(PDF) Disharmony and derived transparency in Uyghur vowel harmony

(PDF) Disharmony and derived transparency in Uyghur vowel harmony
Academia.edu uses cookies to personalize content, tailor ads and improve the user experience.
By using our site, you agree to our collection of information through the use of cookies.
To learn more, view our
Privacy Policy.
About
Press
Papers
We're Hiring!
Outline
Title
Abstract
Key Takeaways
Introduction
Summary of Ot Analyses
Conclusions
References
FAQs
Disharmony and derived transparency in Uyghur vowel harmony
Bert Vaux
2001, Proceedings of NELS
visibility
description
28 pages
Sign up for access to the world's latest research
check
Get notified about relevant papers
check
Save papers to use in your research
check
Join the discussion with peers
check
Track your impact
Abstract
Uyghur is generally believed to possess a vowel harmony system very similar to the one found in its relative Turkish, save for the fact that in Uyghur i is neutral and transparent (Lindblad 1990, Hahn 1991, Alling 1999). In this paper I argue on the basis of the phonological behavior of disharmonic vowels that Uyghur vowel harmony is actually quite different from the Turkish system in that harmony propagates only [-back] and harmony applies both cyclically and postcyclically. I demonstrate furthermore that the Uyghur facts ...
Key takeaways
AI
Uyghur vowel harmony differs from Turkish, propagating only [-back] and applying cyclically and postcyclically.
Derived neutral vowels in Uyghur are transparent, contrary to predictions of prespecification models.
The paper argues for a derivational theory of vowel harmony over output-driven models.
Vowel harmony and raising rules interact in complex ways, influencing vowel specification outcomes.
The study challenges existing theories by asserting that harmony is sensitive to inventory-based contrast.
Related papers
A correspondence approach to vowel harmony and disharmony
Martin Krämer
1998
In the paper, it will be argued that both harmony and dissimilatory OCP effects on vowels are best analyzed as correspondence relations between output segments within certain domains, rather than as featural alignment as proposed in the literature for analyses of harmony. The presented approach allows for a unitary treatment of harmony and disharmony effects and predicts that disharmony is to be found more rarely. Furthermore, it will be shown that the prosodic domains mora and syllable play a crucial role for harmony. Under this assumption, the fact that consonants can block vowel harmony will be explained straightforwardly. Following Inkelas' (1994) theory of underspecification, the approach allows a division of harmony systems into structure changing (i.e., all overriding) and structure filling (i.e., morpheme-specific) harmony types. My argumentation is based mainly on data from Ainu, Turkish, and Yucatec Maya.
Download free PDF
View PDF
chevron_right
Gradience and locality in phonology: Case studies from Turkic vowel harmony
Adam G McCollum
2019
Download free PDF
View PDF
chevron_right
Vowel harmony and disharmony in Tuvan and Tofa
K. David Harrison
Proceedings of the Nanzan GLOW (2nd Asian …, 1999
Harmony systems are often described in the linguistic literature in a highly schematic and somewhat idealized fashion. Further, instances of disharmony within harmony languages typically have been treated as exceptional or anomalous, rather than as a natural and expected part of ...
Download free PDF
View PDF
chevron_right
On how and why vowel harmony decays
Adam G McCollum
2019
Phonetic coarticulation as well as misperception have been linked to the emergence of vowel harmony (Öhman 1966; Ohala 1994a, b; Przezdziecki 2005). This link, however, does not explain the ways that phonological vowel harmony may change. This subchapter lays out some observations about how and why vowel harmony patterns may change. Although the focus here is on decay, the mechanics discussed below also provide plausible pathways for the emergence of harmony if we assume a symmetrical model of emergence and decay in harmony. A symmetrical model of change provides a way to understand the various types of restricted harmony patterns that exist somewhere in between phonetic coarticulation and robust, iterative harmony without requiring access to historical data. In the absence of historical and textual data, the analyst may wonder whether the pattern in question is moving toward canonical harmony or away from it. If symmetry is assumed, the pathways are analagous to an out-and-back hike up a mountain. In an out-and-back hike, one encounters the same things coming down that were seen on the way up, as opposed to a loop hike, where the scenery changes throughout the hike. Throughout this subchapter I lay out some paths down the mountain from harmony back to phonetics, and where possible, connect these with evidence from the trip up the mountain from phonetics in the emergence of harmony. 32a.2 How: The mechanics of change There are at least four pathways along which harmony may change. The first is lexically-specific change. Anderson (1998) observes that rounding harmony in Old Turkic was lexically conditioned. We can observe in Turkic a range of behavior, ranging from almost exceptionless harmony in Kyrgyz, to lexically specific behavior in Chaghatai (Eckmann 1966:33-36;
Download free PDF
View PDF
chevron_right
/u/ and /i/ Have Seen What Time Does: A typology of sound change within vowel harmony systems
Di W Caminsky
An emerging area of linguistic typology is sound change within particular types of phonological systems (Honeybone & Salmons 2014). Vowel harmony systems, for which many good descriptions now exist (Vago 1980; Ohala 1994), provide fertile ground for such investigations. In this paper, I examine sound change in language families with well-understood vowel harmony systems in both the proto-language and the modern languages: Turkic (Johanson & Csató 1998), Tungusic (Li 1996; Ko 2012), Mongolic (Janhunen 2003a, and Uralic (Abondolo 1998), as well as information from Chukotko-Kamchatkan, Nez Perce and Nilo-Saharan languages. By examining the changes in vowels between the proto-languages and modern languages, I have synthesized the changes found in these systems into a typology. This typology appears to be true regardless of VH type, whether a system is front/back, high/low, or ±ATR. These changes can often create an additional rounding harmony where one was not previously present. The broader patterns of sound changes within VH systems can be categorized into three types: vowel space trading, neutralization at the edges of vowel space, and multiple vowel coalescence. Within these patterns, there are two types of phonetic behavior: cases where a vowel change results in a vowel that behaves according to its new phonetic features, and new vowels that continue to behave within the VH system according to their old phonetic features. Vowel space trading involves mid-vowels rising to high positions and high-vowels lowering to mid. This group of sound changes tends to involve parallel shifts without any neutralization; the mid-vowels rise, often conditioned by a following high vowel, and high-vowels lower to mid position. This shift is more common in back vowels than in front vowels, but accounts exist for both. This most greatly impacts change in harmony systems with height and rounding as harmonizing features; when the vowels behave according to their new phonetic values, they trigger the opposite set of harmonizing vowels. Neutralization at the edges of the vowel space involves VH oppositions mergers) to [i], [a], or [u], each respectively the result of a merger of harmonic vowel pairs and is common in the Tungusic and Mongolic languages (Li 1996; Zheng 1996; Ko 2012; Joseph and Whitman 2012; Janhunen 2003:5). Phonological structure often has functional underpinnings, typically rooted in perceptually contrastive features of vowels. Typological work on consonant and vowel inventories often reflects these statements, such as the most common three-vowel system being [i, a, u]. Importantly, in this typology, I found no neutralization to mid or central vowels. Finally, there is a group of common changes that create new oppositions through vowel coalescence. Most often, a new vowel is created from an existing vowel when a high front vowel /i/ occurs later in the stem. These innovations have the additional effect of altering the harmonizing features of the VH system or introducing new features to the counterpart contrasts, as found in Manchu (Li 1996). Now the vowels more strongly contrast by height rather than simply [ATR]. Coalescence also tends to create new oppositions (rounding), re-orient a VH system, or expand the domain of rounding. Through this study, I show that cross-linguistic patterns of vowel harmony change within these systems can be generalized and classified. Ultimately, this work contributes evidence to the literature on the functional dispersion theory of contrast, especially with regard to maximization distinctiveness of contrasts and minimization articulatory efforts (Flemming 2005; Flemming 2008), and is also a case study that conforms to ideas about vowel acquisition (Joanisse and Seidenberg 1998; Walker 2011). While historical linguists have been skeptical of these motivations for sound change when applied more generally, it appears to hold at least in the complex systems of vowel harmony.
Download free PDF
View PDF
chevron_right
Vowel Harmony in the Azeri Spoken in Iran: Dialectal Variations and a Possible Sound Change in Progress
Farzad Karimzad
The purpose of this paper is to describe the vowel harmony system of the Azeri Spoken in Iran. In order to meet this end, 6 male native speakers of this language were recorded. The speakers spoke four different dialects of this language: Tabriz, Urmia, Ardebil, and Maragheh. Overall, 2262 tokens were elicited, 377 utterances for each of the speakers, 42 of which were excluded due to speech errors. The sound files were annotated manually for the utterance boundaries as well as the trigger and target vowels using PRAAT, and then first and second formant frequencies of the vowels were extracted using a PRAAT script. Next, the acoustic data were analyzed in R. The results yield that there is a backness harmony in all of the four dialects. However, there are significant differences with respect to vowel qualities across the dialects. Moreover, it is revealed that there is a roundedness harmony in all the dialects, yet there are variations depending on the target vowel syllable type and position. More specifically, when the target vowel is in a closed syllable, the vowels [ɯ, u, i, y] alternate depending on the backness and roundness of the trigger vowel. However, the analyses reveal that, in final open syllables, the Ardebil dialect has lost roundness distinction, while in Tabriz and Urmia dialects, only the underlying form of the suffix, i.e. /i/, appears in the surface form. Further analyses show significant differences between final and non-final open syllables in Tabriz dialect, but not for the other three. Based on the results of this study, I argue that prosodic finality plays an important role in the vowel harmony system of three of the four dialects. Finally, I propose a hypothesis to explain a possible process of sound change to account for these dialectal variations.
Download free PDF
View PDF
chevron_right
Vowel Harmony and Other Morphological Processes in Turkish
Eyüp Bacanlı
Vowel harmony appears to be a regular phonological process in Turkish, but nevertheless is not exceptionless. Due to these exceptions, it cannot be considered as part of the active phonology of Turkish. An analysis is proposed in which morphology and lexicon control vowel harmony and other processes similar in this regard. Morphology is unlike other modules of grammar in requiring access to all of syntactic, semantic, and phonological properties to function. One of the roles of morphology is to give commands to the phonology during formation of a complex word, such as "Carry out vowel harmony!" The phonology need not account for why such a command does not accompany certain suffixes, why it does not apply to all roots, nor why other commands only accompany a few suffixes. More generally, there is no need for phonology to access morphological information in a modular model of grammar.
Download free PDF
View PDF
chevron_right
Vowel Harmony in Hazaragi Persian in Afghanistan
Gholam Mohammad Payman
BULLETIN OF THE DEPARTMENT OF LINGUISTICS, UNIVERSITY OF CALCUTTA, 2022
Abstract : The purpose of this paper is to describe vowel harmony in Hazaragi Persian in Afghanistan. Hazaragi, as a variety of Persian, is spoken by Hazaras (ethnic group) mainly in Afghanistan. Vowel harmony is a major factor that discriminates between Persian and Hazaragi Persian in Afghanistan. Theoretically, vowel harmony is a long-distance assimilatory process in which vowels share certain phonetic features within a harmonic island (Crystal, 2008). This study yields the result that vowel harmony takes place both in simple and complex words, and generalizes that Hazaragi vowel harmony, in terms of direction, is regressive and, in terms of sharing the number of phonetic features, is total. It also produces the result that vowel harmony in monomorphemic words seems to be more restricted than in complex words. In monomorphemic words, the target vowels [/e/ and /o/] undergo merely height harmony; however, in complex words the target vowels [/ɪ/ and /e/] undergo both height and place harmony. It also shows that the low vowels [/æ/ and /ɑː/] never participate in phonological operations in Hazaragi Persian. Utterances of Hazaragi native speakers are closely observed in naturally occurring environs and the conclusion is drawn within the principles of descriptive studies. A descriptive investigation relies on observing huge amount of data to predict recurring of affairs under the same circumstances (Mouton & H.C, 1996; Walliman, 2011). Keywords : Hazaragi, Vowel Harmony, Persian, Afghanistan
Download free PDF
View PDF
chevron_right
Vowel Contrast and Vowel Harmony Shift in the Mongolic Languages
Seongyeon Ko
Second Language Research, 2011
This paper explores the synchrony and diachrony of the Mongolic vowel systems within the framework of contrastive hierarchy theory (Dresher 2009). First it establishes contrastive hierarchies for modern Mongolic varieties, based on which it attempts to reconstruct an RTR-based vowel system for Old Mongolian. Then it proposes a vowel shift hypothesis which claims that the basis of vowel harmony has shifted from an RTR contrast in Old Mongolian to a palatal contrast in the modern Kalmyk/ Oirat variety (contra Svantesson 1985). It is shown that this shift not only conforms to all the basic criteria of the comparative methods in historical linguistics, but also corresponds to typological expectations from an Altaic perspective. The result supports the idea that RTR was the original harmonic contrast in Altaic (Vaux 2009).
Download free PDF
View PDF
chevron_right
Non-iterative Vowel Harmony in Crimean Tatar
Adam G McCollum
Critics have contended that non-iterative processes cannot be modeled in Optimality theory. In response, Kaplan (2008) argues that OT should not be able to model non-iterative processes because all apparent non-iterativity is epiphenomenal, proposing a number of factors that may result in surface non-iterativity. In this paper we present data from three dialects of Crimean Tatar, demonstrating that labial harmony is non-iterative in the Central dialect. We examine morphological and prosodic characteristics of the language, demonstrating that there are no obvious ways to reanalyze this non-iterativity. As such, we contend that non-iterative harmony in Central CT, as well as harmony in in several other languages is real and requires a formal analysis. We provide such an analysis using two different harmony-driving constraints, demonstrating that OT can in fact model non-iterative vowel harmony.
Download free PDF
View PDF
chevron_right
Disharmony and derived transparency in Uyghur Vowel Harmony♣
Bert Vaux
Harvard University
January 2001

1. Introduction
Uyghur is generally believed to possess a vowel harmony system very similar to the one found in
its relative Turkish, save for the fact that in Uyghur i is neutral and transparent (Lindblad 1990,
Hahn 1991, Alling 1999). In this paper I argue on the basis of the phonological behavior of
disharmonic vowels that Uyghur vowel harmony is actually quite different from the Turkish
system in that harmony propagates only [-back] and harmony applies both cyclically and post-
cyclically. I demonstrate furthermore that the Uyghur facts can only be insightfully accounted for
in a theory that assumes derivations, cyclicity, and visibility of the sort elaborated in Halle and
Vergnaud 1987, Halle 1995, Calabrese 1995, Vaux 1998, and Halle, Vaux, and Wolfe 2000.
Theories of harmony that model transparency and opacity in terms of featural underspecification
and prespecification respectively (e.g. Clements 1976, Clements and Sezer 1982, Clements
1987) fail to account for derived transparency in Uyghur, and output-driven OT frameworks such
as Cole and Kisseberth 1994, Pulleyblank 1996, and Ringen and Heinämäki 1999 are unable to
capture the range of surface facts produced by the interaction of cyclic and post-cyclic vowel
harmony with post-cyclic vowel raising in cyclic and non-cyclic environments.

2. Outline of Uyghur phonology and harmony
Uyghur has the inventory of vowel allophones in (1) (Lindblad 1990, Hahn 1991).1

(1) Uyghur surface vowels
[-back] [+back]
[-round] [+round] [-round] [+round]
[+high] i ü u
[-high, -low] e ö o
[+low] ä a

Note that the feature [back] is not contrastive for [i] and [e], but is contrastive for the rest of the
vowels; this fact will play an important role in the analysis developed in this paper.
As a general rule all vowels in a word must share the same specification for the feature
[back], as in Turkish. (Notable exceptions include compounds, loans, and neutral and

Many thanks to Tughluk Abdurazak for spending hours of his time providing me with the data for this
paper, and to Andrea Calabrese, Morris Halle, and Engin Sezer for discussing the facts and analysis with me. This is
a revised version of a paper by the same title published in NELS 30.
The scheme in (1) abstracts away from variations induced by neighboring consonants and syllabic
position, which are not relevant here. The interested reader should consult Hahn 1991a for further details.

disharmonic vowels.) Consequently, suffixal vowels surface with the rightmost [back] value in
the root to which they attach, as illustrated in (2) for the plural -lAr-, the dative -GA-, and the
first person singular possessive -Vm-. (Capital letters denote harmonic segments. Uyghur also
possesses rounding harmony, which I do not consider in this paper.)

(2) representative cases of vowel harmony (Lindblad 1990:17)
sg. pl. -lAr- dat. -GA- 1sg poss. -Vm- gloss
yol yollar yol@a yolum road
pul pullar pul@a pulum money
at atlar atqa etim horse
köl köllär kölgä kölüm lake
yüz yüzlär yüzgä yüzüm face
xät xätlär xätkä xetim letter

The two vowels in (1) that are not contrastive for the feature [back], i and e, are neutral and
transparent with respect to [back] harmony in Uyghur. (Note, though, that e occurs only in
loanwords and as the result of an Umlaut rule that raises low vowels in initial syllables before i;
its phonological status is not entirely clear, and will not be discussed in this paper.) The
neutrality of i can be seen in the behavior of the first person plural possessive suffix -imiz-,
whose vowels remain [-back]2 regardless of the [back] specification of the root to which the
suffix attaches (3a). The transparency of i can be seen in the possessive dative forms (3b), where
in kölimizgä for example the [-back] specification of the root köl spreads to the suffix -GA-
through the two intervening i’s of -imiz-.

(3) sg. a. 1pl poss. -ImIz- b. -ImIz-GA- gloss
yol yolimiz yolimiz@a road
pul pulimiz pulimiz@a money
köl kölimiz kölimizgä lake
yüz yüzimiz yüzimizgä face

As shown in (4), roots containing only neutral vowels generally select [+back] suffixes,
regardless of whether the neutral vowels in question derive historically from front or from back
vowels (Lindblad 1990:23, 30, 32).

(4) native de²iz-@a sea-dat. Proto-Turkic *tä²iz
til-lar tongue-pl. Proto-Turkic *til
Arabic sinip-ta class-loc.
Russian en±inir-lar engineer-dat.
Neutral vowels do not covertly (i.e. phonetically) alternate, pace some versions of Strict Locality; cf.
Lindblad 1990:13 “+nI²+ is always pronounced with [phonetic] schwa as its vowel, regardless of its [underlying]
backness value as revealed by harmonic processes.”

Following Lindblad (1990:36), I assume in order to account for the facts in (4) that Uyghur
possesses a default rule that assigns [+back] to harmonic vowels that do not receive a value for
the harmonic feature during the course of the derivation (cf. (5vi) below). The few neutral roots
that exceptionally select [-back] suffixes are postulated to have a floating [-back] specification in
their lexical representations that then spreads to subsequent harmonic segments in the word.
The basic scheme of Uyghur vowel harmony outlined above appears relatively
straightforward, being similar to better-known harmonic systems of the sort found in Finnish.
Lindblad 1990 analyzes the Uyghur system as follows:

(5) Lindblad’s analysis of Uyghur [back] harmony
i. Non-alternating vowels (except for neutral vowels) are underlyingly specified for the
feature [back].
ii. Harmonic vowels and neutral vowels are underlyingly unspecified for [back].
iii. A cyclic rule of Vowel Harmony spreads the [back] specification(s) of the root outward
to affixes within the same word. (Both [+back] and [-back] are able to spread.)
iv. Vowel Harmony is feature-filling, and therefore does not apply to segments that are
already specified for the harmonic feature.
v. Neutral vowels are underlyingly unspecified for [back] and therefore can undergo Vowel
Harmony. Once they receive a [back] specification, they are free to spread this
harmonic feature to following segments. Neutral vowels that receive a [+back]
specification via Vowel Harmony subsequently become [-back] by the application
of a neutralizing postlexical Fronting rule.
vi. Vowels that have not received a [back] specification during the course of the derivation
are assigned the value [+back].

Further reflection on the Uyghur facts reveals three serious problems with Lindblad’s analysis.
First of all, as Kenstowicz (1994:357) has pointed out, it is undesirable to postulate an abstract
intermediate derivational stage at which neutral vowels take on and propagate harmonic feature
values, only to be neutralized at a later stage of the derivation. Uyghur has no back [¥] in its
underlying representations, nor are there any at the phonetic surface3, yet Lindblad’s analysis of
Uyghur posits their existence at an intermediate level. However, there is no independent
evidence that would corroborate this hypothetical intermediate stage for neutral vowels. We
can’t use the [+back] specification on the following vowels as support, because this is exactly
what the hypothetical intermediate stage is posited to explain.
In order to avoid unmotivated abstraction, I assume that neutral vowels are fully specified
at all derivational levels of the derivation. This requires that we provide an alternative
explanation for the transparent behavior of neutral vowels; I return to this issue in section 4.

Again ignoring variations induced by neighboring consonants; cf. footnote 1.

The second problem with Lindblad’s analysis involves disharmonic roots, which reveal
an asymmetry in harmonic behavior between [+back] and [-back]. The third problem involves
the unexpected transparency of derived neutral vowels. Both of these problems are elucidated by
a rule of Raising, to which I now turn.

3. Raising and asymmetric spreading
Lindblad (1990:10) and Hahn (1991b:84) describe a rule of Uyghur phonology that changes low
vowels to high vowels in medial open syllables.

(6) Raising: /a, ä/ → [i] in medial open syllables
σ σ σ
Rime
(Onset) Nucleus
[-cons, +son]
[+high] [+low]

Some of the effects of Raising can be seen in (7).

(7) underlying form surface form gloss
a. /a/ bala bala child
bala-lAr balilar children
bala-lAr-i baliliri his/her/its children
b. /ä/ ißäG ißäk donkey
ißäG-lAr ißäxlär donkeys
ißäG-i ißiÝi his/her/its donkey
ißäG-i-GA ißiÝiÝä to his/her/its donkey

This Raising rule is interesting because it changes a harmonic vowel into a neutral vowel. Given
that underived i is transparent in Uyghur, we might expect derived i to be transparent as well.
This expectation can be tested with disharmonic roots such as äswap ‘tool’, which contains both
a [-back] harmonic vowel, ä, and a [+back] harmonic vowel, a. Harmonic suffixes added to such
roots share the [back] specification of the closest root vowel: /äswab-GA/ ‘tool-dative’ →
[äswapqa], etc. When Raising neutralizes the final disharmonic root vowel to [i], we expect if
the new neutral vowel is transparent that the [back] specification of the preceding vowel should
spread through it to any suffixes that follow, provided that Vowel Harmony is ordered after
Raising. The two basic ordering relationships are illustrated in (8).

(8) Predicted behavior of disharmonic roots if derived neutral vowels are transparent
i. Raising precedes Vowel Harmony
/äswab-i-GA/ /adäm-i-GA/ /qähwa-GA/ /a@inä-GA/
‘tool-3sg poss.-dat.’ ‘man-3sg. poss.-dat.’ ‘coffee-dat.’ ‘friend-dat.’
Raising äswibiGA adimiGA qähwiGA a@iniGA
VH äswibigä adimi@a qähwigä a@ini@a
surface form [äswibiÝä] [adimi@a] [qähwiÝä] [a@ini@a]

ii. Vowel Harmony precedes Raising
/äswab-i-GA/ /adäm-i-GA/ /qähwa-GA/ /a@inä-GA/
VH äswabi@a adämigä qähwa@a a@inägä
Raising äswibi@a adimigä qähwi@a a@inigä
surface form [äswibi@a] [adimiÝä] [qähwi@a] [a@iniÝä]

Conversely, if the derived i is opaque we should expect it to block propagation of [back] from a
preceding vowel to a following vowel. Suffixes in this situation would surface either as [+back]
(if Raising bleeds Vowel Harmony, the harmonic suffixal vowels would receive [+back] by
default, by (5vi)), or with the original [back] specification of the raised vowel, if Vowel
Harmony precedes Raising. These alternatives are sketched in (9).

(9) Predicted behavior of disharmonic roots if derived neutral vowels are opaque
i. Raising precedes Vowel Harmony
/äswab-i-GA/ /adäm-i-GA/ /qähwa-GA/ /a@inä-GA/
Raising äswibiGA adimiGA qähwiGA a@iniGA
VH — — — —
default [+bk] äswibi@a adimi@a qähwi@a a@ini@a
surface form [äswibi@a] [adimi@a] [qähwi@a] [a@ini@a]

ii. Vowel Harmony precedes Raising
/äswab-i-GA/ /adäm-i-GA/ /qähwa-GA/ /a@inä-GA/
VH äswabi@a adämigä qähwa@a a@inägä
Raising äswibi@a adimigä qähwi@a a@inigä
default [+bk] — — — —
surface form [äswibi@a] [adimiÝä] [qähwi@a] [a@iniÝä]

The predicted outcomes in (8) and (9) hold if both Vowel Harmony and Raising are non-cyclic.
If one or both rules are cyclic, the predictions in (10) apply.

(10) situation prediction
i. Raising is cyclic, VH is non-cyclic; i is transparent same as (8i)
ii. Raising is cyclic, VH is non-cyclic; i is opaque same as (9i)
iii. Raising is non-cyclic, VH is cyclic; i is transparent same as (8ii)
iv. Raising is non-cyclic, VH is cyclic; i is opaque äswibi@a, adimi@a, qähwi@a, a@iniÝä
v. both are cyclic; Raising >> VH; i is transparent same as (8i)
vi. both are cyclic; Raising >> VH; i is opaque same as (9i)
vii. both are cyclic; VH >> Raising; i is transparent äswibiÝä, adimi@a, qähwi@a,
a@iniÝä
viii. both are cyclic; VH >> Raising; i is opaque same as (10iv)

Interestingly, none of the predictions in (8-10) are borne out. As the data in (11) demonstrate, the
correct generalization is that if the last vowel in a disharmonic root raises, harmonic suffixes
surface as [-back] provided that either a) the raised vowel is underlyingly [-back] or b) the first
non-neutral vowel to the left of the raised vowel is [-back].

(11) Effects of Raising with disharmonic roots
root suffixed form gloss
a. ä-a äswap äswibiÝä to his tool
qähwa qähwiÝä to the coffee
ämma ämmilär buts (but-plural)
ÄnÀan ÄnÀiniÝä to his Anjan (personal name)
b. a-ä adäm adimiÝä to his man
apät apitiÝä to his disaster
roßän roßiniÝä to his Roshän (personal name)
a@inä a@inilär his friends

How do we account for the fact that the actual forms in (11) do not conform to any of the
predictions in (8-10)? Given the fact that [-back] appears to “win out” over [+back] in (11), it
seems reasonable to adopt the popular assumption that only one value for the harmonic feature—
in this case [-back]—is actually active in the harmonic system (cf. Kenstowicz 1983, Farkas and
Beddor 1987, Archangeli and Pulleyblank 1989, 1993, and many others). If this is the case, then
in order to account for forms such as /bala-lAr/ ‘children’ → [balilar] (7) we must of course
assume either that harmonic vowels are underlyingly specified as [+back], or that a redundancy
rule assigns [+back] to unspecified vowels at a late stage in the derivation. The former option
requires postulating that Vowel harmony is feature-changing, which would wreak havoc in
various corners of our treatment of vowel harmony. We therefore opt for the latter strategy, a
[+back] redundancy rule, which we in fact already adopted earlier to account for the harmonic
behavior of roots containing only neutral vowels (cf. (5v)).

These assumptions will account for the forms in (11b), provided we assume that Vowel
Harmony applies before Raising. How then do we explain the forms in (11a)? If Vowel Harmony
precedes Raising, a form like /äswab-i-GA/ (12) should have the derivation in (13):

(12) underlying form ä s w a b - i - G A
| | |
[-bk] [+bk] [-bk]

Comments:
• Disharmonic vowels are underlyingly specified for the harmonic feature (5i).
• Neutral vowels are underlyingly specified for the harmonic feature.
• Harmonic vowels are underlyingly unspecified for the harmonic feature (5ii).

(13) rule output comments
Vowel Harmony äswabiGA [-back] value of root ä is blocked from spreading to
suffix by intervening disharmonic a, which has
lexical [+back] specification.
[+back] value of root a does not spread to suffixes,
because the rule of Vowel Harmony spreads only
[-back].
Raising äswibiGA
default [+back] äswibi@a
surface form *[äswibi@a]
In order to account for forms like äswibiÝä, we have to assume that Vowel Harmony
also applies after Raising, so that the [-back] specification of the root ä can spread to the
harmonic suffix. It is not unusual to find a phonological rule ordered both before and after
another rule; such cases are well-known in the phonological literature (cf. Matushansky
2000). This effect will emerge in either of the following two situations:

(14) i. Both Vowel Harmony and Raising are cyclic.
ii. Vowel Harmony is both cyclic and non-cyclic, and Raising is non-cyclic. In the non-
cyclic block, Raising precedes Vowel Harmony.

We can rule out (14i) for Uyghur, because it cannot account for the treatment of raising
disharmonic roots of the type in (11b) when followed by a neutral-vowel suffix followed by a
harmonic suffix, such as /adäm-i-GA/. If both Vowel Harmony and Raising were cyclic we
would incorrectly predict *[adimi@a], as outlined in (15) and (16).

(15) derivation of /adäm-i-GA/ if derived i is transparent
i. underlying form [[[adäm]-i]-GA]
ii. cycle 1 [adäm] VH —
Raising —
iii. cycle 2 [[adäm]-i] VH —
Raising adim-i
iv. cycle 3 [[[adim]-i]-GA] VH adimi@a
Raising —
v. surface form *[adimi@a]

(16) derivation of /adäm-i-GA/ if derived i is opaque
i. underlying form [[[adäm]-i]-GA]
ii. cycle 1 [adäm] VH —
Raising —
iii. cycle 2 [[adäm]-i] VH —
Raising adim-i
iv. cycle 3 [[[adim]-i]-GA] VH —
Raising —
v. post-cyclic block adimiGA default [+bk] adimi@a
vi. surface form *[adimi@a]

Since theory (14i) does not derive the correct outputs we must assume option (14ii), namely that
Vowel Harmony is both cyclic and non-cyclic, and Raising is non-cyclic and precedes Vowel
Harmony in the non-cyclic block.
Thus far the data have led us to develop a theory of vowel harmony with the following
components:

(17) Uyghur Vowel Harmony (pre-final formulation)
i. Non-alternating vowels are underlyingly specified for [back].
ii. Harmonic vowels are underlyingly unspecified for [back].
iii. Vowel Harmony spreads [-back] specification(s) of the root outward to affixes within the
same word. It applies in both the cyclic and post-cyclic rule blocks.
iv. Though [+back] specifications do not spread, they do block propagation of [-back]
specifications through them. (In other words, [+back] is not underspecified.)
v. Vowel Harmony is feature-filling, and therefore does not apply to segments that are
already specified for the harmonic feature.
vi. Raising is non-cyclic; within the post-cyclic stratum it precedes Vowel Harmony.
vii. Vowels that have not received a [back] specification during the course of the derivation
are assigned the value [+back] by a redundancy rule.

4. Transparency
One aspect of the data presented thus far remains to be accounted for: the behavior of derived
neutral vowels. Given the assumptions to which we have been led so far, it turns out that derived
neutral vowels must be transparent. This can be seen by examining the derivation of a word like
/äswab-i-GA/ ‘to his tool’. According to the scheme established in the preceding section, this
underlying form can have two possible outcomes, depending on whether derived neutral vowels
are transparent (18) or opaque (19).

(18) derivation of /äswab-i-GA/ if derived i is transparent
i. underlying form [[[äswab]-i]-GA]
ii. cycle 1 [äswab] VH —
iii. cycle 2 [[äswab]-i] VH —
iv. cycle 3 [[[äswab]-i]-GA] VH —
v. post-cyclic äswabiGA Raising äswibiGA
VH äswibigä
vi. surface form [äswibiÝä]

(19) derivation of /äswab-i-GA/ if derived i is opaque
i. underlying form [[[äswab]-i]-GA]
ii. cycle 1 [äswab] VH —
iii. cycle 2 [[äswab]-i] VH —
iv. cycle 3 [[[äswab]-i]-GA] VH —
v. post-cyclic äswabiGA Raising äswibiGA
VH —
default [+bk] äswibi@a
vi. surface form *[äswibi@a]

The derivation in (19) demonstrates that if derived i is opaque, we incorrectly predict the surface
form of ‘to his tool’ to be *[äswibi@a]. If derived neutral vowels are transparent, on the other
hand, the correct surface form results. (The same holds for the remainder of the data discussed
thus far.)
That derived i is transparent might initially appear to make sense, since we already know
that underived i is transparent (cf. yolimiz@a vs. kölimizgä in (3)). However, it turns out that this
transparency is not always predicted for such cases by the most popular analysis of disharmonic
vowels (Clements and Sezer 1982, etc.), which employs prespecification in the manner described
in (17i).
In order to see how this works consider first the disharmonic Uyghur gerund -GU, whose
vowel agrees in backness with the last preceding harmonic vowel, but invariably surfaces as
[+high] and [+round] (Lindblad 1990:17).

(20) root gerund gloss
a. [+back] bol bol@u become
oqut oqutqu teach
yaz yaz@u write
b. [-back] kör körgü see
küt kütkü wait
käl kälgü come

As we have already seen, traditional treatments of vowel harmony maintain that vowels showing
harmonic alternations are underlyingly unspecified for the harmonic feature, disharmonic vowels
are underlyingly prespecified for the harmonic feature, and vowel harmony is feature-filling
(Lightner 1967, Zimmer 1967, Clements 1976, Crothers and Shibatani 1980, Binnick 1980,
Steriade 1981, 1987, Clements and Sezer 1982, etc.). According to these assumptions, the vowel
of the gerund suffix should be prespecified as [+high, +round], since it invariably surfaces with
these feature values.
By the same reasoning, both of the vowels in a disharmonic root like adäm should be
prespecified for [back], since neither vowel alternates for this feature. The lexical representation
for adäm will therefore include the following structure:

(21) a d ä m
| |
[+back] [-back]

Now consider what happens to the second disharmonic vowel if we place it in an open syllable
by adding appropriate suffixes, as in /adäm-i-CA/ (-CA is a hypothetical non-cyclic suffix
consisting of a consonant followed by a harmonic low vowel. I have chosen a non-cyclic suffix
in order to prevent Vowel Harmony from applying to it during the cycle, which would block the
effects of our demonstration.) What effect does Raising have on this representation? Given the
formulation in (6), Raising should simply make the ä [+high]; crucially, the lexical [+back]
specification remains unchanged. Raising therefore produces the representation in (22):

(22) [+high]
a d i m - i - C A
| |
[+back] [-back]

Since the derived i in (22) is specified as [-back], the prespecification analysis predicts that it
should be opaque, blocking rightward propagation of [back] from vowels to its left. (Recall that
the prespecification analysis derives transparency via underspecification, as in (5ii); in order for

10

the i to be transparent to back harmony, it must be unspecified for [back].) As it happens, the
predicted opacity in (22) has no observable effects, since the suffixal low vowel will end up
being assigned a default [+back] specification (cf. (5vi), (17vii)), which is the same value it
would receive from the first root vowel if the derived i were transparent.
The behavior of forms like /äswab-i-GA/ can also be accounted for in the prespecification
theory, with one adjustment. Raising in this case should produce äsw¥biGA, with the disharmonic
a becoming a high back vowel ¥. A back vowel of this type would block Vowel Harmony, but we
know that a rule of Neutralization changes this vowel to [-back] by the end of the derivation.
Ordering Neutralization before non-cyclic Vowel Harmony can produce the desired transparency
effect. However, this is only possible if we stipulate that Neutralization first deletes the [+back]
specification of the ¥, and then Vowel Harmony applies, followed finally by the rule that fills in
the surface [-back] specification of the [i]. This analysis runs into the same problems of
abstraction encountered by Lindblad’s theory of covertly alternating neutral vowels, and
therefore should be avoided if possible.
The prespecification analysis furthermore encounters a similar problem in the behavior of
non-cyclic disharmonic suffixes. Consider the modal suffix -çä-, which invariably surfaces with
a [-back] vowel, regardless of the [back] specification of the root to which it attaches:

(23) surface form gloss
a. [-back] roots türk-çä (in the) Turkish (manner/language)
b. [+back] roots uy@ur-çä (in the) Uyghur (manner/language)
taÅ-çä (one) as big as a mountain
kitap-çä booklet
on-çä about ten
Since the vowel in /-çä/ does not alternate for backness, it should be underlyingly specified as
[-back] according to the treatment of disharmonic vowels described earlier.

(24) ç ä
[-back]

The disharmonic ä of the -çä suffix furthermore spreads its own [back] specification to following
vowels, e.g. /kita:b-çä-m-DA/ ‘in my booklet’ → [kitapçämdä].
The key fact for the purposes of our discussion is that -çä can undergo Raising: cf. /näy-
çä-DA/ ‘small flute-loc.’ → [näyçidä]. Interestingly, the expected outcomes do not appear when
Raising targets -çä- attached to a [+back] root and followed by one or more harmonic suffixes. In
this case, illustrated by /kita:b-çä-DA/ ‘booklet-locative’, we expect the derivation in (25) to
apply.

11

(25) underlying form [[[kita:b]-çä]-DA]
cycle 1 VH —
cycle 2 VH —
cycle 3 VH kita:b-çä-dä
Raising kita:bçidä
VH —
surface form *[kitapçidä]4

The correct surface form is [kitapçida]. The generalization here is that harmonic suffixes after
raised -çä- always agree in backness with the last harmonic vowel preceding -çä-, as shown in
(26) (data from Lindblad 1990:45).

(26) underlying form surface form gloss
a. [-back] root näy-çä-DA näyçidä child
b. [+back] root kita:b-çä-DA kitapçida in the booklet
o@l-çä-lA-b o@ulçilap done a boy’s way
ziÅ-çä-GA ziÅçi@a to/for the skewer

Why does the raised form of -çä behave in this way? Recent treatments of Uyghur Vowel
Harmony assume that -çä becomes transparent in this situation (Shinjang Komiteti 1985:25-27,
Lindblad 1990:45, Hahn 1991). That -çä becomes transparent here is descriptively clear, and
conforms to our earlier conclusion that derived neutral vowels are transparent. What is not so
clear is (i) why neutral vowels derived from disharmonic vowels become transparent, when the
theories espoused by Lindblad and Clements and Sezer predict that they should not, and (ii) why
VH does not spread the [-back] value of -çä- before Raising applies.
Lindblad (1990:47) suggests that the morpheme -çä- merges with the unrelated agentive
morpheme -çi- in raising contexts; since -çi is transparent, he reasons, raised -çä can also behave
transparently if it is confused with underlying -çi by speakers. This hypothesis is not coherent in
formal phonological terms, however, and also fails to account for the fact that all neutral vowels
derived from disharmonic vowels behave in the same manner, even when they do not have
similar-sounding transparent suffixes to be conflated with. We have already seen how this works
for a root-internal derived neutral vowel in [äswibigä]; the same pattern is apparent with the
suffix -anä-, which shows the same behavior as -çä in words like /äxmäq-anä-liG/ ‘stupidity’ →
[äxmiqaniliq].
Since Lindblad’s account for the transparency of raised -çä is not viable, let us consider
how the analysis I have developed thus far deals with the same facts. First of all, it is clear that
-çä-, -anä-, and the other suffixes that behave in this way must be non-cyclic; if they were cyclic,
application of cyclic VH would invariably spread the harmonic feature specification of these

We ignore here two rules of vowel shortening and consonant devoicing that are not relevant for our
purposes.
12

suffixes to the following vowel, producing incorrect forms such as *[kitapçidä]. If -çä- is non-
cyclic, on the other hand, it will not trigger cyclic VH, and any following harmonic segments
will therefore enter the post-cyclic rule block still unspecified for [back]. By assuming that the
relevant suffixes are non-cyclic, therefore, we account for the previously mysterious fact that VH
does not propagate the [-back] feature of these suffixes before they undergo Raising.
It is not sufficient to assume that these suffixes are non-cyclic, though. The problem is
that when -çä- undergoes Raising in the post-cyclic block it should remain disharmonic, since its
underlying [-back] specification is not affected (cf. (22)). If the derived i in näyçiDA blocks
harmony for this reason and moreover is unable to spread its own [-back] specification to the
following harmonic vowel, we then expect the harmonic vowel to receive a default [+back]
specification, yielding the incorrect surface form *[näyçida]. If on the other hand the derived i is
able to spread its own [-back] specification, we predict that this will spread to the harmonic
suffixal vowel in /kita:b-çä-DA/, producing the incorrect surface form *[kitapçidä] rather than
the attested [kitapçida].
Clearly our assumptions about whether or not derived neutral vowels are able to spread
are not going to solve the problem of why disharmonic vowels become transparent under
Raising. Let us therefore adopt the simplest position, according to which derived neutral vowels
are no different than underlying neutral vowels; in other words, they do not spread their own
specification for [back]. This being the case, we have to explain how the final vowel in näyçidä
receives its [-back] specification.
The only logical explanation is (as we already concluded on the basis of äswibigä) that
derived neutral vowels are transparent, contrary to prespecification-based accounts of
disharmony, which crucially require derived neutral vowels to be specified for the harmonic
feature and therefore opaque to harmony. How do we account for the unexpected transparency of
neutral vowels derived from disharmonic vowels? I suggest that the solution to this problem lies
in viewing transparency not as an arbitrary property of representations, as it is in the
prespecification model, but rather as a logical consequence of the structure of phonemic
inventories.
Our intuition is that underlying i in Uyghur is neutral with respect to back harmony
precisely because it lacks a [+back] counterpart ¥. This fact does not change if the i happens to
derive from another vowel, but the prespecification theory of Clements and Sezer 1982 misses
this parallelism because it requires underlying i to be underspecified for [back], but derived i to
be specified as [-back]. In other words, the prespecification analysis misses the connection
between [i] produced by Raising and [i] derived from underlying /i/. What is called for is a
theory of harmony that evaluates the role of the i in the vowel system as a whole, regardless of
its origins.
Calabrese’s 1995 theory of sensitivity does just this, allowing us to account
straightforwardly for the Uyghur data. In Calabrese’s theory rules are specified as sensitive to
contrastive, marked, or all feature specifications. In this system, the Uyghur rule of [back]
harmony is analyzed as being sensitive only to contrastive [back] specifications. The rule

13

therefore ignores segments that are not contrastive for [back] such as the neutral vowel i, which
in Uyghur lacks a [+back] counterpart ¥. Crucially, this holds for [i] whether it results from
underlying /i/ or from low vowels that have undergone Raising. (Note that this analysis also
accounts for the transparency of underlying i, which at the outset of this paper we assumed to be
underlyingly specified as [-back].) We therefore correctly predict that the -çi- allomorph of -çä-
for example should be transparent to [back] harmony, because its i is not contrastive for the
feature [back].
Let us consider how this analysis works for the forms äswibiÝä, kitapçida, and näyçidä.
For äswibiÝä I assume the underlying representation in (12), repeated here as (27a). In (27b) we
can see that cyclic VH cannot propagate [-back] from the first root vowel to the suffix, because it
is blocked by the contrastive [+back] specification of the second root vowel. The latter vowel
does not propagate its [+back] value either, because VH spreads only [-back] specifications. The
[-back] value of the -i- does not spread to the harmonic suffix because it is not contrastive. As a
result, the harmonic suffix emerges from the cyclic rule block without a [back] specification
(27c). In the post-cyclic block Raising applies first, and changes the second root vowel to i (27d).
Post-cyclic VH then spreads the [-back] specification of the first root vowel to the harmonic
suffix, ignoring non-contrastive [-back] specification of the two intervening i’s (27e). (To make
it clear that these features are not visible to the rule, I have underlined them.) The linked
configuration subsequently splits into two, yielding the surface form in (27f).

(27) derivation of /äswab-i-GA/ → [äswibiÝä]
a. underlying form ä s w a b - i - G A
| | |
[-bk] [+bk] [-bk]

b. cyclic VH ä s w a b - i - G A
| | |
[-bk] [+bk] [-bk]

c. cycle output ä s w a b - i - G A
| | |
[-bk] [+bk] [-bk]

d. post-cyclic Raising [+high]
ä s w i b - i - G A
| | |
[-bk] [-bk] [-bk]

14

e. post-cyclic VH [+high]
ä s w i b - i - G A
| | |
[-bk] [-bk] [-bk]

f. surface form [+high]
ä s w i b - i - Ý ä
| | | |
[-bk] [+bk] [-bk] [-bk]

For kitapçida the derivation proceeds in an analogous manner, which I have outlined in
(28).

(28) underlying form: [[[kita:b]-ççä]-DA] rule comments/output
cycle 1 [kita:b] VH —
cycle 2 [[kita:b]-çä] VH — (the [-back] specification of
the root i is non-contrastive
and therefore does not
spread)
cycle 3 [[[kita:b]-çä]-DA] VH — (-çä- is non-cyclic and
therefore does not trigger
cyclic VH)
non-cyclic block kita:bçäDA Raising kita:bçiDA
VH — (no contrastive [-bk]
specifications available to
spread to the suffixal A)
default [+bk] kita:bçiDa
surface form: [kitapçida]

For näyçidä (from underlying /näy-çä-DA/) the derivation works in the same way as in
(28), save that post-cyclic VH spreads the contrastive [-back] specification to the harmonic suffix
vowel through the intervening non-contrastive i.
To sum up, I have suggested that a satisfactory account for the facts of Uyghur vowel
harmony must have the structure in (29).

(29) Uyghur Vowel Harmony (final formulation)
i. Non-alternating vowels are underlyingly specified for [back].
ii. Harmonic vowels are underlyingly unspecified for [back].

15

iii. Vowel Harmony spreads contrastive [-back] specification(s) of the root outward to
affixes within the same word.
iv. Non-contrastive [-back] specifications are ignored as potential triggers and targets of
Vowel Harmony; hence neutral vowels neither trigger nor block VH.
v. Though [+back] specifications do not spread, they do block propagation of [-back]
specifications through them. (In other words, [+back] is not underspecified.)
vi. Vowel Harmony applies in both the cyclic and post-cyclic rule blocks.
vii. Vowel Harmony is feature-filling, and therefore does not apply to segments that are
already specified for the harmonic feature.
viii. Raising is non-cyclic; within the post-cyclic stratum it precedes Vowel Harmony.
ix. Vowels that have not received a [back] specification during the course of the derivation
are assigned the value [+back] by a redundancy rule.

An interesting prediction of the theory proposed here is that there should be no language that is
exactly like Uyghur save that neutral vowels derived from disharmonic vowels remain
disharmonic. This outcome is possible (and in fact required) in the prespecification analysis of
Clements and Sezer 19825, but is impossible in the inventory-based theory of sensitivity
espoused here, which requires that all neutral vowels—whether underlying or derived—behave
in the same manner. Thus if underlying neutral vowels are transparent, derived neutral vowels
must be transparent as well; if underlying neutral vowels are opaque, so must derived neutral
vowels be.

5. OT analyses
The analysis in (29) does not require any formal machinery that is not independently motivated
in the derivational literature. Since derivational phonology and hence many of the tenets in (29)
have been abandoned in recent years in favor of the constraint-based perspective of Optimality
Theory, though, we must consider whether the same range of facts can be accounted for in OT.

5.1. Pulleyblank
Let us begin with the fairly standard OT approach to vowel harmony developed by Pulleyblank
(1993, 1996). Pulleyblank assumes that harmonic segments are underlyingly unspecified for the
harmonic feature, and employs a combination of Alignment, Markedness, and Faithfulness
constraints to determine the ways in which these segments receive their surface specifications.
The facts set out thus far in this paper can be accounted for with the following constraints in
Pulleyblank’s system (cf. Pulleyblank 1996:328):

The same reasoning holds for derivational implementations of Inkelas’ theory of underspecification,
according to which “only predictable, alternating structure is underspecified” (Inkelas, Orgun, and Zoll 1998:21).
16

(30) i. *¥6: All non-low back vowels must be [+round].
i. ALIGN([-back]Root, PrWd, R): Align every [-back] specification in a Root with the
right edge of a Prosodic Word.
ii. MAX[-back]: Do not delete [-back] specifications
iii. DEP[-back]: Do not insert [-back] specifications.
iv. MAXPATH: Do not delete association lines.
v. DEPPATH: Do not insert association lines.

Pulleyblank’s model includes a number of subtleties that do not affect the basic line of
argumentation to be presented here:

(31) i. Only one value for the harmonic feature is represented in the tables. All segments not
specified for that feature value in surface representations are assumed to have the
opposite value. (Pulleyblank 1996:325)
ii. Alignment violations are computed locally rather than globally; in other words, a non-
aligned element only engenders asterisks equal to the number of non-aligned syllables
(including itself) lying between it and the next specification for the feature under
consideration. (Pulleyblank 1996:325-6)

Figures (32-40) show how the constraints in (30) in tandem with the assumptions in (31) select
the desired surface forms.7

(32) /xät-lAr/ ‘letter-plural’ → [xätlär]
[-bk]
| AlignR Max[-back] Dep[-back] MaxPath DepPath
/xät-lAr/
[-bk]
) xätlär
[-bk] [-bk]
| | *! * *
xätlär
[-bk]
| *!
xätlar
Xatlar *! * *

In Pulleyblank’s system this would technically be expressed as a grounding condition of the form "if
[+back, -low] then [+round]"; I use the formulation "*¥" for typographical parsimony.
I ignore here the fact that certain consonants also undergo VH, as this fact is not directly relevant to our
concerns. I also ignore the fact that the constraints employed here should allow a gapped configuration to win; this
issue is discussed at length in Pulleyblank 1996.
17

(33) /at-lAr/ ‘horse-plural’ → [atlar]
/at-lAr/ AlignR Max[-back] Dep[-back] MaxPath DepPath
[-bk]

ätlär *! **
[-bk] [-bk]
| |
ätlär **! **
[-bk]
atlär *! *
) atlar

(34) /til-lAr/ ‘tongue-plural’ → [tillar]

/til-lAr/ AlignR Max[-back] Dep[-back] MaxPath DepPath
[-bk]

tillär * **!
[-bk][-bk]
| |

tillär **! **
[-bk]

) tillar * *

(35) /yol-imiz-GA/ ‘road-1pl-dative’ → [yolimiz&a]
/yol-imiz-GA/ AlignR Max[-back] Dep[-back] MaxPath DepPath
[-bk]

yolimizÝä * ***!
[-bk]

)yolimiz&a * **

(36) /bala-lAr/ ‘child-plural’ → [balilar]8
/bala-lAr/ AlignR Max[-back] Dep[-back] MaxPath DepPath
[-bk]

balilär * **!*
[-bk]

) balilar * *

In the tables that follow I do not formulate the constraint(s) required to produce Raising, because this is
not directly relevant for our purposes.
18

(37) /äswab-i-GA/ ‘tool-3sgposs-dative’ → [äswibiÝä]
[-bk]
| AlignR Max[-back] Dep[-back] MaxPath DepPath
/äswab-i-GA/
[-bk]

) äswibiÝä ***
[-bk]

äswibi&a *! **

(38) /adäm-i-GA/ ‘man-3sgposs-dative’ → [adimiÝä]
[-bk]
| AlignR Max[-back] Dep[-back] MaxPath DepPath
/adäm-i-GA/
[-bk]

) adimiÝä **
[-bk]

adimi&a *! *

(39) /kita:b-çä-DA/ ‘book-small-locative’ → [kitapçida]
[-bk]
| AlignR Max[-back] Dep[-back] MaxPath DepPath
kita:b-çä-DA
[-bk] [-bk]
| |

)kitapçida * *
[-bk] [-bk]

kitapçidä * **!

(40) /näy-çä-DA/ ‘flute-small-locative’ → [näyçidä]
[-bk] [-bk]
| AlignR Max[-back] Dep[-back] MaxPath
| DepPath
näy-çä-DA
[-bk]

)näyçidä * * **
[-bk]

näyçida *! * * *

As can be seen in (32) - (40), the constraint ranking in (30) is sufficient to produce all of the
forms specifically mentioned in this paper thus far. However, it is not able to account for all of
the types of forms that the analysis in (29) is able to explain. Consider for example the form in
(41):

(41) Problems for the Pulleyblank analysis
underlying form surface form gloss
kita:b-çä-m-DA kitapçämdä book-small-1sgposs-locative

19

Figure (41) shows that the harmonic suffix following the non-cyclic disharmonic suffix -çä-
agrees in backness with it; this is the standard behavior of non-cyclic suffixes that do not
undergo Raising. The analysis in (29) accounts for forms of this type in a straightforward
manner, with no additional statements or stipulations required.
Now let us consider how the same facts would fare in the constraint schema in (30):

(42) /kita:b-çä-m-DA/ → [kitapçämdä]
[-bk]
| AlignR Max[-back] Dep[-back] MaxPath DepPath
kita:b-çä-m-DA
[-bk] [-bk]

)kitapçämdä * **!
[-bk] [-bk]
| |

1 kitapçämda * *

The hand ()) represents the candidate that actually wins; the skull and crossbones (1) represents
the candidate that should win according to the constraint schema. The striking fact revealed by
(42) is that the constraint ranking that did so well in accounting for the basic facts in (32) - (40)
is unable to derive what in derivational theories is a completely straightforward and unsurprising
outcome: harmonic vowels surface as [-back] after ä. The reason that the schema in (30) does not
fare well with forms like kitapçämdä is that the [-back] disharmonic vowel ä is not part of the
root, and therefore does not engender any violations of AlignR when it fails to propagate
rightwards. In order to rectify this situation we would have to alter the formulation of the AlignR
constraint so that it included all underlying [-back] specifications, even in suffixes. If we make
this modification, however, we lose the ability to account for forms like kitapçida for the reasons
outlined in (43):
[-bk]

(43) underlying form /kita:b-ççä-DA/ evaluation by AlignR([-back], PrWd)
[-bk] [-bk]
| |

candidate outputs: [kitapçida] Underlying [-back] specification is misaligned from
the right edge of the Prosodic Word by one
syllable; one asterisk assessed.
[-bk] [-bk]

[kitapçidä] Underlying [-back] specification is perfectly
aligned with the right edge of the Prosodic Word;
no asterisk assessed.

Since AlignR is the constraint ranked the highest in the schema in (30), the fact that it is violated
by kitapçida but not by kitapçidä guarantees that kitapçidä will win, which is not the outcome
we want.

20

As it turns out, no reasonable modification of the OT scheme in (30) (e.g. formulating
AlignR so that it refers only to surface [-back] specifications; specifying neutral vowels as
[-back] underlyingly; assessing Align violations absolutely vs. gradiently) can account for the
range of Uyghur facts adduced in this paper without major alterations such as the addition of
levels of derivation. As I discuss in more detail below, though, the addition of levels to OT
fatally weakens the theory by depriving it of its primary advantage over derivational models.

5.2. Cole and Kisseberth
Cole and Kisseberth 1994 resembles Pulleyblank 1996 in employing a more static conception of
harmony wherein the role of autosegmental spreading is minimized. Whereas Pulleyblank allows
Gen to produce multiply linked structures via spreading, though, Cole and Kisseberth employ
only feature insertion and deletion. The other important way in which their model differs from
Pulleyblank 1996 and most other theories of harmony is in its reification of the harmony domain
as a phonological entity. Let us now see if these modifications to the conventional OT treatment
of harmony fare any better with the Uyghur facts.
Cole and Kisseberth make the following assumptions that will be relevant for Uyghur
(1994:102):

(44) Relevant assumptions in Cole and Kisseberth’s model of Vowel Harmony
i. Features are privative. In Cole and Kisseberth’s system, Uyghur Vowel Harmony
involves the feature Palatal (equivalent to traditional [-back]).
ii. Full specification. Segments are fully specified in underlying representations unless there
is no evidence for an underlying specification (e.g. in harmonic suffix vowels).
iii. Harmony is insertion. Harmony is not modeled as autosegmental spreading; there is no
multiple association between segments and harmonic features.

Crucially, assumption (44ii) has to be modified so that neutral vowels are underlyingly
unspecified for the harmonic feature. If this were not the case, a neutral root like til ‘tongue’
would be predicted to behave identically to a [-back] harmonic root like xät ‘letter’, since both
would be underlyingly specified as [-back] (or [Palatal] in Cole and Kisseberth’s system)
(compare the forms in (4)). In the tables that follow, we represent these underspecified neutral
vowels with capital letters, e.g. tIl.
Given the assumptions in (44) and the above stipulation concerning neutral vowels, the
following constraints are necessary to account for the basic Uyghur facts in Cole and
Kisseberth’s model:

21

(45) Relevant constraints for Uyghur VH (based on Cole and Kisseberth 1994)
i. CLASH Non-low back unrounded vowels are not allowed.
ii. *INSERT [PALATAL] Every [Palatal] specification in the output must have a
correspondent in the input. (Equivalent to Dep[-back] in conventional
OT.)
iii. * Every [Palatal] specification in the input must have a
correspondent in the output. (Equivalent to Max[-back] in
conventional OT.)
iv. BA-L The left edge of every segment anchoring a [Palatal] specification
in the underlying representation must be aligned with the left edge
of a Palatal domain in the surface representation. (In Cole and
Kisseberth’s terminology, this Basic Alignment constraint is
Align(Anchor-s, L; F-domain, L).)
v. BA-R Align(Anchor-s, R; F-domain, R)
vi. WSA-R The right edge of every Palatal domain must be aligned with the
right edge of a Prosodic Word. (In Cole and Kisseberth’s
terminology, this Wide Scope Alignment constraint is Align(F-
domain, R; PrWd, R).)
vii. EXPRESS [PALATAL] The feature [Palatal] must be affiliated with every anchor in a
Palatal domain.

Now let us consider how these constraints deal with some of the basic products of Uyghur vowel
harmony. In order to account for the classes of forms in (32-38) we require the ranking in (46).

(46) CLASH >> WSA-R >> BA-R >> BA-L >> EXPRESS >> *INSERT

The tables in (47) - (53) demonstrate how this ranking produces the desired outputs for basic
cases. (Vowels underlyingly unspecified for the harmonic feature are written with capital letters.)

(47) Front vowel + harmonic suffix: /xät-lAr/ ‘letter-plural’ → [xätlär]
UR: xät-lAr CLASH WSA-R BA-R BA-L EXPRESS *INSERT
) (xätlär) * *
(xät)(lär) * *
(xät)lar *
(xätlar) * *
|atlar * *

22

(48) Back vowel + harmonic suffix: /at-lAr/ ‘horse-plural’ → [atlar]
UR: at-lAr CLASH WSA-R BA-R BA-L EXPRESS *INSERT
) atlar
at(lär) *
(ät)lar * *
(ätlär) **
(atlar) **

(49) Neutral vowel + harmonic suffix: /tIl-lAr/ ‘tongue-plural’ → [tillar]
UR: tIl-lAr CLASH WSA-R BA-R BA-L EXPRESS *INSERT
) tillar *
(tillar) * *
(tillär) **
t¥llar *
(til)lar * *
(til)(lär) * **

(50) Bk V + neutral V + harmonic V: /yol-ImIz-GA/ ‘road-1pl-dative’ → [yolimiz&a]
/yol-ImIz-GA/ CLASH WSA-R BA-R BA-L EXPRESS *INSERT
) yolimiz&a
yo(limiz&a) *
(yolimiz&a) **
yo(limiz)&a *
yo(limizgä) *
(yölimizgä) **
yo(li)(miz)&a **

(51) Back V + derived neutral V + harmonic V: /bala-lAr/ ‘child-plural’ → [balilar]
UR: bala-lAr CLASH WSA-R BA-R BA-L EXPRESS *INSERT
) balilar *
(balilar) ** *
ba(li)lar * *
ba(lilär) **
ba(lilar) * *

23

(52) Disharmonic back-V-final root + neutral V + harmonic V:
/äswab-I-GA/ ‘tool-3sgposs-dative’ → [äswibiÝä]
/äswab-I-GA/ CLASH WSA-R BA-R BA-L EXPRESS *INSERT
) (äswibiÝä) * ***
(äs)wibi&a * **
äswibiÝä * * ***
aswibi&a * * **
(äswibi)&a * * **
(aswibi&a) * ** **

(53) Disharmonic front-V-final root + neutral V + harmonic V:
/adäm-I-GA/ ‘man-3sgposs-dative’ → [adimiÝä]
/adäm-I-GA/ CLASH WSA-R BA-R BA-L EXPRESS *INSERT
) a(dimiÝä) * **
adimi(Ýä) * * **
adimi&a * * *
adimiÝä * * **
a(di)(miÝä) * **
a(dimi&a) * * *

The above tables show that the ranking in (46) is able to account for the cases in (47) - (53),
provided we assume that neutral vowels are underlyingly unspecified for the harmonic feature.
As was the case with Pulleyblank’s system, though, Cole and Kisseberth’s system is
unable to derive the correct surface forms of words containing derived neutral vowels in non-
cyclic suffixes following [+back] roots, as shown in (54).

(54) /kIta:b-çä-DA/ ‘book-small-locative’ → [kitapçida]
/kIta:b-çä-DA/ CLASH WSA-R BA-R BA-L EXPRESS *INSERT
) kitapçida * * *
1kitap(çidä) * **
kitap(çi)da * *
(ki)tap(çida) * * * *
(kitapçidä) * * * **
(kitäpçidä) * * ***

As should be clear from the table in (54), the correct output kitapçida can only be obtained by
ranking *INSERT above BA-L. This ranking would however be unable to derive simple cases of
harmonic suffixes agreeing with [-back] harmonic roots, as with /xät-lAr/ → [xätlär], because the
ranking *INSERT >> BA-L would favor candidates that (all else being equal) avoid inserting

24

[-back]. For example, the actual winning candidate in (47), (xätlär), would lose to the incorrect
output *(xätlar), because the latter is identical to the former save for the fact that it does not
insert any [-back] specifications and therefore wins the evaluation by *INSERT.
Cole and Kisseberth’s theory therefore fails to overcome the problems encountered by
Pulleyblank’s theory. As Pulleyblank 1996 points out, moreover, Cole and Kisseberth’s theory
also falls short insofar as it adds a new phonological entity, the harmony domain, which is not
necessary in other theories of harmony.

5.4. Summary of OT analyses
We have seen, then, that two representative OT accounts of harmony, Pulleyblank 1996 and Cole
and Kisseberth 1994, are unable to account for the range of Uyghur facts. It should be clear from
the discussion in the previous two sections that in fact no monostratal implementation of OT will
be able to account for the Uyghur data, no matter how many (reasonable) constraints it posits.
A constraint-based theory of harmony may well be able to churn out the correct surface
forms via judicious use of levels, Output-Output constraints, or Sympathy, but taking recourse to
these devices deprives OT of what I believe to be its only significant advantage over derivational
theories, which is the avoidance of supposedly unmotivated levels of representation and
byzantine computations. Let us consider these options individually.

5.4.1. Multistratal OT
Faced with the general problem of opaque interactions between phonological processes, most OT
phonologists have in recent years abandoned the monostratal conception of OT and reintroduced
the traditional derivational notion of levels and level ordering. Some phonologists (including
Orgun, Koskenniemi, Rubach 2000, and in a less overt way Ní Chiosáin and Padgett 1997) have
realized that this step runs the risk of making OT just as stipulative as its derivational
predecessors, and have therefore attempted to limit their system to two well-defined levels
corresponding to the traditional lexical and postlexical strata. As McCarthy 1997 points out,
though, the two-level approach is unable to deal with derivations where an intermediate level of
representation is crucial, as in the famous Hebrew deße case.
Other phonologists (notably Goldsmith, Lakoff, and Kiparsky 2000) have been led to
emply three or more levels of representation within a constraint-based framework. McCarthy
notes that these multistratal versions of OT trivialize strata, permit implausible ranking
inconsistencies between strata, and “ignore [the] main issue that derivations present for OT”
(1997:4).
We can conclude, then, that a multistratal implementation of OT is not on the right track.
This leaves only two possibilities with which OT can account for opacity and cases of the
Uyghur type: Output-Output faithfulness (Benua) and Sympathy (McCarthy 2000).

25

5.4.2. Output-Output faithfulness
Benua attempts to use Output-Output faithfulness constraints to derive certain types of opacity.
As McCarthy 1997:5 points out, though, this cannot work in cases where there is no form
elsewhere in the relevant paradigm to force the desired alternation. In the case of Hebrew deße,
for example, there is no form elsewhere in the nominal paradigm to force the insertion of the
epenthetic e. The same argument holds for the Uyghur case; minimal pairs like kitapçida vs.
adimiÝä cannot be explained in terms of more basic members of the paradigm. (For further
arguments against Output-Output faithfulness as an explanation of opacity see Hale, Kissock,
and Reiss 1998 and Rubach 2000.)

5.4.3. Sympathy
The last possible means at OT’s disposal for dealing with opacity is Sympathy (McCarthy 2000).
Sympathy suffers a number of theoretical and empirical weaknesses, and therefore fares no better
than the alternatives already considered. First of all Sympathy is inherently derivational, as
Idsardi 1998 has noted: the selection of the sympathetic candidate crucially must occur before
the selection of the actual winner. Idsardi also demonstrates that Sympathy creates chaos: a
phonological system with several independent opaque interactions requires the postulation of a
number of sympathetic constraints, whose interactions leave us unable to account for certain
basic output types. Moreover, Rubach 2000 has shown that Sympathy is unable to account for
the opaque interactions found in the phonological behavior of vowel sequences in Slavic
languages. Finally, it is not at all clear that Sympathy can account for the Uyghur cases discussed
in this paper.
To sum up this section, no modification of OT appears to be able to handle opacity and
facts of the Uyghur type while simultaneously retaining the advantages of OT. A derivational
theory of the sort outlined in (29), on the other hand, is able to account for the complicated
Uyghur facts in a straightforward manner, using only machinery that is amply and independently
motivated in the phonological literature. Such a theory is also quite capable of dealing with
opacity via rule ordering, as is well known. Unless it can be demonstrated that OT is capable of
accounting for the Uyghur facts and for opacity in an equally principled and efficient manner,
which I have suggested is not possible, we must conclude that a serial approach to phonology is
to be preferred over a parallel one.

6. Conclusions
In this paper I have presented three main points of interest, one empirical and two formal. The
novel empirical component of this paper is the examination of neutral vowels derived from
disharmonic vowels. Though previous treatments of vowel harmony have not considered this
topic, they do in fact make predictions about the behavior of derived neutral vowels: in the
prespecification model (Clements 1976, Clements and Sezer 1982, Clements 1987, etc.) neutral
vowels derived from harmonic vowels should be transparent, and neutral vowels derived from
disharmonic vowels should be opaque. In Output-driven models, on the other hand, all surface

26

neutral vowels should behave in the same manner. I have argued that the Uyghur facts show both
of these sets of predictions to be incorrect, which leads to two important conclusions concerning
the formal structure of phonological theory: (i) harmony is sensitive to inventory-based contrast,
rather than representational encoding of contrast; (ii) a derivational theory incorporating this
notion of contrast is to be preferred over output-driven theories of phonology.

References
Alling, Emily. 1999. Uyghur vowel harmony. Manuscript, Harvard University.
Archangeli, Diana and Douglas Pulleyblank. 1989. Yoruba vowel harmony. Linguistic Inquiry
20:173-217.
Archangeli, Diana and Douglas Pulleyblank. 1993. Grounded phonology. Cambridge: MIT
Press.
Binnick, R. 1980. The underlying representation of harmonic vowels: evidence from modern
Mongolian. In Vago 1980.
Calabrese, Andrea. 1995. A Constraint-Based Theory of Phonological Markedness and
Simplification Procedures. Linguistic Inquiry 26.3.373-463.
Clements, G. Nick. 1976. The autosegmental treatment of vowel harmony. In W. Dressler and O.
Pfeiffer, eds., Phonologica 1976. Innsbruck.
Clements, G. Nick. 1987. Toward a substantive theory of feature specification. NELS 18, 79-93.
Clements, G. Nick and Engin Sezer. 1982. Vowel and consonant disharmony in Turkish. In van
der Hulst and Smith, eds., The Structure of Phonological Representations II. Dordrecht:
Foris, 213-255.
Cole, Jennifer and Charles Kisseberth. 1994. An Optimal Domains Theory of Harmony. Studies
in the Linguistic Sciences 24.1/2:101-114.
Comrie, Bernard. 1997. Uyghur Phonology. In Phonologies of Asia and Africa (Including the
Caucasus), Alan Kaye and Peter Daniels, eds., 913-25. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns.
Crothers, J. and M. Shibatani. 1980. Issues in the description of Turkish vowel harmony. In
Vago 1980.
Farkas, Donka and Patrice Beddor. 1987. Privative and Equipollent Backness in Hungarian.
Parasession on Autosegmental and Metrical Phonology, CLS 23.
Hahn, Reinhard. 1991a. Spoken Uyghur. Seattle: University of Washington Press.
Hahn, Reinhard. 1991b. Diachronic aspects of regular disharmony in modern Uyghur. In Studies
in the Historical Phonology of Asian Languages, William Boltz and Michael Shapiro, eds.
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Hale, Mark, Madelyn Kissock, and Charles Reiss. 1998. Output-Output Correspondence in
Optimality Theory. WCCFL 16, Emily Curtis, James Lyle, and Gabriel Webster, eds.
Stanford: CSLI Publications.
Halle, Morris, Bert Vaux, and Andrew Wolfe. 2000. Feature spreading and the representation of
place of articulation. Linguistic Inquiry 31.3.

27

Inkelas, Sharon, Orhan Orgun, and Cheryl Zoll. 1998. Exceptions and static phonological
patterns: cophonologies vs. prespecification. ROA.
Kenstowicz, Michael. 1983.
Kenstowicz, Michael. 1994. Phonology in generative grammar. Oxford: Blackwell.
Kenstowicz, Michael and Charles Kisseberth. 1979. Generative Phonology. San Diego:
Academic Press.
Kiparsky, Paul. 1981. Vowel Harmony. Manuscript, MIT and Stanford University.
Lightner, Theodore. 1965. On the description of vowel and consonant harmony. Word 21.2.
Lindblad, Vern. 1990. Neutralization in Uyghur. MA thesis, University of Washington.
Matushansky, Ora. 2000. po- is P0: On formal identity of Russian prefixes and prepositions.
Generals paper, MIT.
McCarthy, John. 1997. Sympathy & Phonological Opacity. Handout from talk given at MIT,
April 4, 1997.
McCarthy, John. 2000. Harmonic Serialism and Parallelism. NELS 30; also available as ROA
357-10991.
Pulleyblank, Douglas. 1993. Vowel harmony and Optimality Theory. Proceedings of the
workshop on Phonology, 1-18. Associação Portugesa de Linguística, University of Coimbra,
Portugal.
Pulleyblank, Douglas. 1996. Neutral Vowels in Optimality Theory: A Comparison of Yoruba
and Wolof. Canadian Journal of Linguistics 41(4):295-347.
Ringen, Catherine and Orvokki Heinämäki. 1999. Variation in Finnish Vowel Harmony: An OT
Account. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 17:303-337.
Rubach, Jerzy. 2000. [Slavic vowel sequence paper in LI]
Shinjang Uyghur Aptonom Rayonluq Millätlär Til-yeziq Xizmiti Komiteti. 1985. Hazirqi Zaman
Uyghur Ädäbiy Tilining Imla Lughiti. Ürümchi: Shinjang Xälq Näshriyati.
Steriade, Donca. 1987. Redundant Values. CLS.
Vago, Robert. 1980. Issues in vowel harmony. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Department of Linguistics
Harvard University
Cambridge, MA 02138
[email protected]
28
References (31)
Alling, Emily. 1999. Uyghur vowel harmony. Manuscript, Harvard University.
Archangeli, Diana and Douglas Pulleyblank. 1989. Yoruba vowel harmony. Linguistic Inquiry 20:173-217.
Archangeli, Diana and Douglas Pulleyblank. 1993. Grounded phonology. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Binnick, R. 1980. The underlying representation of harmonic vowels: evidence from modern Mongolian. In Vago 1980.
Calabrese, Andrea. 1995. A Constraint-Based Theory of Phonological Markedness and Simplification Procedures. Linguistic Inquiry 26.3.373-463.
Clements, G. Nick. 1976. The autosegmental treatment of vowel harmony. In W. Dressler and O. Pfeiffer, eds., Phonologica 1976. Innsbruck.
Clements, G. Nick. 1987. Toward a substantive theory of feature specification. NELS 18, 79-93.
Clements, G. Nick and Engin Sezer. 1982. Vowel and consonant disharmony in Turkish. In van der Hulst and Smith, eds., The Structure of Phonological Representations II. Dordrecht: Foris, 213-255.
Cole, Jennifer and Charles Kisseberth. 1994. An Optimal Domains Theory of Harmony. Studies in the Linguistic Sciences 24.1/2:101-114.
Comrie, Bernard. 1997. Uyghur Phonology. In Phonologies of Asia and Africa (Including the Caucasus), Alan Kaye and Peter Daniels, eds., 913-25. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns.
Crothers, J. and M. Shibatani. 1980. Issues in the description of Turkish vowel harmony. In Vago 1980.
Farkas, Donka and Patrice Beddor. 1987. Privative and Equipollent Backness in Hungarian. Parasession on Autosegmental and Metrical Phonology, CLS 23.
Hahn, Reinhard. 1991a. Spoken Uyghur. Seattle: University of Washington Press.
Hahn, Reinhard. 1991b. Diachronic aspects of regular disharmony in modern Uyghur. In Studies in the Historical Phonology of Asian Languages, William Boltz and Michael Shapiro, eds. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Hale, Mark, Madelyn Kissock, and Charles Reiss. 1998. Output-Output Correspondence in Optimality Theory. WCCFL 16, Emily Curtis, James Lyle, and Gabriel Webster, eds. Stanford: CSLI Publications.
Halle, Morris, Bert Vaux, and Andrew Wolfe. 2000. Feature spreading and the representation of place of articulation. Linguistic Inquiry 31.3.
Inkelas, Sharon, Orhan Orgun, and Cheryl Zoll. 1998. Exceptions and static phonological patterns: cophonologies vs. prespecification. ROA.
Kenstowicz, Michael. 1983.
Kenstowicz, Michael. 1994. Phonology in generative grammar. Oxford: Blackwell.
Kenstowicz, Michael and Charles Kisseberth. 1979. Generative Phonology. San Diego: Academic Press.
Kiparsky, Paul. 1981. Vowel Harmony. Manuscript, MIT and Stanford University.
Lightner, Theodore. 1965. On the description of vowel and consonant harmony. Word 21.2.
Lindblad, Vern. 1990. Neutralization in Uyghur. MA thesis, University of Washington. Matushansky, Ora. 2000. po-is P 0 : On formal identity of Russian prefixes and prepositions. Generals paper, MIT.
McCarthy, John. 1997. Sympathy & Phonological Opacity. Handout from talk given at MIT, April 4, 1997.
McCarthy, John. 2000. Harmonic Serialism and Parallelism. NELS 30; also available as ROA 357-10991.
Pulleyblank, Douglas. 1993. Vowel harmony and Optimality Theory. Proceedings of the workshop on Phonology, 1-18. Associação Portugesa de Linguística, University of Coimbra, Portugal.
Pulleyblank, Douglas. 1996. Neutral Vowels in Optimality Theory: A Comparison of Yoruba and Wolof. Canadian Journal of Linguistics 41(4):295-347.
Ringen, Catherine and Orvokki Heinämäki. 1999. Variation in Finnish Vowel Harmony: An OT Account. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 17:303-337.
Rubach, Jerzy. 2000. [Slavic vowel sequence paper in LI] Shinjang Uyghur Aptonom Rayonluq Millätlär Til-yeziq Xizmiti Komiteti. 1985. Hazirqi Zaman Uyghur Ädäbiy Tilining Imla Lughiti. Ürümchi: Shinjang Xälq Näshriyati.
Steriade, Donca. 1987. Redundant Values. CLS.
Vago, Robert. 1980. Issues in vowel harmony. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Department of Linguistics Harvard University Cambridge, MA 02138
FAQs
AI
How do Uyghur vowel harmony patterns differ from Turkish systems?
add
Uyghur vowel harmony operates differently as it propagates cyclically and postcyclically, unlike Turkish. This results in disharmonic vowels behaving distinctly, showing a divergence in harmony application dynamics.
What role do derived neutral vowels play in Uyghur vowel harmony?
add
Derived neutral vowels are consistently transparent in Uyghur, which contradicts earlier predictions of opacity from disharmonic backgrounds. This suggests harmony sensitivity to the broader vowel inventory rather than just representational features.
How does the methodology account for disharmonic vowel patterns in Uyghur?
add
The study employs a derivational analysis that assumes cyclicity and feature visibility, revealing unique transformations of disharmonic vowels. This approach clarifies how vowel features spread in complex interactions within phonological structures.
What is the significance of the contrastive feature in Uyghur phonology?
add
The analysis reveals that vowel harmony is sensitive solely to contrastive specifications, ignoring non-contrastive features. This challenges traditional views and supports a more nuanced understanding of phonological representations in Uyghur.
When did Uyghur phonological theories shift towards derivational frameworks?
add
Recent scholarship increasingly favors derivational models to explain complex vowel harmony behaviors like those seen in Uyghur. The paper argues for this shift by demonstrating deficiencies in prevailing Output-driven frameworks established in the 1990s.
Bert Vaux
University of Cambridge, Faculty Member
Papers
224
Followers
9,410
View all papers from
Bert Vaux
arrow_forward
Related papers
Transparency, locality, and contrast in Uyghur backness harmony
Adam G McCollum
Laboratory Phonology, 2021
Theories of vowel harmony have wrestled with the formal challenges of transparency, notably the increased expressivity resulting from non-local dependencies. However, experimental work has demonstrated on a number of occasions that 'transparent' vowels actually undergo harmony (e.g., Gick, Pulleyblank, Campbell, & Mutaka, 2006), re-establishing the role of locality in the analysis of harmony. Existing work on backness harmony in Uyghur argues that /i/ is transparent to harmony, with some proposing that this falls out from the absence of contrastive /ɯ/ in the language (e.g., Vaux, 2000). This paper examines the distribution of surface [i] and [ɯ] within roots and suffixes to assess their phonological status, as well as their participation in harmony. Results support the case that there are no long-distance dependencies in Uyghur, suggesting that harmony is truly local in the language. Results for root-internal [i] and [ɯ] are less clear; evidence from most speakers supports an allophonic relationship, while some evidence for other speakers suggests the possibility of contrastive /i/ and /ɯ/.
Download free PDF
View PDF
chevron_right
The Principle of Uyghur Vowel Harmony
De-ming Yang
Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 2019
This paper aims at Uyghur vowel mutation tendency by means of Economic law of articulation. The economy principle can be easy to trace thorough evaluating Uyghur mutation. And the economy principle might have been a main factor producing the vowel harmony.
Download free PDF
View PDF
chevron_right
Vowel harmony: A Comparative Study of Turkey's and Azerbaijani Turkish
Amir Khalilzadeh
Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2013
The main purpose of this paper is to compare and contrast the treatment of vowel harmony, a kind of long-distance mining carefully the linguistic data obtained from the dialects and within the framework of generative phonology, the author of the paper has attempted to evaluate the present-day situation of vowel harmony (a synchronic study) in the abovementioned members of Oghuz languages. The results of the study showed that, except some violations mostly observed in loanwords, there is an innate and high degree of harmony in both of them, along with some degrees of disharmony. It can be claimed that one of the main factors of the observed disharmony, among other factors, is the effect of other languages and the existence of loanwords. Generally speaking, we may conclude that vowel harmony kish and Azerbaijani Turkish (Iran), of course with some degrees of difference.
Download free PDF
View PDF
chevron_right
Vowel Harmony is a Basic Phonetic Rule of the Turkic Languages
Sagira Odanova
International journal of environmental and science education, 2016
The present study comprehensively analyzes vowel harmony as an important phonetic rule in Turkic languages. Recent changes in the vowel harmony potential of Turkic sounds caused by linguistic and extra-linguistic factors were described. Vowels in the Kazakh, Turkish, and Uzbek language were compared. The way this or that phoneme sounded in the Proto-Turkic language and the way it sounds now in each specific language was investigated. The common and distinguishing features of phonemes were specified based on concrete facts. The specificity of sounding of key vowel phonemes was analyzed with regard to the findings of prominent phoneticians. It was found that of the compared languages, only the Turkish and the Kazakh language preserved the classic eight ProtoTurkic vowels. Certain signs of vowel harmony were characterized – tree types of vowel opposition: by backness – front, back, central, by labialization – unlablialized-labialized, by roundness – narrow, wide, and medium. Thus, it i...
Download free PDF
View PDF
chevron_right
Gradient morphophonology: Evidence from Uyghur vowel harmony
Adam G McCollum
Proceedings of the annual meetings on phonology, 2019
* I would like to thank the Uyghurs who let me stay in their village, shared their language with me, and even braved an earthquake with me. This paper has been greatly improved by discussions with Sharon Rose, Eric Baković, Marc Garellek, Rachel Walker, and Sarah Creel, as well as interactions with the audiences at UCSD's PhonCo and AMP.
Download free PDF
View PDF
chevron_right
Vowel Harmony: An Historical Account
Emran Al Khattab
Advances in Language and Literary Studies
All languages change over time. English has undergone continuous change throughout its three major periods: Old English (roughly from 450 to 1100 AD), Middle English (from 1100 to 1500), and Modern English (from 1500 to the present). Sound is one of the most easily influenced parts of language to be subject to different changes. Sound change is inevitable and it is a live indication of the continuous growth of language. The evidence to prove the regularity and systematicity of sound change has been the main concern of linguists, This paper seeks to provide more evidence on how vowel harmony played a key role on the regularity of sound change by extracting samples of sound changes that have taken place throughout the English history.
Download free PDF
View PDF
chevron_right
Feature domains and covert harmony in Turkish: The exceptional transparency of /a/
Jennifer Bellik
Feature domains and covert harmony in Turkish: the exceptional transparency of /a/, 2015
Author(s): Bellik, Jennifer Ann | Advisor(s): Ito, Junko | Abstract: Turkish vowel harmony is very systematic, but in a little-studied class of words, appears to break down. I propose that this apparent harmony failure is actually covert harmony, or exceptional transparency. Background: The backness of vowels in Turkish suffixes is determined by the backness of the nearest vowel in the word they attach to (1).(1) Nom. Dative Gloss a. kadran → kadran-a, *kadran-e 'clockface' b. beden → beden-e, *beden-a 'body'Harmony within roots is often violated, but harmony between suffixes and the nearest root vowel is extremely robust (2). Nonetheless, in certain roots, /a/ exceptionally behaves as transparent and suffixes must surface with front vowels (3).(2) Singular Plural Gloss a. kitap → kitap-lar, *kitap-ler 'book' b. kahve → kahve-ler, *kahve-lar 'coffee'(3) a. harf → harf-ler, *harf-lar 'letters' b. dikkat → dikkat-ler, *dikkat-lar 'attentions...
Download free PDF
View PDF
chevron_right
Seto vowel harmony and the typology of disharmony
Paul Kiparsky
stanford.edu
The scope of vowel harmony in the Balto-Finnic languages is systematically determined by their vowel systems on the basis of two exceptionless generalizations. The first generalization is that (morphological restrictions aside) all of the languages have front-back vowel harmony to ...
Download free PDF
View PDF
chevron_right
Are neutral roots in Uyghur really neutral? Evaluating a covert phonemic contrast∗
Mahire Yakup
2022
Diachronic processes sometimes eliminate a surface contrast between two phonemes. In certain cases, languages that undergo such a neutralization continue to exhibit phonological alternations that appear to be sensitive to the original contrast, even though it is no longer manifested in surface forms. Compton & Dresher (2011) describe one such case, where a distinction between historical */i/ and */@/ in Proto-Eskimo has been neutralized to surface [i] in many dialects of modern Inuit. In a subset of these dialects, however, instances of surface [i] that correspond to historical */i/ trigger palatalization of following consonants, while instances of [i] that correspond to historical */@/ do not. Compton & Dresher suggest that these dialects have maintained a covert phonemic contrast between “strong /i/” (corresponding to */i/) and “weak /i/” (corresponding to */@/).1 Although the two are claimed to be phonetically identical, the former is specified for the feature [CORONAL], which dr...
Download free PDF
View PDF
chevron_right
Turkish Vowel Harmony and the Effect of Statistical Information on Phonology
Yasin Tasdemir
This paper tries to seek whether Vowel Harmony rules in Turkish are really carried over nonce words which are modified from real words or not.
Download free PDF
View PDF
chevron_right
Explore
Papers
Topics
Features
Mentions
Analytics
PDF Packages
Advanced Search
Search Alerts
Journals
Academia.edu Journals
My submissions
Reviewer Hub
Why publish with us
Testimonials
Company
About
Careers
Press
Content Policy
580 California St., Suite 400
San Francisco, CA, 94104