Systematic and indirect [ATR] dominance
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
One distinction which is potentially useful for understanding the patterns found in Ikoma is that between what Casali refers to as “systematic [ATR] dominance” and “indirect
[ATR] dominance” 2003 316, with the latter being similar to Bakovic’s 2000 “dominance reversal.” Distinguishing these two types of dominance helps us to better
251 evaluate assimilation patterns which superficially appear to be preserving one [ATR]
value over another called “superficial [ATR] dominance” Casali 2003 313. Casali defines the terms “systematic” and “indirect” dominance as in 207 and 208 below.
207 Systematic [ATR] dominance
“superficial [ATR] dominance that arises in response to formal mechanisms whether they involve rules, constraints, representational assumptions, or some
combination of these devices that directly favor one [ATR] value over the other” 2003:316
208
Indirect [ATR] dominance “superficial [ATR] dominance that arises indirectly in response to factors e.g.,
root faithfulness … that do not asymmetrically target one [ATR] value for preservation or extension” 2003 316
This definition of indirect dominance is much like Bakovic’s idea called “dominance reversal,” by which he refers to instances in which “a dominant vowel succumbs to a
recessive one” 2000 120. This accounts for behavior of “idiosyncratically dominant” vowels, that is, vowels which behave as dominant, but which have the opposite value of
the harmonic feature which is more regularly dominant in the language. Casali 2002a focuses on this very issue, describing a number of cases of
superficial [-ATR] dominance in very restricted environments in 9V languages that otherwise clearly exhibit [+ATR] dominance. In each case, the apparent [-ATR]
dominance can be understood to result not from a systematic preservation of [-ATR] vowels, but instead from a convergence of other factors e.g. constraints against [+ATR]
low vowels and [-ATR] high vowels, idiosyncratic morphemes, root control, etc.. He explains “[-ATR] dominance is limited to some specific contexts involving a fairly
252 small number of morphemes, with little or no indication that [−ATR] dominance is in
any way a regular and systematic property of the language” 2003 345.
85
Casali 2003 lists five examples of superficial [-ATR] dominance in 4HtH systems as well. Three languages Talinga-Bwisi Bantu, Kirangi Bantu, and Eastern
Nawdm Gur only exhibit [-ATR] dominance in coalescence patterns, while two others Kinande and Kimatuumbi, both Bantu have [-ATR] dominant coalescence as well as
other limited instances of [-ATR] dominance. Once again, these instances can be understood as indirect [-ATR] dominance, not the result of intentional preservation of
[-ATR] over [+ATR], since [+ATR] is clearly more dominant in each of these 7VH languages. This distinction between systematic vs. indirect dominance or, in other
words, between general dominance and dominance reversal is therefore especially helpful for making sense of cases in which both types of dominance seem to co-exist in a
language, which is clearly the situation in Ikoma. Note also that in nearly all languages with dual superficial dominance patterns in
Casali’s survey, the [ATR] value which is clearly systematically dominant is consistent with the system-dependent dominance predictions. For example, in all of the languages
with the 7VH inventory which have superficial patterns showing both [+ATR] and [-ATR] dominance, [+ATR] is clearly the systematically dominant value, which is
predicted for a language with the 7VH inventory. Furthermore, the exceptional, less- expected, more limited type of dominance in each of these languages can often be
analyzed as indirect, that is, a result of other factors which override the language’s encoded markedness patterns. In order to allow for these more complex cases, the final
85
Casali 2002a lists seven languages Akan, Lango, Lika, Puguli, Turkana, Toposa, Ninkare with regular [+ATR] dominance and more limited [-ATR] dominance.
253 form of Casali’s “System-Dependent [ATR] Dominance” hypothesis is formulated as
follows [+ATR] is the systematically dominant value in languages in which [ATR] is
contrastive among high vowels i.e., in languages with phonemic , ; [−ATR] is the systematically dominant value in languages with an [ATR] contrast among
mid vowels only. 2003 358
This revised statement allows for the inclusion of cases in which the systematically dominant value aligns with predictions based on the inventory type, even if there are
other surface patterns which show indirect dominance of the opposite feature. There is only a single potential 7VM counterexample to this hypothesis. Legbo,
a Cross River language of Nigeria, has the 7VM inventory, which otherwise always correlates with [-ATR] dominance. However, in Legbo, there are two patterns suggestive
of [+ATR] dominance, which are coalescent [+ATR] dominance as well as the assimilation of a single subject marker before a [+ATR] verb root. Since this evidence is
quite limited in scope, it is not a fully-convincing counterexample. Note that Ikoma also has the 7VM inventory and instances of superficial [+ATR] dominance. If Ikoma’s
[+ATR] dominance is systematic, then Ikoma might be the most well-described counterexample to Casali’s hypothesis. However, if the most convincing analysis is one
in which [-ATR] is systematically dominant, then Ikoma actually conforms to the typological expectations, despite the surface patterns which suggest otherwise.
In the following section I review in detail an interesting case of dominance reversal i.e. indirect dominance in Kinande, a Bantu language of Congo. I also suggest
that a parallel analysis could be applied to the harmony patterns of Ikoma’s applicative suffix.
254