!!

"#$#%!&#'()*+!,*!-.&./0!#!1+/)%)2,3#%!#*)(#%+4 !

!Bert Botma

!"#$%&'()*+&,(%# In this paper I provide an analysis of the pattern of nasal harmony displayed in Yuhup, a Maku language spoken in the Amazonas province of Brazil. While the available Yuhup data are extremely limited, they bring to light an interesting property which seems to set the Yuhup pattern apart from the more familiar patterns found in other Amazonian languages, such as Tuyuca, Tucano and Southern Barasano. In these languages we find a complementary distribution between a series of nasals and a series of voiced oral stops. In Tucano and Southern Barasano the latter are in some contexts realized as prenasalized, though this nasalization has a different status than harmonic nasalization. Prenasalized stops occur in non-harmonic contexts only and never trigger nasalization themselves. For this reason, it has been suggested that the nasality of prenasalized stops in Tucano and Southern Barasano is phonologically irrelevant (see e.g. Piggott 1992, Rice 1993, Piggott & van der Hulst 1997).

The nasal harmony pattern of Yuhup, like those of Tucano and Southern Barasano, is characterized by a complementary distribution between nasals and nasal contours (i.e. prenasalized and postnasalized stops). Nasals are found in nasalizing contexts; in non-nasalizing contexts prenasalized stops occur initially and postnasalized stops finally. If Yuhup is like Tucano and Southern Barasano, then we would not expect these nasal contours to be able to trigger nasal harmony. The problem, however, is that they do: Yuhup has a number of suffixes which surface as nasalized when following a root-final postnasalized stop. It is this nasalization that appears to make Yuhup typologically anomalous.

The aim of this paper is twofold. First, I will argue that the pattern of nasal harmony in languages like Tuyuca and Southern Barasano receives a straightforward analysis if it is assumed that nasal harmony operates at the level of the syllable. The second aim of this paper is to extend this analysis to the harmony pattern of Yuhup. The account of Yuhup harmony that I present is speculative. However, I hope to show that we can get a better insight into the Yuhup pattern if we assume, following Government Phonology, that root-final consonants are analyzed as onsets of empty-headed syllables (see e.g. Harris & Gussmann 2001).

This paper is organized as follows. In §2, I offer a typological overview of nasal harmony patterns, with special emphasis on the type of nasal harmony that is found in Amazonian languages. Next, in §3, I focus on two theoretical implications of this harmony pattern: the sonorant status of what appears to be phonetically a series of voiced obstruent stops, and the allocation of harmonic nasalization to the level of the syllable. The stage is then set for an analysis of the nasal harmony pattern of Yuhup, which I present in §4. §5 concludes.

In Nancy Kula & Jeroen van de Weijer (eds.), . Special issue of

2.4 (2005), 1-21. http://www.lucl.leidenuniv.nl ISSN 1574-4728

2 -.'&#-(&/0#

1"#2#&34(5(63#(7#%0805#90'/(%3#838&./8# Nasal harmony can informally be defined as a process in which nasality surfaces not as a property of just one segment but of a string of segments. Typological research on nasal harmony processes has shown that there are a number of parameters according to which language-specific harmony patterns may vary (see e.g. Schourup 1973, Piggott 1992 and Walker 1998). The following parameters can be distinguished: (1) :0'0/.&.'8#(7#%0805#90'/(%3 a. Domain of nasalization b. Trigger of nasalization c. Direction of nasalization d. Target range of nasalization e. Behaviour of non-targets Parameters (a)-(c) are self-evident. In (d), “target range” refers to the range of segment types that is compatible with nasalization. In (e), “non-targets” are those segment types that are incompatible with nasalization. Non-targets either block nasal harmony or are transparent to it. In the remainder of this section I briefly discuss the parameters in (1), paying particular attention to (d) and (e).

To put the discussion on a concrete footing, consider first the pattern of nasal harmony that is displayed in Warao, an isolate of Venezuela and Guyana (cf. Osborn 1966; see also Piggott 1992): (2) a. !!"# ‘give it to him’

"#"$"%" ‘summer’ !!"#$% ‘give them to him’ !&%!&'(" ‘shadow’

b. )*+&&* ‘kind of bird’ )*,& ‘it broke’ -. ‘sun’ -ã ‘walking’

c. '! ‘turtle’ !'%!,' ‘kind of tree’

The forms in (2a) indicate that nasal harmony spreads rightwards to the end of the word, is initiated by nasal consonants, targets vowels, laryngeals and /+ -/, and is blocked by other segment types. The forms in (2b,c) indicate that Warao has underlyingly nasalized vowels; like nasals, these trigger progressive nasalization.1 Note that in a nasal harmony system such as Warao the domain of nasal harmony essentially depends on the number of adjacent nasalizable segments. Nasalization may be limited to a single segment, as in [-"], or it may be a property of an entire word, as in [!!"#].

In other languages there is evidence to suggest that nasal harmony is bound by a prosodic unit, in particular that of the syllable.2 Consider as an illustration the following forms from Secoya, a Western Tucanoan language of Ecuador (cf. Johnson & Peeke 1962; see also Ploch 1999):

1 I have been unable to find any Warao forms with vowel sequences whose second, but not first, member is nasalized. Osborn’s description suggests that such forms should be possible. 2 Piggott (1996) argues that nasal harmony in Kikongo is bound by the foot. In addition, it could be argued that the cross-linguistically frequent process of regressive tautosyllabic vowel nasalization constitutes a nasal harmony that is bound by the rhyme.

;0805#90'/(%3#,%#<*9*4# 3#

(3) a. &%!" ‘variety of tree’ (.!! ‘armadillo’ !&" ‘variety of ant’

#"/0' ‘crayfish’

b. )(!&' ‘she is weaving’ -.(" ‘sweet potato’ "! ‘bread’

c. $&$& ‘variety of tree’ )&)& ‘arm band’

The forms in (3a) show that Secoya, like Warao, has a progressive nasal harmony which is initiated by nasals, targets vowels, laryngeals and /+ -/, and is blocked by other segment types. The forms in (3b) show that Secoya, again like Warao, has underlyingly nasalized vowels. In (3c), however, we see an important difference between Secoya and Warao. These forms indicate that when /+ -/ precede a nasalized vowel, they surface as nasalized. This is unexpected, since the direction of nasalization in Secoya is generally progressive. Hence, the forms in (3c) suggest that two separate nasal harmony processes must be distinguished: a progressive harmony that is instantiated by nasals and nasalized vowels, and a regressive, syllable-bound harmony that is instantiated by nasalized vowels and which targets preceding onset sonorants. Following Piggott & Van der Hulst (1997), I will term this second type of harmony “syllable nasalization”.3

It is important to note that the two harmony processes in Secoya operate independently of each other. This becomes evident when we consider the two processes from a cross-linguistic perspective. On the one hand, we saw that Warao has progressive nasal harmony but lacks syllable nasalization. On the other hand, there are languages like Yoruba, a Benue-Congo language of Nigeria, which lack progressive harmony but do have syllable nasalization. Dunstan (1964:163) gives the following consonant inventory of Yoruba:4 (4)

45(8,=.# 1 ) 2 234 & 5 &3$ 531 7',+0&,=.# 6 0 7 ( %0805# ! [#] &04# 8 50&.'05# 9 65,).# - +

Yoruba has an underlying contrast between oral and nasalized vowels. When the non-nasal sonorants /9 8 - +/ precede a nasalized vowel, they are realized as [#*+ :*)*$]. Other consonants fail to nasalize in this environment, which suggests that Yoruba has a process of syllable nasalization that targets sonorants. As we will see, syllable nasalization is also found in the pattern of nasal harmony that is displayed in many Amazonian languages. As far as Yuhup is concerned, I will argue in §4 that syllable nasalization is possible only if the syllable in question has a filled nucleus.

What unifies the nasal harmony patterns observed so far is that non-targets invariably block nasal spread. However, there are also languages where non-targets are &'0%840'.%& to nasal spread. This pattern is for instance displayed in Tuyuca, an Eastern Tucanoan language of Colombia, where we find forms of the kind in (5) (unless noted otherwise, all Tuyuca data are taken from Walker 1998):

3 Ploch (1999) refers to it as “nasal sharing”. 4 Note in (4) that [ ] is not phonemic, but an allophone of / / before nasalized vowels.

4 -.'&#-(&/0#

(5) a. $," ‘to illuminate’ %!- ‘there’ &!- ‘howler monkey’ $'#- ‘wind’

b. !'$. ‘badger’ #').* ‘coal’ ).;! ‘Yapara rapids’ <!0- ‘bird’ 0', ‘to kill’ The forms in (5a) show that words containing sonorants and laryngeals only are nasalized throughout. The forms in (5b) show that in Tuyuca nasalization is not always distributed across a contiguous string of segments, since the nasal harmony process skips voiceless obstruents. This suggests that we are dealing with a case of non-local nasalization: given a particular domain, nasalization is associated with all nasalization targets, irrespective of the presence or position of any non-targets. This pattern of nasal harmony appears to be restricted to South America, where it is found in a number of Tucanoan, Tupi, Chibchan and Maku languages. In the remainder of this paper I will refer to languages that display this harmony pattern as “Tuyuca-type systems”.

A number of generalizations can be made regarding Tuyuca-type systems. First, these systems exhibit considerably less variation in the target range than harmony systems in which non-targets block nasalization (see e.g. Walker 1998 for examples of the latter). In Tuyuca-type systems only voiceless obstruents are transparent; all other segment types are predictably included in the harmonic target range.

Second, Tuyuca-type systems display a complementary distribution between a series of voiced oral stops and a series of nasals. The former occur in what may be termed “oral words”, the latter in “nasal words”. This is shown by the Tuyuca (near-) minimal pairs in (6); note here that voiceless obstruents occur in both oral and nasal words: (6) a. >'05#?(')8 b. ;0805#?(')8

1"$/ ‘swollen’ !'$. ‘badger’ 2")/* ‘to lose’ #'). ‘coal’ 0=5é ‘follow’ )(;- ‘Yapara rapids’

'0ó ‘bat’ <!0- ‘bird’ $*é ‘to bend’ $&0 ‘to prepare soup’ 0"á ‘to tie’ 0', ‘to kill’ The fact that nasals occur in nasal words only means that forms like *[!"$/] and *[#")/] are impossible. Similarly, the fact that voiced oral stops occur in oral words only means that forms such as *[1'$.] and *[2').] are impossible.

The complementary distribution of voiced oral stops and nasals suggests that the two have a single underlying representation. Different interpretations have been offered as to the nature of these segments. According to one approach, Tuyuca-type nasal harmony targets all voiced segment types, nasalizing sonorants and turning voiced stops into nasals (see e.g. Pulleyblank 1989, Noske 1995, Walker 1998).5 Alternatively, it has been argued that this type of harmony targets sonorants only (see e.g. Piggott 1992, Rice 1993, Piggott & van der Hulst 1997); this view implies that the voiced oral stops function as sonorants phonologically, parallel to other nasalization targets. The latter approach is also adopted in Botma (2004), where it follows naturally from the claim that nasalization and voice are in complementary distribution: nasalization is limited to sonorants, while voice is limited to obstruents; I return to this issue in §3.1.

5 Pulleyblank (1989) assumes that nasalization is regulated by a “nasal/voicing condition”, which sanctions the feature combination [+nasal,+voice] and rules out the combination [+nasal, voice]. The problem with this approach is that it is essentially stipulative, since it is unclear just why nasalization and voice have this affinity.

;0805#90'/(%3#,%#<*9*4# 5#

A third property of Tuyuca-type systems is that in harmonic words it is impossible to determine the direction of nasal spread. For this reason, it has been argued that in these systems nasalization is a property of morphemes (see e.g. Piggott 1992, Noske 1995). However, not all Tuyuca-type systems have as their harmonic domain entire morphemes. For instance, Southern Barasano has oral words, as in (7a), nasal words, as in (7b), and partly nasal words, as in (7c). Piggott & van der Hulst (1997) refer to the latter as “disharmonic roots”; note that in such roots the direction of nasalization +0% be determined (data from Smith & Smith 1971):6 (7) a. >'05#?(')8 b. ;0805#?(')8 c. :0'&53#%0805#?(')8

+á,".,' ‘pathway &,!!&, ‘rattle’ 1'#! ‘mirror’ &.hé ‘eye’ !"0, ‘people’ ,"!" ‘poison’ *&á,* ‘to feed’ !,#! ‘none’ ,'!'! ‘woman’

"0"á ‘buttocks’ $"). ‘demon’ (""!!&!#! ‘ten’

The form [(""!!&!#!] in (7c) shows that nasality is lexically associated to a vowel, from which it spreads rightwards, skipping any intervening obstruents. Based on forms of this type, Piggott & van der Hulst argue that the harmonic domains in (7b,c) can be unified if it is assumed that Southern Barasano has underlyingly nasalized vowels and a process of syllable nasalization. The latter assumption is required to account for forms like [$").] and [,'!'!]: if nasalization spreads rightwards from the leftmost nasalized vowel, then syllable nasalization must be invoked to ensure that any sonorant preceding this vowel will also be nasalized. Tuyuca differs in this respect from Secoya: syllable nasalization is optional in Secoya-type systems but required in Tuyuca-type systems.

In §3 I focus in more detail on the properties of the nasal harmony pattern in Tuyuca-type systems. In §3.1 and §3.2 I argue that the segment type that underlies the alternating nasals and voiced oral stops is that of a “sonorant stop”. In §3.3 I turn to the issue of syllable nasalization.

@"#2#&9.('.&,+05#,%&.'4'.&0&,(%#(7#A*3*+0B&34.#838&./8#@"!"#A9.#8&0&*8#(7#=(,+.)#('05#+(%8(%0%&8#

One unifying property of Tuyuca-type nasal harmony systems is that the range of non-targets is limited to voiceless obstruents. From this, two conclusions can be drawn: either the range of nasalizable segment types is identified in terms of voicing, or it is identified in terms of sonorancy. The decision as to which of these analyses is appropriate depends on the status of the voiced oral stops, which, as noted, are in complementary distribution with nasals. While the phonetic realization of these stops might be argued to reflect their obstruent status, there are good grounds to analyze them as sonorants phonologically.

The first argument for this is typological. As Rice (1993) observes, most, perhaps all, languages have a contrast between a series of obstruent stops and a series of sonorant stops. In most languages these sonorant stops are phonetically realized as nasals. In Tuyuca-type systems, on the other hand, nasals occur only in the context of a following nasalized vowel. This shows that in such systems nasality is not an underlying property of sonorant stops, and thus that the oral variants of sonorant stops should be regarded as underlying. If, by contrast, the oral variants were obstruents, these systems would lack an underlying contrast between obstruent and sonorant stops — a highly marked state of affairs.

A second argument for according the voiced oral stops sonorant status is that it allows a unified account of Tuyuca-type nasalization. In a feature-based account, this permits an analysis in which [nasal] associates only to segments that are specified for [sonorant] (or, following Piggott (1992) and Rice (1993), for “Spontaneous Voice”). These segments would then also include /1 2 5/. This interpretation can be straightforwardly reanalyzed in terms of the Element-based Dependency

6 Disharmonic roots also occur in other Tucanoan languages; compare e.g. Noske’s (1995) description of Tucano.

6 -.'&#-(&/0#

framework of Botma (2004), which combines insights from Element Theory (see Harris & Lindsey 1995) and Dependency Phonology (see especially Anderson & Ewen 1987).

A fundamental assumption of Element-based Dependency is that the phonetic interpretation of elements depends on the structural position in which they occur. A case in point is the element |L|. Generally speaking, |L| has the articulatory correlate of open approximation and the acoustic correlate of periodicity. The specific interpretation of |L| depends on its position in the segmental structure. If |L| occurs as a manner element (i.e. as head), as in (8a), the segment is identified as a sonorant. If |L| occurs as a phonation element (i.e. as dependent), its interpretation is variable: it denotes nasalization if there is also an |L| present in the head, as in (8b), and voice if there is no |L| present in the head, as in (8c): (8) a. b. c. L “|L| present” L “|L| absent” L … … … In (9) I provide four concrete examples: (9) a. N b. N c. O d. O | | | | L L L / / L | | | | A A U U /./ /"/ /$/ /1/ (9a) represents the low vowel /./, which has a manner component consisting of |L| only. This |L| is dominated by the nucleus constituent N, and itself dominates the place element |A|. (9b) represents nasalized /"/, which is like /./ but has an additional dependent |L|. Since there is also an |L| present in the head, this dependent |L| denotes nasalization. (9c) represents a voiceless labial plosive /$/, which has a manner component that consists of the stop element |/|. This |/| is dominated by the onset constituent O, and itself dominates the place element |U|. (9d), which represents /1/, has an additional dependent |L|. This |L| denotes voice, given that there is no |L| present in the head. The context-sensitive interpretation of dependent |L| thus embodies the claim that nasalization and voice are in complementary distribution.

In Element-based Dependency, voiced oral stops of the kind that are found in Tuyuca-type systems are analyzed as “sonorant stops”. Sonorant stops have a complex manner component in which |L| dominates |/|; they are therefore quite literally a combination of sonorancy and stopness. (10) represents an onset sonorant stop with coronal place: (10) O | L | / | I In Botma (2004) it is argued that the phonetic interpretation of sonorant stops is variable, ranging as it does between a voiced oral consonant (either stopped or continuant), a nasal, and a nasal contour. This variability is in part a matter of free variation, and is in part dependent on the phonological system of the language concerned. As an example of the former, consider the following facts from Rotokas, a

;0805#90'/(%3#,%#<*9*4# 7#

Papuan language of New Guinea. Firchow & Firchow (1969) describe Rotokas as having two dialects, “Rotokas A” and “Rotokas B”. Rotokas A contrasts voiceless stops and nasals. Rotokas B has a surface contrast between voiceless stops and a series of consonants that is realized as voiced, with variable continuancy and nasality. Firchow & Firchow observe that there does not appear to be a conditioning factor for this variation. (11) C(&(D08#2# C(&(D08#-# $ ) & $ ) & ! # ; 1~>~! 2~,~9~# 5~?~; Regarding the nasal realizations in Rotokas B, Firchow & Firchow (1969:274) report that “they are rarely heard except when a native speaker is trying to imitate a foreigner’s attempt at speaking Rotokas”.

In the UPSID database Rotokas is classified as lacking an underlying series of nasals (cf. Maddieson 1984), a typologically marked state of affairs.7 Following Rice (1993), I take the position that the phonetically variable consonants are underlyingly sonorants. More specifically, my claim is that they function as sonorant stops. The Element-based Dependency representation of the labial series is as in (12): (12) a. C(&(D08#2# b. C(&(D08#-# O O | | L L | | / / | | U U [!] [1~>~!]

The realization of the sonorant stops as nasals in Rotokas A represents the unmarked state of affairs. Most languages realize their sonorant stops as nasals, presumably because the acoustic signature of nasals offers the perceptually most salient compromise of sonorancy and stopness. The variable realization of the sonorant stops in Rotokas B is more marked. I consider this variablity a matter of phonetic implementation; that is, the realizations do not form distinct phonological entities but represent different phonetic options (for more examples of this kind, see Botma 2004).

In other languages, the phonetic realization of sonorant stops is determined by the phonological system. This is the case in languages where nasals are in complementary distribution with voiced oral consonants, as in Tuyuca-type systems. In such languages we are dealing with an underlying series of “bare” sonorant stops. In harmonic contexts these are realized as nasals through association with dependent |L|, as in (13): (13) O | L L | /

7 97% of the languages in UPSID have a series of underlying nasals; note that Maddieson’s data appear to have been taken from the “Rotokas B” dialect.

8 -.'&#-(&/0#

Nasalization in Tuyuca-type systems can thus be interpreted as targeting all |L|-specified manner components within the harmonic domain.8

In Tuyuca-type systems sonorant stops also have a variable phonetic interpretation. In some Tuyuca-type systems, such as Tuyuca and Desano, the voiced oral consonants are realized as stops. In other Tuyuca-type systems, such as Southern Barasano and Tucano, they are realized as nasal contours. As an illustration, consider some “oral words” from Southern Barasano (cf. Piggott & van der Hulst 1997:95): (14) 2",' ‘grasshopper’ (*2",')

+. 1. ~ +.1. ‘come!’ (*+" 1.) 1. 5' ~ 1.5' ‘eater’ (* 1" 5') ). 1')" ~ ).1')" ‘grass’ (*)" 1')")

The forms in (14) show that voiced oral stops are phonetically realized as prenasalized stops; this prenasalization is required word-initially and optional word-internally. There are good grounds to interpret prenasalization as being phonologically irrelevant. First, in word-internal position nasalization is not a required property of voiced stops. Second, and more importantly, prenasalized stops never trigger nasalization: a form like [+.: 1.] is impossible in Southern Barasano. Different interpretations of the nasalization of voiced stops have been offered in the literature. Noske (1995:153), for instance, observes that:

[in most Tucanoan languages]9 prenasalized stops occur only between a nasal and an oral vowel, and sometimes in word-initial position. Prenasalization is therefore predictable by rule, and should be accounted for by a spreading rule.

Piggott (1992:48) maintains that the variation between voiced stops and prenasals in languages like Southern Barasano must be treated as a phonetic effect (see Rice 1993 for a similar view):

The nasal property of … prenasalized stops is epiphenomenal; it is directly derivable from the articulatory adjustments required to realize spontaneous voicing.

Both Noske and Piggott note that prenasalization is predictable; Noske accounts for it in terms of a phonological process, while Piggott shifts the explanatory burden to the phonetic implemenation. The difference between the two accounts is not entirely trivial: if it turns out that there are languages where nasal contours in oral spans trigger nasalization themselves, then Piggott’s analysis is in trouble, while in Noske’s account such nasalization can be ordered to apply after the creation of nasal contours. As we will see in §4, Yuhup appears to be such a language.

@"1"#C((&B8*77,E#,%&.'0+&,(%8#,%#A*3*+0B&34.#838&./8# Potential evidence against an analysis of voiced oral stops as sonorants in Tuyuca-type systems comes from morphological alternations, particularly from patterns of suffixation. In common with other Tucanoan languages, Tuyuca distinguishes two classes of suffixes. The first class comprises suffixes that are realized as either oral or nasalized, depending on the presence of nasalization in the root. The second class surfaces as either oral or nasalized, regardless of the presence of nasalization in the root. Following Walker (1998), I refer to these two classes as “alternating” and “fixed” suffixes respectively, where the latter class consists of a set of “fixed oral” and “fixed nasal” suffixes. Consider the following examples (from Walker 1998:29-31; see also Barnes 1990:283-5):

8 I ignore here that the harmonic target range in Tuyuca-type systems also includes laryngeals; see Botma (2004:279-306) for discussion of this issue. 9 Within the Tucanoan language family prenasalized stops occur in Northern Barasano, Siriono, Carapana, Cubeo and Piratapuyo (cf. Noske 1995).

;0805#90'/(%3#,%#<*9*4# 9#

(15) a. 05&.'%0&,%6#8*77,E : /-,"/ ‘imperative of warning’ 07&.'#('05#'((& : [)%)/2,"] ‘watch out or you will get scolded!’

07&.'#%0805#'((& : [%'.23'] ‘watch out or you will get burned!’

b. 7,E.)#('05#8*77,E : /-2./ ‘classifier for round objects’ 07&.'#('05#'((& : [$=.224] ‘two-CL-flexible’; ‘two strings’ 07&.'#%0805#'((& : [)"&022.] ‘beads-CL-flexible’; ‘necklace’

c. 7,E.)#%0805#8*77,E : /2!"/ ‘imperative of permission’ 07&.'#('05#'((& : [&'.2!"] ‘allow me to dig’

07&.'#%0805#'((& : [")'2!"] ‘allow me to come’ (16) lists some examples of alternating suffixes (cf. Walker 1998:30): (16) 25&.'%0&,%6#8*77,E.8

a. -. animate plural b. -(. contrast c. --. imperative d. -+= evidential e. -+' evidential f. -," imperative of warning g. -,* specifier h. -,' adverbializer i. -,. plural nominative (17) lists some examples of fixed suffixes (cf. Walker 1998:30): (17) F,E.)#('05## # # # # # # # # F,E.)#%0805

a. -. recent past j. -%" emphatic b. --. evidential k. -$( singularizer

c. -," inanimate-SG-NOM l. -3' time(s) d. -1. classifier m. -!" classifier

e. -2. classifier n. -#" at that instant f. -5. classifier o. -;" diminutive g. -$" too much p. -$' classifier

h. -)' classifier q. -)! classifier i. -0. classifier r. -0" continued action

The problem here, as Walker (1998) notes, is that the set of alternating suffixes does not contain any forms that have initial voiceless or voiced stops. Following Barnes (1996), Walker takes this to mean that both the voiceless and voiced stops function as obstruents, since this permits the generalization that nasalization in suffixes targets sonorants only. The Tuyuca facts are open to other interpretations, however. First of all, Walker observes that voiced velar stops, in contrast to other voiced stops, )( occur in alternating suffixes. An example is the verbal suffix /-5'/, which is realized as [5'] after oral roots and as [;!] after nasal roots. To account for this, Walker (1998:30) follows Trigo’s (1988) analysis of a similar phenomenon in Tucano:

[In] Tucano, which exhibits the same suffixal blocking effects, … the velar nasal alternant is actually a placeless nasal segment, and thus belongs to a separate class from the stops.

It is difficult to see, however, why an analysis of the nasal alternant as placeless provides any evidence for the obstruent status of the oral alternant. What is more, the pattern of suffixation in Tucano appears

10 -.'&#-(&/0#

to be different from that in Tuyuca. For instance, in Tucano we find alternating verbal suffixes of the kind in (18) (cf. West & Welch 1967; see also Piggott & Van der Hulst 1997:107): (18) a. /'(.2 1. ‘let me write’ 5'5"2!" ‘let me see’

b. /'(.2+" ‘I wrote’ 5'5"2$' ‘I saw’

c. 1./.2$= ‘I ate’ #'"2$= ‘I was’ /')*20* ‘seeds’ 5")#20* ‘pretty thing’ As can be seen in (18a), the stop-initial suffix /-1./ (a cognate of Tuyuca /-!"/; cf. (15c)) has a nasal and an oral allomorph, like /-+"/ in (18b). This suggests that underlyingly this segment is a sonorant stop, which, like root-internal sonorant stops, surfaces as nasalized in harmonic spans. Initial voiceless stops, as in (18c), are not targeted by nasal harmony. Tucano also has a number of gender and classifier suffixes that have oral and nasal variants, depending on the presence of nasalization in the root. Some examples are given in (19) (cf. Noske 1995:168ff.):10 (19) [5= ~ ;(] ‘animate-SG-MASC’ [5' ~ ;!] ‘animate-SG-FEM’

[5. ~ ;"] ‘classifier-round objects’ [5= ~ ;(] ‘classifier-long/branching objects’

Tucano is similar to Tuyuca in that most alternating stop-initial suffixes have an initial velar (but not all, as (18a) shows). One possible analysis would be to analyze the voiced velar stops as being underlyingly placeless, in line with Trigo (1988). Note, though, that such an analysis requires an explanation as to why placeless segments are more prone to nasalize than place-specified segments. I will not pursue this matter any further here.11 Let us next consider an alternative explanation of the nasal harmony pattern in Tuyuca suffixes. Following Piggott & Van der Hulst (1997), I argue that the asymmetry between roots and suffixes results from two distinct harmony systems.12 With regard to Tucano, Piggott & Van der Hulst maintain that root-internal nasalization is non-local: it targets sonorants and skips obstruents, the latter being transparent to the harmony. In suffixes, on the other hand, nasalization is local: it spreads rightwards from the root to the suffix until it is blocked by a non-nasalizable segment. The forms in (18) indicate that the range of non-nasalizable segment types in Tucano suffixes is co-extensive with that in roots. However, given that we are dealing with two separate nasalization processes, there is no a priori reason why the harmonic target range in roots should parallel that in suffixes. This, I propose, is the key to understanding the Tuyuca harmony pattern. Within Tuyuca roots nasalization targets all sonorants. Within Tuyuca suffixes, however, the harmonic target range is more limited, in that it includes vowels and approximants but not the relatively less sonorous sonorant stops. This implies, then, that in suffixes sonorant stops pattern with obstruent stops. In Element-based Dependency, the class of obstruent and sonorant stops can be identified by the presence of the manner element |/| (cf. the representations in (9a) and (9b) above). I conclude that the pattern of suffixation in Tuyuca does not constitute compelling evidence against an analysis of voiced stops in Tuyuca-type systems as sonorants. The patterning of voiceless obstruents and voiced stops should not be taken to imply that the latter are obstruents, too. An alternative analysis is that nasalization targets all sonorants in roots but only a subset of sonorants (i.e. those lacking |/|) in

10 Other Tucanoan languages with alternating stop-initial suffixes include Tatuyo (Gomez-Imbert 1980), Southern Barasano (Smith & Smith 1971) and Northern Barasano (Stolte & Stolte 1971). 11 Walker speculates that nasalization of / / may be due to the relative difficulty of maintaining voicing during a posterior oral closure. This account follows Itô & Mester’s (1997) analysis of [ ~ ] allophony in Tokyo Japanese. 12 Piggott & Van der Hulst do not discuss the issue of stop-initial alternating suffixes. Piggott (1992), on which much of Piggott & Van der Hulst’s account is based, notes that most fixed oral suffixes in Tucano begin with a voiceless consonant. This is incorrect, with respect to Tucano and to Tucanoan languages in general.

;0805#90'/(%3#,%#<*9*4# 11#

suffixes.13 This analysis is based on the assumption that the nasal harmony pattern in roots is different from that in suffixes. Note that this distinction is needed in any case to account for the fact that initial voiceless stops in fixed suffixes, e.g. /-$"/ in (17g), are not transparent to nasalization.14

@"@"#G3550H5.#%0805,I0&,(%# The second aspect that must be considered before tackling Yuhup concerns the role of the syllable in Tuyuca-type harmony. Of primary interest is the observation, made in §2, that Tuyuca-type harmony systems are characterized by obstruent transparency and syllable nasalization. Given that obstruent transparency implies syllable nasalization (but not vice versa), the challenge is to provide an analysis which relates these two characteristics. The first issue that must be considered is the question whether syllable nasalization implies the relevance of the unit of the syllable or whether it is merely a side-effect of a more general process of nasalization. At first sight, there appear to be good grounds for taking the latter position. Given that the interpretation of dependent |L| is determined by context, it might be suggested that Tuyuca-type nasalization involves association of |L| to all |L|-headed manner types. A Southern Barasano word like [$").] ‘demon’, as in (7a), would then have the surface representation in (20): L (20) O N O N | | | | L L / L | | | | U A I I $* "* )* .* Here the fact that the first syllable of [$").] surfaces as nasalized is epiphenomenal: it is simply the result of association of dependent |L| to |L|-headed manner types, and the first syllable happens to consist of |L|-headed manner types only. The analysis of Southern Barasano nasalization in (20) is conceptually similar to the feature-geometric account of Piggott (1992), where nasalization targets are identified by the presence of a Spontaneous Voicing node, which provides the appropriate landing site for the feature [nasal]. In this account, the form [+:.:).] involves association of [nasal] to all SV-specified segments. This is illustrated in (21), where RT and SV are short for Root node and Spontaneous Voicing node: (21) $* * "* )* .* | | | | RT RT RT RT | | | SV SV SV [nasal] This analysis accounts for obstruent transparency, while syllable nasalization is simply an automatic consequence of the more general process of sonorant nasalization.15

13 The assumption that the pattern of nasalization in suffixes is sensitive to sonority would be in line with Walker’s hierarchy of segment nasalizability. 14 It is surprising that the constraints on segment nasalizability should be stricter in suffixes. A possible explanation is that most Tuyuca suffixes appear to have been derived from lexical morphemes; see Barnes (1996) for some discussion of this issue.

12 -.'&#-(&/0#

However, closer inspection of the distribution of nasalization in Tuyuca-type systems reveals that this account is problematic. In Southern Barasano, the problem becomes clear when we consider disharmonic roots. Consider the forms in (22), repeated from (7c): (22) *'#! ‘mirror’

,"!" ‘poison’ ,'!'! ‘woman’

(""!!&!#! ‘ten’ Disharmonic roots bring to light two key properties of the Southern Barasano pattern. First, they show that nasalization is progressive, spreading from the nasalization trigger to the end of a word. Second, they show that nasalization originates in the leftmost nasalized vowel rather than in the leftmost nasalized segment. Note that there are two reasons for identifying the leftmost nasalized vowel as the harmonic trigger: any sonorant preceding a nasalized vowel is predictably nasalized, as in [,"!"], and some disharmonic roots have a vowel-initial harmonic domain, as in [(""!!&!#!]. The distribution of nasalization in disharmonic roots suggests two possible analyses of the Southern Barasano pattern. One option would be to posit two separate nasalization processes, both triggered by the same nasalized vowel: the first proceeds rightwards and is unbounded, targeting all nasalizable segment types; the second proceeds leftwards, is syllable-bound, and targets immediately preceding sonorants. The other option would be to recognize rightward nasalization only, and to attribute leftward nasalization to the effect of syllable nasalization. The nasal harmony pattern of Southern Barasano, and of Tuyuca-type systems in general, suggests that the latter approach is more appropriate. A general argument for the relevance of syllable nasalization is that leftward harmony is restricted to an immediately preceding nasalization target. This limited scope follows naturally if leftward nasal harmony is syllable-bound. A second argument for syllable nasalization concerns the nature of rightward nasal harmony in Southern Barasano. Being a Tuyuca-type system, Southern Barasano harmony is characterized by obstruent transparency. As Piggott & Van der Hulst (1997) observe, the transparency of obstruents is similar to the more general consonant transparency that is found in processes of vowel harmony. Piggott & Van der Hulst (1997:88) propose that vowel harmony can be expressed by the following schema, where “!” represents a syllable, “V” the syllable nucleus, “F” the association of the harmonic feature F with V, and “"” the direction of harmony. The phonetic instantiation of F as a property of the targeted vowels is represented by “f”; the fact that “f” results from association with harmonic F is signalled by means of coindexation: (23) Fi | | (…V…) (…V…) | | fi fi The key insight of this interpretation is that vowel harmony is defined at the level of the syllable — or, more precisely, at the level of syllable heads. Piggott & Van der Hulst (1997:97) note that, as a result, “consonant transparency is an automatic consequence of vowel harmony as a relation between syllable heads”. Given the similarity between vowel harmony and nasal harmony, Piggott & Van der Hulst propose that the harmony pattern of Tuyuca-type systems can also be expressed in terms of a relation between syllable heads. However, matters are complicated by the fact that the range of consonant transparency in Tuyuca-type harmony is more restricted than in vowel harmony, given that nasalization targets not just vowels but all sonorants. Thus, the challenge for Piggott & Van der Hulst is to provide a relation

15 Piggott (1992), for independent reasons, assumes a process of SV-fusion, which merges all tautosyllabic SV-nodes. Given that the SV-node dominates [nasal], SV-fusion thus implicitly recognizes nasalization at the level of the syllable. See Piggott (1992) for details of this analysis.

;0805#90'/(%3#,%#<*9*4# 13#

between syllable-to-syllable nasal harmony, which nasalizes all vowels, and syllable-internal nasal harmony (i.e. syllable nasalization), which nasalizes all tautosyllabic sonorants. To account for syllable-internal nasal harmony, Piggott & Van der Hulst (1997:102) suggest that making the feature [nasal] a property of the nucleus automatically makes [nasal] a property of all nasalizable segments within the syllable:

It is a fundamental principle of linguistic structure that the properties of the head of a construction are simultanously the properties of the entire construction. Consequently, when [nasal] is associated with the head or nucleus of the syllable, it is automatically a feature of the syllable itself. It should, therefore, be realized on all the segments in the syllable that can be nasal-bearing.

It seems reasonable to suggest that here Piggott & van der Hulst are referring to features that are specified at the level of the nucleus, and not to just any feature of the vowel that this nucleus dominates.16 On this assumption, let us consider their hypothesis in relation to the Southern Barasano form [$").]. In (24) harmonic nasalization, as represented by “N”, is underlyingly associated to the head of the first syllable. “"” represents rightward spreading of nasalization at the level of the syllable. Nasalized segments are identified by the presence of “n”, the phonetic instantiation of N: (24) Ni | | ( C V ) ( C V ) | | | | $* "* * * )* .* | | |

ni ni ni This cannot be the complete story, however. Since Piggott & Van der Hulst allow for the possibility of nasalized obstruents, an explanation is needed for the fact that the /)/ in (24) is not a suitable target for nasalization. To this end they argue that [nasal] is located at a different position in sonorants and obstruents: in sonorants [nasal] is a head feature, while in obstruents [nasal] is a dependent feature. Piggott & Van der Hulst (1997:103) represent the difference as follows: (25) a. ;0805,I.)#8(%('0%&# b. ;0805,I.)#(H8&'*.%&# RT ! ! ! ! RT

| | … [nasal] ! [nasal] …

Syllable nasalization can then be defined as association of [nasal] to all segment types in which [nasal] can occur as head. Piggott & Van der Hulst formalize this in terms of a principle that they term “Consistency of Dependency Relations”: (26) J(%8,8&.%+3#(7#K.4.%).%+3#C.50&,(%8#(JKC; cf. Piggott & van der Hulst 1997:104)

Every occurrence of an inherited feature must manifest the same dependency relation. The combination of syllable nasalization and the principle in (26) accounts for obstruent transparency in Tuyuca-type nasal harmony systems.

16 Another way of putting this is to say that a distinction is required between harmonic and non-harmonic features. An example of the latter is the place element |A| in the English word , which is a property of the nuclear vowel but not of any other segment in the syllable. A reasonable assumption is that the (non-) harmonic nature of a feature depends on the prosodic level at which this feature is specified.

14 -.'&#-(&/0#

Piggott & Van der Hulst do not discuss the internal structure of nasalized segments in any detail, nor do they consider the relation between [nasal] and other features. For instance, it is unclear whether there is any further motivation for the different locations of [nasal], or in what way [nasal] can be said to be contrastive in obstruents. Nevertheless, the fundamental claim of Piggott & Van der Hulst’s approach —that Tuyuca-type nasal harmony is syllable-based— is attractive, and I will adopt it below. It should be noted, though, that the Element-based Dependency interpretation of Tuyuca-type systems differs from Piggott & Van der Hulst’s in some minor but important respects. In line with Piggott & Van der Hulst, I assume that in languages that display syllable nasalization, nasality is underlyingly specified at the level of the nucleus. More precisely, my assumption is that a syllable which is specified for harmonic nasality has the general structure in (27). Following Levin (1985), I take the level of the syllable to be equivalent to the maximal projection of the syllable head N, i.e. N”. Harmonic nasality, as expressed by |L|, is a dependent of this node: (27) N” | N’ L

| O N | | … …

(27) states that in languages with syllable nasalization, nasality is never contrastive in a domain smaller than the syllable.17 Consider next how the Element-based Dependency approach accounts for nasal words in a Tuyuca-type harmony system. The representation of Southern Barasano [$").], derived from underlying /+")./, is given in (28): (28) N” N”

| | N’ 5 ! N’ | | O ! N O ! N | | | | L 5 ! L 5 ! / L 5 ! | | | | U A I I $* * "* * )* * .*

In the surface form each of the nasalization targets is specified for dependent |L|. In line with Piggott & Van der Hulst, these |L|s can be regarded as the phonetic instantiations of syllable-level nasality; this is expressed in (28) by means of coindexation.

This analysis can be extended to disharmonic roots such as [,'!'!]. In this form the nucleus of the penultimate syllable is underlyingly specified for dependent |L|. Syllable nasalization then associates |L| to the vowel and the preceding labial sonorant stop, while rightward syllable-to-syllable nasalization spreads harmonic |L| to the following nucleus.

(27) illustrates an important difference between Piggott & Van der Hulst’s analysis and the present approach. Piggott & Van der Hulst account for obstruent transparency in terms of the CDR: /)/ cannot be nasalized, since the feature [nasal] here does not manifest the appropriate dependency relation. The present approach is more restrictive, given that there is only one possible landing-site for nasalization:

17 This approach can be viewed as an extension of Kehrein’s (2002) prosodic theory of laryngeal contrasts to the level of the syllable, in particular because in Element-based Dependency nasalization is treated on a structural par with laryngeal features such as voice and aspiration.

;0805#90'/(%3#,%#<*9*4# 15#

the target of Tuyuca-type nasalization can be identified as the dependent position of any |L|-specified manner component. In view of this, a modification of Piggott & Van der Hulst’s CDR is in order. A revised and generalized version is given in (29): (29) J(%8,8&.%+3#(7#K.4.%).%+3#C.50&,(%8#(revised version)

In a domain Xn, where Xn is a projection of X0 and Xn is specified for a harmonic element F, F is a property of all structures that are of the same type as X0.

With respect to syllable nasalization, X0 stands for the nucleus, Xn for the syllable (i.e. the maximal projection of the nucleus), and “of the same type as X0” for “containing the manner element |L|”. An important prediction of the revised version of the CDR is that syllable nasalization can trigger nasalization only, not both nasalization and voicing. This seems to be borne out by cross-linguistic data. Processes which nasalize sonorants and voice obstruents, which occur in for instance Navaho and Maukakã, are segment rather than syllable-based (see Botma 2004 for an analysis of such processes).

In the following section we will see that the pattern of nasal harmony that is displayed in Yuhup provides further support for the syllable-level status of nasality in Tuyuca-type languages.

L"#A9.#<*9*4#+(%*%)'*/# Yuhup is an endangered Maku language spoken by a seminomadic group of about 400 people, distributed among ten small villages in the west of the Amazonas province of Brazil and across the border in the Vaupés region of Colombia. This is also the general area in which we find the Tucanoan language family, which includes Tucano, Tuyuca and Southern Barasano. Lopes & Parker (1999) note that many Yuhup speakers are fluent in Tucano, which is the emergent lingua franca in the Vaupés region.

Lopes & Parker (1999) is the only description of Yuhup that is generally available, and all data below have been drawn from it. Unfortunately, the data cited by Lopes & Parker have been kept to an “absolute minimum [owing to] the sensitive political issues which arise in conjunction with studying indigenous groups in Brazil” (Lopes & Parker 1999:324).18 Indeed, the property which seems to make Yuhup special is reflected by just a handful of forms.

Bearing these caveats in mind, consider first of all the forms in (30), which indicate that Yuhup roots display sonorant nasalization and obstruent transparency:19 (30) a. >'05#7('/8 b. ;0805#7('/8

$.@-( ‘rock, stone’ $"@)% ‘paternal uncle’ +A(A@) ‘striped mullet’ 6%6@$ ‘to sleep’ ('@2 ‘hole’ %!@# ‘to vomit’ 2'@5 ‘species of fruit’ #"@; ‘grease, fat, oil’ )37"/"1 ‘foot’ &6/6@! ‘large potato (M0%&9(8(/0)’ The forms in (30) indicate that the target range of nasalization includes all sonorants and laryngeals, while the range of non-targets is limited to supralaryngeal obstruents, which are transparent to the harmonic process. Voiced oral stops, which are in complementary distribution with nasals, are realized as prenasalized stops root-initially and as postnasalized stops root-finally.

According to Lopes & Parker, the domain of nasal harmony is that of the morpheme. This is supported by forms of the kind in (31), which indicate that Yuhup compounds freely combine oral and nasal roots:

18 Additional Yuhup data can be found in Del Vigna & Lopes (1987), Del Vigna (1991) and Lopes (1995), but I have not been able to consult these sources. 19 The sequence [V V] (more precisely [ ]) is the phonetic realization of an underlyingly laryngealized vowel. Lopes & Parker note that such sequences behave as single nuclei phonologically.

16 -.'&#-(&/0#

(31) >'05B>'05 )B2 1B@5 ‘eye’ >'05B;0805 (.-2!7/7% ‘boa constrictor’ ;0805B>'05 !##2)*@5 ‘species of palm ($',0'&.0#NE(''9,I0)’ ;0805B;0805 !'%2#"@+ ‘paca rodent’ On the basis of such forms Lopes & Parker analyze nasality as a morpheme-level autosegment [nasal], which docks with its corresponding morpheme and spreads iteratively, in a left-to-right fashion, to all harmonic targets. This morphological domain can be reanalyzed in terms of the prosodic domain of the syllable, however, since Lopes & Parker (1997:325) note that “at the underlying level each morpheme consists of one, and only one, syllable and, conversely, each syllable can be assumed to correspond to a distinct morpheme”. This suggests that Yuhup, in line with Tuyuca-type systems, displays syllable nasalization. It should be noted, though, that my analysis of syllable structure differs from that of Lopes & Parker. Specifically, my claim is that CVC roots are disyllabic, with the final C occupying the onset position of an empty-headed syllable. A general argument for recognizing final empty-headed syllables comes from an inspection of the types of possible Yuhup roots. According to Lopes & Parker, Yuhup has the following canonical root shapes: (32) C((&#8904.

CV /&*/ ‘wing’ CVC /$A$/ ‘larva of bot fly (K.'/0&(H,0#9(/,%,8)’ VC /A+/ ‘iguana lizard’ CVCC /).-)/ ‘to kick’ VCC /%-#/ ‘species of bat (K.8/()*8#'(&*%)*8)’ On the basis of these root shapes Lopes & Parker contend that each Yuhup morpheme corresponds precisely to a syllable. Given that the penultimate segment of a root which ends in two consonants is predictably /-/, they conclude that the maximal syllable template in Yuhup is /CV-C/. But this is not the only possible interpretation. Lopes & Parker (1999:331-2; emphasis mine) make the following observation regarding long vowels, which occur in stressed syllables only:

Primary stress in Yuhup regularly falls on the final vowel/syllable of the word … The physical correlates of primary stress are greater amplitude, higher pitch, and 5.%6&9.%,%6 of the vowel … Suffixes are treated as extrametrical since they are normally unstressed.

The following forms illustrate this process of metrical vowel lengthening: (33) a. /)37%/ [C)37%@] ‘coati’ b. /)37B$/ [C)37B@$] ‘clothes’ c. /)*-)*-/ [)*C)*@-] ‘species of snake’ d. /j'-j'g/ [8'C8'@9 ] ‘elbow’

e. /).-)/ [C).@-)] ‘to kick’ The forms in (33) suggest that metrical vowel lengthening takes place in three contexts: root-finally, as in (33a), before a single root-final consonant, as in (33b-d), and before a cluster whose initial consonant is /-/, as in (33e). In Lopes & Parker’s model of syllable structure there is no shared property which underlies these contexts. However, metrical vowel lengthening receives a unified treatment if two assumptions are made: firstly, that a root-final consonant occupies an onset position supported by a following empty nucleus, and, secondly, that preconsonantal /-/ occupies the dependent position of the syllable nucleus. There are a number of arguments that support this analysis. First of all, there seem to be no restrictions on the final consonant of Yuhup roots. This would be unexpected if this consonant occupies

;0805#90'/(%3#,%#<*9*4# 17#

the syllable coda, since codas generally permit only a subset of the contrasts permitted by onsets. Another argument comes from the distribution of /-/. The available Yuhup data indicate that /-/!can co-occur with practically any kind of preceding vowel. Based on the forms given by Lopes & Parker, six of the nine Yuhup vowels occur with a following /-/.20 The remaining three vowels are /"/, /=/, and /'/. It is quite possible that the lack of forms containing ['-] is accidental, nor is it unthinkable that the absence of forms containing ["-] and [=-] is due to a co-occurrence restriction on a high unrounded vowel and a following palatal glide. I speculate, then, that apart from this constraint there are no co-occurrence restrictions on nuclei containing /-/. If this is correct, the Yuhup syllable template is CV(V). This, in turn, permits a unified account of the metrical lengthening process as targeting stressed open syllables. Note that this makes the context of metrical lengthening in Yuhup essentially equivalent to that in Icelandic, as analyzed by, among others, Botma (2001) and Harris & Gussmann (2001). A third argument for an onset analysis of final consonants comes from the distribution of harmonic nasality in root-suffix combinations. Lopes & Parker note that the majority of Yuhup suffixes are alternating: they are realized as oral or nasal, depending on the presence of harmonic nasality in the preceding root.21 This is shown by the pattern of allomorphy displayed by the progressive suffix /-"(/: (34) a. 1"@/2"( ‘working’ 2'/'@(2"( ‘getting married’ 7.@+2"( ‘shouting’

b. #@!2'%* ‘killing’ $"@%2'% ‘hearing’ 6%6@$2'% ‘sleeping’

As was argued in §3.1, there are good grounds to analyze the nasality of contours as phonologically irrelevant in Tuyuca-type systems. However, Yuhup appears to be different in this respect: strikingly, the locative suffix surfaces as nasalized when following a root that ends in a postnasalized stop: (35) )B@2 2'% ‘beating’

B@5 2'% ‘drinking’ This is unexpected if the nasality of the postnasalized stop is phonologically inert. But if the nasality of root-final postnasals is phonologically active, then the question is why this nasality does not surface as a property of the entire word; that is, why are the forms in (35) not realized as *[):@#2'%] and *[:@;2'%]? I would like to propose that the solution to this conundrum lies in the onset status of root-final consonants. This analysis makes it possible to account for the nasalized suffix allomorph in terms of syllable nasalization. Suppose that the final syllables of [)B@2 ] and [B@5 ] have the following structure (“;” denotes an empty position; I ignore place specifications): (36) N” | N’ L

| O N | | L ;* | /

20 Yuhup has a nine-vowel system consisting of / /. 21 Lopes & Parker give two examples of fixed oral suffixes, [- ] ‘to be’ and [- ] ‘plural’. They do not provide any examples of fixed nasal suffixes.

18 -.'&#-(&/0#

In Yuhup, as in Tuyuca and Southern Barasano, harmonic nasality is allocated at the level of the syllable, where it is underlyingly associated with the syllable head N”. What makes Yuhup different is that it allows word-final empty-headed syllables. While such syllables can be specified for harmonic nasality, the revised CDR in (29) prohibits this nasality from being realized phonetically. The point is that harmonic nasality can be attached only to targets of the same type as the head of the harmonic domain. If the harmonic domain is headless, as in (36), no harmony can take place. Consequently, any sonorant occupying the onset of an empty-headed syllable will be phonologically oral and phonetically postnasalized. The result of this analysis is therefore that postnasalization in Yuhup can be relegated to the phonetic implementation, similarly to what I suggested for other Tuyuca-type systems. The account proposed here raises a number of questions. The first is why suffixation of /-"(/ to a form like /)B@2 / results in a nasalized allomorph of the suffix. A reasonable answer is that /-"(/ is incorporated in the root-final syllable. Since the presence of a vowel implies that this syllable is now headed, harmonic nasalization is free to associate to all targets. But this account raises another, rather more difficult question: if suffixation triggers syllable nasalization, then why is the root-final consonant in [)B@2 2'%] realized as a postnasalized stop, and not as a nasal? Clearly, we cannot appeal to the explanation that was suggested for Tuyuca in §3.2. In Tuyuca, sonorant stops fail to nasalize in suffixes because the harmonic target range in suffixes is different from that in roots. But in the case at handthe sonorant stop does not form part of the suffix; it only occupies the same syllable as the suffix. What I suggest instead is that the absence of nasalization of the sonorant stop reflects another kind of difference between roots and suffixes, a difference which can be clarified with the Optimality-Theoretic notion of faithfulness. If harmonic nasality is underlyingly associated to syllable heads, any association of nasality to a segment will imply a faithfulness violation, since the output of such a segment will have an additional dependent |L| as compared to its input. It has been proposed that faithfulness violations are relative to the domain in which they occur (see e.g. McCarthy & Prince 1994). For instance, cross-linguistic evidence indicates that languages tend to value faithfulness in roots more highly than faithfulness in affixes. Given this, the fact that nasalization fails to target the postnasalized stops in [)B@2 '%] and [B@5 '%] might be taken to suggest that Yuhup is one such language: syllable nasalization targets the suffix but not the root, because faithfulness to segmental inputs is more important in roots than it is in suffixes.

Unfortunately, the forms in (35) are the only examples of “anomalous” nasalization provided by Lopes & Parker. However, there is further support for the exceptional status of the postnasalized stops. Consider the pattern of suffixation displayed by the locative suffix: (37) ROOT ROOT+LOC

a. )"+ ‘path’ )"@+2+") ‘on the path’ b. )"! ‘village’ )"!2!") ‘in the village’ c. -%2 ‘clothes’ -%2 2##) ‘on the clothes’ Lopes & Parker take the underlying form of the locative suffix to be /-CV)/, where C and V are copies of the two root-final segments.22 For present purposes the form in (37c) is relevant, since it shows that the copy of a postnasal is realized not as a postnasal but as a plain nasal, with the following vowel copy surfacing as nasalized. This, too, is surprising if the nasality of the postnasal is a matter of phonetic implementation. I suggest that the final onset view can also account for this suffixation pattern. On the assumption that /-%2 / contains a final nasalized empty-headed syllable, the revised CDR ensures that this nasalization cannot be realized in the absence of a nuclear vowel. This vowel is supplied by locative suffixation, which creates an appropriate context for harmonic nasalization.

The final question that must be addressed is perhaps the most challenging. If the above account is to be accepted, an explanation must also be provided for the fact that empty-headed nasalized syllables always appear to have a sonorant stop in their onset. In other words, why is it that we never seem to find a nasalized suffix allomorph after (say) a root-final voiceless stop, as in the hypothetical /+")2"(/ " *[+")'%]? This is an important question, to which I can only give a tentative answer. Suppose that the

22 For an Optimality-Theoretic analysis of this process, see Walker (2002).

;0805#90'/(%3#,%#<*9*4# 19#

nasal contours derive historically from plain nasals, and that these plain nasals consisted of sonorant stop structures with a dependent |L|. The historical change that then took place was that this |L| was delinked from the nasal, turning it into a bare sonorant stop, and promoted to the level of the syllable head. This scenario is illustrated for final postnasals in (38): (38) N” N”

| | N’ ! N’ 5! | | O ! N > O N | | | | L 5! ;* L ! ;* ! ! | | / /

This diachronic development thus involved a change from segmental to syllabic nasality. Perhaps it was this development that is responsible for the syllable nasalization that we find in Tuyuca-type languages today. It is clear, though, that this can be established only on the basis of solid historical and comparative evidence — a matter that I will leave for further research.

O"#J(%+5*8,(%# In this paper I have presented a dependency-based approach to the nasal harmony pattern found in Tuyuca-type languages, such as Tuyuca and Southern Barasano. I have argued that this harmony pattern receives a straightforward interpretation if two assumptions are made. First, Tuyuca-type languages have an underlying series of sonorant stops, which are realized as nasals in harmonic domains and as voiced oral stops or nasal contours in non-harmonic domains. Second, Tuyuca-type languages have syllable nasalization; underlyingly, harmonic nasality is a property of syllable heads, not of individual segments.

Yuhup is a Tuyuca-type language, though one with a twist. The voiced oral stops of Yuhup are phonetically realized as postnasalized stops root-finally. The twist is that this postnasalization, contrary to what is expected, triggers nasalization of a following suffix. This would seem to suggest that these stops are specified for nasality, even though they occur in contexts that are otherwise non-nasal. I have argued that the nasalizing potential of postnasalized stops becomes less of a mystery if harmonic nasality is allocated at the level of the syllable. This permits an explanation for why nasal harmony is instantiated when a suffix is added: the incorporation of a suffix vowel into an underlyingly nasalized syllable makes the syllable headed, and thereby creates a context in which nasal harmony can apply. While the advantage of this analysis is that it brings Yuhup in line with the more familiar nasal harmony patterns of Tuyuca and Southern Barasano, more data —from Yuhup and from genetically related languages— is required to substantiate it.

C.7.'.%+.8# Anderson, J. & C. Ewen (1987). :',%+,45.8# (7# K.4.%).%+3# :9(%(5(63"# Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press. Barnes, J. (1990). Classifiers in Tuyuca. In D. Payne, ed., 2/0I(%,0%#P,%6*,8&,+8Q#G&*),.8#,%#P(?50%)#

G(*&9#2/.',+0%#P0%6*06.8. Austin: University of Texas Press. 273-292. Barnes, J. (1996). Autosegments with three-way contrasts in Tuyuca. $%&.'%0&,(%05# R(*'%05# (7#

2/.',+0%#P,%6*,8&,+8 62. 31-58. Botma, B. (2004). :9(%(5(6,+05#284.+&8#(7#;0805,&3Q#0%#N5./.%&BH08.)#K.4.%).%+3#2++(*%&. Doctoral

dissertation, University of Amsterdam.

20 -.'&#-(&/0#

Dunstan, E. (ed.) (1969). A?.5=.#;,6.',0%#P0%6*06.8. New York: Africana Publishing Corporation. Firchow, I. & J. Firchow (1969). An abbreviated phoneme inventory. 2%&9'(4(5(6,+05#P,%6*,8&,+8 11.

271-276. Gómez-Imbert, E. (1980). La nasalité en Tatuyo: phonologie ou morphologie? 2/.',%),0 5. 65-81. Harris, J. & E. Gussmann (2001). Word-final onsets. Ms., University College London and University

of Gdansk. [ROA-575]. Harris, J. & G. Lindsey (1995). The elements of phonological representation. In J. Durand & F.

Katamba, eds., F'(%&,.'8#(7#:9(%(5(63. London/New York: Longman. 34-79. Itô, J. & A. Mester (1997). Correspondence and compositionality: the Ga-!" #$%&'%(')*# '*# +%,%*-.-#

Phonology. In I. Roca, ed., K.',=0&,(%8#0%)#J(%8&'0,%&8#,%#:9(%(5(63. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 419-462.

Johnson, O. & C. Peeke (1962). Phonemic units in the Secoya word. In B. Elson, ed., N+*0)(',0%#$%),0%#P0%6*06.8#$. Norman, Oklahoma: SIL. 78-95.

Kehrein, W. (2002). :9(%(5(6,+05#C.4'.8.%&0&,(%#0%)#:9(%.&,+#:908,%6Q#277',+0&.8# 0%)#P0'3%6.058. Tübingen: Niemeyer.

Levin, B. (1985). 2#S.&',+05# A9.('3# (7# G3550H,+,&3. Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Lopes, A. (1995). Fonologia da lingual Yuhup: uma abordagem não-linear. Master’s thesis, Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina, Brazil.

Lopes, A. & S. Parker (1999). Aspects of Yuhup phonology. $%&.'%0&,(%05# R(*'%05# (7# 2/.',+0%#P,%6*,8&,+8 65. 324-342.

Maddieson, I. (1984). :0&&.'%8#(7#G(*%)8. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Noske, M. (1995). A9.# A.'%0'3# T8.# (7# K,8&,%+&,=.# F.0&*'.8. Doctoral dissertation, University of

Chicago. Osborn, H. (1966). Warao I: phonology and morphophonemics. $%&.'%0&,(%05# R(*'%05# (7# 2/.',+0%#

P,%6*,8&,+8 32. 108-132. Piggott, G. (1992). Variability in feature dependency: the case of nasality. ;0&*'05# P0%6*06.# 0%)#

P,%6*,8&,+#A9.('3 10. 33-78. Piggott, G. (1996). Implications of consonant nasalization for a theory of harmony. J0%0),0%#R(*'%05#

(7#P,%6*,8&,+8 41. 141-174. Piggott, G. & H. van der Hulst (1997). Locality and the nature of nasal harmony. P,%6*0 103. 85-112. Ploch, S. (1999). ;08058# (%# /3#S,%)Q# A9.# :9(%.&,+# 0%)# J(6%,&,=.# 244'(0+9# &(# &9.# :9(%(5(63# (7#

;0805,&3. Doctoral dissertation, SOAS, University of London. Pulleyblank, D. (1989). Patterns of feature co-occurrence: the case of nasality. :'(+..),%68# (7# &9.#

2',I(%0#:9(%(5(63#J(%7.'.%+.#1#UJ(3(&.#:04.'8#VW. 98-115. Rice, K. (1993). A reexamination of the feature [sonorant]: the status of “sonorant obstruents”.

P0%6*06. 69. 308-344. Schourup, L. (1973). A cross-linguistic study of vowel nasalization. >9,(# G&0&.#X('D,%6# :04.'8# ,%#

P,%6*,8&,+8 15. 190-221. Smith, R. & C. Smith (1971). Southern Barasano phonemics. P,%6*,8&,+8 78. 80-85. Stolte, J. & N. Stolte (1971). A description of Northern Barasano phonology. P,%6*,8&,+8 78. 86-92. Trigo, L. (1988). >%#&9.#:9(%(5(6,+05#K.',=0&,(%#0%)#-.90=,('#(7#;0805#Y5,).8. Doctoral dissertation,

Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Vigna, D. del (1991). Segmentos complexos da lingual Yuhup. Master’s thesis, Universidade de

Brasília. Vigna, D. del & A. Lopes (1987). F(%(5(6,0#:'.5,/,%0'#)0#PZ%6*0#<*9*4. Brazil: Arquivo Lingüístico,

ALEM. Walker, R. (1998). ;0805,I0&,(%[# ;.*&'05# G.6/.%&8# 0%)# >40+,&3# N77.+&8. Doctoral dissertation,

University of California. Walker, R. (2002). Yuhup prosodic morphology and a case of augmentation. ;NPG 32. 116-135. West, B. & B. Welch (1967). The phonemic system of Tucano. In B. Elson, ed., :9(%./,+#838&./8#(7#

J(5*/H,0%#P0%6*06.8. Norman, Oklahoma: SIL. 11-24.

;0805#90'/(%3#,%#<*9*4# 21#

Bert Botma

LUCL/Department of English University of Leiden P.N. van Eyckhof 4 P.O. Box 9515 2300 RA Leiden The Netherlands e.d.botma@let.leidenuniv.nl