224 see §7.2 for speculations concerning how these dominant suffixes fit into a more
comprehensive analysis of Ikoma vowel harmony.
6.5 Applicative-Causative
So far we have seen a number of different vowel harmony patterns. In §6.1, §6.2 and §6.3, I show that all mid-vowel suffixes have alternations which harmonize with the
preceding vowel of the verb stem. In one of these cases, however, the subjunctive triggers raising of root vowels, showing that it is in some ways both dominant and recessive.
Then, in §6.4, I show that high-vowel suffixes do not alternate, but instead they appear to spread [+ATR] leftward to vowels in the verb stem, causing neutralization of e and
. Based on these facts, it is interesting to then ask the question of what happens when mid-vowel and high-vowel suffixes occur within the same word. This section and the
next explore these issues. This section focuses on the applicative mid-vowel suffix in combination with the causative high-vowel suffix. The following section §6.6 explores
the causative in combination with the inversive. In §6.1 above, we saw that the applicative suffix is underlyingly - and has a
[+ATR] variant [-e ] following e o root vowels. However, when the causative suffix -i follows the applicative, the applicative is invariably [-e ], even following [-ATR] root
vowels. Furthermore, the effects of the causative suffix continue through the applicative suffix and affect the verb root vowels as well, once again raising to [e]. I show below
that is raised as well, but once again, it is only gradient. The front mid vowels neutralize in the root, but the back mid vowels do not.
The examples in 186 below compare basic applicatives with applicative- causatives.
225 186
Applicative and Applicative-Causative Verbs N
N N
N K K
K K
H22 . H22 .
H22 . H22 .
ST 2
ST 2
ST 2
ST 2
H22 . H22 .
H22 . H22 .
ST 2
ST 2
ST 2
ST 2
8 8
8 8
8 8
8 8
8 a
8 a
As the examples show, the leftward raising caused by the causative suffix “wins out” over the rightward mid-vowel harmony, preventing the normal alternations of the
applicative suffix. Instead of the variant [-e ] occurring after e o only, it now occurs following all root vowels. Because the root vowel is affected as well, alternating to
[e], disharmonic mid-vowel sequences such as [ … e] are still avoided. The situation is more complex with roots, which I discuss later in the section.
The difference in the vowel quality of applicative vowels is striking when the basic applicative is compared with the applicative-causative. 187 below shows the
average formant values of both of the normal applicative alternations [- ] and [-e ], as well as the average of the applicative vowel which occurs before the causative -i.
187 Average applicative vowel measurements Speaker B
F1 F2
Applicative [- -a] 513
1831 following V1 i a u
Applicative [-e -a] 386
1919 following V1 e o
Applic-caus [-e -i] 269
2118 following all root vowels
The formant values given for [-e -i] are an average of twenty-nine different tokens following all seven root vowels, with F1 measurements ranging from 224 Hz to 313 Hz.
These F1 values are very low for a mid vowel, and we might be inclined to call the vowel
226 [i] instead of [e]. This vowel does indeed sound very high, but not quite as high as the
typical [i]. Also, native speakers regularly write words with the applicative-causative suffix combination as -eri, not as -iri, which is indicative of their association of this
vowel with e, not i. One possible explanation for the phonetically high applicative vowel of [-e -i] is that it is the result of a co-articulation effect. Specifically, aside from
the phonological change from - to -e , there is also possibly some level of gradient tongue height raising in anticipation of the following high vowel of the causative suffix.
The sequence [-e -a], with the FV [-a], obviously would not experience this anticipatory tongue height raising.
The root vowel changes caused by the applicative-causative combination are visible in vowel formant measurements, seen in the table of formant values in 188
below. I have included average V1 measurements for basic stems with the FV [-a], then for verbs with the applicative suffix, the applicative-causative combination, and then the
causative suffix by itself.
227 188
Verb root vowels with applicative, causative and applicative-causative
Basic CVC-a
Applicative CVC- r-a
Applic-Caus CVC-er-i
80
Causative CVC-i
F1 F2
F1 F2
F1 F2
F1 F2
i 314
2413 318
2219 273
2288 312
2190
e 404
1968 393
2023 336
1984 361
2068 476
1769 459
1923 333
2052 374
2026
u 282
689 272
877 -
- 259
748
o 408
882 396
905 314
952 349
841 467
967 501
1053 395
1181 418
1040
a 637
1382 650
1550 576
1541 536
1617 As these average V1 values show, even though the applicative by itself does not cause
root vowel alternations, the applicative-causative suffix combination does cause significant auditory raising of [-ATR] vowels. The raising before the applicative-
causative suffix is comparable to the raising which occurs when the causative suffix is directly adjacent to the root.
In the case of roots, just as we have seen elsewhere in this chapter, the back mid vowels do not neutralize, but is still significantly raised, as shown in the formant
measurements above. Also above, note that the F1 average for o in basic verbs is 408 Hz, and the F1 average for before the causative-applicative is 395 Hz. These values
for o and at first seem comparable, but when we compare these different phonemes in the same environment, we see that they actually do not merge. For example, the F1 of
o before the causative-applicative is much lower, at 314 Hz, which is still quite different than raised , with an F1 of 395 Hz. Therefore, even though is raised, it is difficult to
80
Note that Speaker B considered the u verbs in combination with the applicative-causative suffixes to have an unusual meaning and did not feel comfortable pronouncing them as good Ikoma words. For that
reason, we did not record either of the u-root words from the wordlist with this suffix combination. The two words which I elicited, but did not ultimately record with Speaker B, were o-tuk-e -i ‘to cause to dig
for’ and ko- u -e -i ‘to cause to say for.’ Another word from the list which Speaker B found awkward was u-te -e -i ‘to cause to trap for.’ Though some of these derived verbal forms are admittedly not
terribly common in normal speech, other speakers acknowledged that they are at least grammatical.
228 argue that it is phonologically [+ATR], because if that were the case, then we would
expect the and o formant averages to be much closer in this raised environment. This creates an interesting situation in which the underlying vowel is phonologically still
[-ATR] but is phonetically much like [+ATR] [o]. This is an interesting compromise, in which the language allows for a phonologically disharmonic sequence of mid vowels,
which seem to both be phonetically [+ATR]. The data in 187 and 188 above provides good evidence that the causative
suffix not only affects the vowel quality of the preceding applicative suffix, but also that the leftward spreading continues to the root vowel as well. Perhaps we could generalize
that spreading goes all the way to the left edge of the verb stem. However, because prefix alternations are dissimilatory, harmony patterns seem to reset themselves at the left edge
of the verb stem, at which point the prefix directly adjacent to the verb root alternates as described in Chapter 5 above.
6.6 Inversive-Causative
