LINGUIST List 4.315

Tue 27 Apr 1993

Sum: Velar palatalization

Editor for this issue: <>

Directory

Message 1: Velar palatalizations

Date: Mon, 26 Apr 93 14:56:27 BSVelar palatalizations
From: Spencer A J <spenaessex.ac.uk>
Subject: Velar palatalizations

Velar softenings as allophonic variation

Belated thanks to those who responded to my query about languages with automatic K > CH type velar palatalization processes, in which a velar alternates with an alveopalatal, alveolar or dental fricative or affricate:

Zev bar-Lev; Juliette Blevins; Geoffrey Nathan; Laurie Reid; Tapani Salminen.

These processes turn out to be thin on the ground. Juliette Blevins pointed out to me a possible (though not entirely clear) example: Angave (Melanesian). Laurie Reid points out that Ivatan (Austronesian) has a K > CH rule triggered by following or preceding i, y. However, although that seems to be an automatic rule, it is neutralizing (since CH is an independent phoneme). In addition, it doesn't apply across word boundaries, and it doesn't seem apply to unassimilated loans. Hence, it looks more like a lexical rule, that a postlexical rule of allophony. Tapani Salminen pointed out that in Nenets (Samoyedic, Uralic) a K . CH alternation seems to have got lexicalized and attracted exceptions almost as soon as it enters the language.

All this raises the following questions: K > CH type softenings are extremely common historically and abound in synchronic morphophonological systems. However, it's extremely hard to track down this type of process as a genuine postlexical allophonic rule (akin to aspiration in English). This is despite the fact that T > CH type softenings are common as postlexical rules and in principle can easily give rise to non structure preserving alternations, and despite the frequency with which postlexical palatalization processes induce allophony in the form of secondary articulations. So:

(i) Do we really want a phonological theory (e.g. a theory of feature geometry) in which K > CH comes out as a natural assimilation of any kind?

(ii) Do we really want to analyse K > CH alternations as *any* type of (purely) phonological change?

(iii) What is the phonetic chain of events that leads to a generation of language learners reinterpreting secondary palatalization of velars as a K > CH alternation?

(iv) Do these types of phenomena imply that morphophonemic processes (complete with morpholexical conditioning and exceptions) can sometimes arise in a language in a more or less discontinuous fashion, without being the result of gradual lexicalization of purely phonetic or phonological alternations?

(iv) What other common morphophonemic processes are there which don't correspond to natural phonological processes in this way?

Andrew Spencer Department of Language and Linguistics University of Essex Colchester CO4 3SQ U.K.

spenaessex.ac.uk