Palatalization and “strongi” across Inuit dialects

Abstract

Inuit dialects with palatalization all distinguish between “strong i” and “weak i”: instances of surface [i] that cause palatalization and those that do not, respectively. All dialects that have completely lost this contrast also lack palatalization. Why are there no /i, a, u/ dialects in which all instances of surface [i] trigger palatalization? We propose that this typological gap can be explained using a contrastivist analysis whereby only contrastive features can be phonologically active, palatalization is triggered by [coronal], and contrastive features are assigned in an order placing [low] and [labial] ahead of [coronal]. In a three-vowel inventory only [low] and [labial] are contrastive, while in the four-vowel inventory [coronal] must also be contrastive to distinguish strong and weak i. It follows from these assumptions that [i] can trigger palatalization only if it is in contrast with a fourth vowel.

Moro vowel harmony: implications for transparency and representations

“…Such an approach would be along the lines of the two /i/'s in Kashaya (Buckley 1994), in which one /i/ is underspecified for features, and tends to undergo assimilation and mutate, while the other is fully specified, resists assimilation and mutations, but triggers uvular raising. A similar analysis of strong and weak /i/ in Inuit dialects is presented in Compton & Dresher (2011), following earlier work by Kaplan (1981). In some Inuit dialects, there is a distinction between /@/ and /i/.…”

“…In others, such as North Barrow Inupiaq, the distinction is collapsed to /i/, but /i/ descended from original *i maintains the ability to palatalise, whereas that descended from *@ does not. Compton & Dresher (2011) propose that there are four underlying vowels in such dialects; /i/ is specified as [coronal], but /@/ is featureless. The surface phonetics merge these two vowels.…”

From Binary Features to Elements: The Case of Scandinavian

“…] ty ru It is worth noting that, even though Icelandic hierarchy is not strictly identical to the other Nordic hierarchies, namely because of the presence of the [voice] contrast, they still share the biggest part of their structure. The upper part of the hierarchy that is common to all Nordic languages represents the core structure of the family (Compton and Dresher 2011). The contrasts that are specific to a language or to a part of the family are introduced in the lowest part of the structure, leaving intact the similarity of the family.…”

The road not taken:The Sound Pattern of Russianand the history of contrast in phonology

“…In doing so, it is important to keep in mind that phonetic neutralization does not always need to eliminate all surface evidence of the underlying featural contrasts to which it applies. For example, Compton & Dresher (2011) discuss Inuit varieties in which 'strong i' triggers palatalization and 'weak i', historically descended from an earlier schwa, does not. Although both vowels surface as [i] phonetically, the underlying distinction between them is seen in their different effects on adjacent consonants.…”