opacity and prominence in crimean tatar n.
Download
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
Opacity and prominence in Crimean Tatar PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
Opacity and prominence in Crimean Tatar

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 32

Opacity and prominence in Crimean Tatar - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 99 Views
  • Uploaded on

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

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'Opacity and prominence in Crimean Tatar' - maegan


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
opacity and prominence in crimean tatar

Opacity and prominence in Crimean Tatar

Darya Kavitskaya

Yale University

darya.kavitskaya@yale.edu

CUNY Conference on the Phonology of Endangered languages

January 14, 2011

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

-back +back

-round +round -round +round

+high i y ɯ u

-high e ø a o

  • i and ɯ have undergone an almost complete phonetic merger, but remain phonologically distinct.
backness harmony
Backness harmony

bil-mek ‘know’ juv-maq ‘wash’

ket-mek ‘go’ qorq-maq ‘be afraid’

tyʃyn-mek ‘think’ qɯr-maq ‘rub’

tøk-mek ‘pour’ ajlan-maq ‘turn’

rounding harmony
Rounding harmony
  • Triggered by any round vowel, targets high vowels only.

dost-u ‘friend-3sg.poss’

tʃift-i ‘pair-3sg.poss’

  • Rounding harmony is active only in the first two syllables of a word.

a. dost-um ‘friend-1sg.poss’

kyz-lyk ‘autumn-adj.suf’

bul-un-maq ‘find-pass-inf’

b. tuzluɣ-ɯm ‘salt shaker-1sg.poss’

syrgyn-lik ‘deportation-adj.suf’

tykyr-in-mek ‘spit-pass-inf’

dialectal variation and harmony
Dialectal variation and harmony
  • In the Southern dialect of CT, rounding harmony affects all high vowels in a prosodic word (low vowels are blockers), and in the Northern dialect of CT rounding harmony is lost; the feature [round] is licensed only in the initial syllable of the word (like in some Altaic languages, such as Vogul, Bashkir, Ostyak (Steriade 1995: 161-162)).
syncope of high vowels
Syncope of high vowels
  • Syncope targets high vowels, in word-initial (a) and word-medial syllables (b).
  • Syncope of a high vowel in an initial syllable can create word-initial onsets that do not obey the CT phonotactics (a).
  • Word-medially, syncope is blocked if it results in structures not acceptable by the phonotactics of the language.
    • In the native vocabulary, complex onsets are not allowed.
    • Complex codas are maximally CC and obey the SSP.

a. kitap [ktap] ‘book’

tɯʃlemek [tʃlemek] ‘to bite’

bilem [blem] ‘I know’

sɯkmaq [skmaq] ‘to push, press’

qɯsqa [qsqa] ‘short’

b. aldɯlar [aldlar] ‘they took’

otura [ot.ra] ‘s/he sits’

ketirip [ket.rip] ‘having brought’

øldyrmek [øldyrmek] *[øldrmek] ‘to kill’

syncope of high vowels1
Syncope of high vowels
  • The leftmost vowel in a word deletes(c).
  • The vowel may delete even when it is the absolute initial in a word (d).
  • Final (stressed) high vowels never delete (e).

c. tyʃyrdik [tʃyrdik] ‘they dropped’

tykyrem [tkyrem] *[tykrem] ‘I spit’

piʃirem [pʃirem] *[piʃrem] ‘I cook’

d. iʃlemek [ʃlemek] ‘to work’

e. berdi [berdi] *[berd] ‘she gave’

stress
Stress
  • Each word in Crimean Tatar has exactly one main stress.
  • The default stress position is word-final.
    • It has been argued for Turkish (Levi 2005) that its default final stress is postlexical that seems to be the case for the related CT as well.

a. araˈba ‘cart’

araba-ˈlar ‘carts’

cart-pl

  araba-lar-ˈdan ‘from carts’

cart-pl-abl

b. baʃla-ˈdɯ-m ‘I began’

begin-past-1sg

baʃ-lar-ɯmɯz-ˈnɯ ‘our heads’

head-pl-1pl.poss-acc

stress1
Stress
  • Final stress is overriden by lexical stress in both roots and pre-stressing suffixes.

a. ˈnasɯl ‘which, how’

ˈmitlaqa ‘definitely’

ˈtezden ‘quickly’ 

b. aˈʃar-ɯm ‘I eat’

iˈtʃer-im ‘I drink’

c. geˈdʒe-lejin ‘at nights’

aʃɯq-tʃanˈlɯq-nen ‘in a hurry’

aˈna-dʒasɯna ‘in a motherly manner’

d. bar-ˈdɯ ‘he went’ ˈbar-ma-dɯ ‘he didn’t go’

bil-ˈmek ‘to know’ ˈbil-me-mek ‘to not know’

an opaque interaction between harmony and syncope
An opaque interaction between harmony and syncope
  • Harmony and syncope in rule terms: tyʃ-Ir-Em ‘fall-caus-1sg.pres’

a. UR tyʃ-Ir-Em

1. Harmony tyʃyrem

2. Syncope tʃyrem

Surface tʃyrem

b. UR tyʃ-Ir-Em

1. Syncope tʃIrEm

2. Harmony tʃirem

Surface *tʃirem

a classic ot account
A classic OT account
  • LicenceRd(σσ) (after Walker 2005)
    • Feature [round] must be associated to positions in two syllables.
  • Dep(round)
    • Assign a violation mark for every instance of the feature [round] in the output that has no correspondent in the input (=don’t insert the feature [round]).
  • *Nuc/i,u,y,ɯ >> *Nuc/e,o,a,ø (informally, *Nuc/high >> *Nuc/low)
      • (Gouskova 2003 on differential syncope, see also Prince and Smolensky 1993, de Lacy 2004, 2006).
  • MaxV
    • Assign a violation mark for every input vowel that has no output correspondent (=don’t delete a vowel).
harmonic serialism and vowel harmony
Harmonic serialism and vowel harmony
  • Serial Harmony avoids some undesirable typological predictions with respect to feature spreading, present in classic OT (McCarthy 2009, to appear; Kimper 2008; Pruitt 2008; Wilson 2003, 2004, 2006; Wolf 2008, Zentz 2011).
    • See, in particular, Padgett 1995, McCarthy 2003 on the sour-grapes property of local agreement constraints.
assumptions of serial harmony mccarthy 2009 1 2
Assumptions of Serial Harmony (McCarthy 2009: 1-2)
  • Distinctive features are privative (present/absent), and not equipollent (positive/negative).
  • Harmony is motivated by a constraint on autosegmental representations, Share(F), that is violated by any pair of adjacent segments that are not linked to the same [F] autosegment.
  • The input for the [tʃyrem] ‘I drop’ is:

[round]

|

t y ʃ i r e m

constraints
Constraints
  • Share(F) (McCarthy 2009: 8)
    • Assign one violation mark for every pair of adjacent segments that are not linked to the same token of [F].
  • Share(back)
  • Share(round)
  • Initial(F) penalizes leftward spreading of a feature F (20), and Final(F) penalizes rightward spreading of the feature F (McCarthy 2009).
  • The harmony in CT is progressive, thus Initial(F) >> Share(F) >> Final(F) (where F is back and round).
  • Harmonic Serialism has the same problem as classic OT with the analysis of counterbleeding opacity (see McCarthy 2007: 37).
ot with candidate chains ot cc mccarthy 2007
OT with candidate chains (OT-CC, McCarthy 2007)
  • The output is reached from the input via a series of steps (a candidate chain)
  • Gradualness: one violation of one basic faithfulness constraint per step (a localized unfaithful mapping, LUM)
  • The first step is the most harmonic faithful parse of the input
  • Harmonic improvement: each step must improve harmony
  • Each chain has a correspondent set of LUMs (the L-set) and an ordering of the elements in the set (rLUMSeq).
valid chains for the input ty ir em i drop
Valid chains for the input /tyʃ-ir-em/ ‘I drop’

a. <tyʃirem> Ø, Ø (faithful)

b. <tyʃirem, tyʃyrem> {Dep(rd)@4}, Ø

c. <tyʃirem, tʃirem> {MaxV@2}, Ø

d. <tyʃirem, tyʃrem> {MaxV@4}, Ø

e. <tyʃirem, tyʃyrem, tʃyrem> {Dep(rd)@4, MaxV@2}, {<Dep(rd)@4, MaxV@2>}

f. <tyʃirem, tyʃyrem, tyʃrem> {Dep(rd)@4, MaxV@4}, {<Dep(rd)@4, MaxV@4>}

opacity in ot cc
Opacity in OT-CC
  • Within OT-CC, we account for opacity with a precedence constraint Prec(A, B), which requires that all violations of B are preceded by and not followed by violations of A.
  • Prec(Dep(round), MaxV) requires violations of Dep(round) (harmony) to precede and not follow violations of MaxV (syncope).
prominence and the interaction of harmony and syncope
Prominence and the interaction of harmony and syncope
  • In CT the prominence status of the initial syllable is different for different processes.
  • The initial syllable is a common privileged position associated in the literature with phonological strength effects (see Barnes 2006; Beckman 1997; Kaun 1995, 2004).
      • Northern CT: roundness is limited to the initial syllable.
  • The same position is also weak, and is thus the best syncope site, as it is the furthest away from the final stress.
    • CT does not show any evidence for secondary stress or further footing.
  • The conflicting requirements on prominence are the source of opacity in the system.
  • Support: a word nasɯl ‘which, how’ is stressed on the first syllable. The second (high) vowel is reduced and often deleted.
an analysis
An analysis
  • To formalize the proposal, we modify OT-CC to include a family of constraints on the preference of the direction of iteration, Prefer(Fx, Fx+1), where F is a faithfulness constraint.
  • Prefer(Maxx, Maxx+1)
    • Assign one violation mark for a candidate chain that has a violation of Max and a competitor chain in which this violation occurs earlier in the form.
conclusions
Conclusions
  • Conflicting prominence in CT is the source of opacity.
  • Vowel harmony is driven by spreading of a feature from the initial (most prominent) syllable.
  • Syncope of high vowels prefers the initial syllable since it is the least prominent, being the furthest away from stress.
  • The decision between the initial and medial syncope cannot be made by metrical constraints since there is no evidence for further footing in CT, beyond the final stressed syllable.
  • In order to account for these data, we proposed a constraint on the preference of the direction of iteration.
acknowledgements
Acknowledgements
  • I thank Eric Ciaramella and Matt Wolf for their insightful comments on this paper. I am indebted to Remzije Berberova and to my other Crimean Tatar consultants for sharing their language with me.
selected references
Selected references
  • Beckman, J. 1997. Positional faithfulness, positional neutralisation and Shona vowel harmony. Phonology 14: 1-46.
  • Berta, Árpád. 1998. West Kipchak languages. In L. Johanson, & E. Csato, eds., The Turkic languages. New York: Routledge. 301–317.
  • Bogoroditskii, V.A. 1933. Dialektologicheskie zametki. V. O krymsko-tatarskom narechii. Kazan.
  • de Lacy, Paul. 2004. Markedness conflation in Optimality Theory. Phonology 21: 145-199.
  • de Lacy, Paul. 2006. Markedness: reduction and preservation in phonology. Cambridge, CUP.
  • Gouskova, Maria. 2003. Deriving economy: syncope in Optimality Theory. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
  • Izidinova, S.R. 1997. Krymskotatarskii iazyk. In E.R. Tenishev (ed.), Iazyki mira. Tiurkskie iazyki. Moscow: Indrik.
  • Johanson, Lars. 1998. The history of Turkic. In Johanson, L. & E. Csato (eds.) The Turkic languages. New York: Routledge. 81–125.
  • Kaun, Abigail. 1995. The typology of rounding harmony: an Optimality Theoretic approach. PhD dissertation, UCLA.
  • Kaun, Abigail. 2004. In Bruce Hayes, Robert Kirchner, and Donca Steriade, eds. Phonetically Based Phonology. Cambridge University Press.
  • Kavitskaya, Darya 2010. Crimean Tatar. LINCOM Europa.
  • Kimper, Wendell. 2008. Local optionality and harmonic serialism. Unpublished manuscript, University of Massachusetts, Amherst. ROA-988.
  • Memetov, A. 1993. Krymskie tatary:istoriko-lingvisticheskii ocherk. Simferopol: Anaiurt.
  • Pruitt, Kathryn. 2008. Iterative foot optimization and locality in stress systems. Unpublished manuscript, University of Massachusetts, Amherst. ROA-999.
slide32

Levi, Susannah V. 2005. Acoustic correlates of lexical accent in Turkish. JIPA 35: 73-97.

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