Abstract
This paper provides a novel perspective on neutrality in vowel harmony, using evidence from Hungarian. Despite the extensive study of Hungarian vowel harmony, the intermediate neutrality of [e:], which can alternate harmonically with [a:], is rarely addressed in existing analyses. While many standard accounts of harmony assume that front unrounded vowels like [e:] are neutral due to the lack of back counterpart, the [a:]~[e:] alternation makes this approach unsupportable. Specifically, since both [a:] and [e:] lack harmonic counterparts, but [a:] participates in harmony by re-pairing to [e:], the theory must explain why [e:] is not consistently harmonic. I argue that this pattern forces a new, target-focused approach, where participation is based on the vowel-specific drive to undergo harmony; neutrality results when this drive is insufficient to force unfaithfulness. This idea is motivated by cross-linguistic and phonetic facts suggesting that vowels that are low and/or rounded are inherently better targets of front/back harmony. I implement this approach formally in Harmonic Grammar; the harmony constraint is scaled by the quality of a vowel as a potential target, parallel to Kimper’s (2011) trigger strength scaling. This account can capture not only the basic Hungarian facts, but also the gradience of neutrality (the height effect) and the variability in Hungarian harmony. Moreover, I argue that this view of harmony is necessary beyond Hungarian and beyond front/back harmony: neutrality is crucially about the quality of a vowel as a potential target of harmony, where target quality is determined in a cross-linguistic, phonetically motivated way.
Highlights
This paper provides a novel perspective on neutrality in vowel harmony, using evidence from Hungarian
As will be discussed in more detail in the analysis section, the way of understanding harmony targets presented here ties in closely with the view of neutrality as gradient and variable that is dominant in modern literature on Hungarian (e.g. Rebrus et al 2012; Törkenczy et al 2013; Rebrus & Törkenczy 2016a)
Due to the aforementioned problems with solutions in which neutrality is determined by lack of a harmonic counterpart, I argue that the Hungarian patterns require a fundamental change in how we view targets of vowel harmony: it suggests the need to consider the nature of each vowel as a possible harmony target
Summary
Discussed in the study of vowel harmony (e.g. Vago 1973; Goldsmith 1985; van der Hulst 1985; Ringen 1988; Archangeli & Pulleyblank 1994; Pulleyblank 1996; Ringen & Vago 1998; Kiparsky & Pajusalu 2003; Krämer 2003; Pulleyblank 2004; Archangeli & Pulleyblank 2007; Nevins 2010; Gafos and Dye 2011; Kimper 2011; Törkenczy et al 2013; etc.), neutral vowels are those that are exempt from undergoing harmony. Vago 1973; Goldsmith 1985; van der Hulst 1985; Ringen 1988; Archangeli & Pulleyblank 1994; Pulleyblank 1996; Ringen & Vago 1998; Kiparsky & Pajusalu 2003; Krämer 2003; Pulleyblank 2004; Archangeli & Pulleyblank 2007; Nevins 2010; Gafos and Dye 2011; Kimper 2011; Törkenczy et al 2013; etc.), neutral vowels are those that are exempt from undergoing harmony. van der Hulst (2016) draws a direct equivalence between neutrality and unpairedness in stating that “The non-advanced low vowel /a/ in Tangale misses a harmonic counterpart. This is what we call a neutral vowel.”.
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
