180 causative extension, then the passive, etc. Each list was randomized, so that the verb roots
were in a different order in each list. Speakers first pronounced the Swahili gloss and then three repetitions of each of the fourteen words. These lists are shown in Appendix D.
Finally, it quickly becomes apparent that a formal analysis of these patterns is quite challenging. Recall, however, that the focus of this chapter is primarily descriptive,
and the data presented here is generally quite clear. Though we do not reach a comprehensive analysis of suffix vowel harmony, this chapter presents data covering a
wide range of patterns, all supported by detailed phonetic investigation, with the hope of providing the basic building blocks for a future formal account of these facts.
6.1 Applicative
The applicative extension is used in Bantu languages to license an additional object, sometimes called an applied object. It typically has the meaning of doing something to or
for someone or something. The applicative, which is wide-spread in Bantu, is a front- vowel suffix which often undergoes vowel height harmony VHH in both 5V and 7V
languages. Hyman 1999, entitled “The historical interpretation of vowel harmony in Bantu,” is nearly exclusively about height harmony in the applicative and inversive
extensions. Hyman 1999 237 uses Nyamwezi F22; [nym] as an example of prototypical
VHH in the applicative suffix, shown in 146 below. 146
Nyamwezi applicative vowel harmony
72
- l following i a u - l following
72
Note that I have adjusted Hyman’s transcriptions to match those used elsewhere in this paper.
181 This process of height harmony is often described as lowering of the underlying degree 2
vowel [ ] in Nyamwezi to the degree 3 vowel [ ] when following a degree 3 root vowel. In a language such as Nyamwezi with a 7VH inventory, the alternation is from a
[-ATR] high vowel to a [-ATR] mid vowel. Therefore, the relevant harmonic feature is not a tongue root feature, but instead a height feature.
We can also look at the applicative in languages with clear [-ATR] dominance, such as the Bantu C languages, which similarly have an underlying degree 2 vowel which
lowers to a degree 3 vowel. For example, in 147 below I summarize the Babole C101; [bvx] applicative paradigm from Leitch 1997 158.
147 Babole applicative vowel harmony
-el following i e a o u - l following
[-ATR] is dominant in Babole, and affixes are [+ATR] underlyingly. [-ATR] spreads from root vowels, causing the applicative suffix to surface as [-ATR] in these cases.
In a 7VM language like Babole, the alternation is from a mid [+ATR] suffix to a mid [-ATR] suffix. Therefore, the harmonic feature in Babole must be a tongue root feature,
not a height feature as with Nyamwezi above. However, in both languages, the generalization still holds that the underlying degree 2 suffix lowers to a degree 3 vowel
following a degree 3 root vowel. The degree 2 to degree 3 “lowering” explanation is not quite as transparent for the
patterns found in Ikoma, and there is a queston concerning which underlying form we should posit. These patterns are shown in 148 below, with examples following in 149.
182 148
Ikoma applicative vowel harmony -er
following e, o - r
following i, , a, , u 149
Applicative examples N
N N
N K K
K K
H22 . H22 .
H22 . H22 .
ST 2
ST 2
ST 2
ST 2
9 8
2 : .
: 8
8 8
9 8
Though Babole and Nyamwezi both have the degree 3 suffix only after a degree 3 root vowel, Ikoma has the opposite pattern. The degree 3 suffix i.e. [-ATR] [- ] surfaces
after all root vowels except for [e] and [o]. Since [-e ] occurs only following [e o], the most straightforward analysis is that - is the underlying form. The allomorph [-e ]
would then be the result of apparent [+ATR] spreading rightward from the root to the suffix, but only from the [+ATR] mid vowels, not from [i u].
Though the analysis presented above is the most simple when looking at this one suffix in isolation, if we proceed with the [-ATR] form as the UF, it introduces several
other challenges into the analysis a it would be the only non-low [-ATR] affix in the language, b it is highly unusual for 7V Bantu languages to have a degree 3 underlying
form for this suffix, and c it requires us to account for apparent [+ATR] spreading from the root to the applicative suffix. This final point might be seen as especially problematic
since we would then have both [+ATR] and [-ATR] spreading from the same position the root in the same direction rightward to the suffix.
183 Based on these difficulties, it is interesting to consider an alternative analysis.
73
If we posit [+ATR] -e as underlying, it relieves a number of the difficulties of the
previous analysis though it also introduce a few difficulties of its own, as discussed below. Perhaps the biggest appeal to -e as the UF is that it allows for a more unified
analysis of the entire system, in which all non-low affixes are underlyingly [+ATR]. And correspondingly, only one value [-ATR] spreads to suffixes, which we see with the
subjunctive and inversive suffixes, and it is consistent with the [-ATR] dominance in prefix dissimilation patterns.
Despite its appeal, this alternative analysis has a number of difficulties. First of all, for the root vowels and even a, it is easy to imagine how they could spread
[-ATR] to the suffix. However, it is quite difficult to explain why the applicative vowel would surface as [-ATR] following the high vowels i u as well. We might consider how
the Ikoma child would posit a [+ATR] underlying form of this suffix, given the broad and less-predictable distribution of the [-ATR] allomorph [- ] and the more narrow and
predictable distribution of the [+ATR] allomorph [-e ]. Surely the Ikoma child, who does not know anything about typical patterns of the applicative in Bantu languages, will posit
- . Both of the options presented above have advantages and disadvantages. Under
the -e analysis, there is no clear explanation for why i u would have a [-ATR] suffix. However, if we posit - underlyingly, we have to explain why this one suffix is [-ATR]
while all other affixes are [+ATR]. We must also account for spreading of both [+ATR] and [-ATR] from root to suffix. Ultimately, it seems that the complexity of the Ikoma
data is going to leave some difficulties either way we go. For now I proceed with the
73
I thank Dr. Myles Leitch for helping me to see this alternative.
184 most straightforward UF, i.e. - , which is a better representation of the actual
applicative patterns. See §7.1.3 concerning an analysis of the applicative which uses the concept of “dominance reversal” Bakovic 2000.
Though the analysis of the patterns is tricky, the data itself is quite clear. The generalizations above are supported by vowel formant analysis, based on recordings by
Speaker B. The average formant values of the applicative vowels are in 150 below, showing averages for each height[ATR] pair. These averages are from measurements of
six tokens per root vowel. 150
Average formant values of applicative suffix Speaker B M
MM M
M MM
M G 8
G 8 G 8
G 8 following a
following i u 3
following 3
e following e o 0 0
Total average
3 3
3 3
Total average e 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 These formant values clearly show that [- ] occurs following all vowels except for e o,
where we find [-er]. Finally, note that the applicative extension can be combined with other suffixes as
well. In §6.5 I discuss the applicative in combination with the causative. There we find that the vowel of the applicative suffix patterns differently when it is followed by the
causative suffix. When the applicative occurs on its own, its surface form depends on the height and [ATR] value of the root, but when it occurs in combination with the causative
suffix -i, the high vowel raises the applicative suffix to surface as [-e ] following all root vowels. See §6.5 for more discussion.
185
6.2 Subjunctive
