Palatalization and “strong i ” across Inuit dialects
Abstract Inuit dialects with palatalization all distinguish between “strong i ” and “weak i ”: instances of surface [i] that cause palatalization and those that do not, respectively. All dialects that have completely lost this contrast also lack palatalization. Why are there no /i, a, u/ dialects in...
| Published in: | Canadian Journal of Linguistics/Revue canadienne de linguistique |
|---|---|
| Main Authors: | , |
| Format: | Article in Journal/Newspaper |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Cambridge University Press (CUP)
2011
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0008413100003145 https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-cambridge-core/content/view/S0008413100003145 |
| Summary: | Abstract Inuit dialects with palatalization all distinguish between “strong i ” and “weak i ”: instances of surface [i] that cause palatalization and those that do not, respectively. All dialects that have completely lost this contrast also lack palatalization. Why are there no /i, a, u/ dialects in which all instances of surface [i] trigger palatalization? We propose that this typological gap can be explained using a contrastivist analysis whereby only contrastive features can be phonologically active, palatalization is triggered by [coronal], and contrastive features are assigned in an order placing [low] and [labial] ahead of [coronal]. In a three-vowel inventory only [low] and [labial] are contrastive, while in the four-vowel inventory [coronal] must also be contrastive to distinguish strong and weak i. It follows from these assumptions that [i] can trigger palatalization only if it is in contrast with a fourth vowel. |
|---|