3 Paradigm for sɑ́wʔ ‘teach’. S
UBJECT
I
NCOMPLETIVE
C
OMPLETIVE
1
st
ləsɑ́wʔ nəsɑ́wʔ
2
nd
k’əʃɑ́wʔ nəʃɑ́wʔ
3
rd
sɑ́wʔ dəsɑ́wʔ
Here, the palatal glide is completely lost due to consonant coalescence see chapter 8. The result is a post-alveolar fricative, a morphophonological alternate to the lexical alveolar fricative. In addition,
notice that the labio-velar glide is simply deleted from the surface forms in 3. Focusing on the coalescence of j and s, we see that the alveolar fricative is the new surface form produced by a
morphological concatenation. In this case, the resultant segment is crucially a lexical contrastive segment, a fact well attested in data such as the following.
4 Contrast of s and ʃ nt’ə́s ‘grasshopper’
nk’ə́ʃ ‘piece of paper’ Another example of morphophonemic complexity can be seen with the difference between lexical
aspiration and grammatical aspiration. In the example in 5, we have the same surface structure consisting of [kʰw] in both a and b, but their underlying forms are quite different.
5 Lexical versus morphological segments. U
NDERLYING FORM
S
URFACE FORM
a. [n[kʰwɑ̌]] [nkʰwɑ̌]
‘rabbit’ b. [wʰ[kə̌n]]
[kʰwə̌n] ‘they dragged’
In 5, ‘rabbit’ and ‘they dragged’ are compared for aspiration and w, but where these two processes are purely lexical in 5a, they are purely morphological in 5b. In the case of ‘rabbit’,
aspiration and w have no morphological status whatsoever, but are part of the root. In comparison, ‘they dragged’ has the 3
rd
person morpheme was well as aspiration indicating plural subject. Both words are phonetically the same regarding these gestures, but distinct in their underlying morphological
structure. As the above examples demonstrate, Northern Pame lexical segments and morphophonemic
processes have considerable overlap and make it difficult to determine what represents a phonemic segment and what does not.
4.2.2 Previous approach to segmentation Avelino 1997.
Avelino 1997 is the first linguist to address the issue of Northern Pame consonantal segmentation in a systematic way. He mentions that in all previous analyses of Pamean language, specifically Jiliapan
Pame Manrique 1967 and Central Pame Gibson 1956 a sequence approach was used as a default method. Avelino, however, takes a unit approach assuming a larger consonantal inventory, while
accounting for the process of coalescence. He remarks that the difference in his unit approach compared to those the previous scholars is solely based ‘on the model adopted by each researcher and
not on the “language.”’ His point is that any approach must be theoretically driven, whether it is a sequence or a unit approach.
The theoretical model Avelino adopts is one of contrastive oppositions as described by Trubetzkoy in Principles of Phonology 1939. Under such a model, Avelino makes a number of assumptions. First, he
considers consonantal mutation, rather than infixation, to be the productive morphological process on
lexical root consonants 130, footnote 43. His claim in this regard is that while mutation of consonants in Otomanguean languages is well attested, infixation is not 111. Second, Avelino asserts that there
are two levels of consonantal contrasts to be considered; lexical and morphological. He says, …en este trabajo he decidido que las oposiciones que hasta el momento he registrado
exclusivamente con función morfofonológica no serán tomadas como diagnóstico determinante para postular unidades fonológicas, la lógica del razonamiento es que todo contraste fonémico,
i.e. el que se encuentra entre lexemas distintos, puede estar accesible también al nivel morfofonológico, pero no necesariamente todo contraste morfofonológico debe ser fonológico 80.
...in this work I have decided that the oppositions which up to now I have exclusively listed with a morphophonological function will not be taken as a determining diagnostic to postulate
phonological units, the logic of reasoning is that all phonemic contrast i.e. what is found in lexical distinctions can also be accessible at the morphophonological level, but not necessarily
must all morphophonological contrasts be phonological. That is to say, in order to deal with the question of what is a lexical property of a segment, Avelino
proposes that there can be morphologically contrastive segments that are not necessarily contrastive phonologically.
With this in mind, Avelino provides ample discussion on the oppositions that exist in Northern Pame. These oppositions can be lexical or exclusively morphological and contain the following phonological
oppositions: neutral the base form, palatal, nasal, aspirated, glottalized and voice. The representation in figure 3 represents Avelino’s five phonological oppositions that can potentially be present for a Northern
Pame consonant.
F
IGURE
4-1. Contrast of oppositions Avelino 1997:80 For example, looking at figure 4-2, we see the oppositions possible for the class of bilabials.
F
IGURE
4-2. Bilabial oppositions Avelino 1997: 82 palatalized aspirated
nasal neutral
voiced glottalized
pʲ pʰʲ pʰ
m p
b Lexical contrast ______________
Morphological contrast ---------------
Bilabial consonants are based on the neutral consonant p. According to this approach, he determines lexical contrasts for voicing, nasality and aspiration, while glottalization for bilabials is
unattested. Words such as npɑ̌jɑl ‘horse’ base form, bɑsɑ́ ‘corn cobs’ voicing, mɑsɑ́ ‘corn cob’ nasalization, and npʰúju ‘chair’ aspiration exemplify the opposition of bilabials. Notice that a
palatal bilabial stop is possible only in a morphological environment i.e. consonantal mutation where it contrasts with the neutral form. The aspirated palatal bilabial stop contrasts with the aspirated bilabial
stop, again under morphological conditions only such as in npʰúju ‘chair’ and pʰʲúju ‘chairs’. In summary, Avelino clarifies the issue left unanswered by earlier Pamean studies by asserting that
Northern Pame ambiguous sequences are in fact, complex consonants. Moreover, he maintains that complex consonants can be of two types, lexical and morphological where the latter may contain the
former, but not vice versa. This is a step in the right direction, but as the present research will illustrate in the next section, a lexical-morphological opposition model is inadequate.
4.2.3 Critique of previous approach
