A typological study of vowel interactions in Basque


  • Varun deCastro-Arrazola Leiden University and Meertens Institute
  • Edoardo Cavirani Meertens Institute
  • Kathrin Linke Leiden University and Meertens Institute
  • Francesc Torres-Tamarit VU University Amsterdam


The aim of this paper is to check the factorial typology for a set of phonological constraints on vowel interactions in Basque against corpus data (Hualde and Gaminde 1998, Euskararen Herri Hizkeren Atlasa, ‘The Basque Dialectological Atlas’) with the help of OT-Help 2.0 (Staubs et al. 2010), a specialized software that calculates factorial typologies. The formal analysis developed to account for different patterns of vowel interactions in Basque, including those patterns displaying phonological opacity, implements Element Theory (Backley 2011) in Turbidity Theory (Goldrick 2001, Van Oostendorp 2008). The proposed analysis has the virtue of predicting all attested patterns of a specific type of vowel interactions in Basque and excluding the unattested patterns.


Basque, vowel interactions, factorial typology, opacity, Optimality Theory, Element Theory, Turbidity Theory.


Aurrekoetxea, Gotzon and Xarles Videgain (eds.). 2010. Euskararen Herri Hizkeren Atlasa 2. Lexikoa. Bilbo: Euskaltzaindia.

Aurrekoetxea, Gotzon and Xarles Videgain (eds.). 2011. Euskararen Herri Hizkeren Atlasa 3. Lexikoa. Bilbo: Euskaltzaindia.

Aurrekoetxea, Gotzon and Xarles Videgain (eds.). 2013. Euskararen Herri Hizkeren Atlasa 5. Izen morfologia. Bilbo: Euskaltzaindia.

Backley, Phillip. 2011. An introduction to Element Theory. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

Baković, Eric. 2011. “Opacity and ordering”. In J. Goldsmith, J. Riggle and A. Yu (eds.), The Handbook of Phonological Theory, 40–67. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/9781444343069.ch2

Breit, Florian. 2013. Formal aspects of Element Theory. MA thesis, University College London.

Bybee, Joan. 1994. “A view of phonology from a cognitive and functional perspective”. Cognitive Linguistics 5(4): 285–305. http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/cogl.1994.5.4.285

Bybee, Joan. 2001. Phonology and language use. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/cbo9780511612886

Goldrick, Matthew. 2001. “Turbid output representations and the unity of opacity”. In M. Hirotani, A. Coetzee, N. Hall and J. Y. Kim (eds.), Proceedings of the North East Linguistic Society, 30: 231–245. Amherst, MA: GLSA.

Harris, John and Geoff Lindsey. 1995. “The elements of phonological representation”. In J. Durand and F. Katamba (eds.), Frontiers of phonology: Atoms, structures, derivations, 34–79. Essex: Longman.

Hualde, José I. 1989. “The strict cycle condition and noncyclic rules”. Linguistic Inquiry 20(4): 675–680.

Hualde, José I. and Iñaki Gaminde. 1998. “Vowel interaction in Basque: A nearly exhaustive catalogue”. Studies in the Linguistic Sciences 28(1): 41–77.

Hualde, José I. 1999. “Vowel interaction and related phenomena in Basque and the nature of morphophonological knowledge”. Cognitive Linguistics 10(1): 33–56. http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/cogl.1999.002

van der Hulst, Harry. 2005. “The molecular structure of phonological segments”. In P. Carry, J. Durand and C. Ewen (eds.), Headhood, elements, specification and contrastivity, 193–234. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. http://dx.doi.org/10.1075/cilt.259.13hul

Inkelas, Sharon. 2000. “Phonotactic blocking through structural immunity”. In B. Stiebels and D. Wunderlich (eds.), Lexicon in focus, 7–40. Berlin: Akademie Verlag. http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/9783050073712-002

Kawahara, Shigeto. 2002. Similarity among variants: Output-variant correspondence. Undergraduate thesis, International Christian University, Tokyo.

Kirchner, Robert. 1996. “Synchronic chain shift in Optimality Theory”. Linguistic Inquiry 27(2): 340–350. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/9780470756171.ch21

Łubowicz, Anna. 2002. “Derived environments effects in Optimality Theory”. Lingua 112: 243–280. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/s0024-3841(01)00043-2

McCarthy, John J. and Alan Prince. 1993. “Generalized alignment”. In G. Booij and J. van Marle (eds.), Yearbook of Morphology 1993, 79-153. Springer Netherlands. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-3712-8_4

McCarthy, John and Alan Prince. 1994. “The emergence of the unmarked: Optimality in Prosodic Morphology”. In M. González (ed.), Proceedings of the North East Linguistic Society, 24: 333–379. Amherst, MA: GLSA.

Moreton, Elliott and Paul Smolensky. 2002. “Typological consequences of local constraint conjunction”. In L. Mikkelsen and C. Potts (eds.), WCCFL, 21: 306–319. Cambridge, MA: Cascadilla Press.

van Oostendorp, Marc. 2007. “Derived environment effects and consistency of exponence”. In S. Blaho, P. Bye and M. Krämer (eds.), Freedom of analysis?, 95: 123-148. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/9783110198591.123

van Oostendorp, Marc. 2008. “Incomplete Devoicing in Formal Phonology”. Lingua 118: 127–142. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2007.09.009

Orgun, Cemil Orhan. 1996. Sign-based morphology and phonology: With special attention to Optimality Theory. Ph.D. thesis, University of California Berkeley.

Prince, Alan and Paul Smolensky. 1993. “Optimality Theory: Constraint interaction in generative grammar”. Ms., Rutgers University and University of Colorado, Boulder. Published 2004, Malden, MA and Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.

Scheer, Tobias. In press. “Crazy rules, regularity and naturalness”. In J. Salmons and P. Honeybone (eds.), The Handbook of Historical Phonology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Staubs, Robert, Michael Becker, Christopher Potts, Patrick Pratt, John J. McCarthy and Joe Pater. 2010. OT-Help 2.0. Software package. Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts Amherst.




Download data is not yet available.