DescriptionMany harmony systems impose conditions on the triggers and targets of harmony that involve prosodic features such as stress, length, or peripherality in the prosodic word domain. Such conditions serve to distinguish a 'strong' anchor (SA) from a 'weak' anchor (WA) for a given feature, and are responsible for asymmetries in the class of segments that may trigger or undergo harmony. Yet, languages employ prosodic conditions on the strength of an anchor in different ways, deriving what appears to be a paradoxical typology of harmony systems, as in (1).
(1) A partial typology of prosodic conditions on targets and triggers
WA's are good triggers: Mellieh'a Maltese round and palatal harmony.
SA's are good triggers: Tigre palatal harmony (Palmer 1956, 1962); Wolof RTR and ATR harmonies (Ka 1988); Pasiego and Tudanca MontaƱes vowel raising (Hualde 1989).
WA's are good targets: Qormi Maltese palatal and round harmony (Peuch 1978); Woleaian raising (Poser 1982); Wolof ATR harmony; Standard Maltese palatal and round harmony (Peuch 1978).
SA's are good targets: Menomini ATR harmony (Bloomfield 1962); Coeur d'Alene progressive RTR harmony (Reichard 1938); Lena Bable Spanish metaphony (Hualde 1989).
NoteThe definitive version of this paper was published in Proceedings of the North East Linguistic Society 25 and is available at http://glsa.hypermart.net/
NoteCole, J. and C. Kisseberth. (1995). Paradoxical strength conditions in harmony systems. In J. Beckman (Ed.) Proceedings of the Twenty-fifth Conference of the North-Eastern Linguistic Society, U Mass, Amherst, pp. 17-31.
Organization NameRutgers, The State University of New Jersey
RightsCopyright for scholarly resources published in RUcore is retained by the copyright holder. By virtue of its appearance in this open access medium, you are free to use this resource, with proper attribution, in educational and other non-commercial settings. Other uses, such as reproduction or republication, may require the permission of the copyright holder.