246 language, as we find in Ikoma, makes it more difficult to understand its markedness
patterns and to evaluate how the language fits into a typological framework. Ikoma is not the only language to have competing [ATR] values, so exploring other examples of these
patterns is surely helpful. In this section, I review some general theories of [ATR] markedness and typological behavior of tongue root harmony systems. Then, in the
following section §7.2, I address Ikoma’s markedness patterns in light of these theories.
7.1.1 Theories of ATR and markedness
A number of theories have been proposed to account for [ATR] markedness patterns found in languages with tongue root harmony. I first briefly review some of the proposals
before moving on to look in more detail at a proposal by Casali 2003. Following Casali, we can summarize that theories of [ATR] markedness differ especially along two lines
1 whether or not [+ATR] is expected to be universally dominant, or if [-ATR] dominance is predicted as well, and 2 whether or not there is any correlation between a
language’s underlying vowel inventory and the dominant [ATR] value in that language. Concerning the question of a universally dominant [ATR] value, the existence of
[+ATR] dominance is well-accepted, whereas the existence of [-ATR] dominance is still debated. Much of the dialogue on the existence of [-ATR] dominance concerns the
7VM language Yoruba, as described by Archangeli and Pulleyblank 1989. Archangeli and Pulleyblank 1994 allow for the existence of both [+ATR] and [-ATR] dominance,
but they argue that [-ATR] dominance is marked in the sense that it is cross- linguistically less common, and not the default marked [ATR] value. Others, such as van
der Hulst and van de Weijer 1995 and Bakovic 2000, discuss apparent cases of both [+ATR] and [-ATR] dominance, but they both conclude that languages which appear to
247 manifest [-ATR] dominance e.g. Yoruba could probably be understood in other terms,
such as [low] harmony or stem control, respectively. Goad 1993 similarly reanalyzes Yoruba harmony as involving the feature [low] instead of [-ATR] or [RTR], and suggests
that there is no such thing as [-ATR] harmony. If this is true, then [+ATR] would be the universally marked and dominant value in languages with an [ATR] contrast. Note,
however, that later evidence from various dialects of Yoruba Przezdziecki 2005, as well as the well-attested patterns of Bantu C Leitch 1997, shed additional light on the subject
and strongly suggest that there are other [-ATR] dominant languages which could not be well-described with a [low] harmony analysis.
83
Concerning the connection between vowel inventory and harmony type, the most common assumption is that there is not one. Though Archangeli and Pulleyblank 1989;
1994 allow for both values to be dominant, they do not make any claims that the dominant [ATR] value is at all predictable based on the vowel inventory. An early
proponent of a more general correlation between inventory and features was Goad 1993, who argues for inventory-driven feature selection, in which a language’s features
are “determined on the basis of minimal contrasts among segments in a language” 241. Causley 1999 follows Goad in a number of ways, also arguing for a strong
connection between segmental markedness, phonological patterning and a language’s inventory. She focuses on a connection between the number of heights in an inventory
and the behavior of the vowel system. Causley and Goad both argue that tongue root
83
The Bantu C languages provide particulary strong evidence against a [low] harmony analysis, since the low vowel a does not trigger [-ATR] spreading as the vowels do. A [low] harmony analysis would
require that these three vowels would all be considered [low], which implies that they would all be harmony triggers. However, this is not the case in Bantu C. Therefore, Leitch 1997 argues that a vocalic
feature such as [rtr] is necessary. He summarizes the issue “if [a] has the harmonic feature by virtue of the representation, then why does [a] never induce harmony?” 245. With a feature geometry in which the
distinction between between [ ] and [eo] was also necessary to define [a] as a low vowel, how could the “[rtr][low] hostility” observed in Bantu C be accounted for?
248 features [+ATR] in particular are only active in four-height systems equivalent to
Casali’s 5Ht inventory, as found in Akan, that is, after the three heights high, mid and low have been exhausted. Causley’s height terminology is different than that used
throughout this thesis, so I exemplify hers in 205 below, showing her proposals of the two possible three-height and four-height inventories from Causley 1999 171.
205 Vowel heights as understood by Causley 1999
7 G
: A Z
O O O I :
9 -7
M :
V X A Z
O : V X
V 9X As a shows, are considered to be [low] in a 7V inventory, so that the distinction
between [e o] and [ ] is one of height, not [ATR]. Tongue root features are only activated with an additional height distinction, as shown in b. Causley and Goad both
propose that apparent [-ATR] harmony can therefore be interpreted as [low] harmony. The only tongue root feature is unary [atr], thus there is no [-atr] or [rtr] activity.
I now move on to discuss more thoroughly one particular view of [ATR] markedness, as found in Casali 2003. Casali’s view is similar to that of Goad and
84
Note that Causley discusses only [e o] as the second degree vowels. It is unclear whether or not she assumes that all 7V systems have [e o], not [ ]. As discussed in §1.4.2 and also in this section below,
Casali argues that we must distinguish between two types of 7V systems, allowing for either [e o] or [ ] as the height 2 vowels.
249 Causley in that he finds a strong correlation between a language’s inventory and its
harmony type. His perspective is also very different, however, since he views both [+ATR] and [-ATR] as potentially dominant features in a 7V system, and that the
dominant value is dependent on the inventory, particularly on the nature of the height 2 vowels. [ATR] dominance is not simply dependent on the number of vowel heights, but
on which heights have a tongue root contrast. As mentioned in the introduction to this thesis see §1.4, Casali 2003
distinguishes between three basic types of African vowel systems which display [ATR] harmony. These are listed in 206 below from Casali 2003:309. Note the
terminological difference compared to Causley’s in 205 above. 206
African vowel systems with [ATR] harmony a. 5Ht system
b. 4HtM system c. 4HtH system
[+high, +ATR] [+high, -ATR]
[-high, +ATR] [-high, -ATR]
[+low, -ATR] The inventory in a is very common, and there is little controversy that tongue root
features are active in this type of inventory. The inventories in b and c are in focus in this thesis, since these are the two possible inventories which we must consider for
Ikoma. The second inventory type, shown in b, is what I refer to as a 7VM inventory. It has seven vowels underlyingly at four different heights, and only the mid vowels have
an [ATR] contrast, which I argue is the case for Ikoma. The third system, shown in c, is
250 what I refer to as a 7VH inventory. It also has seven underlying vowels, but the [ATR]
contrast is in the high vowels, not the mid vowels. Instead of tongue root activity being predicted based on the number of vowel
heights alone, Casali notes a strong correlation between the dominant [ATR] value in a language and the height at which there is an [ATR] contrast. Essentially, his survey
reveals that the two inventories in a and c above, that is, those which have an [ATR] contrast in the high vowels, overwhelmingly exhibit [+ATR] dominance. However,
languages with the inventory type in b, which has an [ATR] contrast in the mid vowels only, nearly always exhibit [-ATR] dominance.
Casali’s 2003 hypothesis is thus different than any of those mentioned above. Unlike Goad 1993 and Causley 1999, it predicts languages with two different types of
7V systems those with [ ] as the height 2 vowels, and those with [e o] as the height 2 vowels. Unlike Bakovic 2000 and van der Hulst and van de Weijer 1995, it predicts
that [+ATR] is not universally dominant, but that [-ATR] can be dominant as well. And unlike Archangeli and Pulleyblank 1989; 1994, Casali’s hypothesis predicts that
[-ATR] dominance is not only possible, but that its presence is in fact predicted, depending on the inventory. In the following section, I discuss one more idea from Casali
which becomes especially helpful later in the chapter.
7.1.2 Systematic and indirect [ATR] dominance
