62 [cor] Prince and Smolensky 1993
‘Coronal place is prohibited’ 63
IDENT:VDor McCarthy and Prince 1995 ‘Output vocoids have input correspondents for Dor’
[cor] and IDENT:VDor need not be ranked relative to one another, since the higher ranked CODA- COND will guarantee that final nasals will not have independent place specification.
37
Note that the claim that [cor] is universally dominated by other place nodes Prince Smolensky 1993, Kager 1999
is not an issue here, since [dor] would surface if there was not a preceding vowel. Thus, the distinction is made here between [dor] and IDENT:VDor.
64 Ranking for nasal velarization.
CODA-COND[cor], IDENT:VDor The result will be that vocalic dorsal assimilation will be forced to operate.
65 Dorsalization of simple nasal codas
Input: sĩ́n CODA-COND [cor] IDENT:VDor a.
sĩ́n b.☞
sí̃ŋ In 65, the Coda Condition filters out any attempt at attaching an independent place articulation for
a word final nasal. However, the dorsal node of the vowel is available regardless of its specification for backness. The nasal links its place node parasitically to that of the previous vowel so that full
specification is acquired in the output form. Thus, candidate b is the most optimal since the Coda Condition is preserved.
5.4.3 Devoicing of Stop codas
Northern Pame does not allow for voiced stops in coda position, but only voiceless. 66
Word final obstruent devoicing nmǽʔæp ‘donkey’
mjǽʔæbət ‘donkeys’
ləʔt͡ʃə̌t ‘he defends himself’
ləʔt͡ʃə̌dət ‘they defend themselves’
ʃt͡ʃə́k ‘my superior’
ʃt͡ʃə́gət ‘my superiors’
However, it is always the case that when word final stops are found intervocalically due to suffixation, a voiced stop will surface. Thus, there exists a question as to whether or not these are
underlyingly voiced or voiceless segments. That is, is it more accurate to describe the alternations in 66 as one of intervocalic voicing of voiceless stops or as coda devoicing of voiced stops? In the
following data, we see analogous intervocalic contrasts for voiceless and voiced stops. On the other hand, there is no data in Northern Pame that has a voiceless stop word finally, which upon suffixation of
37
However, IDENT:VCor must dominate IDENT:VDor. For simplicity, this ranking is assumed in the tableau.
a –VC morpheme remains voiceless. Therefore, the data in 67 give clear evidence that only a coda devoicing interpretation is tenable.
67 Intervocalic voicing contrasts
dəpɑ́j ‘tomato’
stəběws ‘shawl’
kətɑ́ ‘water hole’
gəděw ‘youth’
dəkúp ‘he rejected him’
pɑgɑ́s ‘cow’
Northern Pame voiceless and voiced consonants contrast intervocalically, while voicing neutralizes to voicelessness word finally. Such circumstances motivate the following constraint.
68 CODA-VceObs Kager 1999
‘Voiced obstruents are prohibited in codas’ Coda devoicing can be straightforwardly accounted for by ranking markedness above voicing
faithfulness. 69
Markedness dominates faithfulness CODA-VceObsIDENT[vce]
Assuming an input with a voiced coda, the optimal candidate will always be voiceless. Should the segment be in a non-coda environment, voicing faithfulness will surface.
70 Devoicing of voiced coda
Input: nmǽʔæb
CODA-VceObs IDENT[vce]
a. nmǽʔæb
b.☞ nmǽʔæp
In 70, the input has a voiced obstruent in word final coda position. The faithful candidate a loses due to high ranking CODA-VceObs. Candidate b satisfies CODA-VceObs while violating faithfulness for
[vce], which compared to a is a better fit. Candidate b is therefore the winner.
5.4.4 Intrusive stop formation
