1 Issues in Kinande vowel harmony

The Kinande (Bantu JD.42, Democratic Republic of the Congo) advanced tongue root (ATR) vowel harmony system has regularly attracted the interest of phonologists (e.g., Archangeli & Pulleyblank 1994; 2002; Hyman 2002; Kenstowicz 2009; Mutaka 1990; 1995; 2007; Schlindwein 1987), as it shows an intricate combination of several of the properties that define variation in the typology of vowel harmony systems in surveys like Baković (2000), Casali (2002; 2008; 2016), Hyman (2002), Krämer (2003), Rose & Walker (2011) and Walker (2011). In many harmony systems, the harmony trigger is in a strong position (stem(-initial) or stressed vowel) and the target is in a weak position (affix or unstressed). While prominence control systems usually seem unidirectional, they can show bidirectionality under certain circumstances (Krämer 2003), even though, according to Hyman (2002), vowel harmony is by default regressive. Kinande has both unidirectional and bidirectional ATR vowel harmony. Bidirectional harmony is stem-controlled and is restricted to high vowels, while unidirectional regressive harmony, triggered by vowels in non-prominent positions, targets both high and non-high vowels. In ATR harmony systems with an ATR contrast among high vowels, [+ATR] is canonically the dominant value (Casali 2002; 2008; 2016). Hyman (2002) and Kenstowicz (2009) argue that Kinande shows what Baković (2000) terms “dominance reversal”: [–ATR] can exceptionally trigger harmony in certain morphological contexts. Finally, vowel harmony is canonically word-bound (Kaisse 2017; 2019 and references therein). In Kinande, however, unidirectional regressive vowel harmony can optionally cross word boundaries under certain phonological and syntactic conditions.

This paper adopts a Syntagmatic Correspondence approach to the Kinande vowel harmony system and demonstrates that it straightforwardly accounts for the intricate interaction of featural, directional and morpho-prosodic domain restrictions that define the occurring harmony patterns. The paper is structured as follows. Section 2 presents an overview of the ATR vowel harmony patterns in Kinande to be analyzed in this paper, and sections 3–6 develop a Syntagmatic Correspondence Theory analysis of the patterns. Section 7 takes up alternative approaches to theoretical issues raised by our analysis, in particular debates on how best to formalize dominance, domain restrictions and directionality in harmony processes, to highlight the advantages of the Syntagmatic Correspondence approach. Section 8 concludes.

2 Background on Kinande and its ATR vowel harmony patterns

We begin with an introductory sketch of Kinande morphology and its vowel inventory, followed by an overview of the ATR vowel harmony (ATR VH) patterns to be analyzed in this paper.

3 Stem-controlled ATR VH: a Correspondence analysis

We begin our analysis of vowel harmony in Kinande with the stem-controlled ATR VH pattern illustrated in (5), above. The generalization that emerges from the data in (5) is that adjacent vowels that are [+high] must also agree in their value for [±ATR]. That is, as observed by Mutaka (1995), this pattern targets a sequence of immediately adjacent [+high] vowels within the (macro-)stem. This meets the definition of parasitic harmony: only neighboring vowels that already share a particular feature, [+high], harmonize for another feature, [ATR]. Note that [+high] prefix vowels also harmonize for [ATR] with the stem-initial vowel, showing that this harmony pattern is not unidirectional.

We formalize the relation between harmonizing vowels in terms of Syntagmatic Correspondence. Syntagmatic Correspondence Theory (Krämer 1998; 2001; 2003) and Agreement by Correspondence (ABC) theory (Walker 2000a, b; Hansson 2001; Rose & Walker 2004) are further developments of OT’s Agree constraints (e.g., Baković 2000 for vowel harmony), inspired by a proposal by Pulleyblank (1997) to account for local assimilation between consonants. Correspondence relations are not only assumed between representations, as in IO-Correspondence and the correlating faithfulness constraints (McCarthy & Prince 1995), such as IO-Ident, but also between adjacent units of the same type within representations. While in Syntagmatic Correspondence every vowel in an output candidate is automatically in correspondence with every neighboring vowel, this relation between units of the same type is optional in candidates in ABC theory (which was first developed to account for long-distance assimilation between consonants only) and regulated by a specific set of Correspondence (Corr) constraints. However, Hansson (2014) argues for a slimmed down version of ABC theory without Corr constraints, and Bennett (2019) shows that the presence or absence of Corr constraints from CON does not change the extensional properties of typologies. (See, too, Bennett & DelBusso (2018) for a systematic comparison of minimally different versions of surface correspondence constraint systems.) Accordingly, we opt for the simpler candidate and constraint sets of Syntagmatic Correspondence here.

We propose that the Syntagmatic Correspondence constraint in (7) best formalizes parasitic, stem-controlled ATR VH. The constraint is restricted to [+high] vowels, since [ATR] correspondence is observed to affect only adjacent [+high] vowels in this harmony pattern.

In order for vowel harmony to be optimal, this Correspondence constraint must outrank the IO-Faithfulness constraint DEP(+ATR) in (8a), which penalizes any [+ATR] specification in the output which is not found in the input. A second generalization to account for is that [+ATR] specifications in the input are not deleted to satisfy the Correspondence constraint in (7). This generalization is formalized by the IO-Faithfulness constraint Max^hi in (8b), which crucially is restricted to high vowels, since only they have contrastive [ATR] values in the input.⁴

The analysis so far is exemplified in (9). In the tableaux in this section, we ignore the prefixes, in order to focus on stem-internal ATR VH.

The majority of OT work on vowel harmony appeals to IO-Identity constraints. Asymmetrical IO-Ident and OI-Ident constraints as well as IO-Ident constraints referring only to one feature value have been proposed in several analyses (e.g., Pater 1999; Walker 2015). However, other work, such as Butska (1998), Brown (2016) argues in favor of decomposing IO-Identity into Max and Dep(feature). We will give further empirical arguments from Kinande for our choice of Max/Dep(feature) constraints such as those in (8) in the discussion of regressive, word-internal VH in section 4.

To model the dominance of ATR, Archangeli & Pulleyblank (1994; 2002) propose grounded constraints formalizing the typological generalization that [+high] vowels are optimally not [–ATR] and nonhigh vowels are optimally not [+ATR], which we recast as simple OT markedness constraints in (9a, b). Note that we already account for [+ATR] dominance by using Max(+ATR) rather than IO-Identity(±ATR). Nevertheless, these markedness constraints still play a minor role in the analysis.

To capture the fact that only the high vowels are contrastive for ATR, the two IO-Faithfulness constraints in (8) have to dominate *[+Hi,–ATR], and *[–Hi,+ATR] has to dominate other IO-Faithfulness constraints, since non-high vowels are predictably [–ATR], except when targeted by regressive ATR VH, to be discussed in section 4.

The Markedness constraints in (10) also play a role in accounting for why Kinande ATR VH optimizes strings of [+ATR, +high] vowels and affects only [+high] vowels. For example, in (8), above, a candidate with a final low [+ATR] vowel was not considered, since non-high vowels are not in the scope of the S-Correspondence constraint in (7). A [+ATR] low vowel would not even be an optimal output for a hypothetical input [+ATR] low vowel because such an output violates (10b), crucially ranked above more general IO-Faithfulness constraints on [+ATR], such as Max(+ATR), the unrestricted version of the Max^Hi(+ATR) constraint in (8b). This point is exemplified in the tableau in (11).⁵

In (11) we assume for the sake of argument a hypothetical input [+ATR] low vowel in final position. The [+ATR] low vowel is not realized faithfully in the output because the faithful and harmonic candidate (b) violates the Markedness constraint (10b) penalizing non-high [+ATR] vowels. The winning candidate (c) only violates Max(+ATR), the general Faithfulness constraint on [+ATR], which is ranked lowest, to account for the fact that non-high vowels are not contrastive for ATR. Since the S-Correspondence constraint (7) optimizing ATR VH only scans adjacent pairs of high vowels for ATR identity, the marked [+ATR] final low vowel in (b) does not improve satisfaction of this Correspondence constraint, even though candidate (b) appears to be more harmonic than the optimal candidate since all of its vowels are [+ATR].

A final property of stem-controlled ATR VH is that if a low vowel separates two high vowels that are not identical with regard to ATR, harmony is blocked. (See (5g), above). Since the Correspondence constraint in (7) only evaluates adjacent pairs of high vowels, inserting an [+ATR] feature on non-adjacent high vowels gratuitously violates IO-Dep(+ATR) (7a), as in candidate (12d). If an intervening non-high vowel is changed to [+ATR] this violates the Markedness constraint against non-high ATR vowels, as shown in candidates (12b, c). We put the violation of IO-Dep(+ATR) by the non-high vowel of candidate (12b) in parentheses, because it is only violated if this vowel is underlyingly underspecified for [+ATR].

To sum up this section, we have accounted for the following properties of stem-controlled ATR VH. First, it is parasitic, applying only to adjacent high vowels within the stem – (9) and (11). Second, only [+high] vowels are contrastive for ATR – (11); and high vowels are targets of harmony to the exclusion of non-high vowels – (11) and (12). We have shown that the Markedness constraints in (10) that are central to Archangeli & Pulleyblank’s (2002) analysis play only a minor role in our analysis. Higher ranked Correspondence and Faithfulness constraints partially incorporate some of the same markedness generalizations that enforce a restriction of ATR VH to high vowels.

4 Extending the analysis to regressive word-internal ATR VH

5 Dominance reversal in the class 5 prefix?

In our analysis, [+ATR] dominance is explicitly encoded in the Correspondence constraint in (21) and implicitly encoded in the Max/Dep constraints (8a,b) which refer asymmetrically to [+ATR]. Hyman (2002) and Kenstowicz (2009) claim that the dominance of [+ATR] is reversed with the class 5 prefix. However, as we will see in this section, our analysis extends with minor modification to account for the data without invoking dominance reversal.

The class 5 prefix /ɛ-ri-/, is realized [ɛ-rɪ-] in the context of a [–ATR, +high] stem-initial vowel; it is realized [e-ri-] elsewhere. The data in (26) compares the realization of the infinitive prefix with the near-identical class 5 prefix to illustrate this point. Notice that the infinitive prefix undergoes regressive ATR VH, as expected and surfaces as  [–ATR] in the absence of an ATR trigger. The class 5 prefix, in contrast, is consistently [+ATR], except in (26c, d, bolded), where it is [–ATR] to match the [+high, –ATR] stem-initial vowel; recall that ‘[‘ indicates a left stem edge:

Hyman (2002) and Kenstowicz (2009) analyze the class 5 prefix with an underlying [+ATR, +high] vowel, contra Archangeli & Pulleyblank (2002), who propose that all class 5 nouns have a floating [+ATR] feature. We follow Hyman and Kenstowicz, for reasons taken up in detail below.⁹

Our analysis can account for this pattern with only minor modifications to the constraint set developed so far. What we propose is, first, a more specific Max^Hi(+ATR) constraint that is localized to the domain of the Stem (just as constraint (21) is localized to the domain of PWord). The new constraint is defined in (27):

In addition, we have to specify Dep(+ATR) to the same domain and rank it above general Max^Hi(+ATR), but below the domain-specific Max(+ATR) constraint in (27), to maintain the results of the analysis in the previous sections:

These two constraints crucially distinguish high vowels in stems from other high vowels that are contrastively specified for ATR. Both constraints must be ranked above Max^Hi(+ATR) to have an effect. Informally, the proposal is that being faithful to the ATR specification is more important for vowels in stems than those in other morphological domains.

As demonstrated in the tableau in (29), below, adding these constraints to the analysis straightforwardly accounts for apparent dominance reversal, recasting it as a process that reinforces the stem as the asymmetric source of harmony triggers. Note that non-crucial, low-ranked constraints have been omitted from this tableau to simplify the presentation:

In (29), the disharmonic faithful candidate (a) is excluded because it violates the Correspondence constraints optimizing parasitic ATR VH between adjacent high vowels (7) and regressive ATR VH (21). All other candidates satisfy (21). However, candidate (b) has a high [+ATR] vowel followed by a high [–ATR] vowel, which violates S-Ident^Hi(±ATR). Candidates (c) and (d) contain only [+ATR] vowels or only [–ATR] vowels and thus are more harmonic than candidates (a) and (b). Candidate (c) is superior to candidate (d) because it satisfies Dep^Hi,stem. As we can see, it is crucial here that the high-ranking Max^Hi,stem(+ATR) constraint (28) is limited to the stem domain. We have included the wide-domain Max^Hi(+ATR) constraint (8b) in the tableau, even though it is low ranked, to make this point clear.

The tableau in (30) illustrates how our analysis accounts for the lack of harmony between the high [+ATR] vowel in the prefix and [–ATR] non-high vowels following it. (Again, non-crucial, low-ranking constraints have been omitted to simplify the presentation.)

Crucially, none of the Syntagmatic Correspondence constraints are violated by this apparent disharmony. Recall that S-Max (S-Ident-V_RV_L^PWd) (21) is only violated by a sequence of a [–ATR] vowel followed by a [+ATR] vowel, not the reverse order. This is exemplified by the first candidate in (30). Even though all the Faithfulness constraints refer to high vowels only, candidate (d), with mid [–ATR] vowels to the right of the [+ATR] high prefix vowel, is preferred over the fully harmonic candidate (c). No harmony constraint decides between the two forms, leaving the decision to the Markedness constraint penalizing [–high, +ATR] vowels. Given the absence of pressure from harmony-inducing Correspondence constraints, there is also no reason to select the fully harmonic form, (b), with all [–ATR] vowels, over the winning candidate. Note that (b) violates the lowest ranked Faithfulness constraint, which optimizes preserving input [+ATR] in output high vowels.

It is important to note that our analysis follows Hyman (2002) and Kenstowicz (2009) in assuming that the exceptional [+ATR] properties of the class 5 prefix are due to an input [+ATR] specification on the [+high] vowel of the prefix. This contrasts with the analysis of Archangeli & Pulleyblank (1994; 2002), who assume that an input floating [+ATR] specification on all class 5 noun stems with [–ATR] root vowels is responsible for the [+ATR] realization of the class 5 prefix vowel(s). Both Hyman (2002) and Kenstowicz (2009) provide several arguments against this alternative. One of the more telling arguments they put forward is that, if a class 5 noun stem has a [+ATR] floating feature, it should surface also with other prefixes to the same noun stem, such as the class 6 plural prefix or the diminutive prefix, but it does not. Another strong argument is that the floating [+ATR] autosegment associated with [–high] stem-initial vowels has no plausible diachronic source, since only [+high] vowels contrast for [ATR] in Proto-Bantu. (See Hyman 2002 and Kenstowicz 2009 for more detailed discussion of these points.) Our analysis deviates substantially from Kenstowicz’s in that we specify IO-Faithfulness to a prominent domain, i.e., Stem, and we use a positive directional harmony constraint instead of Kenstowicz’s negative constraint against progressive VH. The right-to-left bias diagnosed by Hyman is thus, in our analysis, a direct effect of S-Max. This is in line with the general treatment of VH here and in the majority of the literature, in which some specific VH constraint (Agreement, S-Correspondence or Alignment) favors VH, while IO-Faithfulness blocks VH.

Finally, as a reviewer points out, the class 4/10 numeral prefixes are also exceptional in that they trigger progressive ATR harmony (Hyman 2002; Kenstowicz 2009). Noun class prefixes normally harmonize for ATR with their bases: e.g., the class 4 nouns, ɛmí-hʊ́li ‘nostrils’ vs. emí-líki ‘ropes’ All the data thus far has illustrated this generalization. However, the prefix for a class 4 numeral, which has a distinct form from the prefix found with other class 4 words, triggers ATR harmony on the numeral stem: ba-bɪrɪ ‘two, class 2’ vs. i-biri ‘two, class 4’ (Kenstowicz 2009: 260; Hyman 2002: 21). While these data are clearly problematic for any analysis of Kinande harmony, they also clearly form a small, multiply exceptional set. We propose that since numerals are a closed class, they do not have stem status and therefore behave like other functional items, such as suffixes. This data thus does not constitute the same kind of stem dominance reversal as is found with the class 5 prefix, where apparent “reversal” is quite general for words in this class, not confined to a single closed class of modifiers. For a general discussion of why prefixes so rarely act as triggers in vowel harmony, we direct the reader to Fábregas & Krämer (2020).¹⁰

To sum up this section, we have shown that “dominance reversal” emerges from our Syntagmatic Correspondence analysis of ATR VH without having to propose a constraint specific to the class 5 prefix context that optimizes [–ATR] harmony. On the contrary, the Correspondence constraint in (7) optimizing parasitic [+ATR] VH between adjacent [+high] vowels also optimizes stem-controlled  [–ATR] harmony in the context of the class 5 prefix, due to its interaction with two constraints ((27) and (28)) that have the effect of restricting harmony triggers to the stem domain. The Hasse diagram in (31) summarizes the Kinande grammar developed so far.

6 Regressive ATR VH across word boundaries

It is regularly asserted in surveys of vowel harmony systems that the domain of vowel harmony typically is the word. (See, e.g., Archangeli & Pulleyblank 2007; Hyman 2002; Kaisse 2017; 2019; Krämer 2003; Rose & Walker 2011; van der Hulst & van de Weijer 1995.) The “word” is usually taken to refer to the phonological word (PWord), not the grammatical word, since compounds are often disharmonic. Indeed, vowel harmony is said to rarely cross lexical word boundaries, either within compounds or within phrases.

However, work like Casali (2002; 2008), Downing (2018), Downing & Krämer (to appear), Hyman (2002), Kaisse (2019), Krämer (2003), Kügler (2015) and Obiri-Yeboah & Rose (2022) demonstrates that it is, in fact, not uncommon for vowel harmony to extend beyond a word boundary. Kinande regressive ATR VH, as described in Mutaka (1990; 1995), is of interest for theories of the domain of vowel harmony, as it represents an additional case where vowel harmony can apply across morphological word boundaries. As shown in (32), its application is, though, both variable and gradient. Regressive phrasal ATR VH (PVH) applies only optionally across a word boundary, only within noun-modifier collocations, and then it can have a ‘domino effect,’ taking as its domain one or more contiguous syllables within the target word:

While earlier work on Kinande had characterized PVH as phonological, Archangeli & Pulleyblank (2002) argue that Kinande PVH is a phonetic anticipatory effect, because: “The impressionistic evidence is that phrasal ATR harmony is gradient both in how far it goes in a word and in how strongly each vowel is affected” (p. 180). For this reason, Kinande would not be a true exception to the claim that vowel harmony is word bound. Kaisse (2019) argues, furthermore, that since Kinande, like other Bantu languages, has only a small number of adjectives, noun-adjective collocations can be considered lexicalized, i.e., PWord-like.

We argue that Kinande PVH must be considered phonological and extend our Correspondence analysis of ATR VH to account for the phonological constraints on this harmony pattern. In section 6.2 we justify our phonological approach to PVH by critiquing Archangeli & Pulleyblank’s proposal that gradience and variability in PVH are sufficient criteria for considering it a phonetic process.

7 Issues for alternative approaches to (Kinande) VH

In this section we survey issues raised by the Kinande VH patterns, and discuss why these issues are more straightforwardly handled in the Correspondence approach we have adopted than by alternative approaches. Because Kinande has not been analyzed in all the approaches we critique, as far as we know, we focus our attention on the issues, rather than taking up alternative analyses in detail.

A central issue in accounting for Kinande ATR VH concerns directionality and its relation to featural dominance or positional prominence. ATR VH patterns in Kinande are not all prominence-controlled, radiating out from an easily identifiable position of strength as in other systems where the lexical root, the stem-initial vowel or the stressed vowel exclusively acts as a VH trigger. We identified the locus of control as the Bantu (macro-)stem, and within this domain ATR VH is of the dominant-recessive type, with [+ATR] as the dominant value. The apparent dominance reversal at the prefix-stem boundary in class 5 nouns shows, however, that stem control is more important than [+ATR] dominance for the parasitic ATR VH pattern.

The only vowels that display a phonemic ATR contrast in Kinande are the high vowels. All [+ATR] non-high vowels are derived by regressive ATR VH. In many other harmony systems, neutral vowels (ones for which the harmony feature is not contrastive) act as blockers or they are transparent. In Kinande, neutral vowels only act as blockers in parasitic ATR VH, discussed in section 3, when the triggering feature is to the left of a target vowel. The contrasting behavior of neutral vowels in parasitic (bidirectional) versus regressive ATR VH is of interest as it provides a clear counterexample to Baković’s (2000) claim that neutral vowel blocking should not vary depending on directionality.

Baković analyzes dominance as a Local Constraint Conjunction (LCC) of the respective Markedness constraint and the Faithfulness constraint involved. In the case of ATR dominance, *[–ATR] has to be conjoined with IO-Ident(±ATR). While we do not have objections against LCCs in general, this particular LCC is equivalent to a feature value-specific directional Identity constraint, which is technically identical to framing the same in Max(F) and Dep(F) constraints, which thus offer a more straightforward explanation of dominance effects in vowel harmony patterns.

The asymmetric behavior of non-high vowels also motivated a diagnosis of two distinct ATR VH processes at work, one bidirectional and parasitic, affecting only [+high] vowels, and the other regressive, affecting all vowels. Archangeli & Pulleyblank model this observation by attributing the regressive harmonization of non-high vowels to an Alignment constraint and the harmonization of high vowels to the reduction of markedness. Kenstowicz uses McCarthy’s (2004) Span Theory and proposes a constraint against adjacent conflicting ATR spans as well as a negative constraint against left-to-right harmony (*LR). He motivates the latter with Hyman’s (2002) aforementioned observation of an anticipatory bias in vowel harmony patterns. This raises two issues: the choice of formalism to account for harmony, and the way in which the regressive bias is theoretically captured. The problems with alignment have been discussed at length over the years (see, e.g., Krämer 2003), and we will not comment on this here. Span Theory is also an intrinsically non-directional account of harmony. The constraint against two spans with conflicting feature specifications does not determine which span or segment has to change. The theory crucially relies on the notion of a head for each span and one could add a constraint that prefers spans with the head at the right edge, just as there are constraints on the alignment of the head or prominence in prosodic feet. However, the introduction of heads of domains in the context of syntagmatic interaction of segmental features seems to be poorly motivated, since directionality effects can presumably be accounted for by reference to simple IO-Faithfulness or Faithfulness in combination with phonotactic, prosodic or morphosyntactic properties of the segments involved. For instance, regressivity of many consonantal assimilation processes can be attributed to the coda-onset asymmetry, while most cases of progressive vowel harmony easily yield to an analysis that takes the stem-affix (or lexical-functional) asymmetry into account, etc.

Is there any difference between Kenstowicz’ ad hoc directionality constraint and our S-Max (21)? And why is there no mirror image constraint? The anticipatory bias of vowel harmony attested by Hyman (2002) could have its grounding in speech planning and contrast enhancement. Since speakers are planning ahead in time while producing parts of a planned utterance already, anticipatory effects are not surprising. Kaun (1995) for example provides a functional grounding argument for her Extend constraint that draws on contrast enhancement. Perception of a contrastive feature specification presumably improves with every additional feature bearing unit it is realized on. This argument holds for any positive non-directional harmony constraint. In the same spirit one can argue that for contrastive features originating in weak positions, such as the end of the word (see, e.g., Beckman’s 1999 seminal work on strong and weak positions), there is a natural drive to extend to a perceptually more salient position, such as the left edge of the word. This drive has also been formalized in terms of Positional Licensing (Walker 2011). A constraint that prefers regressive assimilation is thus functionally grounded, a constraint penalizing progressive assimilation, such as Kenstowicz’ *LR, is not. Parsimony also dictates that, in theory construction, a constraint that is integrated into an existing family should be preferred to one that constitutes a constraint category of its own to avoid proliferation of constraint types. Syntagmatic Correspondence constraints of the type S-Ident(F) are members of the family of Correspondence constraints, as are directional Syntagmatic Correspondence constraints like S-Max (21).

The integration of directionality into surface correspondence constraints was first proposed within ABC Theory. The current analysis could probably have been done in this approach as well. The major difference lies in the formalization of the cooccurrence condition. The restriction of stem or bidirectional harmony to high vowels would be due to a Corr constraint demanding a correspondence relation for ATR between high vowels rather than a variable in the harmony constraint itself. If there is no Correspondence relation between vowels of different heights, the surface identity constraint preferring harmonic candidates is also not violated. To account for the harmonization of non-high vowels to a high trigger to their right, however, such a correspondence relation is necessary. We do not see an alternative way to exclude this correspondence relation between a non-high vowel and a high vowel to its left other than by assigning the different harmony processes to different levels or strata. And even if a more general Corr constraint dominated IO-Faithfulness at the word level, it would still have the unwanted effect of incorrectly penalizing a non-high vowel preceded by a high vowel within a stem.

We analyzed stem control as a domain restriction holding for Faithfulness constraints. This move deserves two remarks. First, the most extensive OT analysis of Kinande harmony so far (Archangeli & Pulleyblank 2002) also restricts constraints to morphological domains: root, (macro-)stem and word. In contrast, our analysis refers only to stem vs. word domains, in line with proposals that the stem-word distinction is a central one in Bantu and many other languages. (See, e.g., Downing 1999; Downing & Kadenge 2015; 2020; Hyman 2008; Jurgec & Bjorkman 2018; Mutaka 1990.)

Our analysis improves on Archangeli & Pulleyblank’s formalization of grounded conditions on Kinande VH. They introduce a hybrid of Markedness and Faithfulness constraints, i.e., Hi/Atr_domain. They turn their grounded conditions, such as Hi/Atr ([+high] vowels are [+ATR]), which are Markedness constraints, into Faithfulness constraints with a Markedness component by restricting them to the morphological domains of root, stem and macro-stem, rather than using plain Faithfulness constraints. Their definition, e.g., of Hi/ATR_Root, (p. 157), reads “For specifications morphologically affiliated with a root, if [+high] then [+ATR].” (our emphasis) This is a Markedness constraint penalizing [+high][–ATR] vowels which is active only if the respective [+high] is situated within a root that is specified as [+ATR]. At the same time, it optimizes realizing the underlying ATR feature (on a high vowel) and is thus violated if the ATR feature is not realized on that vowel or not at all, and thus a Faithfulness constraint. It is vacuously satisfied if there is either no high vowel or no ATR specification in the input. As we have shown, this hybridization of constraints is unwarranted. Our analysis decomposes this complex set of conditions into pure Markedness constraints and pure Faithfulness constraints.

Indeed, it has been argued since McCarthy & Prince (1995) that placing domain restrictions on Markedness constraints potentially defines a pathological grammar in which ATR is contrastive in affixes and other functional items but not in the root morphemes of lexical words like nouns, verbs and adjectives.

In our analysis, we thus opted to restrict the domains of Faithfulness, rather than Markedness, constraints.

A second issue arises from our proposal that Faithfulness constraints – which include Syntagmatic Correspondence constraints – are restricted to domains. (Recall that two Syntagmatic Correspondence constraints are restricted to the domain of the Prosodic Word in our analysis.) This proposal allows processes to be restricted to the stem or word domain in a non-derivational, non-stratal way. While constraint indexation and a stratal approach might provide equivalent analyses for most of the Kinande ATR VH system, the case of PVH triggered by syllabification across morphosyntactic word boundaries, which we have analyzed as a single Prosodic Word incorporating two morphosyntactic words, would present a problem for a stratal approach. In a stratal approach, resyllabification would apply at the post-lexical level, at which point PWord-bound vowel harmony would presumably be inactive. The particulars of phrasal harmony in Kinande can thus be considered an argument against a stratal organization of the phonological grammar and in favor of domain restricted constraints. The restriction of PVH to the DP, however, suggests that modular architecture plays a role here, as it illustrates the sensitivity of phonology to phases. This aspect of the pattern clearly needs further investigation.

A final point is that since Archangeli & Pulleyblank (2002) consider PVH phonetic, they do not discuss or analyze its properties, and thus miss the opportunity to investigate the implications of PVH for the phonology-syntax interface. As we have shown, Kinande PVH is of typological and theoretical interest since it is subject to phonological restrictions that do not hold of word-internal ATR VH. This contradicts a common assumption (see work since Kiparsky 1985) that phrasal processes are less restricted than word-internal processes. It is also of typological interest since it is restricted to DPs, confirming a cross-linguistic pattern, identified by Kaisse (2019), showing that phrasal phonological processes are often restricted to the DP context (see as well Downing & Krämer, to appear, for a discussion of cross-linguistic variation in PVH).

8 Conclusion

In this paper, we have adopted a Syntagmatic Correspondence approach to the Kinande vowel harmony system and demonstrated that it straightforwardly accounts for the intricate interaction of featural, directional and morpho-prosodic domain restrictions that define the occurring ATR harmony patterns. Even though it has been demonstrated since Krämer (1998; 2001; 2002; 2003; see, too, Rhodes 2012) that Correspondence theory is well suited to the analysis of vowel harmony systems, there is still some controversy about whether vowel harmony can be handled as well as consonant harmony in Correspondence theory. Bennett & Delbusso (2018), for example, only evaluate CORRESPONDENCE constraints accounting for consonantal harmony and dissimilation. This paper therefore adds to the body of work showing that Correspondence Theory provides a viable general approach to harmony systems.

Competing Interests

The authors have no competing interests to declare.