attached to. Another indication for this
is the fact that the progressive affix historically derives from the full verb
yorr, the aorist form of ancient yormak (Lewis 1967: 108). All three facts,
the occurrence of o, the irregular stress pattern, and the historic origin of
the affix lead to the conclusion that verbs containing this affix are
structured like compounds.
In Turkish compounds, each stem constitutes an autonomous domain of
vowel harmony. Stress is assigned to the rightmost syllable of the leftmost
member of the compound. Prominence of any other stressed syllable is
reduced (van der Hulst and van de Weijer 1991, Kabak and Vogel 2000).
The examples in (148) illustrate the stress pattern as well as the observation
that each compound member constitutes a single domain of harmony
(148b,c).
(148) Turkish compound stress
a. b6
+ bakn
head
minister
b. at6
angle
lt6-r
measure + Aorist
b6 bakan
'prime minister'
at6lt6er
'protractor'
128
c. kar
black
denz
sea
kardeniz
'The Black Sea'
(Kabak and Vogel 2000: 8)
In the current analysis, the autonomous behaviour of compound members

with respect to harmony can be attributed to the high ranking Left-ANCHOR
constraint. In (149) the disharmonic compound kardeniz 'the Black Sea' is
evaluated.
(149) Turkish disharmonic compounds
/kara/ + /deniz/
L-ANCHOR
a. (karadanz)
*!
b. (karadeniz)
*!
c. (kara)(danz)
*!
) d. (kara)(deniz)
S-ID(bk, rd)
*
*
In candidates (a,b) the Left-ANCHOR constraint is violated because the left

edge of the root /deniz/ is not mapped to a prosodic word edge. Candidate
(a) commits the additional affront of disagreeing in backness with the
underlying form of the second compound member. Candidate (c) has
mapped the left edge of each underlying root to the left edge of a prosodic
word, but fails as well on L-ANCHOR for its unfaithfulness to the backness
of the first vowel in the second root. Here we see that the Left-ANCHOR
constraint does not only determine the direction of harmony and affixation
and the asymmetry of the distribution of low rounded vowels, but it determines as well the domain in which vowel harmony applies.
After this short excursion I come back to the connection between compounds and the progressive marker. I will not go into the particularities of
compound stress in Turkish here (see van der Hulst and van de Weijer 1991
or Kabak and Vogel 2000 on this matter), but from this short look at
Turkish compounds and their behaviour with respect to stress and harmony
it seems obvious that words containing the progressive marker behave like
compounds. This results in the structure given in (150).
(150) Prosodic structure of geliyorum:
[analogous to compounds]
pwd(gel) pwd(yorum)
If the prosodic structure of Turkish progressives is that in (150), it is no

wonder that the grammar allows this affix 'exceptionally' to have an o in
non-initial position in a word. The structure in (150) can be derived by the
129
regular grammar if we assume that the affix still has the status of a root in
its underlying form, even though its semantics is erased so much that it cannot be used independently anymore. Such an assumption is not that exotic.
Similar affixes can be found in many other languages. See for instance the
analysis of Dutch suffix classes in Grijzenhout and Krmer (2000).
Given root status for -yor, the underlying o is protected against
neutralisation in satisfaction of *LORO by the high ranking faithfulness
constraint L-ANCHOR. By definition this constraint demands that every left
root edge coincide with the left edge of a prosodic word. This includes the
left edge of -yor as well. Furthermore this constraint demands featural
identity of the underlying material with the surface realisation of the leftmost syllable of every root, again including the root-like affix. The second
requirement, i.e., identity, does not only explain the exceptional occurrence
of o in an affix, but also its capacity of triggering harmony in following
affixes.
In tableau (151) below, all efforts to incorporate -yor in the prosodic
word of the verb root fail because they result in violations of L-ANCHOR
(candidates a-c). Since -yor is a root, its left edge, indicated by # in the
candidates, has to coincide with the left edge of a prosodic word, indicated
by an opening round bracket. Even reversal of the precedence of verb root
and affixal root, as in candidate (c) cannot improve performance on the
anchoring constraint, since this time it is the left edge of the verb root
which is not properly matched with the left word edge. Thus, one prosodic
word is not enough for the affix and its host. Even though provided with
two prosodic words of which the left edges align with the two crucial root
edges, candidate (d) still fails on L-ANCHOR. This is an instance of
violation because the o of -yor is neutralised to e, violating the Identity
requirement of L-ANCHOR.
(151) A Turkish exceptional affix
L-ANCHOR
*LORO
/#gel# +y #jor# +im/
a. (#gely#jorim)
*!
*
b. (#geli#jerim)
*!
c. (#jor#geliim)
*!
d. (#geli)(#jerim)
*!
e. (#geli)(#jorim)
*
f. (#gelu)(#jorum)
*!
*
) g. (#geli)(#jorum)
*
# = root edge; ( ) = prosodic word edges
S-ID(bk, rd)
****
**
***!*
**
**
130
Among the last remaining candidates suboptimal form (f) is particularly

interesting. In this tableau I calculated constraint violations under the
following two assumptions. Syntagmatic correspondence relations are
checked over the whole surface string rather than within single prosodic
words only (this is why candidate (e) has so many violations of S-Identity).
The other assumption is that if the leftmost element of a root has a surface
reflex to the left of the prosodic word boundary under which it is parsed
this violates L-ANCHOR. In such a case the mapping of leftmost root
element and left prosodic word edge is imperfect. In case of harmony
between the last vowel of the left prosodic word and the leftmost vowel of
the prosodic word on the right exactly this situation is encountered (as in
candidate f). The last vowel in the first prosodic word corresponds with the
first vowel of the second prosodic word. This means that this latter root
vowel though segmentally aligned with the left word edge has a featural
correspondent in the preceding word. This renders the root-prosodic word
mapping imperfect. With respect to backness and roundness the left edge of
the second root does not align with the left edge of the second prosodic
word. For this reason candidate (f) incurs a violation of L-ANCHOR, which
leaves candidates (e) and (g) as the preferable forms. The choice between
these two is left to the harmony constraint.
Under this proposal the harmonic behaviour of clitics is accounted for
with no further assumptions. Harmony is not restricted to a particular domain in Turkish but rather all vowels agree with the vowel to their left apart
from vowels which are root-initial. This satisfaction of S-IDENT includes
vowels of postclitics as well. An alternative to the above explanation of the
limits of the domain of harmony in a language like Turkish would be to
limit the harmony constraint to elements within a specified phonological
domain. However, as Kabak and Vogel (in press) point out it is by no
means clear which domain this could be.
Another issue relevant to the present analysis of Turkish vowel harmony
is disharmonic stems. A large number of stems in Turkish do not conform
to the harmony requirements. Even worse, some of them violate the generalisation that o/ occur in the first syllable only. When loans are introduced
to Turkish the stems usually remain disharmonic if they are like this in the
source language.
(152) Turkish disharmonic stems
hamsi 'anchovies'
fiat
anne
'mother'
mezat
'price'
'auction'
bobin
rozet
billur
kudret
'spool'
'collar pin'
'crystal'
'power'
sifon
peron
muzip
nemrut
131
'toilet flush'
'railway platform'
'mischievous'
'unsociable'
(Kirchner 1993: 2)
Affixes attached to these roots harmonise with the last root vowel. This can
be accounted for by simply ranking IO-Identity for roots (IO-IDENTroot)
above the harmony constraint S-IDENT and above the markedness constraint against low rounded vowels.
(153) Ranking
L-ANCHOR, IO-IDENTroot >> *LORO
>> S-IDENT(bk), S-IDENT(rd) >> IO-IDENT
This grammar predicts unlimited combinations of vowels in roots and the
lack of low rounded vowels in affixes. From a synchronic point of view this
grammar allows unrestricted combinations of vowels in native roots too.
Thus I conclude that the high ranking of IO-IDENTroot is historically an
innovation. The constraint must have been subject to promotion with the
introduction of a huge number of loan words into the language. This then
explains why in older stems vowel combinations are much more restricted.
In a historically earlier stage all roots have been subject to the restrictions
of the harmony grammar. Since roots do not alternate they have been stored
in underlying representations as they occur in surface representations. At
the point where IO-IDENTstem became important the native lexicon
contained harmonic stems only.
At this point we can come back to the issue of disharmonic affixes. Not
all disharmonic affixes are prestressing and therefore compound-like. This
analysis explains also the behaviour of disharmonic affixes such as the
semi-productive Persian borrowing -var ('X-like') which has no alternant
*-veri 39 and the other affixes in (154).
(154) More Turkish irregular affixes
'Shakespearian'
a. ekspir-vari
'Churchillian'
Crcil-vari
James Bond-vari bir casus-luk 'a James-Bond-like case of espionage'
132
b. sekiz-gen-ler
ok-gen-ler
'octagonals'
'polygonals'
c. ermen-istan-i
mool-istan-i
'Armenia'
'Mongolia'
d. mest-ane
dost-ane
'drunkenly'
'friendly'
(Lewis 1967: 66f.)
Polgrdi (1999) analyses those affixes which do not have an irregular stress
pattern but are disharmonic nevertheless as forming one synthetic unit with
the root. She adopts Kaye's (1995) notion of analytic versus non-analytic
morphology. Non-analytic forms behave like underived lexical items while
analytic forms can be of two types. Either two concatenated morphemes are
assigned one government domain each and both these domains are
subsumed under one outer domain or only the first morpheme constitutes a
separate domain. The former are compound-like structures while the latter
are regularly affixed (inflected) word forms. If we have a closer look at disharmonic affixes one striking feature emerges. They are all derivational
affixes. They transfer roots from one lexical category into another. For
instance, the affixes -istan and -gen are noun-forming morphemes and -ane
forms adverbs. Under the assumption that derivational affixes form a stem
together with their host while inflectional affixes are not incorporated into
the morphological domain of the stem we arrive at a principled account of
irregular affixes. On the basis of this observation the positional Identity
constraint can be redefined as referring to stems rather than roots. The
vowels in these derivational affixes are subject to IO-IDENTstem and therefore harmony cannot apply to them.
(155)
/ok -gen -lar/
a. okganlar
b. okgenlar
) c. okgenler
IO-IDENTstem
S-IDENT
*!
IO-IDENT
*
**!
*
Under the assumption that disharmonic affixes are treated like stems or
stem-forming and constructions with the former affixes are structurally
compounds, their disharmonic behaviour is expected. It remains to be
Dgma and integrity
133
explored in greater detail whether exactly the same argument holds for all
exceptional affixes.
In the next section I will show how the INTEGRITY proposal alone
accounts for root control in a language with affixation to both sides.
4.4
Dgma and integrity
Dgma is a West African language with root controlled ATR harmony.

The vowel inventory of Dgma is completely symmetric, as shown in
(156). Every RTR vowel has an ATR counterpart.
(156) Dgma vowel inventory
advanced
retracted
advanced
mid
retracted
advanced
low
retracted
high
front
i
,
e
(
back
u
8
o
o
Dgma allows for affixes to both sides of the root. All affixes agree with
the root vowel with regard to ATR.
(157) Dgma vowel harmony
Advanced
high -hr-!m
'surrounding'
-sw-!m 'ironing'
Retracted
8-,
o-8
'leaf'
'doctor'
'descending'
'jumping'
mid
-sn
-vy-!m
'fish'
'fetching'
8-t(v-!m
8-sol-!m
low
-d
'river'
(-nm
'animal, meat'
(Pulleyblank et al 1995: 2)
It seems obvious that any Right/Left-ANCHOR constraint on roots plays no

role in Dgma morphophonology. However, root-affix asymmetries like
these must not necessarily be attributed to Anchoring. They are fully
accounted for by positional INTEGRITY. With a ranking of the harmony
134
constraint above the two INTEGRITY constraints, and R/L-ANCHOR(root,

pwd) somewhere deep down in the hierarchy, doomed to irrelevance (or not
logically conjoined with Identity) the Dgma pattern is exhaustively
described.
(158) Dgma ranking
S-IDENT(ATR) >> INTEGRITYAffix >> INTEGRITYRoot, IO-IDENTITY
>> ... >> R/L-ANCHOR(root, pwd)
The analysis is illustrated by tableau (159), where a hypothetical input form
containing a root with a retracted vowel and two affixes with advanced
vowels each is evaluated against the crucial Identity and Integrity
constraints.
(159) Dgma root control with a hypothetical RTR root plus ATR affixes
/- t(v -!m/
S-ID(ATR)
a. t(v!m
b. tv!m
) c. 8t(v!m
*!*
INTEGRITY
Affix
*!
IO-ID
INTEGRITY
Root
*
**
*
**
In tableau (159), the faithful but disharmonic candidate (a) is ruled out
because it violates high ranking S-IDENT(ATR) twice. Candidate (b) is the
majority candidate in the sense that it is completely harmonic on the cost of
the least number of IO-IDENT(ATR) violations. It has less violations of IOIDENT(ATR) than its competitor (c), but fails on INTEGRITYAffix, in that
the medial vowel has acquired the ATR specification of one of the adjacent
affix vowels. In this respect candidate (c) is more harmonic. It satisfies
INTEGRITYAffix which makes it optimal in comparison with candidate (b).
Dgma is a symmetric system in three respects. The vowel inventory is
completely symmetric in underlying representations and on the surface.
Every vowel in any dimension of height and backness is present as advanced and as retracted. (Compare in this respect Yoruba, where the high
vowels lack a retracted counterpart and the low vowel lacks an advanced
counterpart.) Furthermore, R/L-Anchoring constraints play no decisive role
in the harmony grammar. Therefore we observe no edge asymmetries. The
language is also symmetric with regard to the possible specifications of
ATR. Neither [+ATR] nor [-ATR] is the preferred trigger of harmony,
which means we find no dominance effect. The only asymmetry in the
135
Dgma pattern is caused by the positional INTEGRITY constraint, which

has the effect of a root~affix asymmetry. Harmony is determined by root
vowels only.
In Bakovi's analysis of vowel harmony, dominance of one feature
specification is brought into the grammar by the local conjunction of the
respective markedness constraint with the IO-IDENTITY constraint referring
to the same feature. This constraint conjunction would neutralise the effect
of INTEGRITYAffix, given its ranking above INTEGRITYAffix. Such a
pattern is found in languages like Kalenjin or Diola Fogni.
4.5
In the following I will show briefly what happens if the local conjunction
*[-ATR]&IO-IDENT(ATR) plays a role in a grammar, as proposed by
Bakovi 2000, drawing on the example of Diola Fogni. Diola Fogni is
similar to Dgma in two respects. It has a completely symmetric vowel
system (see 160), and it has affixation to both sides of the root (161).
(160) Diola Fogni vowel inventory (Bakovi 2000: 52)
front
back
advanced
i
u
high
retracted
,
8
advanced
e
o
mid
retracted
(
o
advanced
)
low
retracted
$
All vowels in a word agree with respect to ATR. If all vowels are RTR
underlyingly as in (161a), this is not particularly spectacular. But look at
the examples in (161b,c). If only one vowel is ATR underlyingly it
determines the ATR quality of all other vowels, regardless of whether the
trigger is a root vowel (161b) or an affix vowel (161c).
(161) Diola Fogni ATR harmony
a. n,- E$M
-(n
-8
CAUS 2PL
1SG have
[n,E$M(Q8]
'I have caused you to have'
136
b. n,1SG
jitum
-(n
-8
lead away CAUS 2PL
[nijitumenu]
'I have caused you to be lead away'
c. n,1SG
b$j
have
[nib)julu]
'I have from you'
(Bakovi 2000: 52)
-ul
from
-8
2PL
Such an effect can be described if we insert the local conjunction

*[-ATR]&IO-IDENT(ATR) in the basic grammar developed for the case of
Dgma just above INTEGRITYAffix.
(162) Diola Fogni ranking:
S-IDENT(ATR), *[-ATR]&IO-IDENT(ATR) >> INTEGRITYAffix >>
INTEGRITYRoot, IO-IDENTITY
In tableau (163), the grammar is shown at work evaluating the crucial case
where an affix forces its ATR specification onto the whole word.
(163) Diola Fogni dominance
/n,- b$j -ul -8/
a. n,b$jul8
b. n,b$j8l8
) c. nib)julu
SID(ATR)
*[-ATR]&
IO-ID(ATR)
INTEGRITY
Affix
IO-ID
INTEGRITY
Root
*
***
*
***
*!*
*!
***
The most faithful candidate does not display full harmony and is therefore
sub-optimal in comparison with candidates (b,c). The choice between the
root-controlled candidate and the candidate with dominant ATR is made by
the local conjunction. Candidate (b) is unfaithful to its underlying specification [+ATR] of the affix vowel /-ul/ in order to be harmonic with the
root, which violates IO-IDENT(ATR). Now that this vowel has become
[-ATR] in the surface representation it additionally violates the markedness
constraint *[-ATR]. Since the same vowel violates both the faithfulness
constraint and the markedness constraint, it also violates the local conjunction of both. A single violation of this local conjunction weighs more
than three violations of INTEGRITYAffix due to the ranking of both
constraints. For this reason, candidate (c) which has no violation of the
local conjunction is chosen as optimal, even though harmony is determined
by the affix vowel here.
137
A case where harmony appears as being entirely affix-driven can be

found in Futankoore Pulaar, a dialect of Fula.
4.6
In this section, I will discuss the vowel harmony pattern of Futankoore Pulaar as reported by Paradis (1992). I will argue in particular that this pattern
can be accounted for by the above made assumption of one INTEGRITY constraint on affixes or functional elements, and one on roots or lexical elements. To get an understanding of the problem contributed by Pulaar phonology let us first have a closer look at the data.
4.6.1 The data
Pulaar has a surface vowel inventory which is exactly the same as that of
Yoruba discussed above.
(164) Pulaar vowel inventory
high
mid
low
advanced
retracted
advanced
retracted
advanced
retracted
front
i
back
u
e
(
o
o
a
Even though we find a seven vowel system at the surface, Paradis proposes
to analyse Pulaar as a language having only five vowel phonemes (disregarding length distinctions). The vowels she assumes as underlying are i, u,
(, o, and D. With such an inventory, the ATR specification of each vowel
should be predictable, which it actually is. High vowels are invariably advanced and the low vowel is invariably retracted. Mid root vowels always
surface with the ATR specification contributed by the following affix
vowel, as illustrated in (165). In (165a), the affix vowel is advanced and
such is the root vowel, while the affix vowel is retracted in the forms in
(165b), triggering retraction in the preceding root vowel.
138
(165) Pulaar mid root vowels and harmony40

a. ATR forms b. RTR forms gloss
sof-ru
cof-on
'chick-SG/-DIM.PL'
ser-du
s(r-on
'rifle butt-SG/-DIM.PL'
m
m
beel-u
b((l-on
'shadow-SG/-DIM.PL'
peec-i
p((c-on
'slits-CLASS/-DIM.PL'
beel-i
b((l-on
'puddles-CLASS/-DIM.PL'
dog-oo-ru
dog-o-w-on 'runner-AG.NOM-CLASS/-AG.NOMDIM.PL'
lot-oo-ru
lot-o-w-on
'washer-AG.NOM-CLASS/-AG.NOMDIM.PL'
(Paradis 1992: 87)
(166) Pulaar dominant e and o
a. ATR forms b. RTR forms
lef-ol
lef-el
l(f-on
keer-ol
keer-el
k((r-on
pa-el
pa-on
'ribbon-CLASS'
'ribbon-DIM.SG / -DIM.PL'
'boundary-CLASS'
'boundary-DIM.SG / -DIM.PL'
'shoe -DIM.SG / -DIM.PL'
(Paradis 1992: 1,90)
In (166a), the mid affix vowels have an advanced tongue root, and not even
the low root vowel in the last example can change this. In fact, we see now
that the tongue root position is predictable for mid vowels everywhere
except in the last syllable of the word. In this position it makes a difference
whether a mid vowel is underlyingly specified for [-ATR] or [+ATR]. Also
high root vowels do not change the ATR specification in retracted mid affix
vowels as can be seen in (167), where the mid affix vowels are retracted
even in the presence of a high, i.e., advanced root vowel.
(167) Pulaar high root vowels and harmony
dill-(r(
'riot'
*dillere
fuy-(r(
'pimple'
*fuyere
n
'writer'
*binndoowo
bin d-oo-wo
'small calabashes'
*tummbukon
tummbu-kon
(Paradis 1992: 1, 87)
High vowels in affixes trigger tongue root advancement in mid root vowels,
139
but not in mid affix vowels to their right. In sequences of a mid root vowel
followed by a high vowel, followed by a mid retracted affix vowel, the high
vowel thus behaves as opaque. The retraction of the mid affix vowel cannot
pass through the high vowel to the mid root vowel.
(168) Pulaar high vowels in affixes
a. ATR forms
et-ir-d(
'to weigh with'
hel-ir-d(
'to break with'
okk-i-d(
'to become one-eyed'
feyy-u-d(
'to fell'
b. RTR forms
(t-d(
h(l-d(
okk-o
f(yy-a
'to weigh'
'to break'
'one-eyed person'
'to fell (imperfective)'
(Paradis 1992: 87)
The low vowel determines the ATR specification at least in mid root
vowels. Thus, it behaves as opaque as well.
(169) The low vowel in Pulaar
boot-aa-ri
'lunch'
poof-aa-li
'breaths'
nodd-aa-li
'call'
1
gor-aa-gu
'courage'
*bootaari
*poofaali
*noddaali
*1goraagu
(Paradis 1992: 88)
The observation to be made in Pulaar is quite obvious: This is neither a

system with dominant ATR or RTR, nor is it a root controlled system.
Furthermore, the last syllable of the word is resistent to harmony, even
though it is usually an affix. In Pulaar, the distinction among ATR and RTR
mid vowels is neutralised everywhere except in the last syllable of the
word, which usually is part of an affix.
By and large, it is the affix vowels which shape the root vowels, not vice
versa. This pattern cannot be described as a case of Umlaut, since it is affix
vowels of all qualities which trigger alternation, and the alternation affects
more than one vowel, preferably the whole word, if no opaque vowels
intervene.
140
4.6.2 An analysis as affix control

As a prerequisite to the analysis, we have to establish a grammar in which
the high vowels and the low vowels have a fixed ATR specification. This
is accounted for by a grammar in which the markedness constraints *[+hi,
-ATR] and *[+lo, +ATR] are ranked above the harmony constraint.
(170) Pulaar ranking I: *[+hi, -ATR], *[+lo, +ATR] >> S-IDENT(ATR)
The next question is why the rightmost vowel of the word is either resistent
to harmony or the trigger. Resistance can be analysed as an effect of a
highly ranked IO-Identity constraint on the last vowel, i.e., IOIDENTRight(ATR).41 This constraint has to be dominated by the two
markedness constraints, which prohibit a phonemic difference in the ATR
specification of high and low vowels to surface. Otherwise the grammar
would wrongly predict the occurrence of retracted high vowels and
advanced low vowels at the right edge of the word.
(171) Pulaar ranking II:
*[+hi, -ATR], *[+lo, +ATR] >> IO-IDENTRight(ATR) >> S-IDENT(ATR)
>> IO-IDENT(ATR)
The high ranking of the Identity constraint on the right edge of the word is
unexpected since we would, in such a case, expect prefixation instead of
suffixation. Here we find a mismatch between Anchoring and positional
faithfulness.
(172) Edge mismatch of Anchoring and positional faithfulness:
L-ANCHOR(root, pwd), IO-IDENTRight(F) >> ...
>> R-ANCHOR(root, pwd), IO-IDENT(F)
Since harmony affects the first root syllable as well, I have to conclude that
Pulaar has not coordinated the LeftANCHOR constraint and IO-Identity, or
that this coordination (if present) is at least lower ranked than the harmony
constraint. Left-anchoring plays a role nevertheless, since Pulaar has only
suffixes. Hence, the constraint L-ANCHOR, whether coordinated with IOIdentity or not, ranges higher in the hierarchy than the constraint RANCHOR; but both constraints have to be dominated by the other
constraints shaping the harmony pattern. Here we find one argument for
141
treating the word edge effects observed in other languages such as Yoruba
on the one hand, and Turkish or Finnish (see chapter 5) on the other, as
epiphenomena of two coordinated constraints rather than as an effect of one
atomar constraint. In Pulaar, the left edge of the root is mapped to the left
edge of the word, regardless of Identity violations in the leftmost root
syllable.
(173) Pulaar ranking III:
*[+hi, -ATR], *[+lo, +ATR] >> IO-IDENTRight(ATR) >> S-IDENT(ATR) >>
IO-IDENT(ATR), L-ANCHOR >> PARSE(seg, pwd) >> R-ANCHOR
The additional ranking of L-ANCHOR above PARSE(seg, pwd), a constraint
demanding that segments are incorporated in higher prosodic structure such
as the prosodic word, which in turn is more important than R-ANCHOR
accounts for the fact that affixes are attached to the right side of the root in
Pulaar. This ranking excludes prefixation as well as cliticisation of the
grammatical morphemes. This is illustrated in tableau (174).
(174) Affixation in Pulaar
/sof -ru/
a.
b.
c.
) d.
(rusof)
ru(sof)
(sof)ru
(sofru)
L-ANCHOR
(root, pwd)
PARSE
(seg, pwd)
R-ANCHOR
(root, pwd)
*!
**!
**!
*
With the above grammar, the basic harmony pattern can be accounted for.
In the following I will disregard the lowly ranked constraints considered in
tableau (174), since they have no impact on the relevant output candidates
whatsoever.
In the combination of a mid root vowel with a high affix vowel we
cannot determine the underlying ATR specifications of the respective
vowels because the outcome is completely determined by the constraints
and their ranking. Lexicon Optimization as proposed by Inkelas (1994)
would predict that the vowel in the trigger is fully specified underlyingly,
since every occurrence of it would violate anti-insertion constraints. Thus,
the grammar is more harmonic with a fully specified vowel in the trigger.
The root vowel would be underspecified according to the same argument,
because it alternates according to the environment (the affix vowel to the
142
right). In Inkelas' reasoning, underlying underspecification saves the

alternating output candidates from IO-Identity violations. However, if we
assume that IO-Identity is violated by any deviation from underlying
configurations (as orginally proposed by McCarthy and Prince 1995), IOIdentity would be violated by output candidates matched to underspecified
inputs as well. Furthermore, underspecification would be a side effect of
alternation here. Thus, the grammar has to determine the Pulaar pattern
regardless of the underlying form of the target vowels.
(175) Pulaar mid root vowel plus high affix vowel
i. Underspecified vowels in the input
/sOf-rU/
a. sofr8
b. sofru
) c. sofru
*[+hi,
-ATR]
*[+lo,
+ATR]
IO-IDRight
(ATR)
S-IDENT
(ATR)
IO-ID
(ATR)
*!
(**)
(**)
(**)
IO-IDRight
(ATR)
S-IDENT
(ATR)
IO-ID
(ATR)
*
*
*!
*
**
*!
ii. Arbitrarily specified target vowels in the input

/sof-r8/
a. sofr8
b. sofru
) c. sofru
*[+hi,
-ATR]
*[+lo,
+ATR]
*!
iii. Less arbitrarily specified target vowels in the input

/sof-ru/
a. sofr8
b. sofru
) c. sofru
*[+hi,
-ATR]
*!
*[+lo,
+ATR]
IO-IDRight
(ATR)
S-IDENT
(ATR)
IO-ID
(ATR)
*
*!
*
What ever the underlying specification of the vowels in (175) may be, in
this case the markedness constraint against high retracted vowels causes
assimilation of the mid root vowel to the high affix vowel. In the tableaux
(176) and (177) I evaluate forms containing mid vowels only. The
difference in the two tableaux lies in the underlying specification of the last
vowel. The affix vowel is [-ATR] underlyingly in the affix -on, while it is
[+ATR] underlyingly in the affix -el. The ultimate position in the word
143
makes both vowels subject to special faithfulness requirements. In the

comparison of the two tableaux we see how the right-edge faithfulness
constraint determines the output of the harmony grammar. The underlying
ATR quality of the root vowel is again undeterminable. Since class markers
are obligatory on Pulaar nouns, there are no isolated surface forms of such
roots to give evidence for the underlying specification of their vowel.
(176) Pulaar mid vowels and harmony I
/lEf-on/
*[+hi,
-ATR]
*[+lo,
+ATR]
a. lefon
b. lefon
) c. l(fon
IO-IDRight
(ATR)
S-IDENT
(ATR)
*!
*!
(177) Pulaar mid vowels and harmony II

/lEf-el/
*[+hi,
-ATR]
*[+lo,
+ATR]
a. l(f(l
b. l(fel
) c. lefel
IO-IDRight
(ATR)
S-IDENT
(ATR)
*!
*!
The next pattern to be considered is the combination of a root containing a

mid vowel, a low affix vowel and a high affix vowel. In the resulting
structure, the root vowel goes conform with the ATR specification of the
low affix vowel to its right. Low affix vowel and high affix vowel disagree
in ATR.
(178) Pulaar mid root vowel plus low vowel plus high vowel
/boot-aa-ri/
a.
b.
c.
) d.
bootaar,
boot44ri
bootaari
bootaari
*[+hi,
-ATR]
*[+lo,
+ATR]
*!
IO-IDRight
(ATR)
S-IDENT
(ATR)
*
*!
**!
*
The combination of a low or high root vowel plus a mid affix vowel
followed by another affix vowel with the opposite ATR specification than
that of the root vowel shows why the almost universal ranking of
144
INTEGRITYAffix over INTEGRITYRoot has to be reversed in Pulaar.

Consider in this respect the evaluation of binnd-oo-wo in (179).
a.
b.
0 c.
/ d.
b,nnd-oo-wo
binnd-oo-wo
binnd-oo-wo
binnd-oo-wo
*!
INTEGRITY
Root
INTEGRITY
Affix
S-ID(ATR)
IO-IDRight
(ATR)
*[+hi,
-ATR]
/binnd-oo-wo/
*[+lo,
+ATR]
(179) The medial vowel in Pulaar I
**
*!
*
*
*
*!
The grammar in (178) does not decide over candidates (c) and (d). Thus we
have to consider less important constraints. The usual ranking of INTEGRITYAffix over INTEGRITYRoot denotes the wrong candidate (c) as the
optimal output in (179). Thus, I assume that in Pulaar, these two constraints
are ranked inversely, as indicated in (180).
a.
b.
1 c.
- d.
b,nnd-oo-wo
binnd-oo-wo
binnd-oo-wo
binnd-oo-wo
*!
INTEGRITY
Affix
INTEGRITY
Root
S-ID
(ATR)
IO-IDRight
(ATR)
*[+lo,
+ATR]
/binnd-oo-wo/
*[+hi,
-ATR]
(180) The medial vowel in Pulaar II
**
*!
*
*
*!
*
Candidate (c) violates INTEGRITYRoot by agreement of the word-medial

vowel with the root vowel with respect to ATR. Candidate (d) avoids this
violation on the cost of the lower ranked INTEGRITYAffix. In this candidate,
the word-medial vowel corresponds with the final affix vowel with respect
to ATR.
This completes the analysis of affix controlled harmony in Pulaar. In the
following section I discuss alternative analyses of this pattern.
145
4.6.3 Possible alternatives to affix control

Paradis (1992) proposes an account in which she assumes that the functional items with mid vowels which invariably have advanced tongue root
position have an additional high vocalic element underlyingly which has no
adequate landing site on the skeletal tier and has therefore no segmental
reflex in output structures. The only surface reflex of the underlying high
vowel is the advanced tongue root position of the mid vowel.
She exemplifies her analysis on the basis of the quantifier fof. In one
neighbouring dialect, the same quantifier is pronounced as fuf, in another
one as fof. Paradis assumes that in Futankoore Pulaar, either the two
neighbouring forms have merged to /fouf/, or the historically older form is
/fouf/ which has become fof in one dialect, fuf in the other and fof in the
dialect under discussion here. However, the last variety still has the old
form /fouf/ underlying and the two vowels merge to one on the surface.
The advantage of this analysis is that Paradis can describe the phonemic
vowel system without the feature ATR. However, it seems somewhat odd
to have a system in which a feature plays no role except for harmony.
Furthermore, the mid vowels with advanced tongue root may have emerged
as the result of dediphthongisation, but if the analysis of a speaker is supposed to be as surface true as possible s/he should store the historical
former diphthong as what it is, a tense mid vowel.
This is also the tenor of Breedveld (1995). In her investigation of
Maasinankoore Fula, she gives a longer list of advanced mid vowels which
trigger harmony if in ultimate position. As she claims there is no evidence
for an underlying advanced high vowel in these forms (Breedveld 1995:
58). Additionally, Paradis' account lacks an explanation of the fact that
vowels with floating features occur only in the rightmost position of the
word. She also cannot explain why high vowels for instance do not have an
underlying floating [-ATR] feature associated in some cases.
The alternative to the analysis above would be to abandon the concept
of assimilation as a nondirectional phenomenon, and to abandon the interconnection of affixation and harmony direction as well by assuming one
group of alignment constraints responsible for harmony and another alignment constraint determining the direction of affixation. This could then
result in grammars where affixation goes to the left while harmony applies
rightward and vice versa. However, the formalisation of harmony as alignment was rejected above and elsewhere in the literature on independent
grounds.
146
Archangeli (2000) argues on the base of Klamath reduplication and

Pulaar harmony that constraint pairs such as FAITHRoot and FAITHAffix do
not exist, but rather only subset relations such as FAITHRoot and general
FAITH.
Formalising Pulaar harmony as the effect of a Left-Alignment constraint
on the ATR feature, she misses the generalisation that harmony is affixdriven in Pulaar. Furthermore, she is not aware of the ATR/RTR distinction
in mid vowels at the right word edge. "[T]he only advanced mid vowels are
those with an advanced vowel to the right and the only necessarily
advanced vowels are the [+high] vowels. (...) there are languages with
tongue root harmony and with contrastive tongue root values on mid
vowels. However, Pulaar is not one of these languages." (Archangeli 2000:
227) The data in (166) and (168), repeated here as (181) and (182) for
convenience, proove this claim wrong. Especially (181) shows that there
are advanced mid vowels in the rightmost syllable of the word, which
trigger tongue root advancement in the neighbouring vowel(s). These affix
vowels must be underlyingly specified for [+ATR]. The mid vowels with
retracted tongue root preceeded by an advanced vowel in (182), on the
other hand must be underlyingly specified as [-ATR].
(181) Pulaar dominant e and o
a. ATR forms
b. RTR forms
lef-ol
lef-el
l(f-on
keer-ol
keer-el
k((r-on
pa-el
pa-on
'ribbon-CLASS'
'ribbon-DIM.SG / -DIM.PL'
'boundary-CLASS'
'boundary-DIM.SG / -DIM.PL'
'shoe -DIM.SG / -DIM.PL'
(Paradis 1992: 1, 90)
(182) Pulaar disharmonic mid vowels at the right word edge

et-ir-d(
'to weigh with'
hel-ir-d(
'to break with'
okk-i-d(
'to become one-eyed'
feyy-u-d(
'to fell'
(Paradis 1992: 87)
Archangeli's conception of harmony is worth a closer look. Under her
account of tongue root position as a pair of the privative features ATR and
RTR, she has to assume two Alignment constraints to cover the Pulaar data
she analyses. One Alignment constraint aligns the left edge of every ATR
Recent accounts
147
span with the left word edge, while the other aligns the left edge of every
RTR span with the left edge of the word. That is, she does not only need a
constraint for each direction (L/R) but also one for each feature specification, both independently rankable.
Furthermore, Archangeli analyses featural faithfulness as MAX and DEP
constraints referring to individual features, which she assumes to be
assessed independently from their segmental or moraic (or syllabic) association. This implies that the grammar contains an additional set of faithfulness constraints, MAXPATH(feature) and DEPPATH(feature), as proposed by
Pulleyblank (1996 and elsewhere). These constraints make sure that
features are also associated to the anchor (segment or mora) they are
associated to underlyingly. Furthermore, her conception of tongue root position as two privative features implies the existence of MAX and DEP
constraints for each of these two features. Having blown up the constraint
inventory by these assumptions, Archangeli feels in no way tempted to
abandon the alternative IO-IDENT(F) constraint family.
Now just imagine that all these faithfulness constraints are freely
rankable with respect to each other and with respect to all other constraints
in the grammar. This enriches the possible typology to an extent which
outnumbers actual linguistic diversity. Furthermore, a ranking of MAX(F)
constraints constitutes a hierarchy of markedness. Such a hierarchy is
provided as well by the ranking of DEP(F) constraints, by the ranking of
IO-Identity(F) constraints, and, of course, by the ranking of markedness
constraints referring to features and their combinations. Where the IOIdentity/Markedness approach followed in this work is already redundant
with respect to markedness, Archangeli's and Pulleyblank's conception of
featural faithfulness exhibits an inflationary redundance with its reference
to nine different faithfulness constraints42 as well as markedness
constraints.
4.7
Recent accounts
4.7.1 The alignment approach to harmony

The alignment approach to harmony has been shown to be inadequate on
grounds regarding the nature of assimilation in general. However, the
debate whether alignment or correspondence is the more adequate formalisation of harmony is not finished yet (see Harrison 2001). Regarding the
148
attested patterns of vowel harmony in connection with morphological patterns in the world, the alignment approach seems less appropriate since
here eventual directionality tendencies of the phenomenon come from direct reference to right or left edges in the harmony constraint, rather than
that they pop up as effects of morphophonological faithfulness asymmetries
(as discussed already in connection with Archangeli's (2000) alignment
analysis of Pulaar harmony). Since most linguists working with the alignment account also assume positional faithfulness as a part of grammar, the
reference to directionality in the harmony process becomes obsolete.
Furthermore, left-to-right assimilation in prefixing languages and rightto-left assimilation in suffixing languages seems quite natural in an alignment account. This is not confirmed by the numerical distribution of root
control and affix control in the world's languages, where affix control is a
marginal phenomenon, while root control is quite widespread.
4.7.2 First syllable faithfulness
In her account of Shona height harmony, Beckman (1995, 1997, 1998)
assumes that the Shona harmony process is shaped by a high ranking faithfulness constraint guarding input-output identity of the first syllable in the
root. As has been shown above such a conception of positional faithfulness
is not sufficient since, as it has been demonstrated for Yoruba and Pulaar, a
language might also choose the last syllable of a word to be the trigger of
harmony, regardless of its morphological status. A mirror image constraint
to IDENT-1, i.e. IDENT-last, alone is not sufficient to account for suffix
controlled vowel harmony. Thus, the positional faithfulness approach must
be extended to a more sophisticated understanding of positional faithfulness
constraints, as is done in this chapter by basically three modifications to the
theory of positional faithfulness. First, a simplex faithfulness constraint on
the first syllable of words does not exist. Second, prominence of the left
word edge is an effect of the coordination of an anchoring constraint with
an Identity constraint. The same holds for the right word edge in languages
with exclusive prefixation. Third, positional variants exist also of the Integrity or *MC constraints, which militate against featural spreading among
other things. These latter constraints have a cross-linguistically preferred
ranking which assures prominence of lexical material over functional
material.
Recent accounts
149
4.7.3 The SAF approach to root control

In his survey on vowel harmony, Bakovi (2000) proposes to analyse root
control as an instance of base-output faithfulness. The idea of StemAffixed-Form-Faithfulness (SAF) relies on the theory of transderivational
faithfulness by Benua (1995, 1997). Morphologically related forms stand in
an asymmetric correspondence relation. Affixed forms and compound
forms depend on the simplex forms. In Bakovi's account every form of a
root plus x affixes has to be faithful to this root plus x-1 affixes, this stem
form plus x-2 affixes and so forth untill we arrive at the form stem plus x-x
affixes which is the root alone. This multiple transderivational faithfulness
is schematised in (183).
(183) Transderivational correspondence
Inputs:
/stem/
/stem + affix/
IO-correspondence
Outputs: [stem]
OO-correspondence
[stem + affix]
In a form of a stem plus one affix to be evaluated in a language displaying

vowel harmony, the grammar now prefers the candidate which is faithful to
its underlying stem. The candidate in which the vowel of the stem
alternates to agree with the affix vowel is suboptimal. To determine the fate
of the medial vowel under root control, the vowel between a potential
trigger in the stem and an opaque vowel in the next affix, Bakovi assumes
that affixed forms not only depend on the simplex form but also on the less
complex affixed forms. This means, as said above, that a form containing a
stem plus two affixes depends on the simplex stem in the first instance but
also on the form of the same stem plus the first of the two affixes. This is
illustrated in the tableau in (184) for the evaluation of the Turkish word
durdursajd 'stand (caus-cond-past)' which was discussed already earlier
in this context. SA-IDENT denotes the faithfulness constraint responsible for
maximal identity between the complex form and its less complex base.
The output form to be evaluated in (184) has to be matched against all
the bases listed at the bottom of the tableau in order to assess violations of
the Stem-Affixed-Form (SAF) Identity constraint SA-IDENT on top of the
hierarchy. Every deviation from one of the base vowels counts as a violation. Note that the presence of additional material which was not present
150
in one of the bases is not counted as a violation, that is in Bakovi's account

Identity constraints check the feature specification only, not presence or
absence (see the discussion in Noske 2001, and here in chapter 2.2).
However, the sole candidate which has to be excluded by this procedure,
candidate (b), is successfully eliminated in favour of candidate (c).
(184) SAF at work
SA-IDENT
/dur -dir -sej -di/
a. durdirsejdi
*!*
b. durdrsajd
*!
) c. durdursajd
d. dirdirsejdi
*!**
bases: dur, durdur, durdursaj
S-ID(bk, rd)
**
*
*
IO-ID(bk, rd)
***
****
**
The mirror image pattern to root control, i.e., affix control, as found in
Futankoore Pulaar poses a serious problem to the SAF account since this
account was designed to exclude exactly this pattern.
The theory of SAF implies several things: Simplex stems must be real
occurring outputs, and the affixed forms minus one affix must be accessible
for output-output correspondence as well. There are, however, languages,
such as many African ones, in which for instance nouns always have to be
accompanied by a classifier. For these languages access to the simplex
form in order to establish a correspondence relation is quite problematic.
Furthermore, it is not warranted that the intermediate forms with x affixes
minus 1 and so forth exist, since some derivational affixes for instance
might require inflectional affixes to follow in a given language.
Another argument has to do with Yoruba which is Bakovi's test case
for his account of root control. All bi-syllabic roots have to be analysed as
bi-morphemic in Bakovi's approach to account for the right-to-left asymmetry within roots discussed above. There is no other reason to assume
morphological complexity for these forms than Bakovi's account of root
control. To put it the other way around, the SAF account has nothing to say
about the asymmetries observed within single morphemes.
There is one additional argument against this account. In classical cyclic
rule-based derivation (Chomsky and Halle 1968) we find the following procedure: a stem is chosen, all rules like assimilation rules, feature insertion
and others are applied. Then the first affix or class of affixes is attached,
brackets are erased and all rules apply again; now the next group of affixes
is attached, brackets are erased and all rules apply once more, and so forth.
Recent accounts
151
The SAF account assumes the same procedure even though it is claimed
not to be chronologically ordered but processing in parallel. The simplex
stem is evaluated, the minimally more complex forms are evaluated, each
depending on the minimally less complex form and the final form depends
on all these intermediate forms, as would a cyclically derived one. These
forms, however, do not necessarily have actual realisations, as stated above,
and they have a doubtful psycholinguistic status. Therefore, I opt in favour
of an analysis which does not need to assume these abstract constructs.
The argument against the SAF account which is empirically testable
concerns the morphological analysis of bisyllabic or longer words. Words
which consist of two vowels of which the first one is either high or low and
the last one is a mid vowel with an ATR specification that is disharmonic to
that of the first vowel (as those in 185) have to be analysed as bimorphemic
in the SAF approach. This is because the theory has nothing to say about
morpheme-internal faithfulness asymmetries.
(185) Yoruba disharmonic roots
id(
'brass'
iko
'cough'
al(
'night'
ako
'male'
(Bakovi 2000: 140)
If they were analysed as simplex roots, the harmony constraint would

favour output candidates with an ATR specification of the mid vowel
which is in correspondence to that of the preceding high or low vowel, respectively. The only choice in Bakovi's analysis would be to place stem
faithfulness higher in the constraint hierarchy than the harmony constraint.
Allowing for disharmonic stems through the board. This might be a solution for stems containing high and mid vowels only. The lack of advanced
mid vowels to the left of the low vowel is not accounted for in this
grammar.
(186) More Yoruba asymmetric roots
a. (bi
'guilt'
ebi
or
'heaven'
r
b. (ja
c. *eCa
'fish'
od
*oCa
'hunger'
'shea-butter'
'drought'
(Bakovi 2000: 140)
152
However, there is no other reason to assume morphemic complexity for

these words. The disharmonic behaviour of mid vowels preceding high
vowels (186a) has to be analysed anyway as the effect of underlyingly
retracted high vowels in these words by Bakovi, as will be discussed in
chapter 6.2.
4.8
Conclusion
The pattern of root control as examined here for Yoruba, Turkish, and
Dgma naturally falls out from the universally preferred ranking of INTEGRITYAffix above INTEGRITYRoot, the two constraints against assimilation.
The former expresses the markedness of affix-induced assimilation.
This general pattern can be obscured by a variety of factors. Local
conjunction of IO-Identity(F) with a markedness constraint on the same
feature yields dominant-recessive harmony (as proposed by Bakovi 2000),
as demonstrated for Diola Fogni here.
Of course it would be even more appealing if one could assume a
positional Integrity constraint (on affixes) and a general Integrity constraint
only, but to date this is not justified since with the theoretical devices at
hand this would exclude Futankoore Pulaar with its affix controlled harmony pattern from being regarded as a human language.
Morpheme-internal assymmetries in vowel cooccurrence patterns (as
observed in Yoruba and many other languages) are mechanically linked to
the morphology in this account by assuming an extended interpretation of
Anchoring constraints, covering also the faithfulness dimension of featural
identity. With these theoretical tools provided it is not necessary to assume
additional theoretical constructs like base-output correspondence, cyclic
rule application or its equivalent in serial candidate evaluations.
With the constraints assumed above we can derive a factorial typology
which gives us the observed patterns. In (187), I have listed the schematic
possibilities, leaving minor peculiarities aside. The first two rankings are
included since the ranking of the anchoring constraints in the hierarchy
does not account for affixation if we rank these constraints with regard to
the constraints directly involved in triggering and blocking harmony (i.e.,
S-IDENT, IO-IDENT and INTEGRITY constraints) but rather in interaction
with a general PARSE constraint, which demands that every segmental
structure is parsed into higher prosodic structure, such as the prosodic
word. In the following rankings all lowly ranked constraints are omitted. If
Conclusion
153
an ANCHOR constraint is indicated as highly ranked in a hierarchy this

means that this constraint outranks the PARSE constraint as well as the
opposite Anchoring constraint.
(187) A typology
a. PARSE >> L/R-ANCHOR
(all affixes parsed in prosodic word)
b. L/R-ANCHOR >> PARSE
(no affixation)
c. R-ANCHOR >> S-IDENT >> INTEGRITYAffix >> INTEGRITYRoot
(right edge triggering, leftward affixation, root control; e.g., Yoruba)
d. L-ANCHOR >> S-IDENT >> INTEGRITYAffix >> INTEGRITYRoot
(left edge triggering, rightward affixation, root control; e.g., Turkish)
e. S-IDENT >> INTEGRITYAffix >> INTEGRITYRoot >> {ranking a}
(Affixation to both sides, root control; e.g., Dgma)
f. MARKEDNESS&IO-IDENT, S-IDENT >> IO-IDENT
(Dominance; e.g., Diola Fogni)
g. IO-IDENTRight >> S-IDENT >> INTEGRITYRoot >> L-ANCHOR >>
INTEGRITYAffix
(Right edge triggering, affix control; i.e., Pulaar)
h. L-ANCHOR >> IO-IDENTRight >> S-IDENT >> INTEGRITYRoot >>
INTEGRITYAffix
(two-domain words only ('pathological ranking') unattested)
Rankings (c e) schematise the rankings which account for the three
variants of root control discussed above. In ranking (f) no positional
constraint plays a role, but instead, the local conjunction of markedness and
faithfulness favours one feature specification as the trigger of harmony.
Ranking (g) accounts for the pattern of affix control observed in
Futankoore Pulaar.
The ranking in (h) is added as a place holder for those rankings which
lead to inconsistent patterns in the sense that the ranking enforces the
emergence of words with more than one harmonic domain. With such a
ranking the grammar systematically divides every word into two harmony
domains. One vowel resists harmony and acts as a trigger at the left word
154
edge, while another vowel is immune to assimilation and serves as a potential trigger at the right word edge.
This ranking contradicts both functional motivations for harmony. With
regard to interpretive parsing harmony cannot serve as an aide in the identification of morphological or prosodic domains in such a language, since
potentially every word is divided into two harmonic sets.
The other disadvantage arises from the perspective of production oriented parsing. This division into two harmonic spans acts counter to the purpose of ease of articulation.
The outcomes of such a ranking only serve confusion in the interpretation of utterances. The vowel potentially standing alone in disharmony
with the rest of the word at one edge may have accidentally the same feature specification as the vowels in the neighbouring word and be identified
with this domain. This then disturbs the interpretive task of the listener.
Furthermore, such a ranking can show a stable effect only in languages
which allow long words. If long words are rare in a language, the learner
might mistake this type of ranking for one in which harmony plays no role
at all.
I assume that such rankings are banned from occurrence as anti-functional and counter-productive. McCarthy and Prince (1995) coined the term
'pathological ranking' for those rankings which should never occur in
violation of their proposed meta constraint on the ranking of faithfulness
for roots above faithfulness for affixes. We have seen in the previous
sections that such a meta ranking is in fact a mere almost universal
tendency.
For the phenomenon of vowel harmony this ranking is reversed in the
most common cases, root or root controlled harmony, with respect to the
integrity constraint. However, this ranking reversal serves the functional
purpose that lies behind it, the maximisation of prominence of lexical
items.
Pulaar conforms to McCarthy's meta ranking, but pays this conformity
with a decrease of prominence of lexical entities. However, the Pulaar
ranking of the two positional Integrity constraints still has a positive effect.
Generally, words consistently have the ATR specification of the rightmost
affix vowel. This word identification aide is disturbed only by the behaviour of opaque vowels. However, the behaviour of opaque vowels, as the
behaviour of transparent vowels, has a different source, namely the restriction of the inventory by higher ranked constraints on the system, serving its
optimisation. The term 'pathological ranking', or, 'counter-productive
Conclusion
155
ranking', however, is adequate in my view for all those rankings which

obscure output structures more than they help facilitate either interpretation
or articulation.
(188) The Bad Ranking Hypothesis:
A constraint ranking is counter-productive if it neither facilitates
articulation nor interpretation. Such grammars are avoided.
Grammar itself is a neutral device of encoding language. As such, grammar
is usually used to help the speaker or the listener in the task of
communication. However, like nuclear fission can be used to produce electricity to provide light and heating but as well for the production of atom
bombs, the possibilities of Universal Grammar may be larger than they are
explored in human languages.
In the next chapter, I will show how transparent vowels can readily be
accounted for under the local conjunction account, illustrating this with the
examples of Finnish and Wolof. Furthermore we will see that the behaviour
of transparent vowels serves an additional purpose which justifies the disruption to vowel harmony that these vowels cause.
Chapter 5
In the phonological literature, transparency is usually thought of as the
skipping of a vowel by the harmony process. That is vowel harmony comes
from one direction, jumps over the inalterable vowel and goes on after that
vowel. In backness harmonies like that of Finnish or Hungarian usually
front nonlow unrounded vowels (i and e) behave as transparent. These
vowels have no back, high, unrounded counterpart (i.e., , )) in the system
and therefore they are excluded from alternation when preceded by a back
vowel. Nevertheless, the following vowel(s) change to backness in such a
constellation. In ATR harmonies, often the high vowels resist retraction of
the tongue root, even though surrounded by retracted nonhigh vowels.
In generative approaches, there is a great dissent on how to explain this
phenomenon. Most approaches maintain strict locality by assuming
stepwise derivation, some kind of sympathy or cumulativity, or surface
underspecification of the crucial feature in the transparent vowel. In derivational approaches, it is assumed that at the lexical level the transparent
vowel takes on the backness or ATR specification contributed by its neighbour. Vowel harmony applies to the next vowel in the chain now. On a later
level the backness or ATR value of the transparent vowel is changed again
to its former state. The result is surface transparency or what is labelled
'derivational opacity'. In a Sympathy based approach the winning candidate
has an additional (sympathetic) correspondence relation with one of the
failed candidates, i.e. that one which is most harmonic with regard to the
active feature. This sympathy relation is less important than the markedness
constraint banning the [+back] or [-ATR] counterpart of the transparent
vowel. These accounts of transparency will be discussed after the
application of the theory of balance to transparency in Finnish and Wolof.
In this proposal, transparency is not thought of as a kind of inactivity of
the transparent vowel or skipping of that vowel by harmony, but rather
transparency is regarded as a result of balancing, or the desire for symmetry. The observation is the following: if a transparent vowel is in a
medial position, i.e. between two other vowels, the relationship with the
158
neighbour to the right should be the same as the relationship with the
neighbour to the left. That is, if disharmony is the relation to the left vowel,
the transparent vowel would have an unbalanced relation to its neighbours
if harmony were the case at its right side. Balance is achieved by being
either disharmonic or harmonic with both neighbours. In the following I
will first apply the analysis introduced in chapter 3.3 to Finnish, which
displays backness harmony and where the front nonlow vowels e and i are
transparent. After this I will extend the analysis for transparent vowels in a
language displaying ATR harmony, which is Wolof in this case.
5.1
The case of Finnish a grammar of balance
Finnish has the vowel system given in (189). It has the five front vowels on
the left and the three back vowels to the right in the chart. The two vowels
in the diagonally shaded cells are the neutral ones. It is exactly these two
vowels to which there exist no counterparts which differ only in backness.
This is indicated by the shaded empty cells on the right in (189). This lack
of back high unrounded vowels makes the whole system asymmetric or
imbalanced. Five front vowels stand in opposition to three back vowels
only.
(189) Finnish vowels
front
unrounded
rounded
high
i
y
mid
e
[2]
low
[4]
back
unrounded
rounded
u
o
a
5.1.1 The Finnish harmony pattern

Suffix vowels harmonise in backness with the last non-neutral vowel of the
stem in Finnish words. This is illustrated in (190) for a low affix vowel.
(190) Finnish palatal harmony
a. pyt-n
'table'
b. pouta-na
'fine weather'
c. hmr-n
'dusk'
essive
essive
essive
The case of Finnish
d.
e.
f.
g.
kesy-ll
vero-lla
kde-ll
koti-na
'tame'
'tax'
'hand'
'home'
159
adess
adess
adess
essive
(Ringen and Heinmki 1999: 305)
The words in (190f,g) have an e and i, respectively, as the last vowel of the
stem. The affix vowel surfaces in these words with the same backness
specification as the stem vowel preceding the neutral vowel.
With stems containing only neutral vowels affix vowels are always
front. This indicates that the notion 'neutral' is a misnomer. If these vowels
were indeed neutral we would expect greater variation in the quality of the
suffix vowels with such stems, because only in the environment of a stem
containing only neutral vowels, the underlying specification of the suffix
vowels would have a chance to surface.
(191) Finnish stems with neutral vowels only
a. velje-ll
'brother' adess.
b. tie-ll
'road'
adess.
(Ringen and Heinmki 1999: 306)
Transparent vowels in second position in a word behave as shown by the

data in (192). If the transparent vowel is preceded by a front vowel, all
vowels are front (192a). If the transparent vowel is preceded by a back
vowel, following affix vowels are back too (192b).
(192) Finnish neutral vowels in medial position43
a. nke-vt
'see-3pl'
b. tunte-vat
tsaari-na
'feel-3pl'
'car-essive'
The problem is the following: How can harmony skip a neutral vowel as in
(192b)? The strict locality hypothesis assumes that harmony proceeds from
segment to segment. Even under the approach advocated here, where
harmony affects adjacent syllables, adjacency is not maintained in such a
case.
160
5.1.2 Finnish feet and balanced vowels

The assumption of foot-to-foot harmony (as proposed by Piggott 1996 to
account for transparent segments in nasal harmony) cannot solve the
locality problem either, since there are cases where the last vowel of a word
is preceded by lots of neutral vowels which constitute several feet. The
nonneutral affix vowel harmonises with a nonneutral stem vowel preceding
it, regardless how many feet are in between.
(193) Finnish neutral vowels between trigger and target
a. ui-da
b. ui-ske-nt-ele-mi-se-ni-ko
'to swim'
'my swimming around?'
sy-d
'to eat'
sy-ske-nt-ele-mi-se-ni-k
'my constant eating?'
teh-d
'to do'
tee-ske-nt-ele-mi-se-ni-k
'my pretending?'
(Kiparsky 2000a: 2)
Finnish has primary stress on the first and secondary stress on the third
syllable (e.g., Karvonen 2000). This gives us the foot structure in (194).
(194) Finnish footing: pwd{ft(CV.CV).ft(CV.CV).(...)}pwd
With more than one adjacent neutral vowel within a word, there is at least
one foot intervening between the trigger and target of harmony.
Additionally, in a word with an uneven number of syllables, the last vowel
is not footed, it has no secondary or tertiary stress. It is, thus, no potential
target of harmony. On these grounds an analysis based on foot-to-foot
harmony has to be dismissed.
The idea to account for the transparency problem works as follows:
Note that both neutral vowels are front. Furthermore, if the medial neutral
vowel agrees in backness with the preceding potentially harmony triggering
vowel, it also agrees in backness with the following vowel. In case of
disagreement with the preceding vowel, the neutral vowel also disagrees in
backness with the following vowel. The observation is that the neutral
vowel prefers a situation where the same state of affairs prevails at both its
edges. It is, so to say, in a balanced relation with its environment. Before
The case of Finnish
161
formally analysing this observation, we have to develop the basic set-up for
an analysis of Finnish harmony.
5.1.3 The basic constraint set-up
Finnish is an entirely suffixing language with root controlled harmony. This
is accounted for by high ranking of L-ANCHOR and low ranking of RANCHOR, the combined alignment/faithfulness constraints. Backness harmony as is found in Finnish is the result of a ranking where IO-Identity
constraints on height and roundness outrank the harmony constraints, i.e. SIDENT. S-IDENT in turn is ranked above IO-Identity of backness.
(195) A first ranking for Finnish
L-ANCHOR, IO-IDENT(hi,lo,rd) >> S-IDENT >> IO-IDENT(bk) >> ...
>> R-ANCHOR
In the tableau in (196) a word containing only non-neutral vowels is
evaluated to show the basic mechanism of Finnish vowel harmony.
(196) Unimpeded harmony in Finnish
L-ANCHOR
/put-n/
a. pytn
*!
b. putn
) c. putana
S-IDENT(bk)
IO-IDENT(bk)
**
*!
**
The grammar in (195) describes a system with backness harmony affecting

all vowels, as is found in languages with a symmetric distribution of front
and back vowels such as Turkish for instance. To analyse the Finnish system, reasons for neutrality must be incorporated into the grammar. The two
neutral vowels are both [-bk] and [-lo]. Furthermore both do not have a
[+bk] counterpart in the system which is identical to them in height as well
as roundness. The vowels and ) neither exist as phonemes nor as
allophones. Thus, markedness constraints against these vowels must be undominated. I will abbreviate such constraints as *ALIEN here.
(197) *ALIEN: *[, )] or *[-lo, -rd, +bk]. 'Nonlow, back vowels have to be
rounded.'
162
With this constraint on top of the hierarchy, no back high unrounded

vowels can ever surface even if they were present underlyingly. All
potential underlying back high unrounded vowels surface as front vowels.
(198) Potential underlying back high unrounded vowels in Finnish
*ALIEN IO-IDENT(hi) IO-IDENT(rd)
IO-IDENT(bk)
//
a.
*!
b. a
*!
c. u
*!
) d. i
*
In a language where IO-Identity on height and roundness are ranked above
S-IDENT, i and e can neither be changed to * or *), respectively, in a
context where they are preceded by a back vowel, nor can any repairing
with u and o, respectively, or with a take place, which would change roundness or height specifications of i and e in violation of the high ranking IOIdentity constraints on these features.
(199) Blocking of harmony by structure preservation
*ALIEN L-ANCHOR IO-ID(hi,lo,rd) S-ID(bk) IO-ID(bk)
/a-i/
a. a-
*!
*
b. a-u
*!
*
c. a-a
*!*
*
d. 4-i
*!
) e. a-i
*
This grammar perfectly accounts for a backness harmonic system with
opaque vowels, that is with this grammar, the vowels i, e would start a new
harmonic domain. This pattern can be found in Ostyak (Kiparsky 2000a)
for example, but not in Finnish. This is illustrated with a Finnish example
by the tableau below. If a nonneutral vowel follows a neutral vowel both
have to agree. Alternation of the neutral vowel is blocked by high ranking
*ALIEN. S-IDENT prefers the candidate with a suffix vowel which is identical to the preceding neutral vowel (i.e. candidate d). This candidate has
one violation less than the transparent candidate (e) which is the actual
output in Finnish.
The case of Finnish
163
(200) An opacity grammar

/ kti-n4/
*ALIEN L-ANCHOR IO-ID(hi,lo,rd) S-ID(bk) IO-ID(bk)
a. ktna
*!
**
b. ktin4
*!
**
c. ktuna
*!
**
) d. ktin4
*
/ e. ktina
**!
*
With this basic grammar I return to the above made observation on neutral
vowels in Finnish.
5.1.4 The conjunction of balance in the Finnish grammar
The observation was that a neutral vowel agrees in backness with both the
vowels by which it is flanked or it disagrees with both vowels to its sides.
What is excluded is agreement with one and disagreement with the other
vowel. This can be formalised as a local conjunction of the harmony constraint S-IDENT with an OCP constraint on the same feature. Under the
definition given in (201), the OCP militates against two identical vowels in
a row. This is exactly the opposite of what the corresponding harmony constraint demands.
(201) *S-IDENT(bk): Adjacent syllables are not identical with respect to the
specification of [back].
A local conjunction of the two constraints (i.e., S-IDENT(bk) &l *SIDENT(bk)) is violated if both conjoints are violated by the same element.
Note that this potential situation only occurs in the case where one element
is surrounded by two other elements. The local conjunction is satisfied if at
least one of the constraints is satisfied, no matter which one. The effect is
that whenever a vowel has a vowel to its left or right with which it does not
agree in violation of S-IDENT it seeks to avoid violating *S-IDENT to escape
violation of the local conjunction. This results in dissimilation with the
vowel on the other side. In case of agreement with the preceding vowel, no
reason emerges to satisfy *S-IDENT, because this would not improve the sequence's performance on the local conjunction, which is satisfied anyway.
The effect is either agreement to both sides or disagreement to both sides of
a medial vowel.
164
This local conjunction is restricted to the two neutral vowels; otherwise

it would have a potential dissimilating effect on whole strings of n vowels.
Data like (190e) vro-lla 'tax-adessive' should otherwise surface as *vroll in satisfaction of the local conjunction of S-IDENT(bk) and *SIDENT(bk). The restriction is achieved by locally conjoining the first local
conjunction with the markedness constraint which is violated whenever an
e or i occurs, *[-lo, -rd, -bk], yielding a second more complex local conjunction. Note that it makes no difference for Finnish whether this local
conjunction is structured internally as a local conjunction of three simplex
constraints or as a conjunction of one simplex constraint with a local conjunction of two constraints, but nevertheless I will come back to this issue
later in this section.
(202) Local conjunction BALANCE(bk):
*[-lo, -rd, -bk] &l S-IDENT(bk) &l *S-IDENT(bk)
'A vowel is not specified as nonlow unrounded and front or it is
identical in backness with its neighbour(s) or it is not identical in
backness with its neighbour(s).'
This complex constraint has to be incorporated into the established ranking
of constraints in the Finnish grammar. Transparent vowels never satisfy the
markedness constraint to escape violation of the local conjunction. The
vowels i and e do not change feature specifications. Thus, the local conjunction has to rank below IO-IDENT(hi,lo,rd). In order to have a dissimilating effect at all, the local conjunction has to outrank S-IDENT. This determines the exact ranking of the local conjunction, since IO-IDENT(hi,lo,rd)
and S-IDENT are also ranked with regard to each other.
(203) Finnish balance grammar
*ALIEN, IO-IDENT(hi,lo,rd) >> L-ANCHOR >> BALANCE(bk) >>
S-IDENT(bk) >> IO-IDENT(bk)
In the following tableaux, we see how the constraint on BALANCE, inserted
in the grammar in the appropriate place, excludes the undesired winner of
tableau (200). Candidate (c) in tableau (i) violates BALANCE(bk) because it
violates all three single conjoints. It violates the markedness constraint by
having a high front unrounded vowel i. This vowel causes a violation of SIDENT for disagreeing in backness with the neighbouring vowel to the left.
Finally it violates *S-IDENT by agreeing with the vowel to its right. In
The case of Finnish
165
summary, candidate (c), the opaque form, is ruled out for its neutral vowel's
imbalanced or asymmetric relation to the two adjacent vowels. The neutral
vowel in candidate (d), in contrast, is completely balanced with respect to
the adjacent vowels. It is in discorrespondence with both. This violates SIDENT twice, but this doesn't matter at all, because by its disharmonic relation to the neighbours the i completely satisfies low ranking *S-IDENT(bk).
And satisfying only one member of the constraint conjunction of BALANCE
leaves the whole conjunction as satisfied.
IO-ID(bk)
S-ID(bk)
L-ANCHOR
IO-ID
(hi,lo,rd)
BALANCE
(bk)
*
**
*
IO-ID(bk)
a. k4d)ll4
b. k4della
) c. k4dell4
**
*
*!
S-ID(bk)
/k4de-ll4/
*!
BALANCE
(bk)
ii.
kt-na
k2ti-n4
kti-n4
kti-na
*!
L-ANCHOR
a.
b.
1 c.
) d.
IO-ID
(hi,lo,rd)
/kti-n4/
*ALIEN
i.
*ALIEN
(204) Transparency in Finnish
*!
**
*
*
*
*!
Tableau (204ii) shows a balanced vowel in complete harmony with its

environment. For such an underlying form there is no reason to parse a
candidate with a changed backness value as in candidates (a, b). The
grammar correctly disprefers these candidates to the optimal candidate (c).
A question is now what happens if two or more balanced vowels follow
each other, flanked by a back root vowel and a potentially harmonising
suffix vowel. According to the data provided by Campbell (1980), harmony
skips only one balanced vowel. If two or more balanced vowels occur, a
following suffix vowel always surfaces as front, regardless of the quality of
the vowel(s) preceding the balanced vowels. The relevant data are given in
(205).
166
(205) Finnish asymmetric or opaque sequences of balanced vowels

adjektiivej
'adjectives (partitive pl.)'
partikkel-eist
'particles (elative pl.)'
keskuhittist
'? (elative pl.)'
(Campbell 1980: 252)
This is perfectly accounted for in this approach. In a sequence with more
than one balanced vowel the vowel preceding the last balanced vowel
agrees in backness with this one. Therefore, also the following nonbalanced
vowels have to agree with the last e or i. The issue of chains of balanced
vowels, however, is not settled with this observation since Campbell's
generalisation is contradicted by the facts reported in Kiparsky (2000a),
Ringen and Heinmki (1999), as well as Vlimaa-Blum (1999).
In fact, Finnish speakers are somewhat ambivalent. According to
Kiparsky (2000a) even longer chains of balanced vowels can have a back
vowel at the end when another back vowel is somewhere at the other side
of the word. This was illustrated with Kiparsky's data in (193) which is
repeated here as (206).
(206) Finnish symmetric sequences of balanced vowels
a. ui-da
ui-ske-nt-ele-mi-se-ni-ko
'to swim'
'my swimming around?'
b. sy-d
'to eat'
sy-ske-nt-ele-mi-se-ni-k
'my constant eating?'
c. teh-d
'to do'
tee-ske-nt-ele-mi-se-ni-k
'my pretending?'
Ringen and Heinmki (1999) found that there is even speaker-internal

variation with regard to such forms. That is, sometimes longer sequences of
balanced vowels behave as transparent or symmetric and sometimes the
neutral sequences in the same words behave as opaque or asymmetric. In
the current approach this variation can be captured by the simple
assumption that the domain of the local constraint conjunction which is
responsible for symmetry / transparency in Finnish (i.e., BALANCE) is not
fixed. The domain varies from that of the syllable to that of the entire
neutral feature span.
The case of Finnish
167
(207) BALANCE(bk): *[-lo, -rd, -bk] &l S-IDENT(bk) &l *S-IDENT(bk)

'A feature bearing domain is not specified as nonlow unrounded and
front or it is identical in backness with its neighbour(s) or it is not
identical in backness with its neighbour(s).'
Domain = a) syllable; b) designated maximally homorganic feature
span (i.e., a [-lo, -rd, -bk] span)
In case of domain a), the syllable, a sequence of at least two neutral vowels
is preferred which is harmonic with the following potential target of
harmony. Syllable-wise evaluation of the BALANCE constraint yields that
the first neutral vowel violates BALANCE anyway when it is preceded by a
back vowel. The first neutral vowel is then disharmonic with regard to the
preceding back vowel, and harmonic with regard to the following neutral
vowel. The second (or last) neutral vowel is harmonic with regard to the
preceding neutral vowel. BALANCE would be violated once more if this last
neutral vowel would disagree with the following vowel. This explains
transparency or symmetry of single neutral vowels and opacity of
sequences of neutral vowels which contain more than one vowel. In case of
domain b), BALANCE is evaluated over the whole span of neutral vowels,
that is the sequence of balanced vowels is regarded as one holistic entity by
the speaker. If this span is disharmonic to its preceding neighbour, it should
also be disharmonic with regard to the vowel following the neutral span.
Both possibilities are schematised in (208).
(208) Syllabic versus holistic balance
a. Syllabic balance
b. Articulatorily holistic balance
[bk] [bk] [bk]
[bk]
[bk]
[...]
[-bk, -lo, -rd]

i
[...]
V
Another solution to the discrepancy revealed by the data in (205) and (206)
might be the observation that the transparent vowels in (206) are affix
vowels, while those in (205) are stem vowels. That neutral affix vowels do
not trigger harmony in a following non-neutral vowel could then be an
effect of INTEGRITYAffix in conjunction with the relevant markedness
constraint *[-lo, -rd, -bk]. However, this account would have nothing to say
about the large degree of variation observed with Finnish neutral vowels.
168
There remains one technical question regarding the local conjunction of

BALANCE. This complex constraint consists of three simplex constraints,
and therefore the question arises whether it has an internal hierarchical
structure or not. Is BALANCE unstructured, i.e., a conjunction of three
simplex constraints? Is it a conjoint of a markedness constraint and a
harmony constraint which is further conjoined with the OCP, or the
conjunction of a markedness constraint with a conjunction which consists
of the harmony constraint and the OCP constraint, or is it a conjoint of the
OCP and markedness which is combined with the harmony constraint? The
four structural possibilities are given below.
(209) Possibilities of multiple constraint conjunction
a.
BALANCE
HARMONY
MARKEDNESS
b.
OCP
BALANCE
LC'
MARKEDNESS
c.
HARMONY
OCP
BALANCE
LC'
MARKEDNESS
d.
HARMONY
OCP
BALANCE
LC'
HARMONY
MARKEDNESS
OCP
At first sight the whole issue seems somewhat odd since a decision between
the different structures in (209) does not change the interpretation of the
whole construction. However, if one of the structures in (209b,c,d) were the
The case of Finnish
169
actual architecture of the BALANCE constraint, we would have to assume

that the partial conjunction LC' were a part of the grammar as well. Its
ranking with regard to the other constraints would be somewhere between
the complete conjunction and the highest ranked of the two simplex
constraints in LC'. As such the partial conjunctions LC' in (209b,d) would
have an impact on balanced vowels, which have only one neighbour. These
vowels should agree with their only neighbour in case of the existence of
LC' (209b), which is trivial, because they should do that anyway
independently of LC' (209b).
(210) Hypothetical splitting of LC I (209b):
/vlje-ll/
BALANCE
(bk)
*[-lo, -rd, -bk]&l

S-ID(bk)
- ) a. vljell
b. vljella
S-ID
(bk)
IO-ID
(bk)
*!
**
*
The structure in (209c) potentially affects triplets of harmonic vowels; but

in a grammar where the harmony constraint is the next constraint below
LC' in the hierarchy, this constraint should filter out all systematically
dissimilated forms like *poutna.
(211) Hypothetical splitting of LC III (209c):
/put-n/
a.
b.
- c.
d.
e.
f.
pytn
putn
putana
poutna
pytan
pytana
LANCHOR
BALANCE
(bk)
S-ID(bk)&l
*S-ID(bk)
S-ID
(bk)
*!
**
*
*!
*!
IO-ID
(bk)
*!
*!*
**
**
*
***
****
If disharmonic stems are involved, such as in the form verolla 'taxadessive', the interim conjunction (209c) causes disharmony between the
last harmony triggering stem vowel and the affix vowel. See in this respect
tableau (212).44
170
(212) Hypothetical splitting of LC III (209c) and a disharmonic stem:

/vro-ll/
LANCHOR
BALANCE
(bk)
S-ID(bk)&l
*S-ID(bk)
S-ID
(bk)
IO-ID
(bk)
*!
*
**
/ a. vrolla
0 b. vroll
As long as such a pattern is unattested this structure has to be rejected as

the correct decomposition of the BALANCE constraint.
The last possibility, LC' (209d) predicts that the balanced vowels
disagree with their only neighbour in short forms. In case there is no
potential trigger preceding the balanced vowel, a following alternating affix
vowel should surface as its back variant. This is shown by tableau (213).
(213) Hypothetical splitting of LC II (209d):
/vlje-ll/
/ a. vljell
0 b. vljella
BALANCE
(bk)
*[-lo, -rd, -bk]&l

*S-ID(bk)
S-ID
(bk)
IO-ID
(bk)
**
*
*!
Finnish monosyllabic stems with balanced vowels do not behave in this

way, as can be seen from the data in (191). This means either that the
analysis in (209d) is wrong or that this partial constraint conjunction is
ranked below the harmony constraint, where it is effectless.
However there are languages which show a pattern like that in tableau
(213). Kiparsky (2000a) cites Uyghur as a language behaving exactly like
this: Uyghur has backness harmony like Finnish. Situated between two
vowels, neutral vowels behave like the Finnish ones, they either agree or
disagree with both neighbours. Isolated balanced vowels do not trigger
assimilation in attached suffix vowels, they cause dissimilation. Enarve
Vepsian 'neutral' vowels behave even worse (Kiparsky 2000a): They are
completely insensitive to the preceding vowel, and always disagree in
backness with the following vowel. From these observations I conclude that
Finnish only has the BALANCE conjunction, lacking the partial conjunctions, or it has the latter ranked below the harmony constraint S-IDENT.
Uyghur has the BALANCE conjunction and the conjunction of markedness
and OCP (209d) ranked higher in the constraint hierarchy than in Finnish,
while Enarve Vepsian has only the latter conjunction.
The case of Finnish
171
(214) Cross-linguistic rankings and conjunctions

a. Finnish:
BALANCE >> S-IDENT(bk) >> *[-lo, -rd, -bk]&*S-IDENT(bk)
b. Uyghur:
BALANCE >> *[-lo, -rd, -bk]&*S-IDENT(bk) >> S-IDENT(bk)
c. Enarve Vepsian:
*[-lo, -rd, -bk]&*S-IDENT(bk) >> S-IDENT(bk)
The following tableaux schematically illustrate how these grammars
determine the different outputs for the relevant forms in the latter two
languages as discussed above.
(215)
i.
Uyghur
) a.
b.
c.
) d.
) e.
f.
/CaCiC-aC/ ~ CaCiC-aC
/CaCiC-aC/ ~ CaCiC-4C
/C4CiC-aC/ ~ C4CiC-aC
/C4CiC-aC/ ~ C4CiC-4C
/CiC-aC/ ~ CiC-aC
/CiC-aC/ ~ CiC-4C
ii.
) a.
b.
) c.
d.
) e.
f.
Enarve Vepsian
/CaCiC-aC/ ~ CaCiC-aC
/CaCiC-aC/ ~ CaCiC-4C
/C4CiC-aC/ ~ C4CiC-aC
/C4CiC-aC/ ~ C4CiC-4C
/CiC-aC/ ~ CiC-aC
/CiC-aC/ ~ CiC-4C
BALANCE
*[-lo, -rd, -bk]&

*S-ID(bk)
S-ID
(bk)
*
*
**
**
*
*
*
*
*!
*!
*!
*[-lo, -rd, -bk]&
*S-ID(bk)
*!
*
**!
S-ID(bk)
**
*
*
*
*!
For the reason that a partial conjunction should have an audible effect, I
will assume that the conjunction of more than two constraints does not
necessarily happen serially but in parallel. All constraints of a conjunction
are combined at once, which means that the structure of a ternary constraint
conjunction such as BALANCE is flat, like that in (209a) in languages like
172
Finnish. Why should a speaker load her/his grammar with complex constraints which have no observable effect? This assumption does not exclude
the Uyghur variant per se, that is instantiating a partial conjunction as well.
There is one more reason to assume that the partial conjunction of markedness with the OCP is the basic constraint combination on which balance
is built. The same constraint combination in conjunction with an IO-faithfulness constraint explains the patterns of Trojan vowels. A detailed discussion of this pattern will be delivered in chapter 6. Independent evidence for
the local conjunction of the harmony constraint with the OCP (209c) comes
from the height-uniform pattern in Yawelmani, even though it is different
features here which both constraints refer to.
In the following section, I will show that the analysis developed for
balanced vowels in backness harmony can be straightforwardly extended to
balanced vowels in ATR harmony systems.
5.2
Wolof ATR harmony and balanced vowels
The pattern of balanced vowels which will be analysed in this section gives
an additional insight into how violations of the BALANCE conjunction are
assessed in cases where more than one balanced vowel is found in a word,
each surrounded by non-balanced vowels. Furthermore, the patterns found
in Wolof confirm the prediction of the present analysis of Balance that a
language may have balanced as well as opaque vowels.
Wolof is a suffixing Niger Congo language with root-controlled ATR
harmony. According to Pulleyblank (1996: 314), the Wolof vowel inventory contains the vowels given in (216).
(216) Wolof vowel inventory:
high
mid
low
advanced
retracted
advanced
retracted
advanced
retracted
front
i
back
u
e
(
o
o
Wolof ATR harmony
173
5.2.1 The Wolof harmony pattern

The low vowel D alternates with in ATR harmony. Mid e and o alternate
with ( and o, respectively. The only vowels which do not have a
counterpart with the opposite ATR value are the high vowels i and u.
Accordingly the latter two vowels behave differently to all other vowels.
They are balanced with respect to their neighbours. Instances of one of the
two high advanced vowels are always flanked by either only [+ATR]
vowels or only [-ATR] vowels. The behaviour of nonhigh affix vowels is
shown in (217).
(217) Harmony of nonhigh vowels in Wolof
a. gn-e
'be better in'
b. sofor-m
xam-( 'know in'
tol-am
rer-e
'be lost in'
tcc-t
d(m-( 'go with'
matt-at
dor-e
'hit with'
dor-nte
xol-(
'look with'
xol-ant(
'his/her driver'
'his/her field'
'to smash'
'to bite continuously'
'to hit each other'
'to look at each other'
All nonhigh affix vowels in (217) agree with the preceding nonhigh vowels
with regard to ATR. In (218a) all affix vowels are [+ATR] in
correspondence with the preceding high vowels, while the affix vowels in
(218b) surface with the ATR value of the nonhigh vowel preceding the
high vowel(s) in each word (as shown most clearly in the pair toxi-len
versus t(kki-l(n). (218c) serves to show that high affix vowels, such as the
u in -bobule / -bobul( behave like high stem vowels. They are balanced.
(218) Harmony of high vowels in Wolof
a. gis-e
'to see in'
b. toxi-len
sul-e 'to bury with'
soppiwu-l(n
nir-o 'to look alike'
triji-len
jit-le 'to help with'
t(kki-l(n
c. kriQ-m-bobule
xarit-am-bobul(
'go and smoke!'

'you have not changed'
'go sleep!'
'untie!'
'that coal of his/hers just mentioned'

'that friend of his/hers just mentioned'
174
5.2.2 ATR balance in Wolof harmony

Again, those vowels behave as balanced which cause an imbalance in the
vowel inventory. In the case of Wolof, the system is imbalanced with
regard to the feature ATR among high vowels because there are only
[+ATR] high vowels. This asymmetry is caused by an undominated constraint against high retracted vowels, *[+hi, -ATR]. This constraint favours
high vowels with advanced tongue root to high vowels with retracted
tongue root in surface representations even if these vowels stand in correspondence with underlyingly retracted high vowels. The relevant local conjunction is essentially the same as in Finnish, except that the relevant
features are different.
(219) BALANCE(ATR): *[+hi] &l S-IDENT(ATR) & l *S-IDENT(ATR)
With this ingredient the analysis of Wolof goes as follows. S-IDENT(ATR)
is ranked rather high, at least above IO-IDENT(ATR), but below IOIDENT(hi) and below *[+hi, -ATR] which is undominated. This results in
high vowels being immune as targets of harmony. The BALANCE(ATR)
constraint is ranked above S-IDENT(ATR), and below IO-IDENT(hi). This
accounts for transparency. Of course, L-ANCHOR is an important constraint
in Wolof as well, because it regulates suffixation. Furthermore, L-ANCHOR
prevents the D in xDrit-am-bobul( 'that friend of his/hers just mentioned'
(218c) from assimilating to the following i with regard to ATR. As in
Finnish, L-ANCHOR is outranked by the markedness constraint delimiting
the inventory. Otherwise we would observe instances of retracted high
vowels in the first syllable.
(220) Wolof ranking
*[+hi, -ATR] >> L-ANCHOR, IO-IDENT(hi) >> BALANCE(ATR)
>> S-IDENT(ATR) >> IO-IDENT(ATR) >> *[+ATR]
In tableau (221), agreement of ATR among nonhigh vowels is evaluated. I
skipped the constraints relevant for transparency, because they would be
satisfied vacuously by all candidates, since none of them has a high vowel
and none has any height specification differing from those in the underlying
form. L-ANCHOR rules out the candidate which has the least marked
configuration of ATR features and is fully harmonic, that is the one
showing dominant harmony. This candidate has to change the ATR
Wolof ATR harmony
175
specification of the leftmost stem vowel in comparison to the underlying

form, which is strictly prohibited under high-ranking L-ANCHOR. Candidate (a) is the most faithful candidate, but it violates the harmony constraint
S-IDENT by having differing ATR specifications in its two vowels. The
only form left is candidate (c), which neither violates L-ANCHOR nor SIDENT.
(221) Unimpeded harmony among nonhigh vowels in Wolof
L-ANCHOR S-ID(ATR) IO-ID(ATR) *[+ATR]
/gn-(/
a. gn(
*!
*
b. gan(
*!
*
) c. gne
*
**
High vowels are not excluded from the harmony pattern. If they are the
only possible trigger in a word they urge their neighbours to become
[+ATR], as shown in (218). The form gise 'to see in' from (218a) is
evaluated in tableau (222). The most faithful candidate (a) violates S-IDENT
because the two vowels in the word differ in ATR specifications. Candidate
(b) has a [-ATR] ,, which violates high ranking L-ANCHOR as well as the
high ranking markedness constraint against high retracted vowels.
Avoiding the constraint violations of candidates (a) and (b), candidate (c) is
the optimal one.
a. gis(
b. g,s(
) c. gise
*!
*[+ATR]
IO-ID(ATR)
S-ID(ATR)
*!
BALANCE
(ATR)
IO-ID(hi)
L-ANCHOR
/gis-(/
*[+hi, -ATR]
(222) Wolof high vowels and harmony
*
*
*
**
Now consider tableau (223), where a form is evaluated which has a nonhigh retracted vowel preceding the high vowel. Changing the underlyingly
retracted leftmost vowel to advanced tongue root incurs a L-ANCHOR violation, as in candidate (e). Candidates (b) and (c) change the ATR specification and the height specification, respectively, of the underlyingly high
176
advanced vowel in order to optimise ATR harmony. This violates the

markedness constraint *[+high, -ATR] and the faithfulness constraint IOIDENT(hi), respectively. Candidate (d) displays opacity. The high vowel
starts a new harmony domain. In this case, the high vowel is disharmonic in
ATR with its neighbour to the left and harmonic with its neighbour to the
right, which constitutes an imbalanced relation with its neighbourhood as a
whole. This imbalance violates the local conjunction BALANCE(ATR).
Therefore, the candidate which is least optimal with regard to ATR
harmony, candidate (a) is preferred.
) a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
t(kkil(n
t(kk,l(n
t(kk(l(n
t(kkilen
tekkilen
**
*!
*!
*!
*!
*[+ATR]
IO-ID(ATR)
S-ID(ATR)
BALANCE
(ATR)
IO-ID(hi)
L-ANCHOR
/t(kki-l(n/
*[+hi, ATR]
(223) Wolof transparency
*
*
*
*
**
*
***
From this standard case of balance we now proceed to a more complex one
in which two balanced vowels are surrounded by other vowels and separated by other vowels as well and encounter a surprising complication.
In example (218c) exactly this configuration is displayed. Tableau (224)
shows that the language chooses the worst candidate with respect to
harmony and it shows as well that the concept of balance alone does not
exclude a decision based on the harmony constraint.
(224) Wolof extreme disharmony
/xarit-m-bobule/
a.
b.
c.
d.
0 e.
/ f.
xar,tambob8l(
xritmbobule
xar(tambobol(
xaritmbobule
xaritambobule
xaritambobul(
*[+hi,
-ATR]
LANCHOR
IO-ID
(hi)
BALANCE
(ATR)
S-ID
(ATR)
*!(a-i-)
*
***
****!
*!*
*!
*!*
Wolof ATR harmony
177
The problem here lies in the fact that the grammar in its current form
prefers a more harmonic form than the language actually does. I will consider in detail what this evaluation reveals for the analysis. First of all, the
grammar developed so far excludes the candidate with unimpeded root
control, candidate (a), because this root controlled harmony maximisation
is achieved by a double violation of the markedness constraint against high
retracted vowels. Both high vowels, i and u, are retracted in this form. The
candidate displaying dominance of the feature [+ATR] is as bad as candidate (a), because this candidate (b) has altered the ATR specification of the
leftmost root vowel. This constitutes a violation of high ranking LANCHOR. The last candidate with complete ATR harmony has circumvented violation of both constraints by lowering of the high vowels. Once
lowered, they can also have a negative ATR specification without violating
*[+hi, -ATR]. Lowering, however, violates the IO-Identity constraint on
height. This constraint is ranked topmost as well. The result is ungrammaticality of candidate (c).
In candidate (d) the first balanced vowel behaves as opaque. This form
is almost completely harmonic with regard to ATR, but the opaque behaviour of i violates the local conjunction of BALANCE. The vowel i is disharmonic with its neighbour to the left and harmonic with its neighbour to the
right. The candidate is judged as sub-optimal for this fauxpas.
The interesting point is the decision between the last two candidates.
Both candidates avoid all violations of the top-ranking constraints, including the BALANCE conjunction. The decision on the output is passed down
to the next constraint in the hierarchy, which is the harmony constraint SIDENT(ATR). Candidate (f) displays the same configuration in the environment of the two balanced vowels. They are both disharmonic with every
neighbour. This sums up to four violations of S-IDENT(ATR). Candidate (e)
has a comparatively better performance on the harmony constraint in that
the second balanced vowel has harmonic neighbouring vowels. A side
effect of this is disharmony between the two vowels in the middle of the
word, D and o. All in all, candidate (e) has one harmony violation less than
candidate (f).
This reveals that the language prefers a parallel relation of separated
balanced vowels with their environment to a pattern where one balanced
vowel is disharmonic with its environment and the other is in harmony with
its neighbours. This pattern of an analogous behaviour of both vowels
emerges even on the cost of having a higher degree of disharmony in the
word.
178
It is no accident that the Wolof grammar prefers forms in which both

balanced vowels stand in the same relationship with their environment. In
the form xaritambobul( 'that friend of his/hers just mentioned' both
balanced vowels are in disharmony with their neighbourhood, while in the
form kriQmbobule 'that coal of his/hers just mentioned' (218c) both
balanced vowels live in harmony with their environment.
To account for this phenomenon I propose an interpretation of the
BALANCE conjunction in which the pattern in candidate (224e) counts as a
violation because this form has one high vowel which violates the harmony
constraint as well as one high vowel which violates the OCP constraint in
the BALANCE conjunction. This interpretation might prove problematic
because it does not acknowledge the status of each high vowel as an
independent entity. The notion of locality as it is generally assumed for
local constraint coordination is to be broadened here.
However, locality would not be replaced by arbitrariness in this view. It
is not the case that one vowel violates the markedness constraint *[+hi], a
second vowel violates the harmony constraint S-IDENT(ATR), while a third
one violates the OCP constraint *S-IDENT(ATR) and all these unrelated
events are mashed together to a violation of BALANCE(ATR).
There are two vowels in the word which violate the markedness
constraint on high vowels. One of these two vowels is harmonic with both
neighbours, resulting in a double violation of *S-IDENT(ATR), while the
other of the two is disharmonic with all its direct neighbours, which yields
two violations of S-IDENT(ATR). Mere addition shows that we have
enough violations of the involved constraints to assign two violation marks
on BALANCE(ATR). Seen in isolation, each of the two vowels passes the
BALANCE constraint, since each vowel fares well on one of the involved
constraints. If they are assessed as a group, their bad performance accumulates to a violation.
Hence, BALANCE(ATR) is not assessed individually but rather collectively or cumulatively. The set of entities which are assessed together on
their performance on the Balance conjunction is defined by violation of the
first conjoint of this conjunction, i.e., the markedness constraint on high
vowels. I will refer to this constraint as the triggering constraint below,
because it is the unavoidable violation of this constraint that triggers
activation of the conjunction.
In tableau (225), each candidate violates the markedness constraint
*[+hi] twice since every candidate has two hig vowels, i and u.
Wolof ATR harmony
179
*[+hi]
xaritambobule
xaritambobul(
kriQmbobul(
kriQmbobule
*SID(ATR)
/kriQ-Am-bObulE/
1 a.
- b.
1 c.
- d.
S-ID(ATR)
/xarit-Am-bObulE/
BALANCE
(ATR)
(225) A collective interpretation of BALANCE
*!
***
****
***
**
*
**
*****
**
**
**
**
*!
Candidate (a) has one high vowel violating the harmony constraint (the
vowel i). Additionally, the candidate has a high vowel u which is harmonic
with its environment in violaton of the dissimilation constraint *SIDENT(ATR). Collective assessment of violations then takes into account
all violations incurred by all elements which violate the triggering constraint of the local conjunction of BALANCE(ATR). Even though each high
vowel individually satisfies the local conjunction, as a group they perform
bad on this complex constraint. The result is the assignment of a violation
mark on that constraint since the high vowels violate all involved constraints. In candidate (b), however, both high vowels violate the harmony
constraint maximally, but, by this maximal disharmony with their environment, completely satisfy the dissimilation constraint *S-IDENT(ATR). Each
member of the set of vowels violating the triggering constraint passes *SIDENT(ATR). This renders the whole conjunction of BALANCE satisfied.
The same evaluation applies to candidates (225c) and (225d), with the
slight difference that the winning candidate (d) passes the BALANCE conjunction for the good performance of its high vowels on the harmony constraint, which outweighs the multiple violations of the dissimilation constraint and the markedness constraint.
With this new insight into the assessment of the violations of local
conjunctions we can reconsider tableau (224), here given as (226).
The collective or cumulative interpretation of BALANCE explains why in
this special case, i.e., words such as xaritambobul(, the Wolof grammar
chooses a candidate as optimal which is less harmonic with regard to ATR
than most of its competitors. Furthermore, if the meta-balance effect is
caused by the evaluation metric for local conjunctions, this predicts that
other languages with balanced vowels are likely to display the same effect
180
as well if phonotactic restrictions and the morphology allow for such long
words.45
(226) Wolof extreme disharmony reconsidered
/xarit-m-bobule/
a.
b.
c.
d.
1 e.
- f.
xar,tambob8l(
xritmbobule
xar(tambobol(
xaritmbobule
xaritambobule
xaritambobul(
*[+hi,
-ATR]
LIO-ID
ANCHOR (hi)
BALANCE S-ID
(ATR)
(ATR)
*!*
*!
*!*
*!(a-i-)
*!
*
***
****
In addition to the high balanced vowels, Wolof has a low vowel which
behaves as opaque. The whole analysis of balanced vowels does not affect
the behaviour of the low long vowel as will be illustrated in the next
section.
5.2.3 The opaque vowel
A particularity of Wolof is the invariability of the long low vowel. It is
invariably retracted and behaves opaque to harmony. (227c) shows that the
long low vowel initiates a new harmonic domain also when preceded by an
advanced vowel. Balanced vowels would prefer disharmonic ATR specifications to both sides (see 218b,c).
(227) The Wolof low long vowel
a. xar-(
'to wait in'
jay-l(
'to help sell'
b. yab-at-(
'to lack respect for'
wow-al( 'to call also'
c. dor-at-(
genn-al(
'to hit usually'

'to go out also'
Pulleyblank (1996: 316) proposes a Lo/RTR condition on bimoraic vowels.

This is translated into a markedness constraint in (228). This constraint is
ranked topmost in the Wolof hierarchy.
(228) *[+low, +long, +ATR]
Wolof ATR harmony
181
Note that balancing is restricted to high vowels according to the definition

of the local conjunction on balance in (219) by reference to the markedness
constraint *[+high]. A natural result of this analysis is then that the low
vowel behaves as opaque. BALANCE(ATR) is satisfied vacuously because
the low vowel always satisfies the markedness constraint *[+high] which is
an integral part of the BALANCE(ATR) constraint.
) a.
b.
c.
d.
gennal(
gennale
gennle
g(nnal(
*
**!
*!
*!
IO-ID(ATR)
S-ID(ATR)
BALANCE
(ATR)
IO-IDENT(hi)
L-ANCHOR
*[+low,
+long, +ATR]
/genn-al(/
*[+hi, -ATR]
(229) Opacity of the long low vowel in Wolof
*
**
*
In tableau (229), candidate (c) which shows alternation of the low vowel in
order to optimise performance with regard to the harmony constraint is
ruled out by the highly ranking markedness constraint *[+low, +long,
+ATR]. Shortening, combined with ATR alternation, a strategy which is
not included in the tableau is no choice either due to an obviously highly
ranked faithfulness constraint on underlying length or moraic structure
(MAX). Candidate (d) is no alternative to candidates (a) and (b) because
in contrast to the latter it violates the important L-ANCHOR constraint. If the
BALANCE(ATR) constraint does not contribute to the choice of the optimal
candidate among the balanced and the imbalanced (i.e. opaque) candidates
(a) and (b) it must be a lower constraint which decides the matter. The next
lower constraint in which both candidates fare differently is SIDENT(ATR). This constraint of course prefers the more harmonic imbalanced candidate.
This section has shown that balance in ATR harmony systems is guided
by the same principles and constraints as in backness harmony systems.
182
5.3
Previous analyses
In the discussion of other approaches I will restrict myself to the most

recent accounts of transparent vowels within Optimality Theory. The first
two accounts crucially rely on the conception of harmony as the effect of an
alignment constraint (N Chiosin and Padgett 1997 and Ringen and
Heinmki 1999), while in the second two analyses harmony is conceived
of as agreement or correspondence (Bakovi 2000, Bakovi and Wilson
2000).
5.3.1 Transparency as neutrality
One analysis in which the term neutrality is taken literally is that in which
the neutral or transparent vowel is assumed to be underspecified for the
harmonic feature. Proposals in this direction are those of N Chiosin and
Padgett (1997) and Ringen and Heinmki (1999). In N Chiosin and Padgett's approach, where assimilation is assumed to apply locally from segment to segment, the harmonic feature span is extended over the whole harmonic domain. The markedness constraint against the banned feature specification on the transparent vowel (CONTRAST(Lax) for the harmony pattern
in Pasiego Montanes, which they examine) becomes active in a second step
of evaluation. In their view transparency is a kind of constraint opacity, and
strict locality is maintained at least in the intermediate step of derivation,
where the transparent vowel bears the harmonic feature.
Ringen and Heinmki (1999) base their analysis of Finnish transparency on Ringen and Vago's (1998) assumptions for Hungarian. The
vowels e and i do not have the backness contrast phonemically. That is they
are underspecified. With an underspecified vowel in between back harmonic vowels, there is no locality problem anymore. Pronunciation as a
front vowel is then a decision made in the phonetic component.
(230) Finnish kti-na in Ringen and Heinmki's analysis
a. [+back]
b. [+back] [-back]
ko
tI
na
ko
ti
na
Previous analyses
c. [+back]
*
ko
[-back]
[+back]
ti
na
183
With a representation like that in (230a), the alignment constraint is satisfied which says that the right edge of the backness feature has to coincide
with the right edge of the word. The I becomes front in the phonetic component. (230b) is suboptimal for its crossing association lines (i.e., locality
violation), and (230c) fares less good with respect to the alignment constraint than structure (230a). In this account, the transparent vowel is literally neutral, in that it does not even have the active feature at all.
Pulleyblank (1996) shows that the high vowels in Wolof can also be
seen as neutral from another perspective. In his account the Alignment constraints which trigger harmony refer to the feature Retracted Tongue Root
only. Retracted Tongue Root and Advanced Tongue Root are two antagonistic privative features in Pulleyblank's view. Thus, in his account the
harmony constraints are neutral with regard to the high vowels in that they
do not have their tongue root feature as an argument. As in the account
developed here, the surface ATR specification is solely determined by the
markedness constraint on the features high and ATR.
Since Pulleyblank provides a comparative study of Wolof and Yoruba, I
will come back to his account in chapter 6.
What the first two accounts have in common is their serialist conception
of candidate evaluation. We will see below that the accounts which were
designed to avoid serialism of any kind also share an important feature with
serialist derivations, that is reference to an intermediate abstract representation.
5.3.2 Targeted constraints and sympathy
Bakovi (2000) and Bakovi and Wilson (2000) propose an analysis of
Wolof transparent vowels which relies on a form of candidate evaluation
which elementarily differs from the usual procedure. Optimality is determined by reference to a constraint which is labelled as 'targeted'. The basic
idea of targeted constraints is that the candidate is chosen which is maximally identical to the one which would be optimal if the targeted constraint
were not present in the grammar. The actually chosen candidate differs
from the otherwise optimal candidate only in that it avoids violation of the
184
targeted constraint. As a targeted constraint, the markedness constraint

*[+high, -ATR] is the last instance in a pairwise evaluation of candidates,
constraint by constraint. Bakovi and Wilson focus on the harmony constraint and compare an opaque candidate with a fully assimilated candidate.
In this competition it is of course the fully assimilated candidate that wins.
In the next step of cumulative candidate evaluation the fully assimilated
candidate is compared with one which differs only with regard to the
specification of the feature combination of height and ATR. For a word like
t((ruwoon 'welcomed' the cumulative evaluation looks as follows: The
candidate *t((r8woon fares better with respect to the harmony constraint
than its opaque competitor *t((ruwoon. With respect to the higher ranking
and targeted constraint *[+high, -ATR] (i.e., the constraint crucial for this
cumulative evaluation), the candidate *t((r8woon is outperformed by the
candidate t((ruwoon because this one is exactly like the fully harmonic
form except that it does not violate the targeted markedness constraint.
(231) Pairwise candidate choice46
S-ID(ATR)
a. t((r8woon
b. t((ruwoon
*[+hi, -ATR]
a. t((ruwoon
b. t((r8woon
The constraint S-IDENT(ATR) compares the fully harmonic candidate with

the opaque candidate and decides that the fully harmonic candidate is
better. Then the fully harmonic candidate is compared with the candidate
containing a transparent vowel in the light of the markedness constraint,
and this constraint decides that the candidate with the transparent vowel
pattern is better. The latter is better because it looks exactly like the fully
harmonic form despite that it does not incur a violation of the targeted constraint, i.e., it has no retracted high vowel.
An objection against this evaluation procedure arises in that the
transparency candidate must have been cancelled before by the harmony
constraint since it is worse than the fully harmonic candidate and as well
worse than the opaque candidate. A reason that the transparency candidate
is not considered at this point might lie in a possible restriction that only the
best two candidates are to be considered by a constraint. But at this point
the question arises why the fully harmonic candidate with retracted vowels
only is not considered at all by the markedness constraint. The two best
candidates to compare for this constraint would be the two forms t((ruwoon
and *teeruwoon. The latter is out for independent reasons (Wolof has root
Previous analyses
185
control, not dominance), but not for its performance on either the targeted
markedness constraint nor the harmony constraint, thus it should be
considered under the targeted constraint analysis. Maybe I missed a crucial
point and Bakovi and Wilson have good reasons for not considering the
latter candidate, but if not this would be a nontrivial disadvantage of their
analysis.
Of course the basic idea behind this analysis is that the candidate with a
transparent vowel looks more like the fully harmonic candidate than the
candidate with an opaque vowel. According to Bakovi and Wilson, fully
harmonic words are what the language strives for (p. 45). Thus, in its spirit
this is exactly what a Sympathy based approach would do. In Sympathy
Theory (McCarthy 1999) an output form stands not only in correspondence
with its input, it also has to be faithful to specifically defined failed candidates. To facilitate comparison I will line out the basics of a potential analysis of transparency in Sympathy Theory:47 The actual output is chosen
because it looks more like the fully harmonic form than any other candidate, and it looks better than the fully harmonic form in that it has no retracted high vowel. In such an analysis the harmony constraint would be the
selector. The selector constraint is marked by in the following. This constraint selects the sympathetic candidate (which is marked with a flower in
tableau 232), the one which is suboptimal because it violates a higher ranked constraint, but which is the best candidate with respect to S-IDENT.
The optimal output is then chosen by the intercandidate faithfulness constraint, which in this case would be UIO-IDENT(ATR). The candidate with
the transparent vowel violates UIDENT(ATR) less than that with an opaque
vowel. The analysis is illustrated in tableau (232).
(232) Transparency as Sympathy
t((ruwoon
fully harmonic
opaque V
transparent V
U a. t((r8woon
b. t((ruwoon
) c. t((ruwoon
*[+hi,
-ATR]
UID
(ATR)
S-ID
(ATR)
IO-ID
(ATR)
**!*
*
9
*
**
?
?
?
*!
One handicap for the stipulated Sympathy analysis is that McCarthy tries to
restrict Sympathy Theory by stipulating that selector constraints can only
be recruited of the set of IO-faithfulness constraints. The selector in (232) is
a syntagmatic correspondence constraint in turn. Either Sympathy Theory
186
has to be modified here or the approach is not capable to handle a classical

case of phonological opacity like vowel transparency.
The targeted constraints analysis and the Sympathy approach, however,
differ from many traditional accounts in that they do not view transparency
as the skipping of a segment in the assimilation process. Instead they establish relations to other abstract forms, i.e., failed candidates. This is what
they have in common with a derivational approach: crucial reference to
forms which are never articulated. And in this particular case, the form
which is referred to is exactly the same as in a rule based account. An analysis which does not make use of additional abstract forms has to be favoured until the existence of such forms has been proven on independent
grounds.
5.4
Conclusion
Whether a vowel is balanced or not is a question of elegance and 'fairness'.

If the simple harmony requirement is more important, then this results in
imbalanced vowels (i.e., opaque vowels), due to the locality of the syntagmatic correspondence relation. The general insight of balance can be implemented in the current theory of harmony as a local conjunction of the Syntagmatic Identity constraint and its negation, *S-IDENT. Of course it would
cause only confusion to apply this complex constraint to all vowels in a language. Limitation of the balance constraint to exactly those vowels which
cause an imbalance to the vowel system as a whole is achieved by including the relevant markedness constraint into the local conjunction on
balance. This frees the analysis from more complex theoretical devices, as
well as from the assumption that phonetically front / ATR vowels have to
be regarded as underspecified for the harmonic feature as proposed by
Ringen and Heinmki.
A third advantage of this analysis lies in the fact that it can be extended
to two other quirky sub-phenomena of vowel harmony, derivational opacity
and parasitic or uniform harmony. Trojan vowels cause the emergence of a
feature specification in an adjacent vowel which the trigger itself does not
bear on the surface. Thus, it is commonly assumed that this pattern results
from opaque rule interaction. In uniform harmony, assimilation of a certain
feature applies only if adjacent vowels agree already with regard to a
second feature. These patterns will also be subject to a detailed analysis in
the next chapter.
Chapter 6
In some vowel harmony systems there are certain vowels (usually high
vowels), which behave as neutral (i.e. transparent or recessive) in some
morphemes, but as active (or dominant) in other morphemes. That is, some
instances of such vowels cause their environment to harmonise, while
others don't.
For instance in Hungarian, two instances of i are observed, which phonetically seem to be the same. But in the phonology, one of these behaves
like a transparent vowel, while the other triggers backness in a following
affix vowel. Under the assumption that the last one is underlyingly [+back],
but changes to [-back] due to a markedness constraint on the surface representation, it is in a certain sense similar to the Trojan horse, which looked
like a gift (i.e., looked peacefully), but in fact contained the troops of the
agressor.48
Similar cases are found also affecting other dimensions of the vocalic
feature inventory. In Yoruba, we observe the same phenomenon regarding
the feature ATR. Some advanced high vowels cause their neighbours to become [+ATR] while others cause a [-ATR] specification of their neighbour
at the surface. Yawelmani has height-uniform backness harmony. Some
nonhigh vowels trigger backness assimilation in a following affix vowel
even though the latter is a high vowel.
An analysis based on the assumption of Trojan vowels, which have an
effect on surface structures via a local conjunction of markedness with IOfaithfulness and harmony constraints has the advantage of unifying the
treatment of all these superficially different phenomena. In the generative
literature such cases have been subject to a variety of approaches going
from step-wise derivational analyses over assumptions of floating features,
the stipulation of phonetically unrealised phonologically present features in
surface representations to Sympathy.
In this chapter, I will first apply the constraint coordination approach to
the example of Hungarian, and then extend the analysis to Yoruba, Nez
Perce, and Yawelmani. The discussion of previous approaches to the res-
188
pective languages is postponed to the end of the chapter to make a general

comparison possible. The analyses of Yawelmani developed in the recent
literature exhibit such a high degree of complexity that I will discuss these
directly in the respective section for the sake of comprehensibility.
6.1
Hungarian Trojan vowels in backness harmony
Hungarian has a rich vowel system, which is displayed in (233). The vowel
[e] is placed in brackets because not all dialects have this vowel. In some
it has merged with (.
(233) Hungarian vowel inventory (Ringen and Vago 1998: 394)
front
back
[-round]
[+round]
[-round]
[+round]
short
long
short
long short long short
long
i [i]
[i]
[]
[]
u [u]
[u]
high
[]
[]
o [o]
[o]
mid ( [e]) [e]
low e [(]
[a] a [o]
Harmony affects the feature backness in Hungarian. The system lacks a
back counterpart of the high unrounded vowel i in surface structures. The
vowel is missing in the surface system. The other front unrounded vowel
e has a back counterpart in that it patterns with a [a, o] in some instances.
In some it does not. Changing the roundness specification of i is no choice
in Hungarian, therefore i does not undergo backness harmony when
preceded by a back vowel. This largely reminds of Finnish. What is so
interesting about Hungarian in comparison to Finnish is that some instances
of i are followed by a front vowel, while others are followed by a back
vowel, as can be seen in (234d,e).
(234) Hungarian basic harmony
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
hz
tk
radr
vz
hd
'house'
'pumpkin'
'eraser'
'water'
'bridge'
Dative
hz-nak
tk-nek
radr-nak
vz-nek
hd-nak
Adessive
hz-nl
tk-nl
radr-nl
vz-nl
hd-nl
Hungarian - Trojan vowels in backness harmony
f. nansz
g. sofr
'nuance'
'chauffeur'
nansz-nak
sofr-nek
189
nansz-nl
sofr-nl
In Ringen and Vago's (1998) analysis, words of the two types (234d,e) are
distinguished by an assumed floating feature [+back] in the lexical
representation of those words which are accompanied by back vowels in
suffixes. Hence, under their analysis, a root like hid 'bridge' is specified as
/hid[+back]/. A faithfulness constraint MAXsubsegment/root then chooses the
candidate which assigns the floating feature to the affix vowels.
The question arises why they do not simply assume that the instance of i
which causes backness in following affix vowels is underlyingly back. This
would free the analysis from the notion of floating features. Moreover, this
would bring the Hungarian data in line with other languages, i.e. Yoruba
and Nez Perce for which an analysis along this line of thought has been
proposed as well (see Hall and Hall 1980 on Nez Perce, and Bakovi 2000
on both languages).
Except for the assumption of an underlying // for i's like the one in hd
'bridge', I will depart in most respects from the proposals by Hall and Hall
as well as Bakovi. To minimise confusion, I will first outline my analysis
for Hungarian, then apply it to the other three languages as well, and then
discuss the other approaches.
6.1.1 A preliminary harmony grammar for Hungarian
Now let's have a look at the basic harmony pattern in Hungarian.
Hungarian vowels agree in backness but do not alternate in height or
roundness to optimise performance with regard to S-IDENT(bk). The only
exception is short e, which becomes round when back. Thus, we can say
that IO-IDENT(hi) is ranked above S-IDENT(bk). That i does not undergo a
repairing with u can be attributed to a local conjunction of *[+hi] and IOIDENT(rd), which seems to be ranked at least above S-IDENT(bk).
(235) First ranking for Hungarian
IDENT[hi], *[+hi]&lIO-IDENT(rd) >> S-IDENT(bk) >> IO-IDENT(rd)
This accounts for the basic backness harmony pattern. The fact that i is
transparent can be analysed analogous to Finnish by the slightly different
local conjunction of *[+hi, -bk]&l*S-IDENT(bk)&lS-IDENT(bk), the 'con-
190
junction of BALANCE', which demands that when a vowel (here a front

unrounded vowel; or a sequence of such vowels), is (dis)harmonic with its
neighbour to one side, it should be in the same relation with its neighbour
to the other.
That underlying back high unrounded vowels surface as front is an
effect of the vowel inventory constraint which was seen to be active in
Finnish as well, i.e. *[-lo, +bk, -rd], abbreviated as *ALIEN (see section
5.1.3). This one interacts with identity constraints. In tableau (236), we see
how these constraints determine the surface representation of the
underlying high back unrounded vowel.
(236) Possible Hungarian underlying back high unrounded vowel
IO-ID(bk)
// *ALIEN IO-ID(hi) *[+hi]&lIO-ID(rd) ...
a.
*!
b. $
*!
c. u
*!
) d. i
*
The tableau in (237) illustrates how the inventory constraint *ALIEN in
alliance with the anti-repair constraint *[+hi]&lIO-IDENT(rd) and Identity
on height choose a maximally faithful but also disharmonic candidate from
an underlyingly backness harmonic form.
(237) Disharmonic surface reflex of an underlyingly harmonic sequence
/u C /
a.
b.
c.
) d.
uC
uCu
u C aa
uCi
*ALIEN
IOID(hi)
*[+hi]&l
IO-ID(rd)
SID(bk)
IOID(rd)
IOID(bk)
*!
*!
*!
*
The inalterability of the first vowel in the sequence, which could also alternate with to optimise harmony, is an effect of the highly ranking LeftANCHOR constraint in coordination with IO-Identity, as in the analyses of
Turkish and Finnish as well.
In the following tableau, the BALANCE constraint (the local conjunction
of markedness, harmony and OCP) is added to the grammar.
191
(238) Local conjunction BALANCE(bk):

*[-lo, -rd, -bk]&lS-ID(bk)&l*S-ID(bk)
'An element must either not be [-lo, -rd, -bk] or it must agree with all
its neighbours in backness or it must disagree with all its neighbours
with regard to [back].'
Tableau (239) illustrates how underlyingly front i's pattern as balanced
vowels when preceded by a disharmonic (i.e., back) vowel. As shown
above, markedness and faithfulness constraints conspire against the
harmony constraint and rule out candidates satisfying the latter in case of
underlying i. The BALANCE constraint rules out the opaque candidate (a).
The vowel i violates the markedness constraint *[+hi, -bk]. In addition, it is
disharmonic in backness with the preceding back vowel o, incurring a
violation mark for S-ID(bk). Backness harmony with the following vowel
violates the OCP constraint *S-ID(bk). All three violations add up to one of
BALANCE, which consists of just these constraints.
(239) Hungarian balanced /i/
/radir-nek/
a.
b.
c.
) d.
rodirnek
rodrnok
rodurnok
rodirnok
*ALIEN IO-ID
(hi)
*[+hi]&l
IO-ID(rd)
BALANCE
(bk)
S-ID
(bk)
*!
IO-ID
(rd)
*!
*!
*
**
This analysis of balancing in Hungarian has to be regarded as provisional. I

will first skip the relevant constraint for the sake of simplicity in the
following treatment of Trojan vowels. In 6.1.3 it will be shown on the
grounds of the analysis for Trojan vowels that there are no balanced vowels
in Hungarian at all.
6.1.2 Hungarian Trojan vowels
The contrast between balanced vowels and Trojan vowels is illustrated in
(240). The front root vowels in (a) are followed by front suffix vowels,
while the front root vowels in (b) are followed by back affix vowels even
though no trigger of backness harmony can be found in the surface
representation.
192
(240) Hungarian transparent versus Trojan vowels

stem gloss
adess.
UR
a. kz
'hand'
kznl
s.l.
film 'film'
filmnl
s.l.
b. hd
cl
'bridge'
'aim; target'
ablative
hdtl
cltl
/h:d/
/ts):l/
(Olsson 1992: 79)
In line with Vago (1973) and many others I will assume that the vowels in
(240b) are underlyingly specified as [+back]. They surface as [-back] in
satisfaction of *ALIEN, the inventory constraint against back nonlow unrounded vowels.
The problem in dealing with the Trojan vowel is now how to modify
the grammar in such a way that the underlying backness feature of this
vowel is mapped onto the following vowel when one is available, without
affecting the entire harmony pattern.
Dissimilation occurs only when the underlying backness specification
is not realised faithfully on the surface, which is a violation of IOIDENT(bk). Dissimilation in backness is an effect of the constraint *SIDENT(bk). The generalisation is covered formally by the local conjunction
of both constraints. The local conjunction of these two constraints alone
brings the grammar in a dilemma: All vowels which do not map their
underlying backness specification to the surface should be eager to disagree
with their neighbours to perform better on that local conjunction. The
dissimilation pattern is restricted to vowel combinations in which a nonlow
front unrounded vowel is found. Nonlow front unrounded vowels violate
the markedness constraint *[-lo, -rd, -bk]. Exactly these vowels make the
whole inventory asymmetric since they do not have a back high and
unrounded counterpart in the surface inventory. The solution to the
dilemma above is to include the markedness constraint *[-lo, -bk, -rd] in
the local conjunction as was the case already for the local conjunction of
BALANCE.
(241) The constraint on Trojan vowels in Hungarian
TROY(bk): *[-lo, -rd, -bk]&lIO-IDENT(bk)&l*S-IDENT(bk)
The analysis of the Trojan vowel in Hungarian is illustrated in tableau
(242).
193
(242) The Trojan vowel in Hungarian

/hd-nek/
a. hd-nok
b. hid-nek
) c. hid-nok
*ALIEN
IOID(hi)
*[+hi]&
IO-ID(rd)
TROY
(bk)
SID(bk)
*!
*!
*
The backness harmonic candidate which is faithful to the underlying

backness specification of the stem vowel (candidate a) is trivially ruled out
by violation of *ALIEN. Candidates (b) and (c) do not violate the inventory
constraint. The price they pay is unfaithfulness to the backness specification of the stem vowel. The relevant constraint IO-IDENT(bk) is ranked
below the harmony constraint. It plays no decisive role anyway since both
candidates tie on this constraint with regard to the stem vowel. In the
decision between candidate (b) and candidate (c), the constraint TROY plays
the crucial part. Candidate (b) violates all three conjuncts of TROY. It
violates *[-lo, -rd, -bk] in containing the vowel i. This vowel is unfaithful
to its underlying form, violating IO-IDENT(bk). Both violations together
trigger activity of the backness OCP constraint on adjacent vowels *SIDENT(bk), which is violated as well, because the two vowels of the word
have the same backness specification. Candidate (c) fulfils the prerequisites
for activation of *S-IDENT(bk) too, and this candidate satisfies the OCP
on the cost of S-IDENT(bk), of course. Since the constraint TROY is more
important than backness harmony, the grammar judges candidate (c) as
superior to candidate (b).
The addition of the local conjunction TROY(bk) to the grammar of
Hungarian has no impact on underlyingly front high vowels. In tableau
(243), a stem containing an underlyingly front high vowel with a harmonic
affix is evaluated. All candidates with an unfaithful stem vowel violate high
ranking constraints. Since none of them violates the markedness constraint
against front high unrounded vowels, they all satisfy the conjunction
TROY(bk). The remaining candidates (d,e), which are faithful with regard to
their stem vowel incurr no violation of TROY as well, just because of their
faithfulness. Satisfaction of TROY(bk) is achieved by these two candidates
by satisfaction of IO-Identity. Thus, the TROY(bk) macro-constraint is
vacuous with respect to underlyingly front high vowels.
194
(243) The balanced vowel in Hungarian revisited

/viz-nek/
a.
b.
c.
) d.
e.
vz-nok
vaznok
vuznok
viz-nek
viz-nok
*ALIEN
IOID(hi)
*[+hi]&l
IO-ID(rd)
TROY
(bk)
S-ID
(bk)
*!
*!
*!
*!
This grammar supports balance of the Hungarian system in underlying

representations in that the high unrounded back vowel is present in lexical
representations. And the grammar provides a strategy to make this underlying contrast visible on the surface without violating the inventory structure constraint which causes surface imbalance of the system.
In the next section we will see that such a grammar has even more
influence on the shape of lexical representations. It will be shown in
particular that with such a grammar, stems containing both balanced/Trojan
vowels as well as 'normal' vowels are predicted to be harmonic with regard
to backness in their underlying forms. This result contradicts the 'richness
of the base hypothesis' (Prince and Smolensky 1993), which basically
claims that a grammar has to cope with any input, and that languages differ
only in their surface forms, which are determined by the languageparticular grammar.
Hungarian shows a) that the grammar determines the inputs or
underlying representations, and b) that the shape of the input has an effect
on its surface reflex in that a phonemic distinction banned from the surface
vowel inventory might be maintained underlyingly, showing only an
indirect reflex at the surface.
6.1.3 Hungarian balanced vowels reconsidered from the learning
perspective
On the background of the analysis of Trojan vowels it is worth
reconsidering the Hungarian balanced vowels from the perspective of a
language learner. In Optimality Theory, learning a first language means to
find the exact language-particular ranking of the constraints on outputs as
well as to find the optimal underlying representations for morphemes
(Gnanadesikan 1995, Grijzenhout and Joppen 1998, Tesar and Smolensky
195
1998, 2000). Just suppose a child which is learning Hungarian has adjusted
its constraint ranking accordingly after being confronted with stems
containing Trojan vowels. From this point the child may also conclude that
the balanced vowels are not balanced like those in Finnish, a part of them
could likewise be Trojan stems. When a learner postulates /rodr/ as the
underlying form of the stem [rodir] there is no evidence for the local
conjunction of BALANCE anymore, as is illustrated in tableau (244).
S-ID(bk)
IO-ID(rd)
*[+hi]&l
IO-ID(rd)
BALANCE
(bk)
rodrn(k
rod rnok
rodurnok
rodrnok
TROY(bk)
a.
b.
c.
) d.
IO-ID(hi)
/rodr-nok/
*ALIEN
(244) Possible /rodr-nok/
*!
*!
*!
*
**
The learner will simplify the grammar by not conjoining these constraints
and leave the potential conjoints where they are, at the bottom of the
Hungarian hierarchy. This leaves us with the simplified grammar in (245).
(245) Hungarian final ranking
*ALIEN, IO-ID(hi), *[+hi]&lIO-ID(rd), TROY >> S-ID(bk) >> IO-ID(rd), IOID(bk)
If a learner of Hungarian has arrived at this grammar s/he has made a
decision about the optimal underlying representations of stems like those in
(246). The crucial front vowels in second position in these stems behave as
balanced, agreeing with both their neighbours or disagreeing with both their
neighbours with regard to backness.
(246) Some neutral vowels in Hungarian
stem
gloss
adessive
a. tvis
'thorn'
tvisnl
tndr 'fairy'
tndrnl
196
b. muri
radr
kv
'party, spree; rebellion'

'eraser'
'coffee'
murinl
radrnl
kvnl
(Olsson 1992: 78)
In the case of stems containing a 'normal' vowel followed by an e or i the

learner has the following two possibilities: Surface harmonic stems with a
front vowel followed by a balanced one (246a) are stored as they are, while
surface disharmonic stems with a back vowel followed by a balanced front
vowel which show up with the back alternants of suffix vowels (246b) are
stored as harmonic containing only back vowels underlyingly. This is
illustrated for the 'neutral' vowels from (246a,b) in the tableaux (247) and
(248).
In these tableaux, I have taken the grammar developed so far and
evaluated the surface form of the crucial words in relation to two possible
underlying forms (247a,b/248a,b). Tableaux (247a,b) evaluate the optimal
input-output pairing for those 'neutral' vowels which are harmonic with
both adjacent vowels. Tableau (247a) operates on the assumption of an
underlying front high unrounded vowel in the stem. With this input the
grammar chooses the right output. If, as in (247b), a back high unrounded
vowel is assumed as basic, the desired output candidate is suboptimal
because it violates the constraint TROY, since [i] violates the markedness
constraint *[-lo, -rd, -bk], the mapping from // to [i] violates IOIDENT(bk) and the harmonic relation between surface i and its neighbours
violates the last conjoint of TROY, namely *S-IDENT(bk). The candidate
which is no attested output form fares better with this input. Thus, the input
in (247a), which is also maximally surface-true has to be chosen as the
optimal one by the learner. This is indicated by &.
t2visnal
- t2visnel
IO-ID(bk)
IO-ID(rd)
S-ID(bk)
TROY(bk)
*[-lo]&l
IO-ID(rd)
IO-ID(hi)
& a. /t2vis + nal/
*ALIEN
(247) Choosing the optimal input for [t2visnel] 'thorn,ADESS'
*!
*
t2visnal
/ t2visnel
IO-ID(bk)
197
IO-ID(rd)
S-ID(bk)
TROY(bk)
*[-lo]&l
IO-ID(rd)
IO-ID(hi)
' b. /t2vs + nal/
*ALIEN
*
*
*!
With 'neutral' vowels which are disharmonic with regard to their neighbourhood the situation looks different. In (248a), where an underlyingly disharmonic stem is chosen as input the desired output loses by violating SIDENT(bk), while this candidate becomes optimal when an underlying back
vowel is assumed as in (248b).
/ murinal
murinel
- murinal
murinel
IO-ID(bk)
IO-ID(rd)
*!
IO-ID(bk)
IO-ID(rd)
S-ID(bk)
TROY(bk)
*[-lo]&
IO-ID(rd)
IO-ID(hi)
*
*ALIEN
& b. /mur + nal/
S-ID(bk)
TROY(bk)
*[-lo]&
IO-ID(rd)
IO-ID(hi)
' a. /muri + nal/
*ALIEN
(248) The optimal input for [muri-nal] 'party, spree; rebellion, ADESS'
*
*!
An interesting side effect of this analysis is that it predicts underlyingly

harmonic forms for both types of stems. A stem like tvis 'thorn' is
underlyingly /t2vis/, while surface disharmonic stems like muri 'party,
spree; rebellion' or radr 'eraser' must be underlyingly harmonic /mur/
and /rodr/, respectively. With the observation that stems containing i or e
as the second vowel are all harmonic underlyingly, with that harmony
forced upon them by the grammar, we can explain the lack of a class of
stems which contain a front harmonic vowel followed by a back nonlow
unrounded vowel.
198
(249) Hungarian unattested pattern

i
e.g. *tivisnal
e
*tevisnal
*/C
C/
*tvisnal
*tvisnal
In the historic stage of Hungarian, where back unrounded vowels were still
allowed these must have been subject to harmony and must have undergone
assimilation to the preceding front vowel regularly. The pattern front
harmonic vowel followed by back high unrounded vowel ( or )) was
excluded at any time by the harmony grammar. Thus, it never had a chance
to be stored as a lexical representation and be kept as such.
When formerly balanced vowels are analysed as Trojan vowels now
this predicts that loans, which are newly introduced to the language pattern
as opaque because the BALANCE constraint plays no role anymore. And this
is what actually happens with loans as shown in (250).
(250) Hungarian opaque front vowels
gloss
delative
koncert
'concert'
koncertrl
bronchitisz 'bronchitis'
bronchitisrl
adessive
koncertnl
bronchitisnl
(Olsson 1992: 78)
The nonlow front vowels in (250) behave as opaque. Given that Hungarian
speakers posit surface-true disharmonic underlying forms for such words
the last front nonlow vowel induces harmony on the following vowels in
satisfaction of the harmony constraint.49
(251) Evaluation of Hungarian opaque vowels
/koncert-rl/
) a. koncert-rl
b. koncert-rl
*ALIEN
IO-ID
(hi)
*[+hi]&
IO-ID(rd)
TROY
(bk)
S-ID
(bk)
IO-ID
(rd)
*!
Candidate (b), which shows the balanced pattern is sub-optimal because the
alternative candidate is more harmonic with regard to backness. The
constraint TROY would choose the disharmonic candidate, but this
constraint is satisfied vacuously since the front nonlow vowel in koncert
does not violate IO-Identity on backness.
199
Just let us consider briefly what would happen with such loans if
Hungarian had not abandoned the BALANCE constraint in favour of the
TROY constraint.
IO-ID(rd)
TROY(bk)
BALANCE
(bk)
*[+hi]&
IO-ID(rd)
S-ID(bk)
/ a. koncert-rl
0 b. koncert-rl
IO-ID(hi)
/koncert-rl/
*ALIEN
(252) Hypothetical Balance and loan words in Hungarian
*!
The grammar would predict the balanced pattern for disharmonic loans.
The e or i in medial position violates the markedness constraint in the
BALANCE conjunction as well as the harmony constraint. To escape from
violation of the whole conjunction, the candidate would be chosen which at
least satisfies the OCP constraint. Since this grammar evaluates not the
same output as Hungarians prefer, the grammar without the BALANCE
constraint seems to be more appropriate.
There are some words in Hungarian which show free variation in the
choice of the suffix vowel. These have been termed 'vacillating stems' in
the literature.
(253) Hungarian hybrid front vowels / 'vacillating stems'
gloss
delative
adessive
pozitv 'positive'
pozitvrl /
pozitvnl /
pozitvrl
pozitvnl
balk
'fool, greenhorn'
balkrl /
balknl /
balkrl
balknl
(Olsson 1992: 79)
These words must have been introduced to the language at a stage where
the decision whether the language has balanced or Trojan vowels was still
an open issue. The solution of the language learner is to posit two
competing underlying forms for these stems, one containing a back vowel,
one containing a front vowel. The choice among these two stems is
arbitrary. The result is free variation in the suffix vowels depending on the
free variation in the choice of the underlying form.
200
6.1.4 Summary
To summarise the findings, it was observed in this section that even though
Hungarian has a number of vowels which pattern like balanced vowels (as
in Finnish), the language has only Troyan and imbalanced or opaque
vowels. The latter are imbalanced in the sense that the harmonic domain
(i.e., backness) stops before them, and they start a new domain (i.e.,
frontness) with the following vowels. The result is disharmony to their left
and harmony to their right, as is observed with the low unrounded vowels
in Turkish for instance.
Balance plays no active part in the Hungarian grammar. What is crucial
for the Hungarian surface pattern and for the shape of many underlying
forms is the complex constraint, which I labelled TROY, a combination of
markedness and faithfulness constraints which together trigger activation of
an OCP constraint. The purpose or effect of this complex constraint is
twofold. The major function is to maintain a phonemic contrast in the
language which has no direct surface reflex anymore due to other forces
operative in the Hungarian grammar. The second effect is that this constraint, together with the rest of the Hungarian grammar forces backness
harmony also on most underlying representations. We will see in the
following that exactly this mechanism applies in languages unrelated to
Hungarian. The effects of this grammatic constellation have formerly been
described as derivational opacity.
6.2
Yoruba high vowels Trojan vowels and root controlled ATR

harmony
The basic issues of Yoruba vowel harmony have already been examined in
chapter 4.2. In that section, I excluded high vowels from most of the
discussion, because they exhibit a different pattern than the opaque or
imbalanced low vowel a.
6.2.1 High vowels and mid vowels
The patterns found with high vowels are illustrated in (254). Recall from
section 4.2 that the harmonising feature is [ATR] in Yoruba, and that mid
vowels are regularly subject to this harmony requirement under root
Yoruba high vowels
201
control. The low vowel a allowed [+ATR] as well as [-ATR] mid vowels to
its right, but only [-ATR] vowels to its left.
(254) Yoruba high vowels
a. il 'house'
iJeE
id( 'brass'
iko
ebi 'hunger' r
(bi 'guilt'
ot
b. il
fi
igi
aja
'forest, wood'
'cough'
'shea-butter'
'wine/beer'
'okra'
'except'
'tree'
'dog'
eku
(tu
'rat'
'deer'
w 'cotton'
orX 'heaven'
at
ik
'type of dress'
'death'
(Bakovi 2000: 140)
Two observations are to be made with regard to the behaviour of Yoruba

high vowels. First, there is no high vowel which is [-ATR]. Second, to both
sides of high vowels either [+ATR] or [-ATR] mid vowels occur.
6.2.2 A Trojan grammar for Yoruba
The question why there is no high vowel which is [-ATR] in Yoruba is
trivial. Articulatorily it is more natural for high vowels to be [+ATR]. This
justifies a markedness constraint like *[+hi, -ATR], as discussed in the
section on Wolof transparent vowels in the preceding chapter already.
Highly ranking such a constraint eliminates the [-ATR] high vowels 8 and ,
from the inventory. The ranking in (255) explains the first observation on
the Yoruba surface inventory made above.
(255) Yoruba first ranking:
IO-IDENT(hi), *[+hi, -ATR] >> IO-IDENT(ATR)
The assumption of a high ranking R-ANCHOR, which was one of the basic
points of chapter 4.2, neatly explains why mid vowels occur as [-ATR] as
well as [+ATR] to the right of the two high vowels.
202
(256) Yoruba disharmonic id( 'brass'

*[+hi,
-ATR]
/,d(/
a.
b.
c.
) d.
,d(
(d(
ide
id(
IO-ID
(hi)
RANCHOR
S-ID
(ATR)
IO-ID
(ATR)
**
*
*!
*!
*!
This is analogous to the behaviour of mid vowels in the neighbourhood of

the low vowel a. The remaining problem is why the mid vowels to the left
of i and u also do not have to agree with the latter with regard to ATR.
Remind from section 4.2 that the mid vowels to the left of the low retracted
vowel always surface as retracted. Thus, the high vowels are different from
the low vowel in this respect. Are they neutral vowels in the literal sense,
neither triggering nor undergoing ATR harmony?
Some of the Yoruba high vowels are what I labelled Trojan vowels.
They are underlyingly [-ATR], but change to [+ATR] in surface
representations due to high ranking *[+hi, -ATR]. The assumption of
underlying high retracted vowels is in line with Bakovi's analysis of these
data. In Bakovi's view, then, surface disharmony is a result of Sympathy,
i.e., cyclicity.
In what follows I will show that this move is not necessary, since the
Yoruba high vowels can be accounted for with the same assumptions as the
Hungarian Trojan vowel. First, I will show where Yoruba has Trojan
vowels. For this purpose we now have a look at words consisting of monosyllabic roots containing a high vowel plus a prefixed mid vowel, the
nominalising prefixes -o/o and -e/(.
(257) Yoruba Trojan vowels and affixes
a. e+r
er
NOM + 'to disrupt'
'dishonesty'
e+r
(r
NOM + 'to haft'
'the haft'
b. o + mu
NOM + 'to drink'
o + k
NOM + 'to die'
omu
'drinker'
k
'corpse'
Yoruba high vowels
c. e + r
NOM
+ 'to see'
(r
'evidence'
203
(Bakovi 2000: 152)
The nominalising prefixes in (257) surface with different ATR

specifications, when attached to different roots even though all these roots
contain nothing but an advanced high vowel. In chapter 4.2 we have seen
evidence that this cannot be a property of the affix vowel, because it is
exceptionlessly harmonic with all nonhigh vowels. I assume that this alternation is triggered by the same facts as in Hungarian. There are underlyingly [-ATR] high vowels whose existence is supported by a Trojan constraint coordination. If a mid vowel is available the underlying feature is
realised on this mid vowel rather than on the one it belongs to lexically.
The latter is banned by the high ranking markedness constraint against [+hi,
-ATR] vowels. The constraint which is responsible for the surface
appearance of the underlying [-ATR] specification is activated only when a
vowel which causes the inventory to be imbalanced is present, i.e., a high
vowel. This is formalised by the local conjunction in (258).
(258) The constraint on Yoruba Trojan vowels first version:
TROY(ATR) = *[+hi]&lIO-ID(ATR)&l*S-ID(ATR)
Violation of markedness, faithfulness and the OCP by the same
vowel is prohibited.
This constraint resides in the top stratum of the Yoruba constraint
hierarchy. Tableau (259) shows the Yoruba grammar in action.
(259) Yoruba disharmonic (-r 'evidence'
/e + r,/
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
) f.
er,
(r,
(r(
iri
eri
(ri
*[+hi,
-ATR]
IO-ID
(hi)
TROY
(ATR)
*!
*!
S-ID
(ATR)
IO-ID
(ATR)
*
*!
*!
*
*!
*
*
*
*
*
**
In the above tableau, all forms which faithfully contain a retracted high
vowel (candidates a and b) fatally violate the markedness constraint *[+hi,
-ATR]. Candidate (c) which mapps the underlying ATR specification of the
204
high vowel faithfully to the surface violates high ranking IO-IDENT(hi)

instead. Candidate (d) is odd for violation of the same constraint. This time
the affix vowel has a height specification that diverges from the underlying
form. Of the two remaining candidates, candidate (f), the ATR-disharmonic
one fares better, because it satisfies the local conjunction TROY. The vowel
i in candidate (e) violates the markedness constraint *[+hi] as well as IOIdentity on ATR. The latter violation arises because the vowel is retracted
underlyingly but advanced in candidate (e). Finally the vowel i in candidate
(e) violates the OCP constraint on ATR by being harmonic with the neighbouring vowel e. in satisfaction of the harmony constraint. This altogether
adds up to a violation of the crucial local conjunction TROY and rules out
the ATR-harmonic candidate. The mechanism at work is essentially the
same as applied already in Hungarian above, except that the active feature
is different.
This analysis straightforwardly explains the emergence of retracted as
well as advanced mid vowels in the neighbourhood of high vowels in the
Yoruba mono-morphemic forms in (254). To illustrate this the word (tu
'deer' is evaluated in (260).
(260) Yoruba disharmonic mono-morphemic nouns
/(t8/
a.
b.
c.
) d.
(t8
(to
etu
(tu
*[+hi,
-ATR]
IO-ID
(hi)
TROY
(ATR)
S-ID
(ATR)
IO-ID
(ATR)
*
*
*!
*!
*!
As in the preceding tableau, the most faithful form is judged sub-optimal

for the retracted high vowel it contains. Lowering is no choice as well to
maintain faithfulness to underlying ATR specifications. The completely
ATR harmonic form is ruled out, since being harmonic with the neighbourhood adds the third constraint violation to those necessary to fail on the
TROY(ATR) conjunction. The high vowel in that candidate violates as well
the markedness constraint *[+hi] and the IO-Identity constraint on ATR.
Thus, all attempts to be harmonic or to be faithful with regard to the feature
ATR are doomed in this grammar with such an input.
Actually, if disharmonic forms would only be mono-morphemic ones,
such as (tu the same disharmony effect could be explained by high ranking
positional faithfulness on stems or roots, as was the case with Turkish loans
Yoruba high vowels
205
in 4.3. The evidence for the treatment of high vowels as underlyingly

retracted comes from the morphologically complex forms, such as (-ri for
which no reasonable domain for a positional faithfulness constraint can be
found, as well as from the asymmetric behaviour of mid vowels in the
neighbourhood of the low vowel. The latter showed that to the left of the
rightmost vowel in a word there is no phonemic ATR contrast possible in
Yoruba.
A challenge to the account in which the irregularities in the ATR
harmony pattern result from underlying [-ATR] high vowels is what Archangeli and Pulleyblank (1989) labelled the two-domain pattern. In monomorphemic forms with three vowels of which the medial one is high and
both others are mid, the only [-ATR] vowel can be the one to the right.
(261) The two domain pattern in Yoruba
a. lbo
'yam flour'
e. erp(
'earth'
b. wro 'morning'
f. ewr(
'goat'
c. kro
'palm kernel'
g. odd(
'Grey Parrot'
d. orko
'name'
h. *C(CiC(
This generalisation is further illustrated in (262) with harmonic forms. No
retracted mid vowel is tolerated to the left of a high vowel in word-medial
position.
(262) Word-medial high vowels and mid surrounding vowels in Yoruba
a. yb
'any European'
b. orp
'mud-bench serving as bed'
c. yngb
'place in Lagos'
d. sr
'Redflanked Duiker'
e. erko
'midrib of igi . g. r. stripped of its leaves'
f. *C(CiCo
Moreover, retracted mid vowels are tolerated to the left of word-final
sequences of two high vowels.
(263) Free occurrence of ATR/RTR mid vowels at the left edge in Yoruba
a. rg
'molar tooth'
b. (tiri
'difficult'
206
c. (br
'shortcut'
If there are underlying [-ATR] high vowels in Yoruba with a surface effect,
why are there none in three-syllable roots such as those in (261) and (262)?
The situation is even worse. If sequences like *(lubo or *(lubo are out, why
are forms like (263b,c) with a [-ATR] mid vowel followed by two high
vowels allowed?
A possible solution to the problem might lie in the exact formulation of
the TROY constraint. If we replace the IO-Identity constraint in this conjunction by the R-ANCHOR constraint, which was already crucial in the
analysis of the edge asymmetry with regard to nonhigh vowels, and furthermore define the domain of the local conjunction over the designated feature
span instead of that of the segment or syllable, the phenomenon can be
explained. Let me first dwell on the former modification. If the local
conjunction refers to R-ANCHOR, then potential underlyingly high retracted
vowels in the penultimate syllable are advanced in surface representations,
and they do not have any retracting influence on their neighbour. This is
because R-ANCHOR, which is one of the constraints which conjoin to
trigger retraction in the neighbour of an underlyingly retracted high vowel
refers only to material that is underlyingly at the right edge of the stem.
This constraint is vacuously satisfied by all vowels other than the one in
rightmost position of the stem. In the absence of a surface reflex of an
underlying RTR specification of high vowels in the penultimate or
antepenultimate syllable, these vowels must be stored as advanced. That is,
all i's and u's in penultimate position must be i's and u's underlyingly, not /,/
or /8/, respectively. In this way the grammar eliminates all high retracted
vowels in penultimate position from underlying forms.
The definition of the R-ANCHOR constraint is repeated in (264). The
new version of the local conjunction on Trojan vowels, where IO-Identity(ATR) is replaced by R-ANCHOR is given in (265).
(264) RIGHT-Anchoring:
RIGHT-ANCHOR(root, pwd): Any syllable at the right edge of the root
(i.e., the input) has an identical correspondent at the right edge of the
prosodic word (i.e., the output).
Yoruba high vowels
207
(265) TROY(ATR) redefined:

TROY(ATR) or *[+hi]&lR-ANCHOR&l*S-ID(ATR): 'High vowels in
the rightmost syllable which cannot map their underlying ATR
specification to the surface disagree in ATR with their neighbour.'
This version of TROY is vacuous for all vowels which are not in the
rightmost syllable of a root underlyingly, since the faithfulness constraint
R-ANCHOR refers exclusively to the ultimate root vowel.
(266) Yoruba potential /el8bo/
/el8bo/
a.
b.
c.
d.
) e.
f.
el8bo
(l8bo
elubo
(lubo
elubo
(l(bo
*[+hi,
-ATR]
IO-ID
(hi)
TROY
(ATR)
RANCHOR
*!
*!
S-ID
(ATR)
IO-ID
(ATR)
*
*!
**!
*
*!
*
**
*
*
*
(267) *orp (cf. orp 'mud-bench serving as bed')

/or8p/
a.
b.
c.
d.
) e.
f.
or8p
or8po
orp
or8po
orp
oropo
*[+hi, IO-ID TROY

-ATR] (hi) (ATR)
*!
*!
RANCHOR
S-ID
(ATR)
IO-ID
(ATR)
**
*
*!
*
*!
*!
*
**
**
*
*
**
Now we have explained why the occurrence of Trojan vowels is restricted

to the rightmost syllable in Yoruba, that is we know now why there are no
forms like *(lubo or *(lubo, while elubo and elubo are attested patterns.
The faithfulness constraint involved in the local conjunction which is responsible for the surface effect of Trojan vowels is restricted to the rightmost syllable.
In tableaux (266 and 267), the hypothetical underlying /8/ can have no
effect on the preceding vowel, since the surface reflex u of /8/ does not
violate R-ANCHOR, because it is not in the rightmost position in the root.
208
From this point it appears strange that when two high vowels are at the
right side of a word, retracted mid vowels are allowed to their left. Why do
forms like (br 'shortcut' exist? In this context the scope of the local
conjunction TROY(ATR) in Yoruba becomes crucial. If it were the segment
or syllable this pattern could not occur. With the domain specified as the
[high] feature span this pattern emerges as a consequence of an underlyingly retracted high vowel in rightmost position.
(268) TROY(ATR) redefined again:
TROY(ATR) or *[+hi]&lR-ANCHOR&l*S-ID(ATR): 'High Vowels in
the rightmost syllable either map their underlying ATR specification
to the surface or disagree in ATR with their neighbour.'
Domain: [hi] span.
We have seen already in the analysis of Finnish that the domain of a local
conjunction can either be the syllable or a feature span, which may also
extend over two or more syllables. Yoruba is another instance where the
domain of a local conjunction is an articulatory domain. The newly defined
constraint TROY(ATR) can be seen at work in tableau (269).
(269) Yoruba (br 'shortcut' from /ebur8/
/ebur8/
a.
b.
c.
d.
) e.
ebur8
(b(r(
eburu
(b8ru
(buru
*[+hi,
-ATR]
IO-ID
(hi)
TROY
(ATR)
RANCHOR
*!
S-ID
(ATR)
IO-ID
(ATR)
*
*!*
*!
*!
9
*
*
*
*
*
*
**
*
***
**
With the form (br the question arises whether Trojan vowels are permitted in the penultimate syllable when followed by another high vowel or
if not how the Trojan vowel in the rightmost syllable can disagree with the
antepenultimate mid vowel through another high, ATR vowel. The complete harmonic form where this does not happen (candidate c) violates the
TROY constraint. The two adjacent u's are analysed as one [+high] feature
span, and such a feature span is the domain of the local conjunction TROY.
The whole feature span violates the markedness constraint *[+hi] by being
exactly this. The constraint R-ANCHOR is violated by the rightmost part of
the feature span in that this vowel is not identical with its underlying form
Nez Perce
209
in its ATR specification. Since the domain of the local conjunction is the
whole feature span, violation of the third part of the conjoint has to be
assessed over this domain as well. *S-IDENT is violated here when the local
domain agrees with its neighbour with regard to ATR. Exactly this is the
case with candidate (c). By violating all three conjoint constraints the
whole local conjunction is violated. Candidate (e) avoids violation of *SIDENT in the same context. It has an unfaithful retracted mid vowel. By this
characteristic the candidate also avoids violation of TROY(ATR). Since this
is the only candidate which fares better than candidate (c), it is chosen as
the optimal output for the Trojan input given in tableau (269).
Another possibility would be that roots containing two high vowels at
their right edge, such as (br 'shortcut' are underlyingly consonant-final
(i.e., /(b8r/). The rightmost vowel is always an identical copy of the underlying vowel, provided only to avoid a consonant-final syllable. Under such
an analysis, the R-ANCHOR constraint would probably be always violated
by such words. A form like rg 'molar tooth' should then not be consonant-final underlyingly, since the prosodically driven reduplication would
trigger ATR dissimilation in the first vowel. Under the latter analysis the
syllable could be maintained as the scope of the local conjunction.
However, in this scenario the underlying ATR specification of the probably
consonant-final roots becomes irrelevant again. A choice between both
alternatives requires a more in-depth investigation of Yoruba prosodic
phonology.
6.3
Nez Perce a Trojan vowel in dominant-recessive ATR harmony
Nez Perce is a native American language which is spoken in Idaho. The

name is a misnomer, going back to the French translation as 'pierced noses',
even though the Nez Perce did not have pierced noses when they first met
the Europeans. The Nez Perce call themselves Nee-Mee-Poo 'the people'.50
Nez Perce displays the dominant-recessive type of vowel harmony,
affecting the feature [ATR] according to Hall and Hall (1980). This language is particularly interesting for several reasons. First it has a quite impoverished vowel inventory, which makes it a challenge to find out which
feature drives the vowel alternations. Second this impoverished surface
vowel inventory is used to encode a larger underlying inventory which
makes it even more complicated, and which tempted linguists to propose
analyses in terms of derivational rule interaction to explain the Nez Perce
210
vowel alternations. Third the harmony type is dominant-recessive, a type of

harmony which is found elsewhere predominantly among African languages. A non-derivational approach is given by Bakovi (2000) who has
to explore quite complicated theoretical mechanisms to account for the Nez
Perce data (see section 6.5 below).
In this subsection, I attempt to show that Nez Perce, although so dramatically different from Yoruba and Hungarian and geographically far away
can be analysed by exactly the same theoretical assumptions as used in the
preceding sections for these languages. The language has the vowel inventory given in (270).
(270) Nez Perce vowel inventory (Hall and Hall 1980: 201)
[i], [4], [a], [o], [] ~ [u]
These vowels divide into two sets of harmonic vowels, as indicated in
(271).
(271) Nez Perce harmony series (Hall and Hall 1980: 202)
Dominant [-ATR]
Recessive [+ATR]
i
i
~u
o
a
4
If a member of the dominant series appears in a morpheme, it causes all
other vowels in the word to shift from the recessive series to the dominant
counterpart, as illustrated in (272).
(272) Nez Perce vowel harmony
a. n4- + m4q
n4m4x
all recessive
'my paternal uncle'
1POSS + paternal uncle
m4q + -4
m4q4
'paternal uncle!'
paternal uncle + VOCATIVE
b. n4- + to.t
1POSS + father
to.t + -4
father + VOCATIVE
nato.t
'my father'
to.ta
'father!'
all recessive
dominant root
Nez Perce
c. c4q4.t + -ayn
raspberry + for
211
caqa.tayn
dominant affix
'for a raspberry'
(Hall and Hall 1980: 202f.)
The vowel i belongs to both series. This is so, because there are instances
of i which behave as dominant and those which behave as recessive. In
(273a), the i in the Nez Perce word for 'mother' does not trigger an
alternation in the possessive and vocative suffixes, they surface as [+ATR],
while the i in the word for 'paternal aunt' does. The possessive and the
vocative surface as retracted disagreeing with i in that respect.
(273) The behaviour of Nez Perce [i]
a. n4- + i.c
1POSS + 'mother'
i.c + -4
'mother' + VOCATIVE
b. n4- + ci.c
1POSS + paternal aunt
ci.c + -4
paternal aunt + VOCATIVE
n4i.c
'my mother'
i.c4
'mother!'
recessive i
naci.c
dominant i
'my paternal aunt'
ci.ca
'paternal aunt!'
(Hall and Hall 1980: 203)
There have been numerous proposals in the literature to account for this
different behaviour of two vowels which are phonetically the same (Aoki
1966, 1970, Rigsby 1965, Jacobsen 1968, Rigsby and Silverstein 1969,
Chomsky and Halle 1968, Kiparsky 1968, Zwicky 1971, Kim 1978, Hall
and Hall 1980, Bakovi 2000). The pattern can be explained by different
underlying representations for both instances of i, as was exercised here
already for Hungarian i and high vowels in Yoruba.
Hall and Hall as well as Bakovi treat Nez Perce harmony as dominantrecessive advanced tongue root (ATR) harmony, with the dominant set
being [-ATR]. In the proposal by Hall and Hall, an i with the underlying
specification [-ATR] causes the vowels in the other morphemes in (273b)
to become [-ATR] too. In a later step of derivation, retracted i then is
subject to phonetic readjustment rules and is thus changed to advanced i.
In a declarative output-oriented framework, which does not assume
stepwise derivation, the analysis is somewhat more complicated. Bakovi
(2000) proposes an analysis which relies on targeted constraints and cumu-
212
lative ordering of candidates. In what follows I will give an analysis which

does not need these theoretically expensive assumptions, and which instead
relies on the same mechanisms that were at work in Hungarian.
Nez Perce has only one vowel which is really symmetric with regard to
[ATR]. It has a [+ATR] and a [-ATR] low vowel, i.e. a and 4. In order to
alternate in ATR, u tolerates height unfaithfulness in alternation with o.
The first step in developing an analysis for Nez Perce is of course to
describe a grammar that accounts for the regular cases of [-ATR]
dominance in (272). In the proposal made by Bakovi to cover dominant
systems, the markedness constraint *[+ATR] is conjoined with the faithfulness constraint IO-IDENT(ATR), which prevents candidates in which
vowels with a [+ATR] specification have triggered assimilation in the
neighbourhood. Combining Bakovi's proposal with the INTEGRITY
account of assimilation developed here, the local conjunction has to be
more important in the Nez Perce hierarchy than INTEGRITYAffix. We get
the ranking below.
(274) Nez Perce basic ranking
*[+ATR]&lIO-ID(ATR) >> S-ID(ATR) >> INTEGRITYAffix, IO-ID(ATR)
(275) Nez Perce caqa.tayn 'for a raspberry'
/c4q4.t + -ayn/
S-ID
*[+ATR]&l
raspberry + for
(ATR)
IO-ID(ATR)
a. c4q4.tayn
*!
b. c4q4.t4yn
*!
.
) c. caqa t ayn
INTEGRITY
Affix
IO-ID
(ATR)
*
**
To cover the repair strategies, that u alternates with o, while i does not
alternate at all, Bakovi proposes a range of markedness and faithfulness
constraints and their respective ranking. The result is a grammar that allows
for a symmetric underlying system which is mapped on an impoverished
surface system. For the current purpose it is sufficient to know that Nez
Perce can be described as a language with an underlyingly symmetric
vowel inventory.
Nez Perce
213
(276) Nez Perce potential underlying and surface vowels

Underlyingly surface form Underlyingly surface form
[+ATR]
[-ATR]
/i/
[i]
/,/
[i]
/u/
[u]
/8/
[o]
/4/
[4]
/a/
[a]
Abstracting away from issues of featural repairing and structure preservation, the question has to be answered why underlyingly advanced vowels
surface as retracted in the neighbourhood of some instances of i, while they
are realised faithfully in combination with other instances of i. With the
grammar construed so far there is no need for further assumptions to
capture the cases of recessive i in (273a). The neighbours of i are underlyingly advanced like recessive i itself. Those words in which the i causes
retraction in the neighbourhood are the problematic cases. Like Bakovi
and others, I assume that these instances of i are underlyingly retracted /,/.
The vowel i is the only one which is excluded from repairing (compare
in this respect u which is repaired to o when realisation of [-ATR] is at
stake). Thus, underlying /,/ always surfaces as advanced i. That underlying
retracted high front vowels have a visible (or better audible) effect in
surface representations at all under such bad circumstances is warranted by
constraint interaction, namely by a Trojan constraint conjunction.
Whenever an underlyingly retracted high front vowel surfaces unfaithful
as advanced i, it causes dissimilation in the adjacent vowels. Restriction of
the triggering of dissimilation to the high front vowel is accounted for by
including the markedness constraint *[+hi] in the local conjunction which
is responsible for the promotion of the otherwise lowly ranked dissimilation
constraint *S-IDENT(ATR). A further restriction on dissimilation is that it
occurs only with the surface reflexes of the underlyingly retracted i. These
occurrences all violate IO-IDENT(ATR) in satisfaction of the highly ranked
markedness constraint *[+hi, -ATR]. Including the last characteristics via a
violated constraint into the local conjunction yields the complex constraint
in (277), which is completely parallel to the local conjunction found in
Hungarian except that the active feature [bk] is substituted by [ATR].
(277) Nez Perce local conjunction
TROY(ATR): *[+hi]&lIO-ID(ATR)& l*S-ID(ATR)
214
Given the high ranking of constraints which prohibit repairing of /,/ with
other vowels differing in height, this constraint triggers ATR dissimilation,
which is in direct conflict with the harmony constraint S-IDENT(ATR).
Thus the local conjunction has to be ranked above the latter to show any
effect on the choice of output forms.
(278) Nez Perce Trojan grammar
TROY(ATR), *[+ATR]&lIO-ID(ATR) >> S-ID(ATR)
>> INTEGRITYAffix >> IO-ID(ATR)
With this grammar we can corretly evaluate input-output mappings of
forms which have underlying vowels which are not allowed to surface in
Nez Perce.
(279) The emergence of the Trojan vowel in Nez Perce
/c,.c + -4/
a.
b.
c.
d.
) e.
c,.c4
c,.ca
c4.c4
ci.c4
ci.ca
*[+hi,
-ATR]
*[-hi, -bk]&l
IO-ID(hi)
TROY
(ATR)
*[+ATR]&l
IO-ID(ATR)
*!
*!
S-ID
(ATR)
*
*!
*!
*
*
In tableau (279), a form is evaluated which is assumed to have a retracted

high front vowel and a low advanced vowel underlyingly. Candidates (a,b)
have mapped this vowel faithfully to the surface and violate the markedness
constraint against high retracted vowels *[+hi, -ATR]. Candidate (c) has
lowered the underlyingly high retracted vowel in order to preserve the ATR
specification on the cost of IO-IDENT(hi), which makes the candidate suboptimal in comparison with the remaining candidates (d,e). Candidate (d) is
perfectly harmonic with regard to the ATR specification of the present
vowels. This is exactly what makes it sub-optimal: The underlying /,/ is
mapped to i in this candidate, violating the markedness constraint *[+hi]
and the faithfulness constraint IO-IDENT(ATR). By being ATR harmonic
with its neighbour the vowel additionally violates *S-IDENT(ATR) which
demands differing specifications of ATR in adjacent vowels. In other cases
this would have no consequences since *S-IDENT(ATR) is somewhere deep
down in the hierarchy of Nez Perce, but in this case this violation adds up
with the violations of the other two constraints incurred by i to a violation
Yawelmani opacity
215
of TROY(ATR). The remaining candidate (e) circumvents this violation by

disagreement of both vowels with regard to ATR. Thus, *S-IDENT(ATR) is
satisfied by this candidate and with this the whole conjunction
TROY(ATR), which makes the candidate preferable to the last competitor at
this stage, candidate (d).
By exploring the possibilities of constraint interaction, Nez Perce
maintains a completely symmetric vowel system underlyingly even though
this is excluded from direct surface realisation.
(280) Nez Perce 3x3 vowel inventory
Advanced series
/i/ [i]
/u/ [u]
/4/ [4]
Retracted series
/,/ [i]
/8/ [o]
/a/ [a]
If historically there have been any other underlying contrasts in the Nez
Perce inventory, i.e., distinctive mid vowels, these have been erased from
the underlying inventory by the rigid markedness restrictions on surface
forms. Any underlying e, (, o, o must be repaired with other vowels or look
like the repaired underlyingly retracted high back vowel (/8/ [o]) and
hence the contrasts collapse as shown by Bakovi. In comparison to
Bakovi's account this approach to Nez Perce avoids the use of a second
kind of candidate evaluation like cumulative candidate ordering by targeted
constraints. From the viewpoint of learnability the local conjunction
approach should be preferred. Nevertheless, I will come back to the targeted constraints analysis in section 6.5, where previous accounts of Trojan
vowels are reviewed.
6.4
Yawelmani opacity
Yawelmani, or Yowlumne, a dialect of the Californian language Yokuts, is

the parade example for derivationally opaque phonological process interactions. In the traditional analyses, it is assumed that Yawelmani vowels
are altered in stepwise derivations resulting in derivationally opaque surface structures.51
Yawelmani has backness and roundness harmony of height-uniform
vowels. Height uniformity is violated by some low vowels. These are
assumed to be underlyingly high long vowels. In derivational terms these
vowels trigger assimilation in following high affix vowels in a first step.
216
The second rule lowers these vowels. Afterwards long vowels are shortened
within a closed syllable. Underlyingly short high vowels always surface as
such and harmonise only with other high vowels.
If an underlyingly long high vowel precedes a suffix containing a low
vowel, the triggering factor for hamony (i.e., height uniformity) is missing
at the point of derivation where harmony applies. After non-application of
harmony the whole lowering and shortening apparatus does its work. The
result is two height-uniform low vowels which do not harmonise. Additionally the harmony grammar interacts with epenthesis and shortening, the
latter applies to the lowered vowels and obscures the harmony pattern even
more. The whole phenomenon is schematised in a serialist fashion in (281).
(281) Yawelmani in serialist terms
Input
Epenthesis
Height-uniform harmony
Long vowel lowering
Long vowel shortening in closed syllables
Output
Within levelless Optimality Theory there are two proposals to deal with the
problem of harmonic vowels which do not obey the height uniformity
requirement and with those disharmonic vowels which superficially meet
this requirement. McCarthy (1999) assumes a Sympathy relation of the
actual output form with certain failed candidates, while Cole and
Kisseberth (1995) deal with this type of opacity by unexpressed feature
domains in surface representations. They neglect the theoretical claim of
surface truth. Both accounts will be discussed in more detail below, but
before this I will introduce the Yawelmani vowel patterns and develop my
own account on the premises set so far in the analyses of Hungarian,
Yoruba, and Nez Perce.
Yawelmani opacity
217
6.4.1 The basic harmony pattern and the Yawelmani inventory

In Yawelmani, affix vowels agree in roundness and backness with the
preceding root vowel if both vowels share the same height. High affix
vowels agree with high root vowels (282a) and low affix vowels agree with
low root vowels (282b). If an affix containing a high vowel is attached to a
root ending in a low vowel, no harmony is observed. The affix vowel surfaces always with the same feature specifications, regardless of the roundness and backness specification of the root vowel (282c). The same holds
for low affix vowels in combination with high root vowels (282d).
(282) Yawelmani height uniform harmony
a. xil-hin
'tangles, non-future'
dub-hun
'leads by the hand, non-future'
b. xat-al
bok'-ol
'might eat'
'might find'
c. xat-hin
bok'-hin
'eats, non-future'
'finds, non-future'
d. xil-al
dub-al
'might tangle'
might lead by the hand'
e. bok'-k'o
bok'-sit-k'a
'find (it)!'
'find (it) for (him)!'
(Cole and Kisseberth, 1995: 1f)
The data in (283) show that the language distinguishes two types of
nonhigh back rounded vowels. One group, to which belongs oW 'steal',
causes a following high affix vowel to harmonise in backness and roundness. These instances of o do not trigger harmony in following nonhigh
affix vowels. These nonhigh root vowels violate the height uniformity
restriction on Yawelmani vowel harmony. The second group of o's behaves
exactly the other way around (see /gop/ 'take care of an infant' in 283a,b).
These instances of o trigger harmony in following low vowels, but not in
following high vowels, just as expected.
218
(283) Yawelmani opaque vowels

a. Mediopassive dubitative
mek'-n-al
'swallow'
oW-n-al
'steal'
gop-n-ol
'take care of an infant'
xat-n-al
'eat'
(Kuroda 1967: 21)
b. Passive aorist
mek'-it
'swallow'
oW-ut
'steal'
gop-it
'take care of an infant'
xat-it
'eat'
(Kuroda 1967: 10)
In the literature (i.e., Goldsmith 1993, Cole and Kisseberth 1995, and many
others) it is generally assumed that the former nonhigh vowels are underlyingly high, and that the described irregularities are the result of opaque
rule interaction. (Cole and Kisseberth 1995 propose a different analysis in
terms of constraint interaction; but see below.) High long vowels are not
allowed in Yawelmani. Therefore it is assumed that underlying high long
vowels (u, i) are lowered to o and e, respectively.
The examples in (283) show evidence for an additional process: Whenever the underlyingly high long vowel is at risk of creating a superheavy
syllable together with a following consonant, it is not only lowered but also
shortened. In (283b) the consonant following the vowel of /mek, oW/ is
syllabified as the onset of the following syllable, and the root vowel is long,
while in the forms in (283a) the vowel is followed by two consonants, a
coda and an onset. In these cases the vowel is short. Harmony applies
before lowering takes place. The result is a surface violation of height
uniformity.
This is the classical case of phonological opacity (Kiparsky 1971, 1973),
which is analysed in OT by Sympathy Theory (McCarthy 1999). In what
follows I will give an account of the Yawelmani data which entirely relies
on the means already introduced in the analysis of transparent vowels and
Trojan vowels. The analysis crucially rests on the local conjunction of
faithfulness and OCP constraints. This shows that these data are anything
else but supporting evidence for theoretical devices like Sympathy or levels
of derivation.
Before turning to a novel analysis of the harmony data, we have to
determine which feature harmonises. First, there are no front rounded
Yawelmani opacity
219
vowels in Yawelmani. Alternation in roundness is always accompanied by

an alternation in backness. This supports the hypothesis that roundness is
no active feature in Yawelmani. Furthermore, there are almost no instances
of short e. The few instances of short e can all be analysed as the result of
shortening of long e in otherwise too heavy syllables (see below). Long e
is probably an instance of lowered long /i/. However, long e does not cause
D to harmonise. This may be an indication that either D is [-back] or that the
only active feature is roundness. Analysing D as a front vowel yields a
completely symmetric system, except for the dimension of roundness. If D
is front, the sole harmonic feature may be backness and roundness
alternation occurs as a by-product, caused by the restrictions on the system.
(284) The Yawelmani vowel system
[-back]
[-low]
i, i(e)
(mid)
(e)
[+low]
a, a
[+back]
u, u(o)
o, o
Since the occurrence of e is rather restricted (a result of lowering long i),

and the default (epenthetic) vowel is high, the system can be described
most economically as covering only the dimensions of height and backness
by the features [back] and [low]. Roundness plays no role as a distinctive
feature. Thus, it is highly plausible that it is also not the harmonising
feature. Roundness harmony occurs preferably in languages where roundness is distinctive, i.e., languages with a large vowel inventory (see Kaun
1995a, 1995b for a typology of rounding harmony). If this is the case and
backness is the active feature, D must be front in Yawelmani. The D/o alternation is then a front/back alternation. The change in roundness accompanying backness harmony is a repairing strategy, the effect of an undominated feature co-occurrence constraint, i.e. ROBA (*[round, -back]),
which shapes the whole system.
With this background we can now turn to the analysis of height uniformity and opacity.
6.4.2 Yawelmani uniformity and opacity as constraint interaction
Uniformity of harmony with regard to one dimension of the feature matrix
is a result of the interaction of an OCP constraint on the uniformity feature
220
with the constraint demanding harmony. Formulated as a local conjunction,

the resulting complex constraint says that if a vowel violates the height
OCP, it should not additionally violate backness harmony or vice versa.
The other way around one could describe this as a kind of harmony maximisation: if vowels are already harmonic in one dimension of the system
they should also be harmonic in the other dimension to maximise harmony.
Both constraints as well as their local conjunction are given below.
(285) Syntagmatic Identity constraints relevant in Yawelmani
a. *S-IDENT(lo): Adjacent syllables are not identical in the
specification of the feature [low].
b. S-IDENT(bk): Adjacent syllables are identical in the specification of
the feature [back].
c. LC of (a) & (b) UNIFORMVH: *S-IDENT(lo)&lS-IDENT(bk)
As indicated above the same generalisation can also be formalised as a
logical implication, following the schema in (75c, p.78). Iff the harmony
constraint on height is satisfied the implication demands additional satisfaction of the harmony constraint on backness. Since the mechanism parallels
the analysis of transparency when conceived of as a local conjunction as in
(285), I opt for this solution here. Though nothing crucial hinges on this
choice.
As usual, these constraints interact with IO-faithfulness constraints via
ranking. It is more important to preserve underlying height feature specifications in output structures than faithfulness to underlying backness specifications. Otherwise we would observe height dissimilation, which is not the
case. Furthermore, both faithfulness constraints must be higher in the hierarchy than simple S-IDENT(bk) and *S-IDENT(lo) to account for the lack of
harmony among vowels which differ in height as well as the lack of height
dissimilation throughout. The additional IO-faithfulness constraints and the
ranking motivated so far are given in (286) and (287).
(286)
a. IO-IDENT(bk): Specifications of [back] on correspondent segments
in input and output are identical.
Yawelmani opacity
221
b. IO-IDENT(lo): Specifications of [low] on correspondent segments in

input and output are identical.
(287) A first ranking for Yawelmani:
UNIFORMVH, IO-IDENT(lo) >> IO-IDENT(bk)
>> *S-IDENT(lo), S-IDENT(bk)
Tableau (288) shows this grammar at work, evaluating a form containing a
low back root vowel and a low front affix vowel underlyingly. The most
faithful form (a) is sub-optimal because it violates the constraint UNIFORMVH in that it contains two vowels which agree in height (violating
*S-IDENT(lo)) and do not agree in backness (violating S-IDENT(bk)). Those
candidates which avoid a violation of UNIFORMVH by dissimilation of the
two vowels in the height dimension (i.e. satisfaction of the conjoint *SIDENT(lo)), fatally violate high ranking IO-IDENT(lo). Since IO-IDENT(bk)
is ranked below both UNIFORMVH and IO-IDENT(lo), the candidate which
escapes a violation of UNIFORMVH by assimilation of the vowels in backness (i.e. satisfaction of the conjoint S-IDENT(bk) and violation of IOIDENT(bk)) is optimal.
(288) Harmony of height uniform vowels in Yawelmani
/bok'+al/
a.
b.
c.
d.
) e.
bok'al
buk'al
bok'il
bok'l
bok'ol
ROBA
IO-ID
(lo)
UNIFORM
VH
IO-ID
(bk)
*!
*S-ID
(lo)
S-ID
(bk)
*
*
*!
*!
*!
*
*
If two vowels come together which underlyingly disagree in height, as in

tableau (289), the low ranking constraint *S-IDENT(lo) is satisfied by the
most faithful candidate. If one conjoint of the local conjunction is satisfied
by a form there is no pressure to satisfy the other conjunct constraint SIDENT(bk) as well, since the LC UNIFORMVH is satisfied already and
simple S-IDENT(bk) is rather low in the hierarchy, damned to irrelevance in
such a case. If S-IDENT(bk) were ranked above IO-IDENT(bk) instead of
UNIFORMVH, height neutral backness harmony would emerge, predicting
candidate (e) wrongly as the optimal output.
222
(289) Height heterogeneous vowels in Yawelmani

/bok'+hin/
) a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
bok'hin
bok'hon
bk'hin
bak'hin
bok'hun
bok'hn
ROBA
IO-ID
(lo)
UNIFORM
VH
IO-ID
(bk)
*S-ID
(lo)
S-ID
(bk)
*
*!
*
*
*!
*!
*!
*!
Before turning to the central question of opacity, it is time to explain why

lowering and shortening take place. High long vowels are completely
absent from the surface inventory. Instead we find the irregularities among
low vowels which were described above. Like most other authors I assume
that these irregularities are a result of lowering underlyingly high long
vowels. High long vowels are excluded from surface realisation by a high
ranking constraint on exactly that feature combination, *[hi, long]. There
are two ways to satisfy this constraint, either by shortening vowels with that
feature profile or by lowering them. The former violates the faithfulness
constraint MAX, the latter violates IO-IDENT(lo).
(290) Constraints relevant for lowering
a. *[hi,long]: High long vowels are prohibited.
b. MAX : A mora in S1 has to have a correspondent in S2.
c. Ranking: *[hi,long], MAX >> IO-ID(lo)
The tableau in (291) shows how this ranking chooses a surface form for a
high long vowel.
(291) Surface mapping of a high long vowel in Yawelmani
*[hi,long]
MAX
IO-ID(lo)
/u/
a. u
*!
b. u
*!
) c. o
*
Yawelmani opacity
223
The next question is why underlyingly high long vowels are lowered and
shortened to avoid superheavy syllables. Shortening alone would be absolutely sufficient, because in this case a trimoraic syllable is avoided and the
high vowel is not long anymore, i.e. *[hi,long] is satisfied.
Vowel shortening occurs to avoid syllables with more than two moras.
(292) Yawelmani shortening
Aorist
Passive aorist
a. /hoyo/ hoyohin
hoyot
'name'
b. /pana/ panahin
panat
'arrive'
c. /uW/
oWut
'steal'
oWhun
(Kuroda 1967: 10)
If the vowel is shortened anyway, why does lowering take place then in
(292c)? This suggests an account relying on serially ordered rules or constraints, with lowering preceding shortening (see Goldsmith 1993). In the
account proposed here, this overapplication of lowering is attributed to a
local conjunction of UNIFORMITY, the constraint against coalescence, and
*[-lo]. If you do not parse all moras of a segment you should not do this to
a surface high vowel.
Before illustrating this idea, simple shortening must be analysed.
McCarthy (1999) attributes Yawelmani shortening to a markedness constraint against superheavy syllables *[]. Mora assignment to coda consonants satisfies an undominated constraint on coda moraicity. I follow
McCarthy in these aspects of the analysis. The constraint against superheavy syllables is ranked above the faithfulness constraint on length,
MAX.
One may suspect now why in the case of consonant clusters, vowels are
epenthesised, but in connection with potentially too heavy syllables not. In
particular, an epenthesised vowel could split the material of one too heavy
syllable on two less heavy syllables, taking the potential coda of the first as
the onset of the second. This asymmetry in epenthesis could be an effect of
a different ranking of faithfulness of vowels and consonants, with
faithfulness to consonants ranking higher than faithfulness to vowels, and
the latter ranked below the anti epenthesis constraint DEP-IO. It might
likewise be an effect of high ranking general MAX-IO and low ranking of
UNIFORMITY. Otherwise we would observe consonant deletion in the
context of too heavy syllables.
224
(293) UNIFORMITY "No Coalescence" (McCarthy and Prince 1995: 371)

(294) Yawelmani shortening

*[]
/hoyo + t/
a.
*!
ho yo t
b.
ho yo ti
c.
ho yo
) d.
ho yot
MAX
MAX-IO
DEP UNIFORMITY
*!
*!
*
The choice between candidates (c) and (d) in tableau (294) is either made
by the segmental faithfulness constraint MAX-IO or by a morphological
constraint demanding the expression of the morphological information
added by the affix (for discussion of such constraints see Canclini 1999,
Popescu 2000, Krmer 2001, among others). Shortening does not incur a
MAX violation since the second mora present on the long vowel in the
underlying representation fuses with the consonant t in the surface representation (d). This, in turn, constitutes a violation of UNIFORMITY.
If an underlyingly high long vowel is shortened it can not be high in the
surface form, it is lowered as well. This observation is covered by the local
conjunction of the markedness constraint against high vowels *[-lo] with
the relevant faithfulness constraint, UNIFORMITY.
(295) Local conjunction: *[-lo]&lUNIFORMITY.
'Do not violate *[-lo] and UNIFORMITY in the same instance.'
For an exemplification, let's have a look at the evaluation of a form like
meknDl 'swallow-MEDIOPASS.DUBITATIVE' (first given in 283a) with the
proposed constraints (tableau 296). The candidate under discussion, (296c),
the one that has shortening only to escape violation of the constraint against
too heavy syllables as well as violation of the IO-Identity constraint on
vowel height pays maintenance of faithfulness by a violation of the local
Yawelmani opacity
225
conjunction and is therefore judged as sub-optimal in comparison with the

candidates (d,e,f) in tableau (296). Candidate (d) fails to parse the underlying consonant k. This results in a MAXIO violation which is judged as
more severe than a violation of featural Identity. The only remaining
candidates are (e) and (f) now. Candidate (f) is superior to candidate (e)
because it resolves the constraint conflict without a violation of DEP, the
constraint against epenthesis.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
) f.
mik.nal
mek.nal
mik.nal
me.nal
me.ki.nal
mek.nal
UNIFORMITY
DEP
IO-ID(lo)
MAX
*!
MAX-IO
*!
*!
*[-lo]&lUNIF
*[hi, long]
/mik + n + al/
*[]
(296) Yawelmani shortening and lowering
*
*!
*
*!
*
*
*
*!
*
However, vowel epenthesis is a choice in Yawelmani to avoid consonant

clusters in onsets/codas. I will now first go into the analysis of opaque
vowel harmony and its blocking and discuss the emergence of epenthesised
vowels afterwards. In the following I will take the analysis of shortening
and lowering for granted and leave the relevant constraints out of the
tableau. Likewise, I will not consider candidates anymore which cannot
emerge according to my analysis of lowering and shortening.
Obviously, the underlying vowel repertoire of Yawelmani is optimally
symmetric. The Markedness constraint against high long vowels in (290a)
destroys this elegant system on the surface. Striving for elegance, the
Yawelmani grammar has two possibilities: Either demote the markedness
constraint, which is not very elegant, since high long vowels, which would
then surface, are asymmetric in another way: By their length they are rather
heavy, that is they constitute a strong syllabic peak, but their height makes
them quite weak in terms of sonority. (High vowels are less sonorous than
low ones, and syllabic nuclei are the most sonorous part of syllables.)52
Obviously, Yawelmani does not accept such a mismatch.
226
The only other possibility in favour of symmetry for the Yawelmani

system is to utilize otherwise irrelevant constraints to maintain at least the
underlying complete symmetry of the inventory. Such a symmetry can only
be maintained if the underlying contrasts in question have a surface reflex.
In the following I will give the technical details on how the Yawelmani
grammar rescues the underlying contrast to the surface.
To signal that a vowel is underlyingly high it harmonises with neighbouring high vowels on the surface despite the fact that the triggering
vowel surfaces as low. A basic property of such a vowel is that it violates
IO-IDENTITY(lo). For such a vowel the height restriction on harmony must
be 'switched off'. This can be achieved by locally conjoining IO-ID(lo) with
the simple backness harmony constraint S-ID(bk), and ranking of the
complex constraint above the constraint UNIFORMVH. Additionally, the
local conjunction must rank below the constraints which trigger lowering of
the underlyingly long high vowel.
(297) Local conjunction: IO-IDENT(lo)&lS-IDENT(bk)
(298) Rankings:
a.
b.
IO-ID(lo)&lS-ID(bk) >> UNIFORMVH

*[], *[hi,long], *[-lo]&lUNIF>> MAX
>> IO-ID(lo)&lS-ID(bk) >> IO-ID(lo)
The evaluation of a root containing an underlyingly high long back vowel

with an affix containing a high vowel by the Yawelmani grammar is shown
in tableau (299). In this tableau I left out the markedness constraint against
high long vowels, as well as all candidates which do not conform to this
constraint, taking this part of the analysis for granted.
(299) Overapplication I (harmony of lowered root V with high affix V):
IO-ID(lo)&lS-ID(bk)
IO-ID(lo)
UNIFORMVH
/ut+ut/
a. otit
*!
*
) b. otut
*
*
This grammar neatly accounts for the fact that harmony takes place
between two vowels of different height in cases where a lowered root
vowel is involved. The disharmonic candidate (a), which goes conform to
the harmony constraint UNIFORMVH is judged as less optimal than its
Yawelmani opacity
227
competitor, because in addition to violating IO faithfulness on height, it

violates the simple harmony constraint S-IDENT(bk). Both violations
together incurred by the same vowel, o, add up to a violation of the local
conjunction of these two constraints. Candidate (b) avoids clashing on the
local conjunction by adherence to the simplex harmony constraint.
Unfortunately this grammar does not exclude harmony of a lowered
vowel with a low affix vowel, as is shown in tableau (300). To avoid
confusion I have not included those candidates which fail to shorten the
closed syllable in the root. Please consult tableaux (294) and (296) in this
respect.
(300) Problem: disharmony of lowered root vowel with low affix vowel
/ut+n+al/
IO-ID(lo)&lS-ID(bk)
IO-ID(lo)
UNIFORMVH
/ a. otnal
*!
*
*
) b. otnol
*
If a lowered vowel would trigger harmony with a low affix vowel this
could be taken as evidence for a learner to store the lowered vowel as low
in her/his lexicon. This would mean an erosion of the underlying systematic
symmetry.53 In the following I will give an account of the lack of harmony
in combinations of lowered root vowels with low affix vowels.
The absence of harmony among a lowered root vowel and low affix
vowels is favoured by the conjunction of the affected markedness constraint with the relevant OCP constraints. The affected markedness constraint is *[+lo, +bk]. This constraint is violated by all low back vowels.
The pairing low back root vowel plus low affix vowel also violates the
height OCP. In order for the affix vowel to surface as front in this combination one has to add the OCP constraint on backness to the conjoint. This
tripartite conjunction is still not enough, since it overgenerates. The effect
is observed with lowered root vowels only. Underlyingly low vowels perfectly trigger harmony in following low affix vowels. The only solution is
to add the affected IO-Identity constraint on height to the conjunction as
well. This results in the conjunction of four constraints in (301).
(301) The Yawelmani four-party constraint conjunction:
IO-ID(lo)&l*[+lo, +bk]&l*S-ID(lo)&l*S-ID(bk)
'Low back vowels should be faithful in height, or disagree in height
with their neighbours or disagree in backness with their neighbours.'
228
In cooperation with the rest of the grammar the first three of the four
constraints determine the context in which the last constraint is activated.
Given the newly established conjunction, the form meknal is not
threatened by potential dissimilation anymore and the form otnal is
evaluated disharmonically as desired.
(302) The emergence of the less marked low affix vowel
i. /mik+n+al/
IO-ID(lo)&l*[+lo, +bk]
&l*S-ID(lo)&l*S-ID(bk)
- a. meknal
' b. meknol
ii. /ut+n+al/
- a. otnal
' b. otnol
*!
IO-ID(lo)
&lS-ID(bk)
IO-ID
(lo)
UNIFORM
VH
*!
*
*
IO-ID(lo)&l
S-ID(bk)
IO-ID
(lo)
UNIFORM
VH
*
*
The candidates in (302i) both satisfy the topmost local conjunction in the
following way. The first vowel in these forms is not faithful to its
underlying height, but it is also no low back vowel. Satisfaction of the
second member of the local conjunction satisfies the whole conjunction.
The second vowel is underlyingly low, so it satisfies the local conjunction
via the faithfulness constraint. Therefore neither the height OCP nor the
backness OCP is activated for these forms. The choice between them is
then made by the next lower ranking constraint, the local conjunction of
height faithfulness and the backness harmony constraint.
The second candidate in (302ii) is correctly marked as sub-optimal in
comparison to its competitor. The first vowel in candidate (b) is
underlyingly high, but low in this form, which violates the height faithfulness constraint. It is furthermore a back low vowel, in offence of the involved markedness constraint. Moreover it is of the same height and backness as its neighbour, which completes the list of offences to the involved
constraints. No constraint in the conjunction is satisfied by this vowel. The
competing candidate (a) has a front vowel in the second syllable, satisfying
the backness OCP in the local conjunction.
The evaluation of lowered back vowels combined with high affix
vowels is not affected by the newly proposed constraint conjunction, since
this combination satisfies the conjoined constraint *S-ID(lo), which renders
Yawelmani opacity
229
the whole conjunction IO-ID(lo)&l*[+lo, +bk]&l*S-ID(lo)&l*S-ID(bk) satisfied. Given this the next lower ranked constraint IO-ID(lo)&lS-ID(bk) decides the choice of the optimal output in these cases.
(303) Lowered vowels cause harmony in high vowels
/ut+it/
IO-ID(lo)
&lS-ID(bk)
IO-ID
(lo)
UNIFORM
VH
a. otit
) b. otut
9
9
*!
*
*
The following tableau is added to illustrate how violations of the four-party

local conjunction are assessed. Here only those constraints are displayed
which participate in the conjunction. All other constraints are left out for
the sake of demonstration. The candidates in part (i) of (304), both violate
the markedness constraint by having a low back vowel. Furthermore, they
both violate the IO-faithfulness constraint on height since the low root
vowel is high underlyingly. Both candidates satisfy the OCP constraint
against adjacent vowels of the same height *S-ID(lo). Finally, candidate (a)
is better with regard to the OCP constraint on backness, because both
vowels in candidate (a) have divergent backness specifications which is not
the case with candidate (b). This is irrelevant, however, since both candidates pass the whole conjunction already due to their good performance on
the height OCP. In this tableau, the - does not indicate the winning candidate but the one(s) which satisfy the local conjunction of the displayed
constraints.
(304) The assessment of violations of the four-way constraint coordination
*[+lo,
+bk]
IO-ID
(lo)
*S-ID
(lo)
*S-ID
(bk)
- a. otit
- b. otut
9
9
*
*
*
*
9
9
9
*
ii. /ut+n+al/
*[+lo,
+bk]
IO-ID
(lo)
*S-ID
(lo)
*S-ID
(bk)
9
*!
*
**
*
*
*
*
9
3*
i.
/ut+it/
- a. otnal
/ b. otnol
230
In part (ii) of tableau (304), the same procedure is applied for an input
containing a high root vowel and a low affix vowel. The two considered
candidates fare equally bad on the markedness constraint and the IO faithfulness constraint for the same reasons as the candidates in part (i). They
additionally fail to satisfy the height OCP in that both candidates contain
two adjacent low vowels. Their performance on the last remaining constraint, the backness OCP, is crucial now for determining which one passes
the local conjunction of all four constraints and which one fails. Candidate
(a) has the back vowel o and front D. This diversity in backness specifications leaves the backness OCP satisfied. Having passed at least this constraint, candidate (a) is judged as fine with respect to the whole constraint
conjunction. Candidate (b), however, has two back vowels. This does not
conform to the OCP on backness. Since the candidate has failed to satisfy
the other three constraints as well, the fourth violation is the last one
needed for the conjunction to count as violated. This is not mere counting
of violation marks since potentially a candidate could violate one of the involved constraints four or more times without an effect on the conjunction
as long as it satisfies at least one of the other constraints.
The general question arising in the context of this analysis is where the
upper limit of constraint coordinations lies. What is the maximal number of
conjoinable constraints?
In the literature there have also been proposals to limit the number of
coordinated constraints to two. Such a limitation has no justification at all,
since the number of interacting constraints is not limited in the interaction
by ranking as well. So why should constraint interaction obey different restrictions in these two dimensions?
Moreover, the more constraints are coordinated to one macro- or complex constraint in a grammar the less likely it is that this constraint shows
any effect at all. This is because it is fully sufficient to satisfy only one of
the conjoined constraints to render the whole conjunction satisfied, i.e.,
irrelevant. With an increasing number of participating constraints also the
probability of candidates to satisfy one of them increases.
Furthermore, it should be noted that all conjoined constraints have to
share an argument, and that the whole construction applies only to the
narrowest defined local domain, which is the most well-defined of its
shared arguments.
To summarise these considerations, a huge number of conjoined constraints runs danger to be effectless and the grammar itself is likely to have
problems in providing enough constraints which all refer to the same argu-
Yawelmani opacity
231
ment and which can reasonably be combined. Another restriction might be

imposed on the number of coordinated constraints from the viewpoint of
learnability. The more constraints are coordinated the more difficult it is for
the learner to figure out which constraints participate in a co-ordination.
Therefore excessive constraint coordination (i.e., co-ordinations involving
large numbers of constraints or even high numbers of coordinations) is not
to be expected. With this background one can accept a four-party conjunction in my view.
As noted earlier, the variety of Yawelmani analysed here is that spoken
in the 1940's, as reported by Newman (1944). According to Hansson and
Sprouse (1999), the variety of Yawelmani spoken today differs in some
interesting aspects to the pre-1940 variety. With regard to high affix vowels
'Modern' Yawelmani has the same harmony alternations as displayed in
pre-1940 Yawelmani.
Low vowels show a modification in their pattern. When attached to
roots containing a lowered vowel some affixes do not alternate at all, they
always surface with the vowel D. With some low vowel affixes, such as
dubitative -Dl, speakers optionally realise the back variant -ol as well as the
front variant in the context of a lowered root vowel. A third group of
affixes simply harmonise in backness with the preceding root vowel with
height-uniformity sensitive to surface height.
Since the conjunction of four constraints which accounts for the absence
of harmony between lowered root vowels and low affix vowels is the most
complicated part of the grammar proposed here, it is exactly in this pattern
where I would expect a historical change. Yawelmani learners have problems in tracing the right grammatical configuration (a local conjunction of
four constraints) behind the pattern and thus variation is the result. Hansson
and Sprouse give an analysis within the framework of OT, that relies on
enriched inputs (as proposed by Sprouse 1997, 1998), underspecification in
underlying representation, as well as co-phonologies for different affixes.
In a nutshell, the grammar proposed here has to be altered only minimally to account for the changes. First, IO-Identity(bk) is promoted above
the harmony constraint. All high affix vowels are treated in analogy to
epenthesised vowels (what they probably are). They are underspecified at
least for backness. Low affix vowels, in turn, fall in two categories, those
underspecified for backness and those which are specified as [-back]
underlyingly. The last change has happened with regard to the local conjunction of IO-IDENT(lo), *[+lo, +bk], *S-IDENT(lo), and *S-IDENT(bk).
Learners did not figure out anymore of which constraints this multiple con-
232
straint conjunction is composed. They simply end up with a grammar without this complex constraint. The effect is harmony of low affix vowels with
lowered root vowels in apparent surface height sensitivity, as shown in
tableau (300) above. Thus, the historical change that has occurred in
Yawelmani during the last decades supports the analysis provided here for
pre-1940 Yawelmani.
An alternative analysis of height uniformity sensitive to underlying
height is sketched in Hyman (to appear). Hyman examines the harmony
pattern of Klo1, a Bantu language, which displays frontness and roundness
harmony triggered by underlying height harmony. He proposes harmony
constraints on frontness and rounding which check the input for height harmony and are vacuous in case the requirement is not met by the input
('F[ront] (if input O[pen])'). However, this proposal implies the existence of syntagmatic constraints on inputs or underlying forms. It remains
an open question how inputs are evaluated against such constraints at all.
Furthermore it is questionable whether such complex requirements referring to both, input and output, are primitives of grammar or complex constraints composed from several simplex ones. Moreover, the historical
change manifest in Yawelmani could not be accounted for as straightforwardly as in the current proposal if Hyman's constraints were adopted for
Yawelmani.
So far we have seen how the interaction of lowering (and shortening)
with height-uniform harmony can be explained with least theoretical effort.
To complete the discussion of opacity in Yawelmani, we still have to deal
with the interaction of epenthesis with shortening as well as with the rest of
the grammar developed so far. Even though this issue is not directly linked
to the discussion of Trojan vowels it is of central theoretical interest,
because an analysis which claims to solve the Yawelmani puzzle without
reference to intermediate or failed representations should be exhaustive.
6.4.3 Yawelmani epenthesis and shortening
Epenthesis can be regarded as evidence for rule ordering in a derivational
account. Since the epenthesised vowel is sensitive to harmony, insertion
has to apply before the harmony rule.
According to Cole and Kisseberth (1995), a high vowel is inserted
whenever a consonant cluster would emerge in an onset or coda. The
maximal syllable is CVC or CV. The epenthetic vowel agrees with other
Yawelmani opacity
233
high vowels in backness and roundness. In the neighbourhood of low

vowels, the epenthetic vowel is front.
(305) Epenthesis and harmony in Yawelmani
Aorist
Passive Aorist
a. paiWhin
paWit
'fight'
logiwhin
logwit
'pulverize'
ilikhin
ilkit
'sing'
hubushun
hubsut
'choose'
b. amilhin
mo6ilhin
VeniW'hin
wowulhun
amlit
mo6lit
VenW'it
wowlut
'help'
'grow old'
'smell'
'stand up'
(Kuroda 1967: 10)
If a form has two low vowels underlyingly, and these two vowels are
separated by the epenthesised high vowel in the surface representation,
harmony is blocked, see forms (306c,d).
(306) Blocking of harmony by epenthesis in Yawelmani
precative gerundial
a. ilik-as
'sings'
b. utuy-as
'drinks'
c. logiw-as
'pulverizes'
d. pait-as
'fights'
(Cole and Kisseberth 1995: 3)
In the framework developed here this is not unexpected, since the two low
vowels are in fact not adjacent. An account which assumes that harmony is
an effect of constraints on surface forms correctly predicts that epenthetic
vowels behave as opaque elements when height uniformity is not given
with the neighbour to the left. In a serialist approach, the active behaviour
of epenthetic vowels is astonishing if harmony is stipulated to take place at
an early level of derivation (because of the subsequent lowering) where
epenthesis is expected to have not yet taken place.
I assume that epenthesis is triggered by a high ranking constraint
against complex onsets and complex codas, which are both unattested in
Yawelmani, i.e. *COMPLEX.
(307) *COMPLEX: 'No complex onset, no complex coda!'
234
The quality of the epenthetic vowel is determined by the language-specific

ranking of markedness constraints on vocalic features. The only crucial
markedness constraint on height is *[+lo]. Accordingly, a high (i.e.,
nonlow) vowel is the optimal epenthetic element. *[+back] also plays a role
since in cases where the height uniformity condition is not met and
harmony does not take place, the epenthetic vowel surfaces as i. *[+lo] has
to rank above the LC which demands harmony of height uniform vowels.
Otherwise the possibility would arise that the epenthetic vowel surfaces
with the opposite height specification of a neighbouring vowel in order to
satisfy this LC (in satisfaction of the conjoint *S-ID[lo]).
(308) Yawelmani vowel epenthesis and harmony with a high affix
/logw-hin/
a.
b.
c.
) d.
IO-ID
(lo)
logwhin
logowhin
loguwhun
logiwhin
*COMPL
*[+lo]
*!
*
**!
*
*
UNIFORM
VH
IO-ID
*[+bk]
(bk)
*
**
**!*
*
(309) Yawelmani vowel epenthesis and harmony with low affix

/logw-as/
a.
b.
c.
) d.
logwas
logowas
logiwos
logiwas
IO-ID
(lo)
*COMPL
*[+lo]
*!
**
***!
**
**
UNIFORM
VH
IO-ID
(bk)
*[+bk]
*
*
**!
*
Long e occurs in roots as a result of lowering underlyingly long i. Short e

occurs as a result of lowering root-final long i and shortening of this in
combination with an affix which creates a too-heavy syllable.
Yawelmani opacity
(310) Yawelmani lowering and coalescence

UR
future passive aorist passive
a. /ili/
ilenit
ilet
/cuyu/ cuyonut
cuyot
/hoyo/ hoyonit
hoyot
/pana/ pananit
panat
b. /ilk/
/logw/
iliknit
logiwnit
dubitative
ilel
cuyol
hoyol
panal
235
gloss
'expose to wind'
'urinate'
'name'
'arrive'
ilkal
'sing'
logwol
'pulverize'
(Goldsmith 1993: 38f)
ilkit
logwit
Vowel shortening occurs to avoid syllables with more than two moras, as
was shown and analysed already above. In the forms wowulhun and
wowlut which are the aorist and passive aorist forms, respectively, of
/wuwl/ 'stand up' (305b), we observe epenthesis in the first and shortening
in the second form. The ranking *[], *COMPLEX >> MAX >> DEP,
UNIFORMITY accounts for both, the appearance of epenthesis as well as
deletion in the same grammar.
(311) Yawelmani shortening and epenthesis
i.
/wuwl+hn/ *[] *COMPL MAX
a. wowlhn
*!
*
b. won
*!
***
c. won
***
d. wolhun
*!
e. wowlhun
*!
) f. wowulhun
ii.
a.
b.
c.
d.
) e.
f.
/wuwl+t/
wowlt
wot
wot
wolut
wowlut
wowulut
*[]
*COMPL
*!
*!
MAX
**
*!*
*!
DEP
UNIFORMITY
*
*
*
**
DEP
UNIFORMITY
*
*
*
**!
236
In the tableaux in (311), the quality of the epenthesised vowel(s) is not

accounted for, but this results automatically if we combine this part of the
grammar with that developed for vowel harmony, as in tableau (312).
UNIFORMITY
DEP
IO-ID(lo)&lS-Id(bk)
*[-lo]&lUNIF
*[hi,long]
MAX
*!
UNIFORMVH
wuwlt
wuwlit
wowlit
wowlut
IO-ID(lo)
a.
b.
c.
) d.
*COMPLEX
/wuwl+t/
*[]
(312) Yawelmani shortening, lowering, epenthesis and opaque harmony
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*!
*!
The combination of a root-final high long vowel with an affix starting in a

low vowel results in the mid vowel e as well. I regard this as an instance of
merging both vowels in violation of UNIFORMITY. Tableau (313) illustrates
this point. Any candidate preserving all underlying moras is sub-optimal
since the maximal syllable is bimoraic in Yawelmani due to *[].
(313) Lowering and merging
/ili+al/
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
) g.
ilial
ilial
ile l
ilel
ilal
ilil
ilel
*[hi,
long]
*[]
*[-lo]&l
UNIFORMITY
MAX
MAXUNIFORMITY
IO
*!
*!
*!
*!
*!
*
*
*
*!
*
*
*
*
This completes the analysis of Yawelmani vowel alternations. To summarise, the aspects of the Yawelmani grammar dealt with here are given in
Yawelmani opacity
237
(314). I will not go into the details of the motivations for the constraint
ranking anymore, since the ranking as such is not of major concern here.
(314) Yawelmani ranking
ROBA, *COMPLEX, *[hi, long], *[]
>> MAX, MAX-IO,
>> IO-ID(lo)&S-ID(bk), *[-lo]&lUNIFORMITY
>> IO-ID(lo) >> *[+lo] >> UNIFORMVH >> IO-ID(bk)
>> *[+bk], S-ID(bk), *S-ID(lo), *S-ID(bk), DEP, UNIFORMITY
The grammar which is proposed here is fairly complex, but this is no valid
argument against this analysis since it is a basic assumption of OT that all
constraints are present universally and that all these constraints interact
with each other in the grammars of the world's languages. From this
perspective, it is only expected that we find languages with rich constraint
interaction effects. Extending the view on all relevant constraints gives rise
to the insight that the whole assumption of derivational opacity, be it as
derivational rule interaction or as sympathetic candidate evaluation is
superfluous in the case of Yawelmani harmony, epenthesis, lowering, and
shortening interaction. At least the analysis of Yawelmani shows no need to
refer to psycho-linguistically questionable representations which never surface, be it as intermediate representations or as failed candidates in sympathetic correspondence. The only abstract, i.e., non-surface-true, representations which have to be referred to are the underlying representations.
6.4.4 Previous approaches to Yawelmani opacity
In previous analyses, it was assumed that the active harmonic feature in
Yawelmani is roundness, as for instance by Cole and Kisseberth (1995) or
Goldsmith (1993). Usually, only features determine harmony which also
play a role in the phonemic system of the respective language. Roundness
harmony is observed in languages with front rounded vowels as well as
back rounded vowels (see Kaun 1994 on roundness harmony). ATR harmony applies in languages in which this feature also provides a phonemic
contrast (see for instance the general survey on African vowel harmony
systems in Hall et al 1974). In Yawelmani, roundness is completely predictable, while backness is contrastive.
238
Therefore, it makes more sense to analyse Yawelmani harmony as

involving a feature which is active anyway, i.e. backness, as is done in this
approach. An analysis relying on backness fits better into the crosslinguistic featural typology of vowel harmony types than the assumption of
an isolated occurrence of rounding harmony.
I will now discuss the different approaches to the problem of derivational opacity. In Goldsmith's level based account, the Yawelmani data are
used to support his hypothesis of level ordering, i.e. of three distinct levels
of analysis. A level based analysis gives us no deeper insight into the functioning of language or the structure of grammar. If such data can be analysed in a different way, the only motivation for rule or level ordering, i.e.,
to give an account of the data, vanishes.
In contrast to such analyses, the means applied here to solve the analytic
problem posed by the Yawelmani data, are motivated independently. Local
conjunction is a possibility which arises out of the architecture of OT.
Constraint interaction in the sense of constraint conjunction as well as constraint ranking is used in the Yawelmani grammar for the purpose of
systemic elegance: The grammar is used to maintain the symmetry of the
vowel system. A further effect of this is the maintenance of a phonemic
contrast which would vanish otherwise. This symmetry is, of course, obscured by the ban against high long vowels in surface structures. The grammar provides a way to maintain high long vowels at least underlyingly, in
that certain constraints conspire so that these vowels, even though they cannot surface themselves, have an effect on surface structures.
Cole and Kisseberth (1995) radically depart from the whole concept of
derivational opacity and propose an analysis which relies on strict inputoutput mapping without any intermediate level of representation, and with
only one instance of candidate evaluation. The effect of underlying height
specifications on surface structures is modelled by Cole and Kisseberth
(1995) in their Optimal Domains Theory of harmony (ODT, Cole and
Kisseberth 1994) by the assumption of abstract feature domains (F-domains) which are not expressed articulatorily but phonologically present in
surface structures. This is a weaker formulation of Containment, originally
proposed in Prince and Smolensky (1993), and later abandoned with the
introduction of correspondence theory.
A further particularity of Cole and Kisseberth's (1995) analysis is that
faithfulness constraints are split up once more to account for Yawelmani.
This move is necessary to distinguish between phonologically present and
phonetically expressed features. The input-output faithfulness constraint
Yawelmani opacity
239
MAX-F is satisfied if an F-domain (i.e., a phonological feature) is present in

surface structure. If a feature is present phonologically in a surface representation, this does not imply that it has a phonetic reflex. The actual
articulation depends on the additional constraint EXPRESS-F, which is violated whenever a feature is not articulated on a potential feature bearer (i.e.,
a vowel) within the respective F-domain that is present in a surface representation. Universally, EXPRESS-F is ranked higher than MAX-F, which
makes sure that every feature mapped to the surface has an audible reflex,
while for Yawelmani, this ranking is reversed.
(315) Faithfulness in ODT (Cole and Kisseberth 1995: 17)
a. MAX-F, satisfied by the presence of an F-domain;
b. DEP-F, satisfied by the absence of inserted F-domains;
c. EXPRESS-F, satisfied by the realisation of [F] on elements within the
F-domain.
(316) The ranking of MAX-F and EXPRESS-F
a. Universally: EXPRESS-F >> MAX-F
(Underlying features have to be audible in the output.)
b. Yawelmani: MAX-F >> EXPRESS-F
(Underlying features must be present in the output but not
necessarily audible.)
The ranking in (316a) results in faithful parsing and articulation of underlying features, while the reversed ranking in (316b) accounts for the
assumption that features are present in a surface form even though they are
not spelled out.
A form which is backness-harmonic even though not height-uniform
looks like that in (317) in their approach. (317a) shows the mapping from
input representation to the segmental string in the output. (317b) compares
the input vowels of the form in (a) with the vowel representations in the
surface structure with all F-domains assigned.
(317) Yawelmani opaque harmony in ODT
a. /uW'-it/ oW'ut
b. / u - I / [({o}) (u)]
(Notation: { } = Low domain, ( ) = High domain, [ ] = Round domain)
240
According to the demands of Lowering, the underlying height domain ( )

occurs together with a low domain {} on the first underlyingly long high
vowel. This low domain is articulatorily realised in satisfaction of lowering. The unexpressed High-domain ( ) triggers the harmony process with
the neighbouring F-domain of the same kind. In such cases where a vowel
is included in two contradictory domains, the grammar chooses the faithful
domain over the inserted domain, i.e., the one which does not violate DEPF, to decide on the question whether height-uniformity is given or not.
Since (abstract) height uniformity is given under these assumptions, the
roundness domain (indicated by the square brackets) has to be extended
over both vowels and expressed on both.
To account for those forms in which an affix with a low vowel is added
to a root with a lowered vowel, Cole and Kisseberth have to assume that the
height uniformity condition on harmony is sensitive to whether a feature
domain is a lexical one or an inserted one. In case of conflict, the uniformity condition chooses the lexical feature domain as relevant. This blocks application of harmony to two low vowels of which one is underlyingly high.
All in all, the ODT analysis of Yawelmani departs from surface truth,
that is features have to be assumed in surface representations which have
nothing to do with the acoustic reality of a form. Furthermore, the theory of
faithfulness has to be enriched in an unnecessary way, with the further
drawback of a stipulated universal ranking that, moreover, has to be
reversed for some rare cases, like that of Yawelmani.
McCarthy (1999) goes a different way. He proposes Sympathy Theory
as a means to deal with instances of the Duke-of-York-Gambit (Pullum
1976) and phonological opacity in general, as discussed here already in the
chapter on balanced vowels. Yawelmani serves him as an illustration of
non-surface-true opacity, non-surface-apparent opacity and multi-processinteraction.
The Yawelmani pattern is a case of non-surface-apparent opacity in the
sense that the triggering condition for vowel lowering is made invisible by
vowel shortening (in serialist terms).
Yawelmani displays non-surface-true opacity since the generalisation
that height-uniform vowels are harmonic with regard to backness or roundness is contradicted by lowered root vowels followed by a low affix which
is disharmonic with regard to backness, and by lowered root vowels followed by a backness-harmonic affix vowel. (Speaking 'serialistically': harmony
applies before lowering happens.)
Yawelmani opacity
241
To deal with the Yawelmani interaction of lowering and shortening in

Sympathy Theory, the actual output has to correspond in height to the
candidate which best satisfies the lowly ranked selector constraint MAX and all other higher ranked constraints. Among these is the constraint
against high long vowels. For the case of /ili-l/, this determines the form
ilel as the sympathetic candidate to which the actual output has to be
faithful in height, satisfying the constraint UID(hi). In additional satisfaction of undominated *[], the candidate in which the last syllable is
shortened, i.e., the form ilel is chosen as optimal instead of the transparent
candidate *ilil, which would be the winner in McCarthy's grammar
without sympathy.
To cope with opaque height-uniform harmony a second sympathy
relation is necessary. Here, ID(hi) is not the intercandidate faithfulness
constraint, but the selector constraint, to indicate this notationally it is
marked by . The inter-candidate faithfulness constraint is ID(col) (marked
as such by U), the constraint that demands identity with regard to the
vowel harmony feature colour (backness + roundness) of the actual output
with the failed candidate chosen by ID(hi).
To get from the input /ut-hin/ to the desired output othun, which
obeys lowering and shortening, and furthermore displays an over-application of vowel harmony, the sympathy analysis relies on sympathetic
height faithfulness to the failed candidate *othin, and on a sympathetic
correspondence [UID(col)] with the sub-optimal candidate *uthun, despite
trivial input-output faithfulness. The transparent winner, i.e. the one that
would be optimal in McCarthy's grammar without the sympathetic ingredients, would be *uthun in this case. As McCarthy himself points out at
page 371, these forms differ from those referred to in a serialist derivational
account (however, they do not differ in number). In such an account we
could assume that first rounding harmony makes uthun out of /ut-hin/,
then Lowering derives othun from uthun, and finally Shortening applies,
yielding the output [othun] from othun (cf. McCarthy, p.369, (41)).
In the diagram in (318), the serialist and the sympathy account are
summarised in terms of involved forms and rules or faithfulness relations.
242
(318) Abstract Yawelmani forms referred to in serialist and sympathetic

analyses
Serialist derivation:
Correspondence relations:
/ut-hin/ :Input: /ut-hin/
[IO-Faith]
Harmony
uthun
*othin [UID(hi)MAX-]
Lowering
othun
*uthun
Shortening
[UID(col)ID(hi)]
[othun] :Output:
[othun]
Since both accounts refer to different intermediate/additional forms, one
might wonder about the psychological reality of these forms. Observation
of first language acquisition, speech disorders or speech errors could bring
to light whether one of these forms ever surfaces, which I doubt. In the preceding paragraphs, however, we have seen that it is not necessary at all to
refer to abstract forms which intervene between input and output in any
dubious way. The same holds for abstract features in surface representations.
Furthermore, it was shown in the chapter on balanced vowels that
Sympathy Theory in the form proposed by McCarthy is not shaped to deal
with transparent vowels, which can be regarded as an instance of phonological opacity in the traditional sense. Thus, contrary to McCarthy's claim,
Sympathy Theory is no general account of phonological opacity, and the
question arises whether there is any need or motivation for it at all.
6.5
Previous analyses of Trojan vowels
There is a huge number of accounts for Trojan vowels in the literature. It is

interesting to see how many approaches in OT alone have been proposed.
In my count we have at least three to date (not including the one developed
here). Cole and Kisseberth (1995) account for the Trojan vowels of Yawelmani within their Optimal Domains Theory by assuming an unexpressed
feature on the surface realisation of the relevant vowel. This inaudible
feature then triggers harmony. To achieve this technically they have to
make some non-trivial changes to the general architecture of Correspondence Theory, for instance they split up IO-Faithfulness into DEP-IO, MAXIO, and EXPRESS. In their view, MAX-IO is satisfied if a feature is mapped
Previous analyses
243
from the input to surface structure, whether it is audible or not, while

REALISE demands that a feature be also audible. Furthermore they assume
the universal ranking of REALISE above MAX-IO which is reversed for
Yawelmani only.
Ringen and Vago (1998) analyse the Trojan vowel in Hungarian by
assuming a floating feature [+back] on the respective roots, which finds its
only landing site on the following affix vowel in surface forms. Of course,
floating features are a common assumption to explain for instance the
morphophonological behaviour of certain verb classes in some languages
(for instance Roman languages; see e.g. Canclini 1999 on Italian verb
classes). In this particular case, there is not only no need for a floating
feature, this assumption rather obscures the fact that in Hungarian, as in all
languages where Trojan vowels are observed, these vowels are the ones
which give imbalance to the surface vowel system. The Trojan vowels of
Hungarian are the nonlow front unrounded vowels. The back counterpart of
these vocoids is not allowed in Hungarian surface forms. All other vowels
have back and front alternants.
Another alignment-based analysis is Pulleyblank's (1996) account of
Yoruba. Pulleyblank tries to capture the extraordinary behaviour of high
vowels by assuming that the active feature referred to in the alignment
constraints which effect harmony is privative RTR (retracted tongue root).
This renders high vowels practically inactive as triggers of harmony.
Whether there exist underlyingly retracted high vowels in Yoruba or not
becomes irrelevant in Pulleyblank's analysis. He assumes that every root
has (maximally) one tongue root specification underlyingly which is not
necessarily linked to a particular vowel. The surface shape of most vowels
is determined by markedness constraints, or, in his account, enhancement
relations like LO/RTR ('if LOW then RTR.') and by the anti-insertion
constraint DEPRTR. With respect to the lexical treatment of RTR specifications, the question arises why all other articulatory features are linked to
particular vowels while only the feature RTR is linked to whole lexical
items, such as roots.
Furthermore, Pulleyblank has to assume two (L/R) Alignment constraints on RTR which refer to the domain of the root as well as two almost
identical Alignment constraints referring to the domain of the word. The
root alignment constraints are sensible only to lexical material. They do not
require edge alignment of inserted features. The word alignment constraints
in contrast are true surface constraints since they refer to all instances of
RTR present in an output representation, lexical as well as inserted features.
244
The former assumption would not be too problematic if the Alignment were
simply treated as instances of Anchoring, i.e., as faithfulness constraints.
This should then extend to the word alignment constraints as well, which is
not feasible, since they refer to both lexical as well as inserted material.
Inserted material does not correspond to underlying material and should
therefore not be affected by these constraints. Apart from this inconsistency
the assumption of four different directional harmony constraints alone
proves quite expensive.
The last analysis to be reviewed is that proposed by Bakovi (2000) for
the Trojan vowels of Yoruba. Bakovi's account has already been shown to
be insufficient in the analysis of Yoruba low and mid vowel patterns.
However, to account for the fact that prefixes are consistently disharmonic
with some roots containing a high vowel he assumes underlyingly retracted
high vowels for these roots as well.
Technically the analysis rests on a Sympathy relation among the actual
output and a failed candidate. For a form like omu 'drinker' (/O-m8/
nom+drink), the scenario is the following: the output depends on the failed
completely harmonic and root-faithful candidate *om8. This candidate has
no chance to be chosen as the output because it contains the banned vowel
*8. The candidate which resembles the failed candidate *om8 most is the
one which differs only in that it satisfies the markedness constraint against
8. This candidate omu is chosen then in favour of harmonic *omu for its
better faithfulness to the losing candidate *om8. The other losing candidate
*omu has changed the ATR specification of both vowels with regard to
sympathetic *om8. This analysis must be rejected on the same grounds as
McCarthy's Sympathy account of Yawelmani opacity.
6.6
Conclusion
In this chapter, I gathered together aspects of phonological opacity in vowel

harmony in the form of Trojan vowels from four languages (spoken in
different corners of the world).
Hungarian served to install the basic analysis of phonologically opaque
vowel behaviour in backness harmony systems. With the case study on Yoruba high vowels I gave an illustration of the same pattern in a language
with root-controlled ATR harmony. The Nez Perce data and analysis
showed that this phenomenon is not restricted to root controlled harmony.
Finally, Yawelmani served as a testing ground whether the proposed
Conclusion
245
approach of constraint coordination can be extended to a wider range of

phonological opacity phenomena. This language not only exhibits Trojan
vowels, the harmony pattern moreover interacts remarkably with other
phenomena triggered by prosodic constraints.
On the technical side Yawelmani shows that a language may choose to
make an extended use of constraint coordinations in the grammar. The purpose of this, or at least of parts of this, is to explore a richer phonemic
system than the surface inventory allows.
One critique to the constraint coordination approach could be that a
language might coordinate lots of constraints and even use a range of
complex coordinated constraints, and that this is rather unlikely. The unlikely case has just been demonstrated to be manifested in Yawelmani.
Though, the grade of complexity of a grammar may be naturally
restricted by the learnability factor. Too complex constraint coordinations
are simply not learnable. In the case of local conjunction, for instance,
every constraint added to a conjunction narrows the scope of this conjunction, which means that the surface effect of the conjunction becomes
undetectable at a certain stage, and, thus unlearnable. The consequence is
simply that a grammar won't make use of the device to such an extent. The
question is simply how complex can constraint coordinations maximally be
and still be analysable by a human mind.
There have been proposals to limit the maximal constraint conjunction
to a composition of two constraints. However, the maximally complex constraint coordination assumed in the discussion of Yawelmani above consisted of four constraints. As the historical perspective shows, a construction of four constraints into one already causes instability. This instability
of surface patterns then leads to abandoning the too complex constraint.
A potential critique to the constraint coordination approach would be
that in principle the number of complex constraints is infinite. The same
restrictive argument as for the number of constraints within one coordination holds for the number of coordinations used in a grammar. A too high
number of coordinated constraints would probably result in an unlearnable
grammar. Such a grammar must be assumed to be rejected by the speakers
of natural languages. This yields it illicit.
Furthermore, the combinatorics were limited by Crowhurst and Hewitt's
assumption of the shared argument condition, which was by and large
maintained in the preceding analyses. A much stricter limitation would be
to assume that conjoined constraints on features even have to refer to the
same feature (as proposed in Bakovi 2000). This, however, would exclude
246
to see the technical parallel between the behaviour of balanced vowels and
height-uniform harmony. Recall that the analysis of balance crucially rests
on the conjunction of *S-IDENT(F) with S-IDENT(F), while the height-uniform pattern is an effect of a conjunction of the same constraints, referring
to different features, i.e., *S-IDENT(lo) and S-IDENT(bk). Any other proposal made so far did not bring these seemingly unrelated patterns together so
closely.
Chapter 7
General conclusion
7.1
Overall summary
This book started with an overview of the phenomenon of vowel harmony

in the world's languages. From this broad perspective the scope was narrowed down to two basic issues, the modelling of morphologically controlled harmony, and the analysis of phonological opacity.
Harmony is regarded as morphologically controlled if it is either exclusively induced by the root of a word or exclusively determined by suffixes,
but not by both in one language. This matter was captured by the
assumption of distinct positional faithfulness constraints on roots and affixes. Constraints on the morphology/phonology interface which regulate
the direction of affixation have been shown to have a severe impact on the
directionality of the harmony pattern. This supports the view of harmony as
a directionless correspondence relation among feature bearing units within
one representation (Kaun 1994, Krmer 1998, 2001, Bakovi 2000).
The dominance of either the root or suffixes is seen as the effect of
positional faithfulness constraints against feature spreading. The ranking of
INTEGRITYAffix above INTEGRITYRoot in a language-particular constraint
hierarchy results in the surface pattern of root control. The inversed ranking
was demonstrated here to exist in Futankoore Pulaar, where harmony is determined by the rightmost affix vowel.
(319) Morphological control
Root control: INTEGRITYAffix >> INTEGRITYRoot
Affix control: INTEGRITYRoot >> INTEGRITYAffix
As discussed earlier already, McCarthy and Prince (1995) proposed the
universal meta constraint ranking of root faithfulness above affix faithfulness. That this is a too strong restriction has already been shown by Ussishkin (2000). His analysis of Hebrew Binyanim crucially relies on the ranking of affix faithfulness above root faithfulness for vowels. The surprising
248
General conclusion
result in connection with the analysis of vowel harmony derived here is that
the 'pathological ranking' in the view of McCarthy and Prince, that of affix
faithfulness (i.e., INTEGRITYAffix) above root faithfulness (i.e., INTEGRITYRoot), is rather the rule than the exception. Most of the languages displaying vowel harmony have root controlled harmony. Affix control must
be seen as a rare exception.
This faithfulness paradoxon was motivated in this book over the
functional task of the root~affix asymmetry. Usually faithfulness serves the
retrieval of lexical as well as grammatical information on the side of the
listener. A language in which the information in affixes can easily be identified by listeners while the lexical information is undetectable is quite dysfunctional. It does not properly serve communication. Thus, faithfulness to
lexical material has to be more important than faithfulness to functional
elements. The INTEGRITY constraints, in contrast, militate against prominence maximisation. If a root extends its features over the whole word by
assimilation, it maximises its prominence. The ranking of INTEGRITYAffix
above INTEGRITYRoot, thus, more severely restricts prominence maximisation of affixes relative to prominence maximisation of roots.
The apparent absence of harmony triggering prefixes from the languages
of the world reported so far, is accounted for in the current proposal by an
asymmetry of edge-faithfulness constraints. While suffixes might be subject
to a right-word-edge faithfulness constraint demanding identity to the
underlying form at that word margin, the mirror-image constraint, i.e., IOIDENTLeftmost, or IO-IDENT-1, seems to be absent from Universal Grammar. Dominant left-edge faithfulness effects, such as a greater wealth of
allowed feature combinations and triggering of harmony by the vowel in
the leftmost syllable, are observed only with root material in predominantly
suffixing languages. This is attributable to a logical constraint conjunction
of the Left-Anchoring constraint on roots and prosodic words with IOIdentity. The former demands the mapping of the left root edge with the left
word edge and the latter enforces Input-Output faithfulness for the vowel in
this position. The mirror image constraint coordination, i.e., that of RANCHOR and IO-Identity, accounts for the mirror image pattern, with prefixation only and stronger faithfulness at the right word edge than anywhere
else. This was manifested in potential target vowels at the right word edge
resisting assimilation to potential triggers preceding them in the prefixing
language Yoruba.
Overall summary
249
(320) Logical conjunction of Anchoring and faithfulness

Left/Right-ANCHOR(root, pwd) IO-IDENT(F): The leftmost/
rightmost element of the root corresponds with the
leftmost/rightmost element in the prosodic word AND the
leftmost/rightmost element in the root is identical with the leftmost/rightmost element in the prosodic word in its specification for
feature F.
Phonological opacity arises in the context of harmony wherever we observe
systematic disharmony. This is the case with balanced (or 'transparent')
vowels. Such vowels are either harmonic or disharmonic with both their
neighbours, but induce harmony on an adjacent affix vowel if they have
only this neighbour. A further case of phonological opacity is the pattern in
which a potential target vowel receives its surface feature specification in
accordance with the underlying feature value of its neighbour (a Trojan
vowel).
Instead of the assumption of serialist derivation or cumulative or sympathetic candidate evaluation, these patterns were accounted for as effects of
local constraint conjunctions. In these conjunctions markedness, OCP, and
IO-Identity constraints were involved, serving the activation of harmony
and OCP constraints. In particular, balance was derived as the surface effect of a conjunction of the markedness constraint violated by the balanced
vowel with the harmony constraint on the harmonic feature and the constraint demanding dissimilation of the same feature in neighbouring vowels
(321a). Trojan vowels are allowed to have an indirect reflex in surface
structures by combination of the affected markedness constraint with the
OCP constraint on the harmony feature and, as the third party in the conjunction, an Input-Output Identity constraint on that feature (321b). Height
uniformity, which occurs in backness harmony as well as in ATR harmony,
was seen here as triggered by almost the same constraint configuration as
that on balance: a local conjunction of a harmony constraint and an OCP
constraint on different features (321c).
(321)
a. Balance:
b. Trojan vowels:
*[F1]&lS-IDENT(F2)&l*S-IDENT(F2)
*[F1]&lIO-IDENT(F2)&l*S-IDENT(F2)
250
General conclusion
c. Uniform Harmony:
*S-IDENT(F1)&lS-IDENT(F2)
In all these conjunctions, violation of the first, or the two first constraints
functions as the triggering environment for the last constraint.54 By this
logic balance (or vowel transparency; 321a) and the pattern of Trojan
vowels (or phonological opacity in vowel harmony; 321b) can both be seen
as conspiratory OCP effects. Height uniform harmony (321c) is different in
that harmony is triggered by a violation of an OCP constraint.
All in all, the controversial issues of cyclicity and phonological opacity
in the context of vowel harmony are reduced to the interaction of only a
handful of universal constraints via ranking and via constraint coordination.
In the following I will first discuss the prevailing issue of phonological
opacity and serialism in more detail and then change the perspective to
touch upon topics which have found only a marginal place in this book.
7.2
The main part of this book was concerned with the question whether we
need to incorporate a notion of cyclicity and phonological opacity in whatever form in the conception of generative grammar to analyse apparently
cyclic and opaque aspects of vowel harmony patterns. In a nutshell, cyclicity is given when a rule reapplies several times within the course of derivation (if not conceived of naively as an iteratively applied directional rule,
root-controlled harmony could be imagined as reapplication of a harmony
rule after each level of affixation). Phonological opacity (Kiparsky 1971,
1973) is at stake when an element is obviously affected by a given rule but
the triggering condition is not detectable anymore. In this case it is assumed
that the trigger existed in an earlier stage of derivation, but was altered by a
subsequent rule which applied to the trigger after it has served its triggering
function for the other rule (as in vowel transparency). This type of opacity
is schematised in (322a,c).
(322) Phonological opacity
a. Non-surface-apparent or counterbleeding opacity
B D/_C
ABC ADC#
C E/_#
ADC ADE#
251
b. Non-surface-true or counterfeeding opacity

B D/_E
ABC ABC#
C E_#
ABC ABE#
c. The Duke-of-York-Gambit or a variation on (a)
B D/A_
ABC ADC
C E/D_
ADC ADE
DB
ADE ABE
The other way around phonological opacity might also be assumed where
an element fails to undergo a certain change even though the triggering
environment for the underapplied rule is given. In this scenario, which was
labelled 'non-surface-true' or 'counterfeeding opacity' in the literature, the
triggering environment is assumed to be created by a rule on a later level of
derivation than that in which the first rule applied. The latter could, in some
instances, also be judged as evidence for an underlying contrast among
specified and underspecified items of a given type, with the relevant rule or
constraint applying only to underspecified tokens.55 Yawelmani displays
both types of opacity. In ignorance of the restriction that only vowels of the
same height are allowed to enter a harmonic relation, the harmony process
applies to a high affix vowel in the presence of a low(ered) root vowel in
some words. The rule has applied even though the triggering environment
is not present (anymore) in the surface form. This can be regarded as
counterbleeding opacity (322a). The absence of vowel harmony where a
low affix vowel is preceded by a low(ered) root vowel exemplifies nonapplication of a process/rule to a potential target in the triggering environment, i.e., counterfeeding opacity (322b).
Optimality Theory by and large denies the existence of serial derivation
of output forms, which is crucial to the above understanding of cyclicity
and opacity.56 And, as McCarthy (1999) points out, from the declarative
perspective of Optimality Theory, patterns like those schematised above are
quite astonishing since constraints do not evaluate representations stepwise
but rather in a parallelist fashion. This means that if a given triggering
environment is missing the respective alternation is not expected and, vice
versa, if a given triggering environment is present the alternation is supposed to have taken place. Otherwise, the responsible constraint against the
respective surface configuration is violated and the respective candidate
should be rejected in favour of a better one. The same holds for cyclicity in
a certain respect. In this declarative framework, all affixes are assumed to
252
General conclusion
be attached to a root at the same time. If harmony is assumed to be the

surface effect of a directionless correspondence constraint, even the asymmetry between root and affixes in root-controlled harmony is astonishing.
In OT, cyclicity effects have been approached via Base-Output-Correspondence (Benua 1995, 1997, McCarthy 1995, Kenstowicz 1996, Kager
1999, Bakovi 2000, and many more). The basic idea has already been
explained in sections 1.5 and 4.7.3 here, but I will nonetheless summarise it
once more. Besides the input-output faithfulness relation, morphologically
complex forms are assumed to stand in a correspondence relation with a
simpler form. This is used as well to explain phenomena like paradigmatic
uniformity (see, e.g., Kenstowicz 1996). Kager (1999: 282) gives a
relatively precise definition of the properties of the base. A base has to be a
free-standing output form a word. Furthermore, the base contains a subset
of the grammatical features of the derived form. This is, however, the
strictest view of what can be a base and what can not.
Besides the problem that in many analyses bases are assumed which are
not independently occurring forms (as discussed above for the bases
assumed in Bakovi 2000 for Yoruba) and which may have grammatical
features that are incompatible with those of the dependent form, the baseoutput relation has to be asymmetrical. The only form which is ever
influenced by this correspondence relation is the more complex form.
Effects of complex forms on bases have not been shown so far. This
property renders B-O correspondence fundamentally different from IO
correspondence which is a symmetric relation. The output, of course, has to
look like the input, but on the other side, only those forms are chosen as
inputs by Lexicon Optimization (Prince and Smolensky 1993) which cause
the least severe constraint violations when outputs are evaluated. This
symmetry, that each representation has an influence on the other, cannot be
assumed for base-output relations.
However, a further drawback to the kind of base-output correspondence
at stake in the discussion of root-controlled vowel harmony is the fact that
there have to exist relations of the output to all intermediate forms, each
having one affix less than the form which is next to the output or the output
itself. The effect is that the number of representations referred to is blown
up from two (the input and the output) to as many as affixes can be attached
to a given root in a given language. And in some agglutinative languages,
such as Turkish for instance, this can be be quite a lot (remember, for
instance, the Turkish word tan-dk-lar-m-z-dn 'from our acquaintances' from chapter 3). Finally we end up with more representations to be
253
considered than in any serialist account. In an agglutinative language, all

these forms might also be freely existing output forms, but, as argued
already in section 4.7.3, in languages with obligatory class marking, as in
Bantu languages for example, one would have to refer to bases which do
not exist on their own.
There are two empirical arguments against a treatment of root-control as
Base-Output correspondence. First, the approach cannot explain why
within single poly-syllabic morphemes, such as some roots in Turkish or
Yoruba, often the vowel at one edge imposes its feature specification on the
rest of the word. To explain this intra-morphemic asymmetry, one or the
other version of positional faithfulness has to be employed anyway.
The last objection against the Stem-Affixed-Form-Faithfulness approach
or any other variety of Base-Output-Correspondence to root-control is the
existence of affix-induced harmony in languages such as Fula or Turkana.
If the whole process is symmetric in the sense that roots as well as affixes
can be the dominant triggering category, then suspicion arises that
something else but Base-Output correspondence is responsible for the
overall pattern.
Phonological opacity is modelled as Sympathy, i.e., inter-candidate
faithfulness, as cumulative candidate evaluation as well as local constraint
conjunction in the literature (McCarthy 1999, ubowicz 1999, and others).
Kager (1999) points out that sympathy alone is not capable of dealing with
some residual phenomena of opacity like chain-shifts, which can elegantly
be accounted for by local constraint conjunction (Kirchner 1996). Similar
to Kager ubowicz (1999) regards her constraint conjunction approach to
derived environment effects as supplemental to Sympathy Theory.
Sympathy Theory radically enlarges the set of possible faithfulness
relations by drawing on the resource of the infinite set of failed candidates.
If this approach alone cannot handle the phenomenon of phonological
opacity, while the supplement to it, i.e. local conjunction, can be extended
to cases which were analysed within Sympathy Theory previously, the
question arises whether the former is tenable at all.
Skeptics would raise the criticism that both tools are quite powerful
devices, since the arising combinatoric possibilities of grammar approach
incalculability. While we have seen that at least local conjunction is limited
by restrictions on the arguments which might be addressed in combined
constraints and by the limits of learnability (see the discussion in 5.6),
sympathy theory might establish faithfulness relations among almost any
arbitrary pair of candidates out of an infinite set. With regard to opacity
254
General conclusion
within the phenomenon of vowel harmony the case studies in chapters 4 to

6 have shown that the local conjunction approach alone is well-fitted to
handle a broad range of cases.
Serialist derivation, Base-Output Correspondence as well as Sympathy
Theory have one characteristic feature in common. They all refer to
additional representations besides the input and the output. This would not
be problematic if these were at least the same intermediate representations
in all three cases, and furthermore if these representations had some
independent motivation. However, if there were independent evidence for
such representations this would be a testing ground as to which approach
refers to existing forms and which does not. Since seemingly neither speech
pathology, nor speech errors, nor language acquisition, nor language games
or any other source provide us with the relevant data so far, approaches
maximally reducing the number of assumed representations related to one
form should be given preference. The burden of proof lies on those who
wish to maintain either serialist derivations or simulated serialism.
7.3
Throughout this book almost all underlying forms were given as fully
specified strings. Underspecification was assumed only where all diagnostics failed to detect the underlying feature specification and where it really
did not matter. Inkelas (1994) surveys the consequences of Lexicon Optimization for underlying structures and comes to the conclusion that
Lexicon Optimization favours underlying representations which are fully
specified.
The reasoning is that with respect to anti-insertion and other faithfulness
constraints fully specified underlying forms produce less constraint violations than underspecified items would. The grammar is supposed to store
items in the way which causes the least amount of friction, which means
that constraint violations have to be minimised.
With regard to the selection of optimal forms, the same principle holds
for the choice of underlying forms as for surface forms: the most harmonic
candidate wins. Alternating material, such as the suffix vowels in a language displaying root-controlled harmony, however, has to be stored as underspecified according to this reasoning. In case an alternating Turkish suffix like di / d / dy / du (PAST) were stored as, say, /di/ in the lexicon,
every instance of the other three allomorphs would violate faithfulness. If
255
the suffix is stored as /dV[-low]/, i.e., completely underspecified with regard

to the alternating features, these violations are avoided.
If harmony is furthermore assumed to be a structure-filling operation,
violations of anti-insertion constraints are avoided as well.57 This yields the
underspecified form as the optimal underlying representation. The effect on
the Turkish lexicon would be that all alternating affixes are underspecified
while all stems are fully specified underlyingly.
In a circular argumentation one could say now, this is the source of root
control: the asymmetry in underlying forms. Underspecification, however,
is induced upon the forms by the grammar. That is, the reason for the alternation in suffixes but not in roots must be found there and not in the underlying representations; which is basically the content of the 'richness of
the base' hypothesis (Prince and Smolensky 1993).58 Therefore, an assumed
grammar for a given language has to predict the right patterns largely independent of underlying forms. For this reason, often quite quirky hypothetical underlying forms were stipulated in the preceding case studies. Moreover, Lexicon Optimization predicts full specification where earlier theories
of underspecification, such as radical underspecification (Archangeli 1984),
or contrastive underspecification (Steriade 1987, 1995) would have
assumed underspecified underlying representations.
In their survey of language games in the vowel harmony languages
Finnish, Hungarian, Turkish, and Tuvan, Harrison and Kaun (2000) found
challenging evidence against the assumption of underlyingly fully specified
stems in these languages. I will illustrate this with Harrison and Kaun's example of Tuvan. Tuvan has roughly the same type of harmony as Turkish.
The language exhibits a reduplicative pattern in which the whole stem is
copied. The vowel in the first syllable changed to D or u in the reduplicant.
The second stem vowel in the reduplicant harmonises with the first vowel
of the reduplicant in case the stem itself contains harmonic vowels only
(323a). If the stem is disharmonic, the second vowel in the reduplicant does
not harmonise with the first vowel of the reduplicant (323b).
(323) Tuvan reduplication and harmony
a. Full reduplication of harmonic bases with re-harmonisation
base
reduplicated form
odd form
gloss
*idik-adik
'boot'
idik
idik-adik
fiidik
fiidik-fadik
*fiidik-fadik
'video cassette'
teve
teve-tava
*teve-tave
'camel'
teve-ler-im tevelerim-tavalarim *tevelerim-tavelerim 'camel-PL-1SG'
256
General conclusion
b. Full reduplication of disharmonic bases without re-harmonisation

ma6ina
ma6ina- mu6ina
*ma6ina- mu6ina/ mu6una 'car'
ajbek
ajbek-ujbek
*ajbek-ujbak
'Aibek'
=iguli
=iguli-=aguli
*=iguli-=aguli/=agulu
'Zhiguli'
(Harrison and Kaun 2000)
If the non-initial vowels of harmonic stems, which never alternate in the
regular morpho-phonology, were fully specified underlyingly, they should
behave like the non-initial vowels of disharmonic roots. They should resist
reharmonisation.
Harrison and Kaun (2000) propose that Lexicon Optimization should be
pattern responsive. This means that if feature specifications are supplied by
a certain pattern like vowel harmony, Lexicon Optimization should not
ignore this as in the original proposal, but rather use patterns to optimise
underlying representations. If grammar works like this we have detected an
additional motivation for vowel harmony. The harmony pattern causes
underspecification of the affected features in most vowels in all harmonic
stems, serving lexical economy in reducing the burden of lexical storage.
7.4
A factorial typology consists of all possible rankings assumed in an

analysis. In the ideal case, every ranking should conform to an actually
attested pattern. In my view this conception of possible grammars is problematic since it reveals a major inconsistency in the treatment of constraints
and their interaction.
If constraints are postulated in an analysis, they have to be motivated
somehow on independent grounds. The least convincing motivation is of
course that the analysis of the data requires stipulation of a certain constraint. Constraints are better motivated on external grounds. For instance a
markedness constraint such as *[+hi, -ATR] is motivated articulatorily. As
said in the introductory part of this book, it is easier to move tongue body
and tongue root in the same direction than in opposite directions. The
feature [+hi] induces upward movement of the tongue body, while the
feature [-ATR] is realised by downward movement of the tongue root. Both
gestures are executed by the same body part. Thus, a movement of different
zones of that body part in the same direction is more easily executed.
Positional faithfulness constraints, for instance, have been motivated by
257
Beckman on the basis of general considerations of perceptibility, for which

she also gives psycho-linguistic evidence. The motivation of general faithfulness constraints is self-evident.
If single constraints or constraint families have to have an external basis,
why should any unmotivated ranking of these constraints be considered at
all? As was shown in the preceding chapters, we find motivations for constraint rankings and other constraint interactions, like constraint conjunction and constraint fusion as well. Thus factorial typology implies a rather
naive view of constraint interaction.
If we do not want to measure different parts of the same theory
differently we should motivate constraint hierarchies as well, or we should
at least give reasons for the exclusion of certain hierarchies. In the view advocated here, rankings, i.e., grammars, which serve no higher purpose or
even run counter to general strategies of information structuring and facilitation of information retrieval should be banned from the typology (as is
the case, for instance, with a null-parse grammar, a grammar which practically rejects all candidates with overt phonological structure). That is, the
theory of factorial typology needs to be constrained as well, as there are
restrictions on the formalisation of generalisations to constraints (in the
strictest view only faithfulness and markedness constraints are allowed,
which both have to follow certain patterns of formalisation with regard to
their argument structure), as well as restrictions on the local conjunction of
constraints.
Nobody would reasonably assume that a grammar conjoins an indefinite
set of constraints, even though the constraint inventory has a large combinatorial potential. As outlined already in sections 2.5 and 6.6, the possibilities of constraint coordination are severely limited by four criteria.
First, only those constraints can be combined which refer to the same
argument. Furthermore, the constraint with the most restricted argument
determines the scope of the whole constraint complex.
The second limitation of coordination is set by the limits of learnability.
A complex constraint consisting of a large number of constraints proves
impossible to be learnt at a certain stage of complexity, because the learner
can not identify the single constraints anymore which play a role. This was
illustrated here with the case of Yawelmani. The Yawelmani grammar
included a coordination of four constraints. This coordination proved too
complicated and the Yawelmani speakers are about to abandon this part of
the grammar today.
258
General conclusion
Connected to this is the criterion of effectivity. The more constraints a

grammar coordinates to one single entity the more restricted is the environment in which this complex constraint shows an effect. Thus, with an increasing number of participating constraints, a coordination becomes ineffective. Such a marginal effect is very likely to be overrun by the rest of
the grammar.
The fourth criterion might not prove that strict. The assumption is that
grammars do not just produce constraint coordinations at random. Such
complex interactions are done on purpose. The pursued goal usually is
maximisation of interpretability. As we have seen in the present survey of
vowel harmony, usually a markedness constraint bans a certain feature
combination from surfacing. This affects the conflicting faithfulness constraints which serve to maintain a given phonemic contrast. In reaction to
this, faithfulness constraints conspire with markedness constraints to circumvent the effect of the highly ranked markedness constraint. The result is
economic in that an impoverished surface sound inventory can be used to
maintain more underlying phonemic contrasts than are possible by only exploiting the surface inventory. The result is also increased elegance. An inventory can be imbalanced if markedness constraints rule, in the sense that
not all phonemes display a pairwise contrast with regard to every feature.
Such a kind of imbalance can be outbalanced either directly, by supplying
the language at least underlyingly with the phonemic contrast that is
missing on the surface or indirectly by imposing balance restrictions on surface vowel patterns to mark the imbalanced vowels as such.
All these assumptions on the limits of constraint coordination also limit
the possibilities of factorial typologies, since they reduce the number of
rankable constraints. Probably, similar or the same criteria should be
applied to the typology of constraint hierarchies. Such a restrictive theory
of factorial typology would also shift the focus of many current analyses
from the mere formalisation of a phenomenon to the question of the conceptual reasons or bases of a phenomenon, which could contribute to enrich
the insights into language and communication as such. The aim of linguistic theory should not be simply to formally describe human language,
but rather to gain insights into how human language works.
Outlook
7.5
259
Outlook
This book dealt only with a subset of the theoretical issues arising in the
context of vowel harmony. If we broaden the scope again after it was
narrowed down to the discussion of serialism a range of questions arises.
One such question might be why only certain features harmonise in isolation. For instance, the feature roundness is not very prone to be a harmonic feature. Roundness harmony occurs only accompanying backness
harmony. Warlpiri, an Australian language illustrates this. In Warlpiri, suffixes agree with their lexical host in terms of roundness and backness, as
shown in (324a,b).
(324) Warlpiri harmony
a. kurdu-kurlu-rlu-lku-ju-lu
'child-Prop-Erg-then-me-they'
b. maliki-kirli-rli-lki-ji-li
'dog-Prop-Erg-then-me-they'
c. minija-kurlu-rlu-lku-ju-lu
'cat-Prop-Erg-then-me-they'
(Nash 1986: 86; cit. op. Inkelas 1994: 291)
However, if we consider (324c) as well it emerges that the harmonic feature

must be assumed to be backness, since with the stem vowel D, the harmonic
suffixes turn out with a back vowel, which is disharmonic with the stem
vowel in roundness. Again, roundness harmony is just a by-product of
backness harmony, triggered by the limits of the vowel inventory. Warlpiri
has neither a back unrounded high vowel nor a front rounded vowel.
Therefore, backness harmonic nonlow vowels harmonise with regard to
both features. Fronted vowels have to be unrounded, while backed vowels
have to be rounded. The inactivity of roundness becomes visible when the
only back unrounded vowel a triggers harmony in nonlow vowels. If
harmony is allowed in the height and backness dimension, why is the
feature roundness so reluctantly active in vowel harmony?
There have been several investigations on the psycho-linguistic reality
of patterns like vowel harmony. While working on Hungarian harmony, I
carried out a survey on the treatment of loan words. As noted in the section
on Hungarian, Hungarian speakers often do not know or at least hesitate as
to which form to choose when confronted with inflected nonsense words
containing possibly balanced or Trojan vowels. Such a behaviour challenges the assumption of harmony as an active phenomenon, while Harri-
260
General conclusion
son and Kaun's (2000) work on word games in harmony languages clearly
shows that harmony is an active part of the grammar and not a lexicalised
historical artefact.
Possible functional motivations of vowel harmony go in four directions.
Harmony might serve to facilitate the identification of word boundaries in
speech. Another motivation might lie in ease of articulation. If vowels
within a word resemble each other, the articulators do not have to be moved
as much as when adjacent vowels maximally diverge from each other. The
latter finds its precipitation in the assumption that harmony is in fact
neutralisation and, in OT terms, reduces violations of markedness constraints, as in the proposal by Beckman (1995, 1997). The markedness/neutralisation approach, however, has no answer to the question why in most
cases harmony is limited to the domain of the word. If vowel harmony
serves a word-identifying function, this is in accordance with the assumption made here that disruptions of harmony, as with balanced and Trojan
vowels, facilitate the maintenance and detection of phonemic contrasts. The
fourth possible functional motivation for harmony may lie in the reduction
of the complexity of stored items. If a contrast with respect to a certain
feature is neutralised in most positions of the word, the non-contrastive
vowels might bear any feature specification or none. It simply doesn't
matter. If non-specification results in higher mnemonic economy, this
should be the preferred underlying form of vowels which are harmonic with
their contrastively specified neighbour.
The assumption that vowel harmony serves a domain-identifying
function is compromised by the subtle differences the scope a harmony
requirement might have in different languages. As noted in the introduction, the harmonic domain includes the root plus all affixes in Finnish,
while all proclitics are excluded. In fast speech, however, proclitics undergo harmony, triggered by the next (i.e., first) vowel of their host. In Turkish, enclitics regularly participate as targets in the vowel harmony pattern,
while some affixes are excluded. In Somali, the scope of harmony covers
the whole clause. It remains to be examined in future research whether the
Somali grammar treats as one word what we would call a clause traditionally. Future research also has to shed light on the structural differences in
the clitic phonology of languages such as Turkish and Finnish. For the moment the notion of 'word' to be referred to when talking about the domain of
harmony is neither completely consistent with that of the prosodic or
phonological word nor with a morphological understanding of this term.
Outlook
261
Finally I would like to come back to an aspect of two of the major

concerns of this book. The behaviour of balanced vowels flies in the face of
the notion of strict locality, as assumed in N Chiosin and Padgett (1997,
2000). The patterning of a sequence of balanced vowels as one entity in
many cases challenges as well the prosodic view of harmony as syllable-tosyllable interaction. To circumvent this problem I assumed in the chapters
on balanced vowels in Finnish and on the behaviour and distribution of
Trojan vowels in Yoruba that the grammar treats the whole maximally
identical articulatory feature span as one unit. Further research has to bring
about clarity to the question whether featural nodes, segment positions, prosodic units or articulatorily defined domains are the targets of harmony
processes. There is a lively discussion on that issue going on for years in
the literature and it is to be hoped that this debate reveals new insights in
the near future.
Notes
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Note that the term 'disharmony' is used here, as in most of the literature, as
denoting the absence of harmony, which does not imply active dissimilation
of phonological features.
Here we run already into the first problem: Do feature bearers actually share a
feature or do they just have to be equal? The autosegmental representation in
(1b) is meant to leave room for both options.
For a further development of an articulator based theory of phonological
features see Halle, Vaux and Wolfe (2000).
However, the IPA vowel chart does not take tongue root position into consideration, which is to be transcribed by a subscript cross under the vowel for
tongue root advancement and a subscript horizontal bar for retraction. In the
following I will depart from this convention by simply using distinct symbols
from the vowel chart to transcribe vowels differing in tongue root position
(such as ( for the retracted and e for the advanced unrounded mid front
vowel, or the pair , / i, etc.).
The vowel harmony pattern of Yawelmani has been described as roundness
harmony by most phonologists (Archangeli 1985, Cole and Kisseberth 1995,
Goldsmith 1993, Kisseberth 1969, Kuroda 1967, McCarthy 1999). In the next
section and in chapter 6, I will give some arguments why this pattern should
rather be regarded as affecting the feature backness instead of roundness.
The fact that some languages with an impoverished vowel inventory, such as
Warlpiri, which has three vowels only, show vowel harmony (Nash 1980:
65), while some languages with an impressively overcrowded vowel system,
such as Alsacian German for example which has 21 vowels (Lass 1988), do
not even show a remnant of harmony, runs counter to Kaun's (1994, 1995)
generalisation on harmony and vowel systems. Kaun (1994: 86) suggests that
'where a particular contrast is perceptually difficult, that difficulty has as its
direct grammatical correlate a constraint of the "Bad Vowels Spread" family.'
As an effect, languages with crowded vowel systems should display harmony,
those with simple systems should not.
There are cases of rounded vowels in affixes, but these do not alternate in
assimilation to an adjacent rounded or unrounded vowel, see part II, chapter
4.3 for a detailed discussion of Turkish.
The text in round brackets has been added by the author to facilitate
comparison with the Wolof case of transparency.
264
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
Notes
However, low vowels do not always behave as blockers when they are
excluded from alternation. This can be illustrated with the harmony pattern of
Kinande (Schlindwein 1987). Kinande has an ATR harmony pattern. The
only vowel which cannot alternate with regard to ATR is the low vowel a,
because it lacks a [+ATR] counterpart. In Kinande, the low vowel exhibits the
same transparent pattern as do high vowels in Wolof.
The terminology is a bit confusing at this point. An opaque vowel is one
which does not agree in a certain feature specification with its neighbour to
one side and which starts a new harmony domain to the other side. It is
phonologically transparent in that there is no different intermediate representation to be assumed which triggers assimilation of the one neighbour or
resistance to assimilation to the other during the derivation. A transparent
vowel is transparent because the harmony span proceeds through this vowel
even though it has an antagonistic feature specification. Such a transparent
vowel behaves as phonologically opaque in that an abstract intermediate state
of this vowel can be assumed which triggers featural change in the neighbour
to its one side. Phonological opacity arises, then, by setting back the feature
specification of the transparent vowel to its original state. Thus, the meaning
of the labels transparency and opacity depends on the perspective from which
the respective vowel is seen.
Eastern Cheremis, a Uralic language, displays backness and roundness harmony, and the vowel is transparent to both processes, while the low vowel D
behaves opaquely (see the data in Odden, 1991).
The only other language I am aware of which displays consistently suffix
controlled (height) harmony is the Australian language Jingulu (Pensalfini,
2002). However, in this language only some affixes behave as triggers, while
others do not. Stem vowels never cause harmony in adjacent vowels. Pensalfini argues that this must be due to the morpho-syntactic properties of the
former affixes.
Walker (2002), however, reports that in some words the vowel preceding the
stressed vowel is raised as well, as in momnto 'moment' mumnti
'moments'. That is, the dialect is probably on the border between umlaut or
metaphony and harmony.
In some cases the process affects the two last low vowels, but never all
vowels of a word. The reader may be referred to Grijzenhout (1990) for more
details and a prosodic analysis.
One might argue, of course, that the umlauting affixes underlyingly contain
the umlaut feature specification but cannot realise it themselves due to markedness conditions on affix vowels. This would match the basic idea of Walker's analysis of the vowel alternations found in Veneto Italian. For an analysis of Umlaut in Optimality Theory see also Klein (1995).
Notes
265
16. Dutch, for instance, allows onsetless syllables, as in the word [(;t]
'real/really', while German requires glottal stop epenthesis in the same environment, compare German [(&t] 'real/really'.
17. In the tableaux (43, 44), epenthesised segmental material is indicated by .
Consonantal or vocalic quality is determined in maximal satisfaction of the
constraint H-NUC and markedness constraints, yielding schwa, e, i in the nucleus position as optimal in most languages and glottal stop or t in onset position as the optimal epenthetic segments.
18. However, the fact that languages with more crowded vowel systems are more
prone to introducing front rounded than back unrounded nonlow vowels gives
us a hint that maybe we need to assume two distinct constraints *[+round,
-back] as well as *[-round, +back] than rather only one which generally outrules vowels with differing feature specifications for roundness and backness.
19. Butska (1998) argues on the basis of data from Ukrainian for an account of
voicing assimilation in terms of MAX and DEP feature constraints rather than
Identity. Krmer (2000) shows that such an analysis is not appropriate for the
voicing phenomena found in Breton.
20. See in this respect as well the discussion in It and Mester (1999) and their
notion of Crisp Edge.
21. PCat = Prosodic Category, GCat = Grammatical Category
22. In fact Goad assumes the reason for this to lie outside of grammar.
23. The Shona pattern is slightly more complicated. Since the example only
serves the general understanding of Beckman's basic idea here, these complications are irrelevant in the current context.
24. Tunen, a Bantu language spoken in Cameroon, reportedly has prefixes that
trigger harmony in their following host. The language has dominant-recessive
ATR harmony. However, prefixes only trigger agreement in following
closed-class items, such as pronouns and numerals. With nouns and verbs
prefixes always behave as targets rather than triggers (Mous 1986).
25. In a series of experiments on speech segmentation, Vroomen, Tuomainen and
de Gelder (1998) found that Finnish listeners use word stress as well as vowel
harmony (i.e., instances of changes from back to non-back spans) as cues to
determine word boundaries.
26. An interesting point here is that even though Pulleyblank (1997) proposes
Identical Cluster Constraints (ICC), i.e. something very similar to Faithfulness constraints, to handle consonantal assimilation, he formalises assimilation between vowels as featural Alignment. (See section 2.4.1 for a discussion of the Alignment approach to vowel harmony.)
27. In Krmer (1998, 1999), Syntagmatic Identity was labelled 'Surface Identity'.
This was ambiguous since Output-Output Correspondence is also a kind of
'surface' relation, though a paradigmatic one. The term 'Syntagmatic Identity'
is more appropriate and less confusing.
266
Notes
28. For an exception to the strict segmental locality of voicing assimilation, see
the case studies in Walker (2000).
29. The problem is circumvented, of course, under the assumption that the harmonic features are privative. Under this view, nasality can spread from the
first underlying element in (69) to all other targets ignoring the absence of
nasality in intervening underlying elements.
30. The ban of such a configuration was also referred to as the condition against
discontinuous association in Archangeli and Pulleyblank (1987, 1994), van
der Hulst and Smith (1986). Odden (1994) proposes two adjacency parameters: syllable adjacency, which requires interacting material to be in adjacent syllables, and root node adjacency, which requires trigger and target of
a rule to be in adjacent root nodes.
31. The subscript italic l following the & sign in the definition stands for the local
domain, such as 'segment' or 'syllable' etc.
32. For a case study on Diyari see Crowhurst and Hewitt (1997).
33. Note that the implicational coordination does not promote constraint A. It
says just that in case A is satisfied, B has to be satisfied as well. In case of
violation of A the constraint coordination is not affected at all. Thus, implication does not prefer co-patterns of two distinct phenomena as logical conjunction does.
34. The ranking of INTEGRITYAffix above S-IDENT, whith the latter ranking
higher than INTEGRITYStem predicts a pattern in which stems trigger assimilation while affixes fail to do so. This pattern can be found in Yucatec Maya
(see Krmer 2001).
35. In (102), o, e, n belong to the [+ATR] set, and (, o, D are their [-ATR]
counterparts.
36. Clements is actually very careful in his formulation. Contrasting dominantrecessive and root controlled systems he states "[i]n dominant harmony
systems, dominant vowels occur in both roots and suffixes (but rarely in
prefixes, at least in Africa)." (Clements, 2000:135)
37. The high vowels in Yoruba and Futankoore Pulaar have no retracted counterpart. Nevertheless they behave as opaque rather than transparent. A closer
examination reveals a similar picture for Hungarian. See below in part II on
all three cases.
38. For an alternative proposal to formalise the OCP in OT see Alderete (1997).
For a similar proposal, i.e., the OCP as discorrespondence see Plag (1998).
39. According to van der Hulst and van de Weijer (1991), the suffix is -va:ri with
an invariant disharmonic front i. This poses no problem to the current analysis, since as an Arabic loan, and as a derivational, i.e., stem-forming, affix
with potential 'stem' status this morpheme has to be analysed like the other
disharmonic loans. See below in this section.
Notes
267
40. Affix glosses in the Pulaar examples are provided by the author and they are
to be interpreted as follows. CLASS = noun class marker, AG.NOM = agentive
nominaliser, DIM = diminutive, DIM.PL = diminutive plural. Note that Futankoore Pulaar has 21 noun class markers. To save the reader from complete
confusion these distinctions are not reflected in the glosses. See Paradis
(1992) on the noun class marking system of Futankoore Pulaar. For a survey
on Fula morphology see also Breedveld (1995).
41. Instead of being conceived of as a primitve constraint this constraint can also
be formalised as a logical implication, such as R-ANCHOR(affix, pwd)IOIDENT(F), which demands that whenever the Anchoring constraint mapping
the right edge of affixes with the right edge of a prosodic word is satisfied the
Identity constraint has to be satisfied for the affected affix as well.
42. There are alone eight faithfulness constraints of the MAX/DEP type referring
to tongue root position: MAXATR, MAXRTR, DEPATR, DEPRTR, MAXPATHATR, MAXPATHRTR, DEPPATHATR, DEPPATHRTR. For other features
which are suspected to be privative, such as rounding, of course the same
crowded constraint inventory has to be assumed in such an account. Binary
features, such as height, have at least an IO-Identity(F) constraint.
43. These data have been provided by Tuulikki Virta, a native speaker of Finnish.
Thank you!
44. The presence of disharmonic stems like verolla 'tax-adessive' is an argument
to include IO-IDENTstem above the harmony constraint and the BALANCE
constraint in the Finnish grammar. Since it does not contribute any insight
into the current discussion I skipped this detail in the tableaux to avoid unnecessary complexity; but see Ringen and Heinmki (1999) or Krmer (2002)
for further details of the analysis of disharmonic stems.
45. Finnish confirms this prediction. Compare the data below.
i. vrttin-ll-ni-hn
'with spinning wheel, as you know'
ii. palttina-lla-ni-han
'with linen cloth, as you know'
(van der Hulst and van de Weijer 1995: 499)
46. The symbol indicates the constraint which finally decides between the last
two candidates, i.e. the targeted constraint.
47. Walker (1998) proposes a Sympathy account of transparency in nasal
harmony, which is extended here to transparency in vowel harmony for the
sake of illustration. The acount given here differs from her approach technically in that I assume harmony to be an effect of a correspondence constraint
rather than an alignment constraint, and in that I denote the selector constraint
as well. She does not explicitly assign selector status to the harmony constraint, but the intercandidate faithfulness constraint is violated by candidates'
deviation from the candidate which fares best on the harmony constraint.
48. I would like to thank Thomas Gamerschlag for coming up with this metaphor.
268
Notes
49. The whole issue seems to be more complicated, however. In an informal investigation, I gave disharmonic words which are not yet loans in Hungarian to
three native speakers. They had to choose among two inflected forms with a
harmonising affix, one form showing the transparent pattern (i.e., back vowel
front vowel back affix vowel), one the opaque pattern (i.e., back vowel
front vowel front affix vowel). The result was that the speakers didn't really
know which form to choose. When I presented the same set of pairs to two of
them two weeks later, they had even changed their minds about some forms
which had been judged clearly before. One person told me that when confronted with an unknown word she searched for a known word that looked
similar, to find out what to do with the new one. If she didn't find any she was
in trouble. A more principled and controlled survey among native speakers is
necessary to find out what they do with new words. As long as this is not
done I will stick to the analysis developed here on theoretical grounds and on
the data available so far.
50. See http://www.uidaho.edu/nezperce/neemepoo.htm. Nevertheless I will refer
to the language as Nez Perce here. I will apply the same policy to Yawelmani,
which should be properly referred to as Yowlumne.
51. The variety of Yawelmani, or Yowlumne, analysed here and in most of the
literature is that reported by Newman (1944). Fieldwork by Hansson (1998)
has revealed that present day Yowlumne slightly differs with respect to the
harmony patterns.
52. Cole and Kisseberth motivate their constraint on lowering (LOWER: V
[low]) as strengthening of an element in one dimension (i.e. sonority), which
is already strong in another dimension (i.e., weight).
53. Hansson and Sprouse (1999) discuss the variety described by Newman (1944)
and Kuroda (1967) in comparison to the Yawelmani as it is spoken today by
the last remaining speakers. Interestingly, they have altered exactly this complicated part of the grammar. The result is that harmony has become sensitive
to output height for some low vowel affixes rather than input height, while in
other low vowel affixes alternation has ceased. This is not surprising since the
lack of harmony among lowered stem vowels and low affix vowels constitutes the most complicated part of the Yawelmani harmony grammar. See
below.
54. Note, though, that it is not inherent to the local conjunction which constraint
acts as the trigger and which one has to be satisfied. These properties are determined by the ranking of other constraints with respect to the local conjunction and with respect to each other. In an implicational constraint coordination, however, satisfaction of constraint number one enforces satisfaction of
constraint number two. Here the different functions of the participating constraints are determined by the architecture of the coordination.
Notes
269
55. See Kiparsky (1993), Inkelas (1994, 2000) and Inkelas, Orgun and Zoll
(1997) on this notion of underspecification and structural immunity.
56. Even though Prince and Smolensky (1993) also consider a serialist version of
Optimality Theory. See the discussion in McCarthy (1999) on this issue.
57. See the proposal in Krmer (1998). He defines the anti-insertion constraint
DEP(F) in a rather broad sense, demanding any correspondence relation, not
particularly IO correspondence for each feature specification in an output.
This allows for feature specifications to be supported exclusively by the syntagmatic correspondence relation. The effect is that it is more economic for
epenthesised vowels to take over the feature specifications of the neighbour
than to be supplied with the least marked feature specifications 'out of the
blue.'
58. This kind of underspecification must be kept strictly separate from cases
where underspecification of individual lexical entries (rather than classes of
morphemes) is explored by a grammar to establish a three-way phonemic
contrast of a binary feature (see, e.g. Krmer 2000).
In this appendix, the constraints are listed which are relevant in the analysis
of vowel harmony provided in this work.
Faithfulness constraints
{Right, Left}-ANCHOR(S1, S2) (McCarthy and Prince 1999)
Any element at the designated periphery of S1 has a correspondent at
the designated periphery of S2.
Let Edge(X, {L,R}) = the element standing at the Edge = L,R of X.
RIGHT-ANCHOR. If x = Edge(S1, R) and y = Edge(S2, R) then x
y.
LEFT-ANCHOR. Likewise, mutatis mutandis.
R/L-ANCHOR(root, pwd): Any element at the right/left edge of the root has
a correspondent at the right/left edge of the prosodic word.
DEP: 'A segment in the output has a correspondent in the input.'
IO-IDENT(F):
Let be a segment in S1 and be any correspondent of in S2.
If is [F] then is [F].
('Correspondent segments are identical in feature F.')
a. IO-IDENT(ATR) 'Correspondent segments in input and output are
identical in their specification of [ATR].'
b. IO-IDENT(bk) 'Correspondent segments in input and output are
identical in their specification of [back].'
c. IO-IDENT(hi) 'Correspondent segments in input and output are
identical in their specification of [high].'
272
d. IO-IDENT(lo) 'Correspondent segments in input and output are

identical in their specification of [low].'
e. IO-IDENT(rd) 'Correspondent segments in input and output are
identical in their specification of [round].'
f. IO-IDENTstem 'Correspondent stem segments in the input and in the
output are identical in feature F.'
Edge Identity:
a. IO-IDENTLeft: non-existent?
b. IO-IDENTRight: The rightmost consonant/vowel in the word is
identical to its correspondent in the input.
INTEGRITY "No Breaking"
For x S1 and w, z S2, if x w and x z, then w = z.
i. INTEGRITY(F) "No assimilation"
No feature of S1 has multiple correspondents in S2.
ii. Positional Integrity:
a. INTEGRITY(F)Affix
No feature of an affix in an input has multiple correspondents in
the output.
b. INTEGRITY(F)Root
No feature of a root in an input has multiple correspondents in the
output.
c. Universally preferred ranking: INTEGRITY(F)Affix >>
INTEGRITY(F)ROOT
MAX-IO: 'A segment in the input has a correspondent in the output.'
MAX : 'A mora in S1 has to have a correspondent in S2.'
273
SYNTAGMATIC IDENTITY (S-IDENT(F)):

Let x be an entity of type T in representation R and y be any adjacent
entity of type T in representation R, if x is [F] then y is [F].
Where T is a segment, mora, syllable, or foot.
(A segment, mora, syllable or foot has to have the same value for a
feature F as the adjacent segment, mora, syllable or foot in the
string.)
a. S-IDENT(ATR): Adjacent syllables are identical in their specification
of [ATR].
b. S-IDENT(bk): Adjacent syllables are identical in their specification of
[back].
c. S-IDENT(rd): Adjacent syllables are identical in their specification of
[round].
UNIFORMITY "No Coalescence" (McCarthy and Prince 1995: 371)
OCP: *S-IDENTITY(F):
Let x be a feature bearing unit in representation R and y be any
adjacent feature bearing unit in representation R, if x is [F] then y is
not [F].
a. *S-IDENT(bk): Adjacent syllables are not identical with respect to the
specification of [back].
b. *S-IDENT(lo): Adjacent syllables are not identical in the specification
of the feature [low].
Markedness constraints
*ALIEN: *[, )] or *[-lo, -rd, +bk]. 'No nonlow, back unrounded vowels.'
*[+ATR]: 'No vowels with advanced tongue root.'
*[+bk]: 'No back vowels.'
274
*COMPLEX: 'No complex onset, no complex coda.'

*[+hi]: 'No high vowels.'
*[+lo]: 'No low vowels.'
*[+rd]: 'No rounded vowels.'
*[+hi, -ATR]: 'No high retracted vowels.'
*[hi,long]: 'High long vowels are prohibited.'
*[+lo, +ATR]: 'No low advanced vowels.'
*[-lo, -rd, -bk]: 'No nonlow unrounded front vowels.'
*LORO *[+low, +round]: 'No low rounded vowels.'
ROBA: *[round, -back] 'Vowels have the same specificaton for
roundness and backness.'
*[+low, +long, +ATR]: 'No long low advanced vowels.'
*[]: 'No superheavy syllables.'
Complex constraints
{R/L-ANCHOR IO-IDENT(F)}: Complex constraint is violated if at least
one of the two constraints is violated by an element, which is subject
to both constraints, i.e. in the local domain.
Suffixation as LEFT-ANCHORING (i.e. Local disjunction):
LEFT-ANCHOR(root, pwd): The leftmost consonant/vowel of the root
has an identical correspondent in the leftmost consonant/vowel of the
prosodic word.
Prefixation as RIGHT-ANCHORING (i.e. Local disjunction):
275
RIGHT-ANCHOR(root, pwd): Any consonant/vowel at the right edge

of the root has an identical correspondent in the rightmost
consonant/vowel of the prosodic word.
BALANCE: *[-low / +high]&lS-ID(F)&l*S-ID(F)
BALANCE(ATR): *[+hi] &l S-IDENT(ATR) & l *S-IDENT(ATR)
'A feature bearing domain is not specified as high or it is identical in
ATR with its neighbour(s) or it is not identical in ATR with its
neighbour(s).'
span (i.e., a [+hi] span)
BALANCE(bk): *[-lo, -rd, -bk] &l S-IDENT(bk) &l *S-IDENT(bk)
'A feature bearing domain is not specified as nonlow unrounded and
front or it is identical in backness with its neighbour(s) or it is not
identical in backness with its neighbour(s).'
span (i.e., a [-lo, -rd, -bk] span)
*[-lo, -rd, -bk]&*S-IDENT(bk): 'An element should not violate the
markedness constraint against nonlow unrounded front vowels and
be harmonic with its neighbour.'
*[-ATR]&lIO-IDENT(ATR): 'An element is not [-ATR] and unfaithful to its
underlying ATR specification.'
*[+ATR]&lIO-IDENT(ATR): 'An element is not [+ATR] and unfaithful to
its underlying ATR specification.'
*[+hi]&lIO-IDENT(rd): 'An element cannot be a high vowel and not be
identical to its underlying roundness specification.'
*[-hi, -bk]&lIO-ID(hi): 'An element cannot violate the markedness
constraint against nonhigh front vowels as well as IO-Identity on the
feature height.'
Local conjunction TROY(F): *[-low / +high]&lIO-IDENT(F)&l*S-IDENT(F)
276
TROY(ATR) I or *[+hi]&lR-ANCHOR&l*S-ID(ATR): 'High vowels in the

rightmost syllable which cannot map their underlying ATR
specification to the surface disagree in ATR with their neighbour.'
Domain: [hi] span.
TROY(ATR) II or *[+hi, -bk]&lIO-ID(ATR)& l*S-ID(ATR): 'High front
vowels which cannot map their underlying ATR specification to the
surface disagree in ATR with their neighbour.'
TROY(bk): *[-lo, -rd, -bk]&lIO-IDENT(bk)&l*S-IDENT(bk)
UNIFORMVH: S-IDENT(F1)&l*S-IDENT(F2)
*[-lo]&lUNIFORMITY: 'Do not violate *[-lo] and UNIFORMITY in the same
instance.'
IO-IDENT(lo)&lS-IDENT(bk): 'Elements are not unfaithful to their height
specification as well as unfaithful to their neighbour with regard to
backness.'
The four-party constraint conjunction:

In this appendix you find the languages analysed in this book listed in
alphabetical order and accompanied by their main characteristics with
regard to their vowel system and affixation.
Dgma
(section 4.4)
West African language, Niger-Congo family

root controlled ATR harmony;
affixation to both sides of the root;
symmetric vowel system (all vowels have ATR and RTR
variant)
Dgma vowel inventory
front
back
advanced
i
u
high
retracted
,
8
advanced
e
o
mid
retracted
(
o
advanced
low
retracted
a
Diola Fogni
(4.5)
Northern Atlantic branch of Niger-Congo languages

dominant-recessive ATR harmony;
affixation to both sides of the root;
symmetric vowel system (all vowels have ATR and RTR
variant)
Diola Fogni vowel inventory
front
back
advanced
i
u
high
retracted
,
8
advanced
e
o
mid
retracted
(
o
advanced
)
low
retracted
$
278
Finnish
(5.1)
Finno-Ugric language
root controlled backness harmony;
suffixation;
asymmetric vowel system:
no backness contrast in unrounded nonlow vowels;
these vowels show balanced behaviour
Finnish vowels
high
mid
low
front
unrounded
rounded
i
y
e
back
unrounded
rounded
u
o
a
Futankoore
Pulaar
(4.6)
(member of Western group of Fula/ Peule/ Fulfulde dialects)

Kordofanian language, West Atlantic branch of NigerCongo family, spoken in West and central Africa
affix controlled ATR harmony;
suffixation;
ATR contrast only in mid vowels in the last syllable of
the word
Pulaar vowel inventory
front
back
advanced
i
u
high
retracted
advanced
e
o
mid
retracted
(
o
advanced
low
retracted
a
Hungarian
(6.1)
Finno-Ugric language
root controlled backness harmony;
suffixation;
backness contrast of unrounded high vowel underlyingly
only
279
Hungarian vowel inventory

front
unrounded
rounded
short long short long
high i [i]
[i:] [] [:]
mid ( [e]) [e:] [] [:]
low
e [(]
back
unrounded
rounded
short long short long
u [u] [u:]
o [o] [o:]
[a:] a [o]
Nez Perce
(6.3)
(Nee-Mee-Poo) Sahaptian language of Idaho

dominant-recessive ATR harmony;
extremely reduced surface vowel system;
two types of i , one behaves dominant, one recessive
Nez Perce harmony series
Dominant [-ATR]
Recessive [+ATR]
i
i
~u
o
a
4
Pulaar
See Futankoore Pulaar
Turkish
(4.3)
Turkic language
root controlled backness and roundness harmony;
suffixation;
completely symmetric vowel system;
o, only in leftmost stem syllable (except for loan words);
e,a opaque to rounding harmony in noninitial position
Turkish vowels
front back
i
[]
high
round
y
u
e
a
low
round
Wolof
(5.2)
Niger-Congo, Senegal
suffixation;
high vowels are advanced only;
high vowels are balanced
280
Wolof vowel inventory

high
mid
low
advanced
retracted
advanced
retracted
advanced
retracted
front
i
back
u
e
(
o
o
Yawelmani
(6.4)
(Yowlumne)
Valley Yokuts language, southern California
root controlled height-uniform backness harmony;
suffixation;
asymmetric vowel system: no length contrast in high
vowels;
underlyingly long high vowels are lowered;
harmony sensitive to underlying height
The Yawelmani vowel system
front
back
high
i, i:(e:)
u, u:(o:)
(mid)
(e)
low
a, a:
o, o:
Yoruba
(4.2, 6.2)
Niger-Congo, Nigeria
prefixation;
only mid vowels are symmetric with regard to ATR;
high and low vowels are opaque;
in rightmost root syllable, mid vowels are immune to
neighbouring high, low vowels;
high vowels are symmetric with regard to ATR
underlyingly only;
Underlying ATR contrast in high vowels is restricted to
rightmost root syllable
Yoruba vowel inventory

high
mid
low
advanced
retracted
advanced
retracted
advanced
retracted
front
i
back
u
e
(
o
o
a
281
References
Akinlabi, Akinbiji
1997
Kalabari vowel harmony. The Linguistic Review 14: 97-138.
Alderete, John
1997
Dissimilation as local conjunction. North East Linguistics Society
27: 17-32.
Anderson, John, and Jacques Durand
1988
Vowel harmony and non-specification in Nez Perce. In Features,
Segmental Structure and Harmony Processes, part II. Harry van der
Hulst and Norval Smith (eds.), 1-18. Dordrecht: Foris.
Anderson, Stephen R.
1969
An outline of the phonology of Modern Icelandic vowels. Foundations of Language. Vol. 5: 53-72.
1980
Problems and perspectives in the description of vowel harmony. In
Issues in Vowel Harmony, Robert Vago (ed.), 1-48. Amsterdam:
John Benjamins.
Aoki, Haruko
1966
Nez Perce vowel harmony and Proto-Sahaptian vowels. Language
42: 759-767.
1970
Nez Perce Grammar. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Archangeli, Diana
1985
Yokuts harmony: evidence for coplanar representation in nonlinear
phonology. Linguistic Inquiry 16: 335-372.
1988
Aspects of Underspecification Theory. Phonology 5: 183-207.
2000
Evaluation in OT. The Linguistic Review 17: 219-230.
Archangeli, Diana, and Douglas Pulleyblank
1987
Minimal and maximal rules: Effects of tier scansion. North East Linguistics Society 17: 16-35.
1989
Yoruba vowel harmony. Linguistic Inquiry 20: 173-217.
1994
Grounded Phonology. London, Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Archangeli, Diana, and D. Terence Langendoen (eds.)
1997
Optimality Theory. An Overview. Malden, Mass, Oxford: Blackwell
Publishers.
284
References
Archangeli, Diana, and Keiichiro Suzuki

1997
The Yokuts challenge. In Derivations and Constraints in Phonology,
Iggy Roca (ed.), 197-226. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Bakovic, Eric
2000
Harmony, dominance and control. PhD diss., Rutgers University,
New Brunswick.
Bakovic, Eric and Colin Wilson
2000
Transparency, strict locality, and targeted constraints. Proceedings
of the West Coast Conference in Formal Linguistics 19: 43-56.
Beckman, Jill N.
1995
Shona height harmony: markedness and positional identity. In
University of Massachusetts Occasional Papers in Linguistics 18:
53-75.
1997
Positional faithfulness, positional neutralisation and Shona vowel
harmony. Phonology 14: 1-46.
1998
Positional faithfulness. PhD diss. University of Massachusetts, Amherst. (Published 1999 as Positional Faithfulness: An Optimality
Theoretic Treatment of Phonological Asymmetries. New York: Garland Publishers)
Benua, Laura
1995
Identity effects in morphological truncation. University of Massachusetts Occasional Papers in Linguistics 18: 77-136.
1997
Transderivational identity: phonological relations between words.
PhD diss., University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
Berry, Lynn
1998
Alignment and adjacency in Optimality Theory: Evidence from
Warlpiri and Arrernte. PhD diss., University of Sydney.
Bodomo, Adams
1997
The Structure of Dagaare. Stanford, California: CSLI Publications.
Booij, Geert E.
1984
Neutral vowels and the autosegmental analysis of Hungarian vowel
harmony. Linguistics 22: 629-641.
Boyce, Susanne E.
1990
Coarticulatory organization for lip rounding in Turkish and English.
Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 88: 2584-2595.
Braunmller, Kurt
1991
Die skandinavischen Sprachen im berblick. Stuttgard: Francke.
References
285
Breedveld, J. O.
1995
Form and Meaning in Fulfulde. A Morphological Study of Maasinankoore. Leiden: CNWS Publications.
Buckley, Eugene
1996a
Constraint domains in Kashaya. Proceedings of the West Coast Conference in Formal Linguistics 14: 47-61.
1996b
Levels versus domains: the case of Kashaya vowel length. Proceedings of the Berkeley Linguistics Society 22: 36-45.
Burzio, Luigi
1996
Surface constraints versus underlying representations. In Current
Trends in Phonology: Models and Methods, Jacques Durand and
Bernard Laks (eds.), 97-122. Salford: University of Salford Publications.
1998
Multiple correspondence. Lingua 104: 79-109.
Butska, Luba
1998
Faithfulness to [voice] in Ukrainian: An analysis of voicing alternations within Optimality Theory. RuLing Papers 1. Rutgers University. 59-73.
Cahill, Mike
1999
Aspects of the morphology and phonology of Konni. PhD diss.,
Ohio State University.
Cahill, Mike and Adams Bodomo
2000
ATR harmony and syntax in Konni. Hand-out to talk given at the
North-American Phonology Conference 1.
Calabrese, Andrea
1995
A constraint-based theory of phonological markedness and simplification procedures. Linguistic Inquiry 26: 373-463.
Campbell, Lyle
1980
The psychological and sociological reality of Finnish vowel harmony. In Issues in Vowel Harmony, Robert Vago (ed.), 245-270.
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Canclini, Emanuela
1999
Die italienische Verbflexion: Eine morphophonologische Analyse.
M.A. Thesis. Heinrich-Heine-Universitt Dsseldorf.
Chomsky, Noam, and Morris Halle
1968
The Sound Pattern of English. New York: Harper & Row.
286
References
Clements, George N.
1976
Vowel Harmony in Nonlinear Generative Phonology: An Autosegmental Model. [Distributed by Indiana University Linguistics Club,
Bloomington (1980).]
1985
The geometry of phonological features. Phonology Yearbook 2. 225252.
2000
Phonology. In African Languages: An Introduction, Bernd Heine
and Derek Nurse (eds.), 123-160. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Clements, George N. and Elisabeth V. Hume
1995
The internal organization of speech sounds. In The Handbook of
Phonological Theory, John A. Goldsmith (ed.), 245-306. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.
Clements, George N. and Engin Sezer
1982
Vowel and consonant disharmony in Turkish. In The structure of
phonological representations, part II. Harry van der Hulst and Norval Smith (eds.), 213-256. Dordrecht: Foris.
Cole, Jennifer
1991
Planar Phonology and Morphology. New York: Garland Publishing.
Cole, Jennifer, and Charles W. Kisseberth
1994
An optimal domains theory of harmony. Studies in the Linguistic
Sciences 24: 101-114.
1994
Nasal harmony in optimal domains theory. Cognitive Science Technical Report UIUC-BI-CS 95-02 (Language Series) Beckman Institute University of Illinois. (ROA-49-0295)
1995
Restricting multi-level constraint evaluation: opaque rule interaction
in Yawelmani vowel harmony. Ms. University of Illinois, Urbana.
Cole, Jennifer, and Loren Trigo
1988
Parasitic harmony. In Features, Segmental Structure and Harmony
Processes, part II. Harry van der Hulst and Norval Smith (eds.), 1938. Dordrecht: Foris.
Crowhurst, Megan, and Mark Hewitt
1997
Boolean operations and constraint interaction in optimality theory.
Ms. ROA-229
Dell, Franois
1973
Les Rgles et les Sons. Paris: Hermann.
Doak, Ivy G.
1992
Another look at Coeur d'Alene harmony. International Journal of
American Linguistics 58: 1-35.
References
287
Donnelly, Simon
2000
Innovation in Tekela Nguni: superclose and tense/lax vowel harmonies in Phuthi. Hand-out to talk presented at LSSA 2000, Cape
Town, 12 January 2000.
Fry, Caroline
1998
Final Devoicing and the stratification of the lexicon in German. To
appear in the Proceedings of HILP 4, Vincent van Heuven, Harry
van der Hulst and Jeroen van de Weijer (eds.). (ROA-274-0798)
Fortune, G.
1955
An Analytical Grammar of Shona. London: Longmans, Green & Co.
Gafos, Diamandis
1998
Eliminating long-distance consonantal spreading. Natural Language
and Linguistic Theory. 16: 223-278.
Gnanadesikan, Amalia E.
1995
Markedness and faithfulness constraints in child phonology. Ms.
UMass., Amherst and Rutgers U. Revised version Nov. 29, 1995.
(ROA-67-0000)
1997
Phonology with ternary scales. PhD diss. UMass., Amherst: GLSA.
(ROA-195-0597)
Goad, Heather
1993
On the configuration of height features. PhD Diss., University of
Southern California.
1996
Consonant harmony in child language: Evidence against coronal
underspecification. In Proceedings of the UBC International
Conference on Phonological Acquisition, Barbara Bernhardt, John
Gilbert and David Ingram (eds.), 187-200. Somerville: Cascadilla
Press.
1997
Consonant harmony in child language: An optimality-theoretic account. In Focus on Phonological Acquisition, S.J. Hannahs and
Martha Young-Scholten (eds.), 113-142. Amsterdam/Philadelphia:
John Benjamins.
Goldsmith, John A.
1976
Autosegmental phonology. PhD diss., MIT.
1993
Harmonic phonology. In The last phonological rule: reflections on
constraints and derivations, John Goldsmith (ed.), 21-60. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Golston, Chris
1999
Feature geometry is syllable geometry. Ms. California State University Fresno.
288
References
2000
A prosodic theory of contrast. Ms. California State University

Fresno.
Grijzenhout, Janet
1990
Modern Icelandic foot formation. In Linguistics in the Netherlands
1990, Reineke Bok-Benema and Peter Coopmans (eds.), 53-62.
AVT Publications.
Grijzenhout, Janet, and Sandra Joppen
1998
First steps in the acquisition of German phonology: A case study.
Working papers Theorie des Lexikons. 110. Heinrich-Heine-Universitt Dsseldorf.
Grijzenhout, Janet, and Martin Krmer
2000
Final devoicing and voicing assimilation in Dutch derivation and
cliticization. In Lexicon in Focus, Barbara Stiebels and Dieter Wunderlich (eds.), 55-82. (Studia Grammatica 45.) Berlin: AkademieVerlag.
Hall, Beatrice L., and R. M. R. Hall
1980
Nez Perce vowel harmony: an africanist explanation and some
theoretical questions. In Issues in Vowel Harmony, Robert Vago
(ed.), 201-236. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Hall, Beatrice L., R. M. R. Hall, Martin D. Pam, Stephen A. Antell, and Godfrey
K. Cherono
1974
African Vowel harmony systems from the vantage point of Kalenjin.
Afrika und bersee, Band LVII:4, 1973/74. 241-267.
Halle, Morris, Bert Vaux and Andrew Wolfe
2000
On feature spreading and the representation of place of articulation.
Linguistic Inquiry 31: 387-444.
Hansson, Gunnar lafur
1998
Vowel harmony in present-day Yowlumne. Ms. University of California, Berkeley.
Hansson, Gunnar lafur and Ronald Sprouse
1999
Yowlumne vowel harmony then and now. In Proceedings of WSCLA
4, Marion Caldecott, Suzanne Gessner and Eun-Sook Kim (eds.),
39-57. (University of British Columbia Working Papers).
Harrison, K. David
2001
Altaic vowel harmony: Agree or align? Hand-out to talk presented at
the West Coast Conference in Formal Linguistics XX, 24 February
2001.
References
289
Harrison, K. David, and Abigail Kaun

2000
Pattern responsive lexicon optimization. North East Linguistics
Society 30: 327-340.
Hockett, Charles F.
1973
Yokuts as testing ground for linguistic methods. International Journal of American Linguistics 39: 63-79.
Hulst, Harry van der and Glyne L. Piggott
1995
Locality and the nature of harmony. Ms. Leiden University and
McGill University.
Hulst, Harry van der, and Norval Smith
1985
Vowel features and umlaut in Djingili, Nyangumarda and Warlpiri.
Phonology Yearbook 2: 277-303.
1986
On neutral vowels. In The Representation of Suprasegmentals, Koen
Bogers, Harry van der Hulst and Marten Mous (eds.), 233-279. Dordrecht: Foris.
Hulst, Harry van der, and Jeroen van de Weijer
1991
Topics in Turkish phonology. In Turkish linguistics today, Hendrik
Boeschoten and Ludo Verhoeven (eds.), 11-59. Leiden: Brill.
1995
Vowel harmony. In The Handbook of Phonological Theory, John A.
Goldsmith (ed.), 495-534. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.
Humbert, Helga
1995
Phonological segments: Their structure and behaviour. PhD diss.,
Holland Institute of Generative Linguistics.
Hyman, Larry M.
2002
'Abstract' vowel harmony in Klo1: A system-driven account. To
appear in Proceedings of the conference "Thories Linguistiques et
Langues Subsahariennes", P. Sauzet and A. Zribi-Hertz (eds.). Paris:
l'Harmattan.
Inkelas, Sharon
1994
The consequences of optimization for underspecification. In North
East Linguistics Society 25: 287-302.
2000
Phonotactic blocking through structural immunity. In Lexicon in
Focus, Barbara Stiebels and Dieter Wunderlich (eds.), 7-40. (Studia
Grammatica 45.) Berlin: Akademie Verlag.
Inkelas, Sharon, Orhan Orgun and Cheryll Zoll
1997
The implications of lexical exceptions for the nature of grammar. In
Derivations and Constraints in Phonology, Iggy Roca (ed.), 393418. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
290
References
It, Junko
1984
Melodic Dissimilation in Ainu. Linguistic Inquiry 15: 505-13.
It, Junko and Armin Mester
1998
Markedness and Word Structure: OCP Effects in Japanese. Ms., UC
Santa Cruz. (ROA-255-0498)
1999
Realignment. In The Prosody-Morphology Interface, Ren Kager,
Harry van der Hulst and Wim Zonneveld (eds.), 188-217. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
1999b
On the sources of opacity in OT: Coda processes in German. Ms.
UC Santa Cruz. (ROA-347-0999)
It, Junko, Armin Mester and Jaye Padgett
1995
Licensing and underspecification in Optimality Theory. Linguistic
Inquiry 26: 571-613.
Jacobsen, William H. Jr.
1968
On the Prehistory of Nez Perce Vowel Harmony, Language 44: 819829.
Jakobson, Roman, C. Gunnar M. Fant and Morris Halle
1951
Preliminaries to speech analysis: the distinctive features and their
correlates. (10th ed. 1972) Cambridge: MIT Press.
Ka, Omar
1988
Wolof Phonology and Morphology: A Non-Linear Approach. PhD
diss., University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign.
Kabak, Baris and Irene Vogel
2000
The Phonological Word and Stress Assignment in Turkish. Hand-out
to talk presented at the 22nd Annual Conference of the Deutsche
Gesellschaft fr Sprachwissenschaft, Phillips-Universitt Marburg, 2
March 2000.
2001
The Phonological Word and Stress Assignment in Turkish.
Phonology 18: 315-360.
Kager, Ren
1999
Optimality Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Karvonen, Daniel
2000
Morphologically-Influenced Stress in Finnish. Hand-out to talk presented at the 18th Scandinavian Conference of Linguistics, Lund
University, 20 May 2000.
Kaun, Abigail R.
1994
An Optimality-Theoretic Account of Rounding Harmony Typology.
Proceedings of the West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics
13: 78-92.
References
1995
291
The Typology of Rounding Harmony: An Optimality Theoretic

Approach. PhD diss., University of California Los Angeles.
Kaye, Jonathan
1995
Derivations and interfaces. In Frontiers in Phonology: Atoms, Structures, Derivations, Jacques Durand and Francis Katamba (eds.),
289-332. Harlow: Longman.
Kaye, Jonathan, Jean Lowenstamm and Jean-Roger Vergnaud
1985
The Internal Structure of Phonological Elements: A Theory of
Charm and Government. Phonology Yearbook 2: 305-328.
Kenstowicz, Michael
1979
Generative phonology: description and theory. New York: Academic Press.
1996
Base-identity and uniform exponence: alternatives to cyclicity. In
Current trends in phonology: models and methods, Jacques Durand
and Bernard Laks (eds.), 363-393. Salford: University of Salford
Publications.
Kenstowicz, Michael and Charles W. Kisseberth
1977
Topics in phonological theory. New York: Academic Press.
Kim, Chin Wu
1978
'Diagonal' Vowel Harmony?: Some Implications for Historical
Phonology. In Recent Developments in Historical Phonology, J.
Fisiak (ed.), 221-236. The Hague: Mouton.
Kiparsky, Paul
1971
Historical Linguistics. In A survey of linguistic science, W.O.
Dingwall (ed.), 576-642. College Park: University of Maryland Linguistics Program.
1973
Phonological Representations. In Three dimensions of linguistic
theory, O. Fujimura (ed.), 3-136. Tokyo: TEC.
1981
Vowel Harmony. Ms. MIT.
1993
Blocking in non-derived environments. In Phonetics and phonology
4: Studies in Lexical Phonology, Sharon Hargus and Ellen M. Kaisse
(eds.), 277-314. San Diego: Academic Press.
1999
Paradigm Effects and Opacity. Stanford: CSLI Publications.
2000a
Types of front/back harmony. Hand-out to talk presented in Utrecht,
June 2000.
2000b
Opacity, Sympathy, and Sound Change. Hand-out to talk presented
at Wuppertal Phonology Workshop, BUGH Wuppertal, 30 June
2000.
292
References
Kirchner, Robert
1993
Turkish Vowel Harmony and Disharmony: An Optimality Theoretic
Account. Paper presented at Rutgers Optimality Workshop I (ROW
I), October 22.
1996
Synchronic chain shifts in Optimality Theory. Linguistic Inquiry 27:
341-350.
Kisseberth, Charles W.
1969
On the abstractness of phonology: the evidence from Yawelmani.
Papers in Linguistics 1: 248-282.
Klein, Thomas B.
1995
Umlaut in Optimality Theory. PhD diss., University of Delaware.
Krmer, Martin
1998
A Correspondence Approach to vowel harmony and disharmony.
Working Papers Theorie des Lexikons 107. Heinrich-Heine-Universitt Dsseldorf. (Rutgers Optimality Archive no. ROA-2930199)
1999
On the role of prosodic and morphological categories in vowel
harmony and disharmony. A correspondence approach. In Proceedings of ConSOLE-7, Tina Cambier-Langeveld, Aniko Liptk,
Michael Redford and Eric Jan van der Torre (eds.), 183-199. Leiden:
SOLE.
2000
Voicing alternations and underlying representations: the case of
Breton. Lingua 110: 639-663.
2001
Yucatec Maya vowel alternations Harmony as Syntagmatic Identity. Zeitschrift fr Sprachwissenschaft 20: 175-217.
2002
Local conjunction and neutral vowels in Finnish harmony. In Belfast
Working Papers in Language and Linguistics 15: 38-64. University
of Ulster.
Krmer, Martin and Dieter Wunderlich
1999
Transitivity alternations in Yucatec, and the correlation between
aspect and argument roles. Linguistics 37: 431-479.
Kuroda, S.-Y.
1967
Yawelmani phonology. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.
Kspert, Klaus-Christian
1988
Vokalsysteme im Westnordischen: Islndisch, Frisch, Westnorwegisch. Prinzipien der Differenzierung. Tbingen: Niemeyer.
References
293
Lakoff, George
1993
Cognitive phonology. In The last phonological rule: reflections on
constraints and derivations, John Goldsmith (ed.), 117-145. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lamontagne, Greg and Keren Rice
1995
A Correspondence Account of Coalescence. University of Massachusetts Occasional Papers in Linguistics 18: 211-224.
Leben, William R.
1973
Suprasegmental Phonology. PhD diss. MIT.
Lewis, G. L.
1967
Turkish Grammar. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Lombardi, Linda
1996
Restrictions on direction of voicing assimilation: an OT account.
University of Maryland Working Papers in Linguistics 4: 84-102.
(ROA- 246-0298)
1999
Positional Faithfulness and Voicing Assimilation in Optimality
Theory. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 17: 267-302.
ubowicz, Anja
1999
Derived Environment Effects in OT. Proceedings of the West Coast
Conference in Formal Linguistics 17: 451-465.
Maas, Utz
1999
Phonologie: Einfhrung in die funktionale Phonetik des Deutschen.
Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag.
McCarthy, John J.
1984
Theoretical Consequences of Montas Vowel Harmony. Linguistic
Inquiry 15: 291-318.
1986
OCP Effects: Gemination and Antigemination. Linguistic Inquiry
17: 207-263.
1995
Extensions of faithfulness: Rotuman revisited. Ms. University of
Massachusetts, Amherst. (ROA 110-0000)
1999
Sympathy and Phonological Opacity. Phonology 16: 331-399.
McCarthy, John J. and Alan S. Prince
1993
Generalized Alignment. In Yearbook of Morphology, Geert Booij
and Jaap van Marle (eds.), 79-153. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
1995
Faithfulness and Reduplicative Identity. University of Massachusetts
Occasional Papers in Linguistics 18: 249-384.
1999
Faithfulness and Identity in Prosodic Morphology. In The prosodymorphology interface, Ren Kager, Harry van der Hulst and Wim
Zonneveld (eds.), 218-309. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
294
References
Mithun, Marianne
1999
The Languages of Native North America. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Mous, Marten
1986
Vowel Harmony in Tunen. In The Phonological Representation of
Suprasegmentals, Koen Bogers, Harry van der Hulst and Marten
Mous (eds.), 281-295. Dordrecht: Foris.
Nash, David G.
1979
Warlpiri vowel assimilations. In Papers on Syllable Structure, Metrical
Structure and Harmony Processes, K. Safir (ed.), 12-24. (MIT Working Papers in Linguistics vol 1.) Cambridge, Mass.
1986
Topics in Warlpiri grammar. (Outstanding dissertations in Linguistics.) New York: Garland.
Nespor, Marina and Irene Vogel
1986
Prosodic Phonology. Dordrecht: Foris.
Newman, Stanley
1944
Yokuts language in California. New York: Viking Fund.
N Chiosin, Mire
1991
Topics in the Phonology of Irish. PhD diss., University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
N Chiosin, Mire and Jaye Padgett
1997
Markedness, Segment Realisation, and Locality in Spreading. Ms.
University College, Dublin and University of California, Santa Cruz.
2000
Markedness, Segment Realisation, and Locality in Spreading.
(Revised version of N Chiosin and Padgett 1997). In Constraints
and representations: segmental phonology in Optimality Theory,
Linda Lombardi (ed.), 118-156 Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Noske, Manuela
2000
[ATR] Harmony In Turkana: A Case Of Faith Suffix >> Faith Root.
Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 18: 771-812.
Noske, Roland
1984
Syllabification and syllable changing processes in Yawelmani. In
Advances in nonlinear phonology, Harry van der Hulst and Norval
Smith (eds.), 335-361. Dordrecht: Foris.
Odden, David
1991
Vowel geometry. Phonology 8: 261-289.
1994
Adjacency parameters in phonology. Language 70: 289-230.
References
1996
295
The Phonology and Morphology of Kimatuumbi. Oxford: Clarendon

Press.
Olsson, Magnus
1992
Hungarian Phonology and Morphology. Lund: Lund University
Press.
Padgett, Jaye
1995
Feature Classes. University of Massachusetts Occasional Papers in
Linguistics 18: 385-420.
Paradis, Carole
1992
Lexical Phonology and Morphology: The Nominal Classes in Fula.
New York, London: Garland.
Paulian, Christiane
1986a
Les voyelles en n-klo1(: sept phonmes, mais... . Cahiers du
LACITO 1. CNRS, Paris. 51-65.
1986b
Les parlers yambasa du Cameroun (Bantou A.62) (dialectomtrie
lexicale). In La mthode dialectomtrique applique aux langues
africaines, Gladys Guarisma and Wilhelm J. Mhlig (eds.), 243279. Berlin: Dietrich Reimer Verlag.
2001
Lexique klo1-franais (in Filemaker ProTM).
Pensalfini, Rob
2002
Vowel harmony in Jingulu. Lingua 112: 561-586.
Piggott, Glyne L.
1996
Implications of Consonant Nasalization for a Theory of Harmony.
Canadian Journal of Linguistics/Revue canadienne de linguistique
41: 141-174.
1999
At the right edge of words. The Linguistic Review 16: 143-185.
Plag, Ingo
1998
Morphological haplology in a constraint-based morpho-phonology.
In Phonology and Morphology of the Germanic Languages, Wolfgang Kehrein and Richard Wiese (eds.), 199-215. Tbingen: Niemeyer.
Polgrdi, Krisztina
1998
Vowel Harmony. An Account in Terms of Government and Optimality. The Hague: Holland Academic Graphics.
1999
Vowel harmony and disharmony in Turkish. The Linguistic Review
16: 187-204.
Popescu, Alexandra
2000
The morphophonology of the Romanian clitic sequence. Lingua 110:
773-799.
296
References
Prince, Alan
1987
Planes and copying. Linguistic Inquiry 18: 491-510.
Prince, Alan and Paul Smolensky
1993
Optimality Theory: Constraint Interaction in Generative Grammar.
Ms., Rutgers University and University of Colorado.
Pulleyblank, Douglas
1996
Neutral Vowels in Optimality Theory: A Comparison of Yoruba and
Wolof. Canadian Journal of Linguistics/Revue canadienne de linguistique 41: 295-347.
1997
Optimality Theory and Features. In Optimality Theory, Diana
Archangeli and D. Terence Langendoen (eds.), 59-101. Oxford:
Blackwell Publishers.
Pulleyblank, Douglas, Ping Jiang-King, Myles Leitch and Nik la
1995
Typological variation through constraint rankings: Low vowels in
tongue root harmony. To appear in Proceedings of the Arizona
Phonology Conference.
Pullum, Geoffrey
1976
The Duke of York gambit. Journal of Linguistics 12: 83-102.
Rigsby, Bruce J.
1965
Continuity and Change in Sahaptian Vowel Systems. International
Journal of American Linguistics 31: 306-311.
Rigsby, Bruce J. and Michael Silverstein
1969
Nez Perce Vowels and Proto-Sahaptian Vowel Harmony. Language
45: 45-59.
Ringen, Catherine O.
1975
Vowel Harmony: Theoretical Implications. PhD diss. Indiana University.
Ringen Catherine O. and Orvokki Heinmki
1999
Variation in Finnish Vowel Harmony: An OT Account. Natural
Language and Linguistic Theory 17: 303-337.
Ringen, Catherine O. and Robert M. Vago
1995
A Constraint Based Analysis of Hungarian Vowel Harmony. In
Approaches to Hungarian Vol. 5: Levels and Structures, I. Kenesi
(ed.), 307-320. Szeged: Jate.
1998
Hungarian vowel harmony in Optimality Theory. Phonology 15:
393-416.
Sagey, Elizabeth
1990
The Representation of Features in Non-Linear Phonology. New York:
Garland Publishing.
References
297
Schlindwein, Deborah
1987
P-bearing units: A study of Kinande vowel harmony. North-East
Linguistics Society 17: 551-556.
Selkirk, Elizabeth O.
1995
The Prosodic Structure of Function Words. University of Massachusetts Occasional Papers 18: 439-470.
Skousen, Royal
1975
Substantive evidence in phonology: the evidence from Finnish and
French. The Hague: Mouton.
Smolensky, Paul
1993
Harmony, markedness, and phonological activity. Paper presented at
Rutgers Optimality Workshop-1 at Rutgers University: New Brunswick, NJ, October 1993.
1995
On the internal structure of the constraint component of UG.
Colloquium presented at University of California: Los Angeles,
April 7, 1995.
Spencer, Andrew
1986
Vowel Harmony, Neutral Vowels and Autosegmental Theory.
Lingua 69: 3-21.
Steriade, Donca
1986
Yokuts and the vowel plane. Linguistic Inquiry 17: 129-146.
1987
Redundant Values. Proceedings of the Chicago Linguistic Society
23: 339-363.
1995
Underspecification and Markedness. In The handbook of phonological theory, John Goldsmith (ed.), 114-174. Oxford: Basil
Blackwell.
Tesar, Bruce and Paul Smolensky
1998
Learnability in Optimality Theory. Linguistic Inquiry 29: 229-268.
2000
Learnability in Optimality Theory. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.
Ussishkin, Adam Panther
2000
The emergence of fixed prosody. PhD diss., University of California, Santa Cruz.
Vago, Robert M.
1973
Abstract Vowel Harmony Systems in Uralic and Altaic Languages.
Language 49: 579-605.
1988
Underspecification in the height harmony system of Pasiego.
Phonology 5: 342-362.
298
References
Vlimaa-Blum, Riitta
1999
A feature-geometric description of Finnish vowel harmony covering
both loans and native words. Lingua 108: 247-268.
Vroomen, Jean, Jyrki Tuomainen and Beatrice de Gelder
1998
The Roles of Word Stress and Vowel Harmony in Speech Segmentation. Journal of Memory and Language 38: 133-149.
Walker, Rachel
1998
Nasalization, Neutral Segments, and Opacity Effects. PhD diss.,
University of California, Santa Cruz. (ROA-405-08100)
1999
Reinterpreting Transparency in Nasal Harmony. Ms. University of
California, Santa Cruz. (ROA 306-0399)
2000
Consonantal Correspondence. Ms. University of California, Santa
Cruz. (ROA-379-02100)
2001
Positional Markedness in Vowel Harmony. Hand-out of talk presented at HILP 5, University of Potsdam, 11 January 2001.
2002
Prosodically Weak Triggers. Hand-out to talk presented at the 10th
Manchester Phonology Meeeting, Manchester, U.K., 23-25 May
2002.
Wheeler, Deirdre and David Touretzky
1993
A connectionist implementation of cognitive phonology. In The last
phonological rule: reflections on constraints and derivations, John
Goldsmith (ed.), 146-172. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Wunderlich, Dieter and Renate Lakmper
2001
On the interaction of structural and semantic case. Lingua 111: 377418.
Zwicky, Arnold
1971
More on Nez Perce: On Alternative Analyses, International Journal
of American Linguistics 37: 122-126.
Index
acquisition 19497, 242
affix control 35, 38, 42, 13747,
247
Ainu 14, 105

Akan 30
Akinlabi, A. 12
Alderete, J. 80, 266
alignment 57, 6266, 68, 71, 83,
89, 145, 14748, 183, 243
generalized 57
Altai 16
anchoring 58, 83, 90, 96104, 113,
11523, 133, 140, 206, 248
Anderson, J. 8
Anderson, S. R. 3, 29, 35, 41
Antell, S. 8, 18, 19, 24, 237
Aoki, H. 37, 211
Archangeli, D. 4, 8, 23, 28, 30, 37,
71, 116, 117, 146, 147, 205, 255
archephonemic
underspecification 38
articulation 20, 21, 24, 26
asymmetric cooccurrence pattern
102, 115, 124, 135, 149, 182,

183, 189, 202, 210, 244, 247, 252
balance 32, 1047, 190, 194, 246,
249
Bantu 7, 12, 13, 16, 232, 253
base 39, 42, 50, 58, 90, 149, 252
base-output correspondence 58,
252
Bashkir 22
Beckman, J. 8, 40, 42, 59, 61, 62,
63, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 91, 96, 97,
101, 102, 148, 257, 260, 265
Benua, L. 58, 149, 252
Berry, L. 9, 22
Bodomo, A. 11, 25
Booij, G. 29
bottleneck effect 24, 74
Boyce, S. 43
Braunmller, K. 40
Breedveld, J. 35, 39, 145, 267
Breton 80, 265
Burzio, L. 58
Butska, L. 265
96
ATR harmony 8, 11, 12, 13, 17,

18, 27, 28, 36, 41, 104, 11520,
13344, 17281, 200215, 237,
277, 278, 279, 280
backness harmony 7, 10, 13, 17,

18, 19, 33, 12033, 15872, 188
200, 215, 21732, 259, 278, 280
bad vowels 263
Bakovi, E. 29, 31, 35, 36, 38, 42,
62, 65, 68, 69, 80, 87, 89, 91, 95,
Cahill, M. 25
Calabrese, A. 29, 43
Campbell, L. 43, 165, 166
Canclini, E. 224, 243
Castilian Spanish 41
Chadic 8
Chamorro 6
Cherono, G. 8, 18, 19, 24, 237
Chomsky, N. 5, 6, 150, 211
Chulym Tatar 16
Chumburung 11
300
Index
Clements, G. 3, 5, 6, 10, 17, 22,

23, 30, 37, 63, 64, 102, 122, 126,
266
Clements, N. 43
clitic group 25
cluster 61, 64, 70, 74, 223, 232
coalescence 93, 95, 223, 224, 235
coda 51, 60, 64, 81, 86, 103, 223,
233
Coeur d'Alene 22
Cole, J. 4, 9, 15, 29, 62, 75, 89,
216, 217, 218, 232, 233, 237,
238, 239, 240, 242, 263, 268
consonant harmony 65
constraint conjunction 78, 81, 82,
84, 95, 135, 165, 166, 168, 213,
227, 232, 238, 245, 249, 253
constraint coordination 7788,
98110, 178, 187, 203, 229, 230,
245, 250, 25658
constraint disjunction 77, 98, 101,
274
containment 55, 238
contrast 59, 60, 81, 99, 104, 106,
108, 110, 119, 146, 182, 194,
200, 205, 215, 226, 237, 238,
251, 258, 260
co-phonologies 231
co-relevance 87
correspondence 54, 55, 58, 62
counterbleeding opacity 250
counterfeeding opacity 251
Crowhurst, M. 77, 84, 85, 90, 109,
245, 266
Cushitic 8
cyclic derivation 28, 42
cyclicity 42, 49, 82, 89, 150, 202,
250
Dagaare 11, 12, 17

Dgma 64, 96, 113, 115, 13335,
277
Dell, F. 4
derived environment effect 82,
253
Diola Fogni 8, 96, 115, 13537,

152, 277
directionality 28, 63, 97, 113, 117,

148
disharmony 3, 13, 47, 97, 105,

107, 109, 118, 122, 126, 158,
169, 176, 202, 204, 227, 249
Diyari 266
Doak, I. 22
dominance 35, 37, 42, 48, 96, 135
37, 20915
Donnelly, S. 16, 108
Duke-of-York-Gambit 31, 240,
251
Durand, J. 8
Dutch 26, 64, 129, 265
Eastern Cheremis 11, 17

Eastern Mongolian 16
Eastern Ojibwa 103
Enarve Vepsian 170, 171
epenthesis 52, 53, 55, 57, 64, 68,
216, 223, 231, 23236
faithfulness 55
feature
binary 36, 37, 43, 56, 267, 269
floating 34, 45, 47, 89, 145, 187,
189, 243
non-equipolent 48
privative 36, 37, 43, 56, 68, 146,
183, 243
ternary 43
unary 37, 44, 47
feature geometry 6, 17, 23, 24, 71,
76
Fry, C. 80
final devoicing 59, 61, 8082, 86
Index
301
Finnish 6, 7, 17, 25, 26, 30, 32, 76,
height uniformity 15, 215, 216,
104, 113, 141, 155, 157, 15872,

182, 188, 189, 190, 195, 255,
260, 261, 265, 267, 278
Finno-ugric 278
foot 72, 73, 160
formant 21
Fortune, G. 67
free variation 26, 199
French 26, 209
217, 218, 219, 232, 233, 234,

240, 249
Heinmki, O. 159, 166, 182, 186,
267
Hewitt, M. 77, 84, 85, 90, 109,
245, 266
Hixkaryana 16
Hockett, C. 4
Hulst, H. van der 6, 7, 9, 11, 13,
21, 22, 26, 27, 30, 37, 38, 43, 44,
45, 46, 68, 72, 121, 127, 128,
266, 267
Humbert, H. 72
Hume, E. 6, 23, 37, 43
Hungarian 30, 33, 34, 46, 89, 96,
107, 108, 113, 157, 182, 187,
188200, 202, 203, 204, 210,
211, 212, 213, 216, 243, 244,
255, 259, 266, 278, 279
hybrid 26, 34, 199
Hyman, L. 13, 14, 232
Fula See Futankoore Pulaar

Fulfulde See Futankoore Pulaar
Futankoore Pulaar 8, 38, 96, 103,
113, 114, 13747, 150, 152, 153,

247, 266, 278, 279
Gafos, D. 66
Gelder, B. de 26, 43, 265
German 3, 57, 59, 60, 61, 80, 81,
82, 86, 263, 265
Gnanadesikan, A. 70, 71, 194

Goad, H. 17, 65, 265
Goldsmith, J. 4, 45, 105, 218, 223,
235, 237, 238, 263
Golston, C. 72
Grijzenhout, J. 40, 63, 64, 129,
194, 264
grounded phonology 71
Hall, B. 8, 18, 19, 24, 189, 209,
211, 237
Hall, R. 8, 18, 19, 24, 189, 209,
211, 237
Halle, M. 5, 6, 29, 43, 150, 211,
263
Hansson, G. 231, 268
Harrison, K. 38, 147, 255, 256,
260
height harmony 8, 11, 17, 20, 41,
61, 66, 148, 232
height uniform harmony See

height uniformity
Icelandic 40, 41
Igbo 11
implication 77, 85, 220, 267
Inkelas, S. 9, 38, 62, 141, 142, 254,
259, 269
intermediate representation 31,

58, 77, 237
inventory, phonemic 104

inventory, vowel 107, 115, 133,
134, 135, 137, 172, 174, 188,
190, 201, 209, 212, 215, 219, 259
Italian 39, 243
It, J. 14, 60, 65, 75, 78, 80, 105,
265
Jacobsen, W. 211
Jiang-King, P. 62, 133
Jingulu 264
Joppen, S. 194
302
Index
Ka, O. 29
Kabak, B. 25, 75, 127, 128, 130
Kachin 16
Kager, R. 58, 252, 253
Klo1 17, 232
Kalabari 17
Kalenjin 8, 36, 135
Karakalpak 16
Karvonen, D. 160
Kaun, A. 7, 16, 21, 38, 62, 108,
219, 237, 247, 255, 256, 260, 263
Kaye, J. 6, 37, 44, 132
Kenstowicz, M. 4, 58, 252
Khalkha-Mongolian 7
Kikongo 17, 72
Kikuyu 7
Kim, C. 211
Kimatuumbi 12, 13, 17
Kinande 107, 264
Kiparsky, P. 6, 7, 29, 31, 32, 77,
160, 162, 166, 170, 211, 218,
250, 269
Kirchner, R. 43, 62, 63, 89, 121,
131, 253
Kirghiz-B 16
Kisseberth 4
Kisseberth, C. 9, 15, 29, 62, 75,
89, 216, 217, 218, 232, 233, 237,
238, 239, 240, 242, 263, 268
Klao 13
Klein, T. 264
Kordofanian 278
Krmer, M. 14, 23, 43, 62, 63, 64,
69, 71, 74, 76, 80, 93, 105, 125,
129, 224, 247, 265, 266, 267, 269
Kuroda, S-Y. 4, 11, 218, 223, 233,
263, 268
Kspert, K.-C. 40
Kyzyl Khakass 16
labial harmony See roundness

harmony
Lakmper, R. 98
Lakoff, G. 4
Lamba 72
Lamontagne, G. 92, 96
Leben, W. 45, 105
Leitch, M. 62, 133
levels of representation 44, 77,
218, 238
Lewis, G. 127, 132

lexical representation 189, 194,
198
lexicon optimization 38, 141, 252,

254, 255, 256
local conjunction 78, 81, 96, 106,

108, 109, 135, 136, 163, 164,
186, 189, 190, 192, 203, 206,
212, 213, 218, 220, 223, 224,
227, 228, 230, 231, 238, 245,
249, 253, 257
locality 29, 30, 44, 45, 71, 73, 75,
76, 157, 159, 160, 178, 182, 183,
186, 261
locality (of constraint

coordination) 85
Lombardi, L. 59, 61, 63, 64, 65,
69, 70, 80, 95
Lowenstamm, J. 6, 37, 44
lowering 4, 22, 177, 204, 216, 218,
219, 222, 225, 226, 234, 236,
237, 240, 241
ubowicz, A. 80, 82, 83, 84, 87,
98, 253
Luo 8
Maasai 8
markedness 54
McCarthy, J. 4, 31, 35, 41, 45, 54,
55, 56, 57, 58, 62, 70, 89, 92,
105, 114, 124, 125, 142, 154,
185, 216, 218, 223, 224, 240,
241, 242, 244, 247, 248, 251,
252, 253, 263, 269, 271, 273
Mester, A. 60, 65, 75, 78, 80, 265
Index
metaphony 40, 264

meta-ranking 35, 78, 96, 154, 247
Mithun, M. 22
mora 3, 23, 40, 72, 73, 74, 105,
109, 147, 180, 181, 222, 223, 236
morphological control 42, 44, 48,

96, 247
Mous, M. 265
Murut 16
nasal 8, 17, 70, 71, 72, 74, 160

nasals 71, 103
Nash, D. 9, 259
Nee-Mee-Poo See Nez Perce
Nespor, M. 25
Newman, S. 4
Nez Perce 8, 37, 187, 189, 20915,
244, 279
N Chiosin, M. 24, 71, 74, 182,

261
Niger-Congo 8, 11, 12, 277, 278,

279, 280
Nilo-Saharan 8
non-surface-apparent opacity 240
non-surface-true opacity 240
Noske, M. 35
Noske, R. 4
Obligatory Contour Principle See
OCP
OCP 45, 46, 105, 163, 168, 170,
172, 178, 190, 193, 199, 200,
203, 204, 218, 219, 227, 229,
230, 249
Odden, D. 6, 11, 13, 16, 17, 21, 23,
43, 65, 71, 76, 264, 266
Ola, N. 62, 133
Olsson, M. 34, 192, 196, 198, 199
opaque vowel 26, 27, 30, 32, 34,
35, 44, 46, 48, 90, 91, 92, 97,
113, 114, 120, 149, 154, 162,
303
172, 180, 185, 186, 198, 200,

218, 225, 244
Orgun, O. 269
Padgett, J. 24, 43, 62, 65, 71, 74,

75, 182, 261
Pkot 8
palatal harmony See backness
harmony
Pam, M. 8, 18, 19, 24, 237
Paradis, C. 35, 38, 39, 137, 138,
139, 145, 146, 267
Pasiego Montaes 41
pathological ranking 154, 248
Paulian, C. 13
Pensalfini, R. 264
Peule See Futankoore Pulaar

phonological opacity 31, 48, 77,
84, 89, 186, 218, 240, 242, 244,
245, 247, 249, 250, 251, 253
Phuthi 16, 108
Piggott, G. 9, 72, 103, 160
Plag, I. 266
Polgrdi, K. 132
Polish 83, 84
Popescu, A. 224
positional faithfulness 59, 61, 66,
68, 86, 90, 91, 93, 97, 99, 102,
109, 140, 148, 204, 247, 253, 256
Prince, A. 4, 35, 49, 50, 52, 54, 55,
56, 57, 58, 62, 70, 78, 92, 98,
114, 123, 124, 125, 142, 154,
194, 224, 238, 247, 248, 252,
255, 269, 271, 273
Pulleyblank, D. 8, 23, 28, 29, 30,
33, 36, 37, 62, 66, 70, 71, 72, 89,
115, 116, 117, 133, 147, 172,
173, 180, 183, 205, 206, 243,
265, 266
Pullum, G. 31, 240
Rice, K. 92, 96
304
Index
richness of the base 50, 123, 194,

255
Rigsby, B. 211
Ringen, C. 7, 29, 34, 62, 89, 159,
166, 182, 186, 188, 189, 243, 267
root control 247
roundness harmony 7, 10, 11, 13,
15, 17, 18, 20, 108, 113, 12033,
215, 219, 232, 237, 238, 279
Sagey, E. 9
Sahaptian 279
Schlindwein, D. 107, 264
selector 185, 241
Sezer, E. 10, 22, 63, 64, 122, 126
shared argument criterion 85, 87
Shona 7, 8, 17, 61, 66, 67, 96, 102,
113, 148, 265
Silverstein, M. 211
Skousen, R. 25
Smith, N. 9, 30, 37, 43, 44, 45, 46,
68, 266
Smolensky, P. 29, 42, 49, 50, 52,

54, 62, 78, 89, 98, 123, 194, 238,
252, 255, 269
Somali 8, 18, 19, 24, 25, 260
Southern-Payute 7
Spencer, A. 29
Sprouse, R. 231, 268
Stem-Affixed-Form-Faithfulness
42, 90, 124, 253
Steriade, D. 4, 29, 37, 255

structure preservation 104, 162,
213
Suzuki, K. 4
syllable 3, 23, 40, 47, 51, 59, 62,
72, 73, 75, 109, 117, 148, 167,
216, 218, 225
sympathy 31, 89, 157, 185, 202,
216, 240, 241, 242, 244, 253
syntagmatic correspondence 70,
71, 73
Tamil 96
Tangale 8, 27, 28, 32
targeted constraint 31, 90, 18385,
186, 211, 215
Tesar, B. 194
tone sandhi 24
tongue root harmony See ATR
harmony
Touretzky, D. 4
transparent vowel 29, 48
Trojan vowel 26, 34, 44, 46, 48,
1078, 172, 187237, 242, 249,
259, 261
Tsou 16
Tunen 265
Tungusic 16
Tunica 11, 16, 23
Tuomainen, J 26, 43, 265
Turkana 35, 38, 253
Turkic 6, 7, 10, 96, 279
Turkish 7, 10, 11, 15, 16, 17, 18,
19, 22, 25, 32, 63, 64, 68, 69, 75,
96, 113, 114, 12033, 141, 149,
152, 153, 161, 190, 200, 252,
253, 254, 255, 260, 263, 279
umlaut 3, 15, 40, 41, 264, 289

underspecification 37, 38, 46, 89,
123, 142, 157, 231, 254
underspecification, contrastive
255
underspecification, radical 255

Ussishkin, A. 247
Uyghur 29, 170, 171, 172
vacillating stems See hybrid
Vago, R. 29, 34, 62, 89, 182, 188,
189, 192, 243
Vlimaa-Blum, R. 166
Vaux, B. 29, 43, 263
Veneto Italian 39
Vergnaud, J. 6, 37, 44
Index
305
Vogel, I. 25, 75, 127, 128, 130

voicing assimilation 24, 61, 64, 71
Vroomen, J. 26, 43, 265
Yakut 16
Yawelmani 4, 6, 9, 11, 15, 34, 89,
Walker, R. 9, 39, 40, 264, 266, 267

Warlpiri 9, 10, 17, 18, 22, 259, 263
Weijer, J. van de 6, 7, 9, 11, 13,
Yokuts See Yawelmani

Yoruba 8, 17, 30, 34, 97, 102, 103,
21, 22, 26, 27, 38, 72, 121, 127,

128, 266, 267
Wheeler, D. 4
Wilson, C. 90, 106, 182, 183
Wolfe, A. 29, 43
Wolof 8, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 45,
97, 155, 157, 158, 17281, 183,
184, 263, 264, 279, 280
Wunderlich, D. 98
108, 109, 172, 187, 21542, 244,

245, 251, 257, 263, 268, 280
108, 113, 11520, 134, 137, 141,
148, 150, 151, 152, 153, 183,
187, 189, 209, 200209, 243,
244, 248, 252, 253, 261, 266, 280
Yowlumne See Yawelmani

Yucatec Maya 14, 17, 22, 69, 74,
105, 266
Zoll, C. 269
Zwicky, A. 211

Kramer, M. - Vowel Harmony and Correspondence Theory

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Kramer, M. - Vowel Harmony and Correspondence Theory

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Vowel Harmony and Correspondence Theory

Studies in Generative Grammar 66

Harry van der Hulst

Mouton de Gruyter (formerly Mouton, The Hague)

The series Studies in Generative Grammar was formerly published by

Printed on acid-free paper which falls within the guidelines

of the ANSI to ensure permanence and durability.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Part I: The phenomenon and the theoretical background

Violability and conflict

Vowel harmony and correspondence theory

Morphological control as a matter of integrity

Part II: Case studies

The case of Finnish a grammar of balance

Hungarian Trojan vowels in backness harmony

Vowel harmony and correspondence theory

Previous analyses of Trojan vowels

Vowel harmony and correspondence theory

harmony, which was considered as unattested in the literature. To account

An introduction to vowel harmony

The generalisation that adjacent vowels agree with respect to a certain

In this section, I will give a brief overview on which phonological features

There are, however, other possibilities to express the differences and

An introduction to vowel harmony

(3) Backness (or palatal) harmony in Finnish

b. Back vowel words

An introduction to vowel harmony

(5) Shona height harmony

An introduction to vowel harmony

roundness. The conclusion is that roundness harmony is just a by-product

An introduction to vowel harmony

contrast in the dimension of backness. So the active feature might also be

'to look for'

An introduction to vowel harmony

Since rounding is redundant in the vowel systems of languages like Ainu

An introduction to vowel harmony

(14) Types of vowel harmony

The fact that roundness harmony predominantly co-occurs with backness

The idea behind such a representation is that according to association

An introduction to vowel harmony

(16) The Somali vowel system

(Hall et al. 1974: 261)

An introduction to vowel harmony

(18) Potential historical movement from ATR to backness

To include the correlation of backness and roundness is not correct here if

The role of consonants

The role of consonants in vowel harmony

Consonants may participate in various ways in vowel harmony. Van der

An introduction to vowel harmony

'he became curious'

'hide with fur'

In these examples, i is retracted or lowered to (, ( is retracted to $, and u is

The role of consonants

consonants. Krmer (2001) proposes a prosodic analysis in which

To my knowledge there have been found no clear instances of consonants

An introduction to vowel harmony

N Chiosin and Padgett (1997) conclude that assimilation applies strictly

The domain of harmony

The domain of harmony is usually conceived of as that of the prosodic or

The domain of harmony

(Hall et al. 1974: 261)

An introduction to vowel harmony

Opacity and transparency

Under certain circumstances a word may consist of two harmonic stretches