Assignment 7: Votic

Matthew Miller
Votic, an endangered language spoken by the Votes of Ingria, exhibits cases of
regular, systematic variation between the nominative and partitive causes. With our
phonological tools in hand, we can explain these variations (k~t, ~i) in two different
ways: through an SPE rule-based approach and an OT one. We find that if we posit a
rule of word-final vowel raising (and fronting) followed by a rule of palatization, the
variations can be adequately explained. Rule 1 feeds Rule 2 since it creates the
environment for Rule 2 to take affect. If we, instead, come up with and rank the proper
markedness and faithfulness constraints, we will be able to explain surface forms of the
aforementioned variation. In addition, we will see that the a~ variation in the partitive
is best described as a morphological variation, not triggered by phonology.
We begin by laying out the morphology of Votic. The nominative is of the form
root+null, whereas the partitive is of the form root+a or root+ae. It seems to be the case
that the a~ae alternation is a morphological alternation, as opposed to phonological, for
the alternation does not seem to be predictable. There does not seem to be any good way
to distinguish between, forms such as usti-a and siili-ae and their respective endings
besides appealing to a morphological explanation.
The above morphological analysis does not account for the systematic alternations
that we see in our data. The first alternation that we shall describe is the i~ alternation
(between the nominative and partitive respectively). This is attested to in jarvi~jarva
lake, mti~ mta hill, tivi~tiva stone, etc.
We shall propose a rule that raises // word-finally. This is a better rule than, say,
/i/ is reduced before an adjacent vowel, for this rule is falsified with [ustia], since we
would expect *[usta] instead. This rule is formalized below in Rule 1 and a derivation
table is provided in table 1.
Rule 1: Word-Final Vowel-Raising (and Fronting)
Central vowels are fronted and raised word-finally.
[+syll, -back,-front] [+front, +high] /____]word-final
Table 1: Derivation Table for Nominative Form of Hill (/tiv/)
UF
/ tiv/
Rule 1
tivi
SF
[tivi]
Next, we see an alternation between [t] in the Nominative form and [k] in the
Partitive in words such as: stork (kurti~ kurka), straw (ti~ ka). However, it is
not the case that every [t] in the nominative category is a [k] in the Partitive (cf. hill
mti versus mta).

With this in mind, we will posit that this is an underlying /k/ which is palatized
when it is followed by a front vowel. This makes phonological sense, since it is not
uncommon for stops to become palatized in this environment, since they assimilate the
+front feature of the vowel. This rule is formalized in Rule 2.
Rule 2: Palatization
/k/ is palatized (viz. becomes t) when followed by a front vowel
[+velar, -son, -delayedrelease, -cont] [+delayed released, +distrib, voice]/______[+syll, +front]
It must be noted, that these rules are in a feeding relationship, which means that
Rule 1 creates the environment for Rule 2. That is, it is only after Rule 1 has made the
// into an [i] can Rule 2 take place. The crucial ordering is illustrated in Tables 2 and 3.
Table 2: Incorrect Ordering of Rules 1 and 2 for stork, Nominative
UF
/ kurk/
Rule 2
kurki
Rule 1
*[kurki]
SF
Table 3: Correct Ordering of Rules 1 and 2 for stork, Nominative
UF
/ kurk/
kurki
Rule 1
kurti
Rule 2
[kurti]
SF
Now that we have examined our data with SPE-goggles on, we will proceed with
the OT analysis. We will look at the two variations separately and see which constraints
are involved. Then we shall present a comprehensive ranking that accurately predicts the
optimal candidate.
In terms of the word-final vowel-raising, there are the following constraints at
play: Ident(place)1, *i2, and *-word-finally3. In other words, we see that Votic prefers to
violate ident(place), rather than have a certain marked structure (that is, word-final ).
This must mean that ident(place) is ranked lower, or is thus less costly to violate than the
markedness constraints. The context-free constraint must be ranked lower than the
context sensitive, since it is not the case that Votic avoids [i] in all environments.

This faithfulness constraint states: The place of articulation of the Output must match
that of the Input. For each mismatch, assign one violation.
2 This context-free markedness constraint states: [i] is a marked structure. Assign
one violation for each occurrence of [i].
3 This context-sensitive markedness constraint states: [] word-finally is marked.
Assign one violation for each occurrence of [] word-finally
1

Although we know by now that allophonic variation has the ranking

CS>>CF>>Faithfulness, we will present Table 4 to illustrate that this is indeed the case.
Table 4: Ranked Constraints for lake (Nominative)
/jarv/
*-word-finally
*i
jarv
*!
jarvi
*

Ident(place)
*

Next, we take a look at our process of palatization examined above. The relevant
constraints are: ident(place&manner)4, *t5, and *k[+front]6 . This is also a case of
allophonic variation, in which the phoneme /k/ has two allophones: [t] before front
vowels and [k] elsewhere. Here too, Votic would rather violate the faithfulness
constraint (in this case ident(manner&place)) than to have the marked structure (here: [k]
before a front vowel). However, since we know that t appears in other environments, it
must be the case that the context-free constraint is ranked lower than the contextsensitive. This is illustrated in Table 5.
Table 5: (Partial) Ranked Constraints for hill (Nominative)7
/mk/
*k[+front]
*t
mki
*!
mti
*

ident(place&manner)
*

The only thing we have left to do is to put all the ranked constraints in one table,
showing how they accurately account for both variations. We know that the markedness
constraints shown above outrank their respective faithfulness constraints. We do not
know, however, how the respective constraints are ranked against one another. We have
made, therefore, dotted lines to reflect this. Table 6 below shows this ranking.
Table 6: Complete Ranking Constraints for Ranked Constraints for hill (Nominative)
/mk/
*k[+front] *t
**i
ident(place&manner) Ident(place)
wordfinally
mk
*!
mki
*!
*
*
mt
*!
*
*
mti
*
*
*

This faithfulness constraint states: Output place and manner of articulation must
match that of the input. For each mismatch, assign one violation.
5 This context-free markedness constraint states: [t] is a marked structure. Assign
one violation for each occurrence of [t].
6 This context-sensitive markedness constraint states: [k] before front-vowels is
marked. Assign one violation for each occurrence of [] word-finally
7 Here we are only concerned with the k~t variation and not the ~i one. We will
deal with both in Table 6.
4

Now, it would serve us well to reflect on the above two analyses. Both were able
to explain the variations in a clear and concise manner. One can clearly see from both the
derivation tables and the ranked constraints what type of phonological change is taking
place. The fact that the rules are in a feeding relationship is clear in the former. We do
not appeal to this fact in OT however, for OT is not a rule-based approach. As such,
there is no ordering of rules, only ranked constraints. This particular type of interaction
between the palatization and vowel-raising (and fronting) can be explained in OT, but if
the relationship were one of counterfeeding or counterbleeding, we would run into
problems, for standard OT cannot deal with these types of interactions.
In conclusion, we were able to explain these variations (k~t, ~i) using both SPE
and OT. We found that by positing a rule of word-final vowel raising (and fronting)
followed by a rule of palatization, the variations could be adequately explained. Rule 1
feeds Rule 2 since it creates the environment for Rule 2 to take affect. In addition, by
coming up with and ranking the proper markedness and faithfulness constraints, we were
able to explain surface forms of the aforementioned variation. In addition, we saw that
the a~ variation in the partitive is best described as a morphological variation, not
triggered by phonology.