egg 2021 online, 26 july to 6 august

B. Elan Dresher

Foundations of Contrastive Hierarchy Theory

Eastern Generative Grammar (EGG)EGG 2021 online, 26 July to 6 August

Class 1: Foundations of CHT in pre-generative phonology

Introduction

Monday 26 July 2021

Eastern Generative Grammar (EGG)

Course AbstractFoundationsofContrastiveHierarchyTheory

ElanDresherUniversityofToronto

This course will present the foundations and main tenets of Contrastive HierarchyTheory(CHT).CHTbuildsonideasthatgobacktoJakobsonandTrubetzkoy,adaptedto thegenerativephonologyofChomskyandHalle.Two ideas that are central to thetheory are (a) contrastive phonological primes (in my case binary features but thesame holds for unary elements) are computed hierarchically, with the choice andordering of the features being language particular; and (b) only contrastive featuresplayaroleinthephonology(theContrastivistHypothesis).Wewilldemonstratewhycontrastivefeaturesmustbecomputedhierarchically,andconsidertheimplicationsofthistheoryforwhetherfeaturesareinnateoremergent.Wewillshowhowcontrastivehierarchiesworkandreviewcasestudiesthatshowhowtheycontributetosynchronicanddiachronicphonology.

CourseOutline1. FoundationsofCHTinthehistoryofphonology,withareviewofkeyideasfoundintheworkofSweet,Sapir,Trubetzkoy,Jakobson,andHalle.

Selectedreadings: Dresher(2014,2016,2019);Dresher&Hall(2020).2. Atheoryofphonologicalcontrast:language-particularhierarchies;theContrastivistHypothesis; contrast and phonological activity; enhancement; markedness; thenatureoffeatures.

Selectedreadings:Dresher(2009:ch.7);Hall(2007;2011);Ko(2018:ch.4).3. Contrastivehierarchiesinsynchronicphonology:vowelharmony,vowelreduction,consonantco-occurrencerestrictions,consonantalcontrasts,andloanphonology.

Selectedreadings: Dresher (2021); Herd (2005); Mackenzie (2012, 2013); Spahr(2012,2014).

4. Contrastivehierarchiesindiachronicphonology. Selectedreadings: Compton & Dresher (2011); Dresher (2018): Krekoski (2017);

Oxford(2015).

5. Inthisclasswecantakeupoutstandingquestionsand,dependingoninterest,lookatnewones.

References

Compton, Richard & B. Elan Dresher. 2011. Palatalization and ‘strong i’ across Inuit dialects. Canadian Journal of

Linguistics/ Revue canadienne de linguistique 56: 203–28. Dresher, B. Elan. 2009. The contrastive hierarchy in phonology. Cambridge: CUP. Dresher, B. Elan. 2014. The arch not the stones: Universal feature theory without universal features. Nordlyd 41(2):

165–181, University of Tromsø — The Arctic University of Norway. Dresher, B. Elan. 2016. Contrast in phonology 1867–1967: History and development. Annual Review of Linguistics

2: 53–73. Dresher, B. Elan. 2018. Contrastive feature hierarchies in Old English diachronic phonology. Transactions of the

Philological Society 116(1): 1–29. Dresher, B. Elan. 2019. Contrastive feature hierarchies in phonology: Variation and universality. In David W.

Lightfoot and Jonathan Havenhill, eds., Variable properties in language: Their nature and acquisition, 13–25. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.

Dresher, B. Elan. 2021. Contrastive hierarchies and phonological primes. In Sabrina Bendjaballah, Ali Tifrit, & Laurence Voeltzel (eds.), Perspectives on Element Theory, 33–64. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.

Dresher, B. Elan & Daniel Currie Hall. 2020. The road not taken: The Sound Pattern of Russian and the history of contrast in phonology. Journal of Linguistics 57(2): 405–444. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022226720000377.

Hall, Daniel Currie. 2007. The role and representation of contrast in phonological theory. PhD thesis, Univ. of Toronto. https://twpl.library.utoronto.ca/index.php/twpl/article/ view/6497.

Hall, Daniel Currie. 2011. Phonological contrast and its phonetic enhancement: Dispersedness without dispersion. Phonology 28: 1–54.

Herd, Jonathon. 2005. Loanword adaptation and the evaluation of similarity. Toronto Working Papers in Linguistics 24: 65–116. https://twpl.library.utoronto.ca/index.php/ twpl/article/view/6195.

Ko, Seongyeon. 2018. Tongue root harmony and vowel contrast in Northeast Asian languages. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag.

Krekoski, Ross. 2017. Contrast and complexity in Chinese tonal systems. PhD thesis, Univ. of Toronto. https://tspace.library.utoronto.ca/handle/1807/77472.

Mackenzie, Sara. 2012. Near-identity and laryngeal harmony. Proceedings from the Montreal-Ottawa-Toronto

(MOT) Phonology Workshop 2011: Phonology in the 21st Century: In Honour of Glyne Piggott. McGill Working Papers in Linguistics 22(1). https://www.mcgill.ca/mcgwpl/files/mcgwpl/mackenzie2012.pdf.

Mackenzie, Sara. 2013. Laryngeal co-occurrence restrictions in Aymara: Contrastive representations and constraint interaction. Phonology 30: 297–235.

Oxford, Will. 2015. Patterns of contrast in phonological change: Evidence from Algonquian vowel systems. Language 91: 308–57.

Spahr, Christopher. 2012. Positional neutralization in the Contrastive Hierarchy: The case of phonological vowel reduction. Ms., Univ of Toronto. http://individual.utoronto.ca/ spahr/.

Spahr, Christopher. 2014. A contrastive hierarchical account of positional neutralization. The Linguistic Review 31(3–4): 551–85.

ThiscoursewillpresentthefoundationsandmaintenetsofContrastiveHierarchyTheory(CHT).

Introduc0on

CHTassumes thatphonologyisaboutcontrast;personally,Ithinkthatwithoutcontrast,thereisnophonology,onlyphoneticsorthephysicsofspeech(Dresher&vanderHulsttoappear).

Argumentsthatcontrastisnot relevanttophonologywillbetakenupinthesecondcoursenextweek.

Introduc0on

ContrastiveHierarchyTheoryisbuiltonessentiallytwoideas:

TheFirstideaisthatphonologicalprimes(inmycase,binaryfeatures)arecomputedhierarchically,withthechoiceandorderingoftheprimesbeinglanguageparticular.

Thesecondhypothesisisthatonly contrastiveprimesarecomputedbythephonology;non-contrastivefeaturescanbeadded,forexamplebyenhancement,inapost-phonologicalcomponent.

Wewillelaborateontheseideasthroughoutthecourseandshowhowthetheoryworks.

Introduc0on

Thenwewillreviewcasestudiesthatshowhowcontrastivehierarchiescontributetoaccountingforavarietyofpatternsinsynchronicphonology.

Tostartoff,IwouldliketobrieFlyshowhowthenotionofcontrast,whichiscentraltoCHT,canbefoundintheworkofsomeofthegreatestphonologists,startingrightatthedawnofmodernphonologicaltheoryinthelate19th century.

Wewillalsoshowhowcontrastivehierarchiescanprovideilluminatingaccountsofdiachronicphonology.

1. Sweet 1877

Contrastive Properties and

‘Broad Romic’ Transcription

Monday 26 July 2021

Contrast and Broad Transcrip0on

HenrySweet(1845–1912)wasaGermanicphilologist,phonetician,andpioneeringphonologist.

AccordingtoJones(1967:256),SweetwastheFirsttodistinguishadetailedphonetictranscription(whathecalled‘NarrowRomic’)fromaphonemictranscriptionsuitabletoanindividuallanguage(‘BroadRomic’).

HenrySweet(1877)Ahandbookofphonetics.Oxford:ClarendonPress.

Forexample,thevowelsintheEnglishwordsbait andbet differinthreeways:thevowelinbait islongerandtenserthaninbet,andisadiphthong,whereasthevowelinbet isamonophthong.

IPA[eːj][ɛ]

Anaccuratephonetictranscriptionwouldindicateallthesedistinctions;inthecurrentnotationoftheInternationalPhoneticAlphabet(IPA),theyaretranscribedasshown.

baitbet

long, tense, +jshort, lax, +Ø

Differences

Thesethreedifferences,however,arenotindependent:recombiningthevariouspropertiestocreatenewvowelsasshownwouldnotresultinanewworddistinctfrombothbait andbet,butwouldbeheardassome(perhapsodd-sounding)variantofoneofthesewords.

baitbet

IPA[eːj][ɛ]

Sweet(1877:104)writes:“wemaylaydownasageneralrulethatonlythosedistinctionsofsoundsrequiretobesymbolizedinanyonelanguagewhichareindependentlysigniFicant.”

Differences Non-contrastingvowels

[eː], [ej], [e], [ɛː], [ɛj], [ɛːj]

Further,“iftwocriteriaofsigniFicanceareinseparablyassociated,suchasquantityandnarrownessorwideness[i.e.,tensenessorlaxness/BED],weonlyneedindicateoneofthem.”Sweetproposes(1877:109–110)thatinbroadtranscription[eːj]shouldbetranscribed‘ei’(or,equivalently,‘ej’)and[ɛ]as‘e’.

Broadei or eje

Thus,ofthethreedifferencesinthevowels,hechoosesthepresenceofanoff-glidej assigniFicant,ignoringbothquantity(length)andnarrownessorwideness(tensenessorlaxness).

baitbet

IPA[eːj][ɛ]

Differences

Inthiscasehegivestherationaleforhischoice.Heobserves(p.110):“Thenarrownessofall[English]vowelsisuncertain”,especially/ij/and/ej/.

Thatis,vowelscanvaryinthedegreetowhichtheyaretenseorlaxwithoutessentiallychangingtheidentityofthevowel,aslongasotherpropertiesdonotchange.

Broadei or eje

Narrownessnotcontrastive[e:j] or [ɛ:j][ɛ] or [e]

baitbet

IPA[eːj][ɛ]

Differences

Similarly,heFinds(p.18)that“originallyshortvowelscanbelengthenedandyetkeptquitedistinctfromtheoriginallongs.”

Thatis,[bɛt](bet)canbelengthenedto[bɛːt]withoutpassingintobait,and[beːjt](bait)canbeshortenedto[bejt]withoutbeingperceivedasbet.

Lengthnotcontrastive[e:j] or [ej][ɛ] or [ɛ:]

Broadei or eje

baitbet

IPA[eːj][ɛ]

Differences

Whiletensenessandlengthcanbealteredwithoutchangingonevowelphonemeintoanotherone,presumablythesameisnotthecaseforthethirddistinguishingproperty.

Addingaglidetothevowelinbet,orremovingitfrombait,couldcausetheresultingvoweltobeperceivedashavingchangedcategory.

Glideiscontrastive[e:j] not [eː][ɛ] not [ɛj]

Broadei or eje

baitbet

IPA[eːj][ɛ]

Differences

WecanconcludefromhisdiscussionthatSweet’sanalysispositsthatthecontrastivepropertiesofboththevowelsinbait andbet aremidandfront,withnocontrastivespeciFicationfortensenessorquantity.

Thedifferenceinthetwowordsresidesintheadditionofasecondsegmenttothevowelinbait.

baitbet

IPA[eːj][ɛ]

Differences

Contrastivepropertiesmid, front, off-glide jmid, front

Broadei or eje

Sweetdidnotproposeamethodforcomputingcontrastiveproperties,nordidheconsistentlyattempttoidentifywhatthecontrastivepropertiesareforeverysegment(Dresher2016).

Thatis,thenotionthatcontrastiscentraltophonologyhasitsrootsintheearliestworkinphonologicaltheoryinthelate19th century.

!onlycontrastivepropertiesneedbetranscribed,

!andthesepropertiescanbeidentiFiedbyobservinghowsoundsfunctioninalanguage.

However,wecanseeinhisworktheideasthat:

ThissectionisbasedonDresher(2016:54–57):

References and further reading

Dresher,B.Elan.2016.Contrastinphonology1867–1967:Historyanddevelopment.AnnualReviewofLinguistics 2:53–73.

2. Sapir 1925

‘Sound Patterns’ are Not

Determined by Phonetics

Monday 26 July 2021

Sweet’snotionofabroad—i.e,phonemic—transcriptionwastakenfurtherbytheAmericanlinguistEdwardSapir(1884–1939).

The importance of contrast in phonology

IntheveryFirstvolumeofLanguage,Sapir(1925)arguesthat‘soundpatterns’,notsimplyphonetics,shouldbethemainfocusofphonologicaltheory.

Butwhatdoeshemeanbysoundpatterns?Ithinkthatsoundpatternsrefertothecontrastiveproperties ofthephonemesofalanguage.

Toillustrate,Sapirconstructsfourlanguages,A,B,C,andD,thatdrewonlanguageshewasfamiliarwith.

LanguagesAandBhaveidenticalsounds;here,wewilllookonlyatthevowels:

AlthoughlanguagesAandBsharethesephoneticvowelsounds,thewaytheyareorganizedphonemicallyistotallydifferent.

The importance of contrast in phonology

uː oi iː ua aː ɛ ɛː e eː oː ɔ ɔː

u (o)uː (oː)

i (e)iː (e:)

aː (ɛ:, ɔ:)a (ɛ, ɔ)

Same phone0cs, different pa?ern alignments

LanguageA

LanguageAhasthreeshortandthreelongcontrastivevowels:/iau/and/iːaːuː/;theothervowelsareallophonesofthesevowels.

nonlow

back/roundedu (o)uː (oː)

front/un-roundedi (e)iː (e:)long

longshort

aː (ɛ:, ɔ:)a (ɛ, ɔ)

LanguageA

Sapirdidnothaveatheoryoffeatures,butonepossiblesetoffeatureswecanassignareshownabove;intermsofbinaryfeatures:

[±long][±low][±front]or [±back]or [±rounded]

LanguageAhasthreeshortandthreelongcontrastivevowels:/iau/and/iːaːuː/;theothervowelsareallophonesofthesevowels.

a (aː)

i (iː, j)

e (e:)

ɛ (ɛ:)

u (uː, w)

o (oː)

ɔ (ɔː)

LanguageB

LanguageBisverydifferent:itisaseven-vowelsysteminwhichthelongvowelsarepredictableallophonesoftheshortones.

low a (aː)

front/un-roundedi (iː, j)

e (e:)

ɛ (ɛ:)

back/roundedu (uː, w)

o (oː)

ɔ (ɔː)

LanguageB

LanguageBisverydifferent:itisaseven-vowelsysteminwhichthelongvowelsarepredictableallophonesoftheshortones.

Again,wecananachronisticallyassignasetofbinaryfeaturestothisvowelinventory;insteadof[±long]asinA,wehaveanotherheightfeature,[±high]:

[±high][±low][±front]or [±back]or [±rounded]

low a (aː)

front/un-roundedi (iː, j)

e (e:)

ɛ (ɛ:)

back/roundedu (uː, w)

o (oː)

ɔ (ɔː)

LanguageB

AandBhavethesamesounds,theircontrastivestructuresareverydifferent.

nonlow

back/roundedu (o)uː (oː)

front/un-roundedi (e)iː (e:)

aː (ɛ:, ɔ:)a (ɛ, ɔ)

LanguageA

SapiralsoconstructslanguagesCandDthatillustratetheconversesituation:theyhavedifferentsounds,buttheir‘patternalignments’areisomorphic.

longshort

Different phone0cs, similar pa?ern alignments

m ŋv ʒ rh

h LanguageC

LanguageD

TheconsonantsofLanguageCareshownontheleft.

ThesearetheconsonantsofLanguageD.

m ŋv ʒ rh

h LanguageC

LanguageD

Sapirarrangesthephonemesthisway(recallhedidnothaveatheoryoffeatures).

HejustiFiesthepositionsof/v/and/ʒ/bytheirphonologicalbehaviour:theyactlike/w/and/j/,respectively,inC. 27

Sapir (1925)

“Andyetitismostimportanttoemphasizethefact,strangebutindubitable,thatapatternalignmentdoesnotneedtocorrespondexactlytothemoreobviousphoneticone.”

EdwardSapir,Soundpatternsinlanguage,Language 1:37–51,1925.

m ŋv ʒ rh

h LanguageC

LanguageD

Theisomorphicalignmentscanbeunderstoodasindicatingthatcorrespondingphonemeshavethesamecontrastivevalues.

Contras0ve specifica0ons

Wecanmatchupthecorrespondingconsonantsinthetwolanguagesasinthechartbelow.

w/v h/h

Ineachcell,theFirstsegmentisfromLanguageC,thesecondisfromD.

Sapirdoesnotsaywhatthefeaturesofeachcellmightbe,

butwecan(anachronistically)suggestsome.

Contras0ve specifica0onsHereisonesetofpossiblecontrastivespeciFications.ThedifferencesbetweenCandDineachcelldonotinvolvecontrastivefeatures.

voiceless

voiced

dorsal

post-dorsal

obstruent

sonorant n/ŋ

labial

w/v h/h

spirant

liquid

coronal

Somephonemesappeartobeinthewrongplace,suggestingthattheirunderlyingspeciFicationsareliketheircounterparts.

voiceless

voiced

ɢ/ʁobstruent

sonorant n/ŋ

w/v h/h

spirant

liquid

Somephonemesappeartobeinthewrongplace,suggestingthattheirunderlyingspeciFicationsareliketheircounterparts.

sonorant n/ŋm/m

w/v h/h

liquid

Lessattentionhasbeenpaidtotheotherexamples,whichdon’tappealtoabstractness,butwhichshowtheimportanceofestablishingthecontrastivepropertiesofsegments.

ThesetypesofexampleshavebeenmuchdiscussedinconnectionwithhowabstractSapir’stheoryofphonologywas(Chomsky1964;McCawley1967).

Contras0ve specifica0onsForexample,theobstruentsinredarecontrastivelyvoicedandredundantlystopsorspirants.

voiceless

voiced

dorsal

post-dorsal

obstruent

sonorant n/ŋ

labial

w/v h/h

spirant

liquid

coronal

Contras0ve specifica0onsNoabstractnessisatissuehere,butwehavetodistinguishbetweencontrastiveandnon-contrastiveproperties.

voiceless

voiced

dorsal

post-dorsal

obstruent

sonorant n/ŋ

labial

w/v h/h

spirant

liquid

coronal

Contrast and synchronic analysis

Therefore,asynchronicanalysisofthephonologyshould,amongotherthings,giveanaccountofthecontrastivefeatures ofeachphoneme.

Ofcourse,Sapirlackedatheoryoffeatures.ForthefurtherdevelopmentoftheseideasweneedtoturntotheworkofthePragueSchoollinguists,notablyN.S.Trubetzkoy(1890–1938)andRomanJakobson(1896–1982).

! thepatternalignmentofaphonemeamountstoitscontrastivestatus;

Thus,forSapir:

! thisstatusisnotdeterminedbyitsphonetics,butisafunctionofitsphoneticandphonologicalbehaviour.

ThissectionisbasedonDresher(2009:38–42;2016:57–58):

Dresher,B.Elan.2009.Thecontrastivehierarchyinphonology.Cambridge:CUP.

3. Trubetzkoy 1939

Phonemic Content and

Contrast as ‘Point of View’

Monday 26 July 2021

N.S.Trubetzkoy’sGrundzügederPhonologie (1939;Englishversion1969,newcriticalSpanishedition2019)isnotableforitsinsightsintothenatureofcontrast.

Trubetzkoy’s Grundzüge der Phonologie

AnimportantnotionofTrubetzkoy’sisphonemiccontent:“Byphonemiccontent weunderstandallphonologicallydistinctivepropertiesofaphoneme…”(Trubetzkoy1969:66).

Phonemic content

“EachphonemehasadeFinablephonemiccontentonlybecausethesystemofdistinctiveoppositionsshowsadeFiniteorderorstructure.”(1969:67–8)

“thecontentofaphonemedependsonwhatpositionthisphonemetakesinthegivenphonemicsystem …”(1969:67)

Phonemic content and structure of the system

“thesystemofdistinctiveoppositionsshowsadeAiniteorderorstructure…thecontentofaphonemedependsonwhatpositionthisphonemetakesinthe

givenphonemicsystem …”

Theseremarkssuggestthatthephonemiccontentofaphoneme,thatis,thesetofitscontrastiveproperties,oughttoderive fromitspositioninthesystemofdistinctiveoppositions.

Therefore,weneedawaytodetermineaphoneme’spositioninthesystemofoppositionsbefore wehavedetermineditsdistinctiveproperties.

Phonemic content and structure of the system

“thesystemofdistinctiveoppositionsshowsadeAiniteorderorstructure…thecontentofaphonemedependsonwhatpositionthisphonemetakesinthe

givenphonemicsystem …”

Trubetzkoydoesnotexplicitlyshowushowtodothis;however,awayofprovidinganorderorstructure tothesystemofcontrastsisviathehierarchicalbranchingtreesthatbecameprominentlaterintheworkofJakobson.

FeaturehierarchiesarealreadyimplicitinTrubetzkoy(1939);considerhisdiscussionoftheLatinvowelsystem.

Thatis,thelowvowel/a/ischaracterizedonlybyitsheight;inourterms,itisassignedonlythefeature[+low].

/i/ /u/

/o//e/

The vowel system of La0n

[+low]

[–low]

TrubetzkoyobservesthatinLatin,asinmanyFive-vowelsystems,thelowvoweldoesnotparticipateintonalitycontrasts;‘tonality’referstobacknessorliprounding,thatis,propertiesthataffectthesecondformant(F2).

Buthowcanweprevent/a/fromreceivingotherfeatures?

Wecanifweassigncontrastivefeaturesinanorder,inafeaturehierarchy.

Inordertoexclude/a/fromreceivingtonalityfeatures,itisnecessarytoorder[±low]atthetopofthefeaturehierarchy:thishastheeffectofseparating/a/fromtheothervowels.

Since/a/isalreadyuniquelydistinguished,itwillreceivenofurtherfeatures.

/a/[+low] [–low]

/i/ /u/

/o//e/

[+low]

[–low]

Latin Topofthehierarchy:[low]

Whattheothertwo(or,moreunusually,three)featuresaredependsontheevidencefromthelanguage.

CommonFive-vowelsystemsusethefeatures[±back]or[±round]and[±high].

/a/[+low] [–low]

Topofthehierarchy:[low]

[–high] [+high] [–high] [+high]

[–back/round] [+back/round]

/e/ /i/ /o/ /u/

Thenotionofafeaturehierarchyisonlyimplicit inTrubetzkoy’sdiscussionoftheLatinvowelsystem.

Invokingafeaturehierarchyisawaytomakesenseofhisanalysis.

InthecaseofPolabian,however,Trubetzkoyexplicitly referstoahierarchy.

Feature hierarchies

Heobserves(1969:102–3;2019:156)that“acertainhierarchyexisted”inthevowelsystemofPolabian,wherebythecontrastbetweenfrontandbackvowelsishigherthanthecontrastbetweenroundedandunroundedvowels.

Lookingatthehighvowels,forexample,thismeansthat/u/iscloserto/i/thanitisto/u/;thecontrastbetweenunroundedi androundedu isasub-classiFicationofthefrontvowels.

Polabian: “A certain hierarchy”

BackPolabian

Unrounded Rounded

The Polabian vowel system

ThisisthevowelchartofPolabianaspresentedbyTrubetzkoy.

It’sabitstrange(whichI’llcomebackto),buthisreasonsforsayingthatu isclosertoi thantou areclearenough.

Hisevidenceisthattheoppositionsbetweenbackandfrontvowelsareconstant,butthosebetweenroundedandunroundedvowelsofthesameheightcanneutralize totheunroundedvowels.

backfront

unrounded rounded

Further,palatalizationinconsonantsisneutralizedbeforeallfrontvowelsandbefore‘themaximallyopenvowelɑ whichstoodoutsidetheclassesoftimbre’(1969:102;2019:156).

backfront

nonlow

unrounded rounded

Trubetzkoyobservesfurther:“thepropertiesoflipparticipationwerephonologicallyirrelevantforthebackvowels.”Thatis,unlikeinthefrontvowels,roundingisnotadistinctivephonologicalpropertyofthebackvowels.

backfront

nonlow

unrounded rounded

WhileTrubetzkoy’sgeneralpointisclear,hispresentationofthePolabianvowelsystemishardtounderstand:Whatvowelis/a/?Whatarethephoneticvaluesof/e/and/e/?

backfront

nonlow

unrounded rounded

Finally,whydoes/ɑ/,thevowel‘outsidetheclassesoftimbre’,patternwiththefrontvowelsinneutralizingpalatalization? ThenewSpanisheditionbyHerreraZendeyasandKnapp(Trubetzkoy2019)shedssomelightonthisexample.

backfront

nonlow

unrounded rounded

NexttoTrubetzkoy’svowelchart,theypresent(2019:157)analternativemorenatural-lookingchartbyPolanski (1993:798–9).

Nowitbecomesclearwhy/a/patternswiththefrontvowels.It’sbecauseit’scontrastivelyfrontinoppositiontoback/ɒ/.

nonlow

unrounded rounded

The Finnish vowel system

TrubetzkoypresentsFinnishasexemplifyingadifferenttypeoflanguagewiththreeclassesoftimbre/i,u,u/(and/e,o,o/).

InFinnish,front-backvowelharmonyrelatesu ~u,o ~o,anda ~a,whereas/i/and/e/arenotinvolved.

front back

The Finnish vowel system

InFinnishthefront-backcontrastisundertherounded-unroundedoneinthenon-lowvowels;thisistheoppositeofthefeatureorderinginPolabian.

rounded

unrounded

front back

ThedifferencebetweenPolabianandFinnishexempliFiesanotherimportantinsight,containedina1936articleaddressedtopsychologistsandphilosophers(Trubetzkoy2001[1936]:20):

Contrast depends on point of view

Whatdoesthismean?TosaythatthecorrectclassiFicationdependsonone’spointofviewmeansthatphonologicalcontrastscanvary fromlanguagetolanguage,andcannotbedeterminedsimplybyinspectinganinventory.

ThecorrectclassiFicationofanopposition“dependsonone’spointofview”;but“itisneithersubjectivenorarbitrary,for

thepointofviewisimpliedbythesystem.”

WehaveseenthatinLatinthelowvowel/a/issetapartfromtheothervowels,inTrubetzkoy’sanalysis.

‘Point of view’ means contrast is variable

ButthisisnottheonlywaytodrawthecontrastsinaFive-vowelsystem.

/i/ /u/

/o//e/

[+low]

[–low]

Itispossible,forexample,togroupthelowvowel/a/withtheother[–round]vowels.Troubetzkoy proposesthatArchi(EastCaucasian,inCentralDaghestan)hasavowelsystemthatisdividedinthismanner.

[+round][–round]

Hesaysthisbecauseofthewaythesoundsbehave.

/i/ /u/

/o//e/

Trubetzkoyobservesthataconsonantalroundingcontrastisneutralizedbeforeandaftertheroundedvowels/u/and/o/,contrastingthesevowelswithunrounded/i/,/e/,and/a/.

[+round][–round]Archi

/i/ /u/

/o//e/

“Thismeansthatallvowelsaredividedintoroundedandunroundedvowels,whilethebackorfrontpositionofthetongueprovesirrelevant…”(Trubetzkoy1969:100–1).

Thisanalysiscorrespondstoordering[±round]First,dividingthevowelsintotwogroups:/i,e,a/and/u,o/.

[+round][–round]Archi

/i/ /u/

/o//e/

Furtherdistinctionswithinthesegroupsaremadebyotherfeatures;thetreebelowshowsonepossiblefeaturehierarchy.

[round]>[high]>[low]

[+high] [–high]/i/

[+high] [–high]/u/ /o/

[–low] [+low]/e/ /a/

[–round] [+round]

Japanese

InJapanese,Trubetzkoyarguesthatneutralizationoftheoppositionbetweenpalatalizedandnon-palatalizedconsonantsbefore/i/ and /e/ showsthatthesevowelsareputintooppositionwiththeothervowels/a,o,u/.

[+front] [–front]

Five-vowel systems: Japanese

Thegoverningoppositionisthatbetweenfrontandbackvowels,“liproundingbeingirrelevant”(Trubetzkoy1969:101).

/o//e/

/i/ /u/

Japanese[+front] [–front]

Five-vowel systems: Japanese

/o//e/

/i/ /u/

Thisanalysiscorrespondstoordering[front]First.TherestofthetreeisadaptedfromHirayama(2003).ThesefeaturetreesareimplicitinTrubetzkoy,buttheybecomeexplicitintheworkofRomanJakobsonandhiscollaborators.

[front]>[open]>[low]

[+front] [–front]

[+open] [–open]/e/ /i/

[+open] [–open]/u/

[+low] [–low]/a/ /o/

Forfurtherreading,seeDresher(2007;2009:42–59;2016:60–63):

Dresher,B.Elan.2007.VariabilityinTrubetzkoy’sClassiFicationofPhonologicalOppositions.TheLACUSForum33,133–142.

Dresher,B.Elan.2009.Thecontrastivehierarchyinphonology.Cambridge:CUP.

4. Jakobson 1941

The Acquisition of

Phonological Contrasts

Monday 26 July 2021

Jakobson’sKindersprache (1941;Englishtrans.1968,Spanish1974),advancesthenotionthatcontrasts arecrucialinphonologicalacquisitionandthattheydevelopinahierarchicalorder.

Jakobson’s Kindersprache

Inparticular,heproposesthatlearnersbeginwithbroadcontraststhataresplitbystagesintoprogressivelyFinerones. 67

TheacquisitionofvowelsystemssetoutinJakobson(1941)andJakobson&Halle(1956)followsthisschema.

Acquisi0on sequences (vowels)

AttheFirststage,thereisonlyasinglevowel.Astherearenocontrasts,wecansimplydesignateit/V/.

Jakobson&Hallewritethatthislonevowelisthemaximallyopenvowel[a],the‘optimalvowel’.

Butwedon’tneedtobethatspeciFic:wecanunderstandthistobeadefaultvalue,oratypicalbutnotobligatoryinstantiation.

Inthenextstageitisproposedthatthesinglevowelsplitsintoanarrow(high)vowel/I/,whichistypically[i],andawide(low)vowel,/A/,typically[a].

Iwillcontinuetounderstandthesevaluesasdefaults.

widenarrow

Inthenextstagethenarrowvowelsplitsintoapalatal(front)vowel/I/andavelar(backorround)vowel/U/,typically[u].

widenarrow

/A/palatal velar

/I/ /U/

AftertheFirsttwostages,Jakobson&Halleallowvariationintheorderofacquisitionofvowelcontrasts.

widenarrow

palatal velar

/I/ /U/

Thewidebranchcanbeexpandedtoparallelthenarrowone.

/æ/ /a/

palatal velar

Orthenarrowvowelscandeveloparoundingcontrastinoneorbothbranches.

widenarrow

palatal velar /a/

unrnd rnd

/i/ /y/

unrnd rnd

/ɨ/ /u/

Contras0ve features assigned hierarchically

Thisapproachhastwonotablecharacteristics:

Continuinginthisfashionwewillarriveatacompleteinventoryofthephonemesinalanguage,witheachphonemeassignedasetofcontrastivepropertiesthatdistinguishitfromeveryotherone.

!Onlycontrastivefeaturesareassignedtoeachphoneme.

!Contrastivefeaturesareassignedhierarchically,inawaythatcanberepresentedbyabranchingtree.

Contras0ve hierarchies in child phonology

Fikkert(1994)presentsobservedacquisitionsequencesinthedevelopmentofDutchonsetsthatfollowsthisgeneralscheme,andBohn(2015,2017)showstheroutesthatthreechildrentakeinacquiringthevowelsystemofBrazilianPortuguese(seealsoBohn&Santos2018).

ThebranchingtreesofJakobson(1941)remainedinFluentialinchildlanguagestudies,fortheyareanaturalwaytodescribedevelopingphonologicalinventories(Pye,Ingram,&List1987;Ingram1988,1989;Levelt1989;Dinnsenetal.1990;Dinnsen1992,1996;seeDresher1998forareview).

Forfurtherreading,seeDresher(1998;2019):

Dresher,B.Elan.1998.Childphonology,learnability,andphono-logicaltheory.InTej Bhatia&WilliamC.Ritchie(eds.),Handbookoflanguageacquisition,299–346.NewYork:AcademicPress.

Dresher,B.Elan.2019.Contrastivefeaturehierarchiesinphonology:Variationanduniversality.InDavidW.Lightfoot&JonathanHavenhill (eds.),Variablepropertiesinlanguage:Theirnatureandacquisition,13–25.Washington,DC:GeorgetownUniversityPress.

5. Halle 1959

An argument for specification

by branching trees

Monday 26 July 2021

An argument for branching trees

InTheSoundPatternofRussian (1959;SPR), Hallemakesanargumentonbehalfofbranchingtrees;thisistheFirstsuchargumentIhavefoundintheliterature.

HearguesthatfeaturespeciFicationbyabranchingtreeistheonlywaytoensurethatsegmentsarekeptproperlydistinct.

Figure I-1 in The Sound Pattern of Russian, p. 46

(ThisishistreeforRussian.)

SpeciFically,Halleproposed(1959:32)thatphonemesmustmeettheDistinctnessCondition:

Segment-type/A/willbesaidtobedifferentfromsegment-type/B/,ifandonlyifatleastonefeaturewhichisphonemicinboth,hasadifferentvaluein/A/thanin/B/;i.e.,plusintheformerandminusinthelatter,orviceversa.

TheDistinctnessCondition

Thisformulationisdesignedtodisallowcontrastsinvolvingazerovalue ofafeature.

The Dis0nctness Condi0on

Considerthetypicalsub-inventory/p,b,m/shownbelow,andsupposewecharacterizeitintermsoftwobinaryfeatures,[±voiced]and[±nasal].

IntermsoffullspeciFications,/p/is[–voiced,–nasal],/b/is[+voiced,–nasal],and/m/is[+voiced,+nasal].

[voiced][nasal]

/b/+–

/p/––

Whichofthesefeaturesiscontrastive?Manypeoplereasonasfollows:

How do we establish contrasts?

Weobservethat/p/and/b/aredistinguishedonlyby[voiced];sothesespeciFicationsmust becontrastive.Similarly,/b/and/m/aredistinguishedonlyby[nasal];thesespeciFicationsmustalso becontrastive.Whatabouttheuncircled speciFications?Thesearepredictablefromthecircledones:

[voiced][nasal]

/b/+–

/p/––

Since/p/istheonly[–voiced]phonemeinthisinventory,itsspeciFicationfor[nasal]ispredictable,henceredundant.Wecanwritearuleorconstraint:Similarly,/m/istheonly[+nasal]phoneme,soitsspeciFicationfor[voiced]isredundant:Thisisastill-popularwayofthinkingaboutcontrastivespeciFications;wecancallitthe‘MinimalDifference’approach(e.g.Padgett2003,Calabrese2005,Campos-Astorkiza 2009,Nevins2010).

[voiced][nasal]

/b/+–

/p/––

++ If[–voiced],then[–nasal]

If[+nasal],then[+voiced]

AccordingtoMinimalDifference,afeatureisonlycontrastiveinasegmentifitistheonly featurethatdistinguishesthatsegmentfromanotherone.

[voiced][nasal]

/b/+–

/p/–

ButaccordingtotheDistinctnessCondition,/p/isnot ‘differentfrom’/m/:whereonehasafeature,theotherhasnone.

Therefore,thesespeciFicationsarenotproperlycontrastive.

TheyviolatetheDistinctnessConditionbecausenofeaturehierarchyyieldsthisresult.

Ifweorder[voiced]>[nasal],wegeneratean‘extra’speciFicationon/m/.

[voiced][nasal]

/b/+–

/p/–

[–voiced] [+voiced]/p/

[–nasal] [+nasal]/b/ /m/

[voiced][nasal]

/b/+–

–/m/

[–nasal] [+nasal]/m/

[–voiced] [+voiced]/p/ /b/–

Ifweorder[nasal]>[voiced],wegeneratean‘extra’speciFicationon/p/.

EitherofthespeciFicationsbelowisproperlycontrastive.

[voiced][nasal]

/b/+–

/p/–

Contras0ve ≠ unpredictable

/b/+–

/p/–

[–nasal] [+nasal]/m/

[–voiced] [+voiced]/p/ /b/

[voiced] > [nasal] [nasal] > [voiced]Notethatinahierarchicalapproach,acontrastivefeatureisnotnecessarilyunpredictable.

Therefore, according to SPR, to ensure that all the phonemes of a language aredistinct from one another, it is necessary that their feature speciFications must begenerable by a branching tree.

Contrast is hierarchical

IbelievethatHalle’sargumentiscorrect:asdemonstratedbyArchangeli (1988)andinmoredetailbyDresher(2009),theMinimalDifferenceapproachoftenfailstoyieldany intelligiblesetofspeciFications.Itisthewrongtheoryofcontrast.

Conceptually,themainFlawofMinimalDifferenceisitsfailuretorecognizethatcontrastiverelationsinaninventoryexistnotjustbetweenpairsofsegments,butalsobetweengroups ofsegmentsatdifferentlevelsofthehierarchy.

Consideragainthe/pbm/examplewhere[±voiced]>[±nasal]:

Contrast is hierarchical: contras0ve ≠ unpredictable

[voiced] > [nasal]

Atthehigherlevel,[±voiced]distinguishesbetween[–voiced/p/and[+voiced]/b,m/.

Thecontrastisminimalatthislevel:atthispoint,[±voiced]istheonlyfeaturethatdistinguishes/p/from/b,m/.

Thus,thereisasenseinwhichcontrastisindeedminimal,almostbydeFinition;butonly whenviewedinhierarchicallayers,andnotinpairwisecomparisons.

Thisdoesnotchangeeventhoughatthelowerlevel/m/receives[+nasal],whichfurtherdistinguishesitfrom/p/.

Decline of the branching trees

ItisironicthatwhileTheSoundPatternofRussian containsthisoriginalargumentonbehalfofbranchingtrees,atthesametimeitsanalysisofRussiancontributedtounderminingthewholenotionofcontrastivespeciFication(Dresher&Hall2020).Becauseofthat,andduealsotoargumentsbyLightner(1963)andStanley(1967),underspeciFicationwasabandonedaltogetherinChomsky&Halle’sTheSoundPatternofEnglish (SPE,1968),alongwiththebranchingtrees(forreasons,seeDresher2009:96–104).Theresultwasthatlanguage-particularfeaturecontrastsdidnotplayaroleinthetheoryofgenerativegrammarthatdevelopedfromSPE.

Forfurtherreading,seeDresher(2009:11–30;96–104);Dresher&Hall(2020):

Dresher,B.Elan.2009.Thecontrastivehierarchyinphonology.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.

Dresher,B.Elan&DanielCurrieHall.2020.Theroadnottaken:TheSoundPatternofRussian andthehistoryofcontrastinphonology.JournalofLinguistics 57(2),405–444.DOI:https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022226720000377.

6. Chomsky & Halle 1968

The Generative Framework

and Approach to Phonology

Monday 26 July 2021

ThoughIdepartfromSPEwithrespecttocontrastandthenatureoffeatures,Chomsky&HalleprovidethebroadgenerativeframeworkandcognitiveapproachtophonologythatIassume.

The genera0ve framework

Generativephonology,asIunderstandit,isnotatheoryabouteverythingtodowiththesoundsideoflanguage,butlooksatthefollowingschematicsituation:

The goals of phonological theory

Alearnerbornintoacommunitythatspeaksalanguage,L,isexposedtodatafromL,andsomehowarrivesatagrammarofL.

Generativegrammaraimstoanswerthreequestions:95

GrammarofLThelearner

DataofL

1.What isthenatureofthegrammarofL,whichwecancallGL?

IfwecancorrectlycharacterizeGL thenwehaveadescriptivelyadequate theory.

Thesecondquestionismoreambitious:96

DataofL

2.How,givenD,doesthelearnerarriveatGL?

Thelearnermustbeequippedwithasetofcognitiveprinciples,calledUniversalGrammar(UG),thatisabletoconvertDintoGL.

AtheorythathasacorrectmodelofUGissaidtoachieveexplanatoryadequacy.97

DataofL

Inthe21st centuryathirdquestionhasbeenasked:

3.Why doesUGhavethepropertiesthatithas?

Answeringthisquestionrequiresustogobeyond explanatoryadequacy tolookatbiologicalandevolutionaryfactorsthatcouldhaveshapedUG.

DataofL

Moremodestly,weshouldkeepinmindthattheUGwecomeupwithshouldbeplausiblewithrespecttotheseconsiderations.

Proposinga(partial)theoryofUGamountstocharacterizingwhatphonologicalgrammarsarepossible;thisentailsthatwealsomakehypothesesaboutwhatgrammarsareimpossible.

Phonological theory is empirical

Mielke(2008:20)arguesthatphonologicaltheoryshouldnot trytodistinguishpossiblephonologicalphenomenafromimpossibleones,becausewehavenoevidencethatunattested=impossible.Hegoeson:

“Whentherearesomanylinguisticphenomenafoundinonlyahandfulofattestedlan-guages,howcanwebecertainthatanyphonologicalpatternneverexistedinthepast,neverwillexistinthefuture,anddoesn’texistcurrentlyinanunderstudiedlanguage?”

Ofcourse,wecan’t becertain:phonologyisnotmath,it’sanempiricalventure!EmpiricalFieldshavetomakehypothesesthatmightbe(probablyare)wrong.

IfwewanttohaveanexplanatorilyadequatetheoryofUG,ourmodelofUGhastohavesomecontent,whichwouldnecessarilybeuniversal.

Thereisthussomemotivationtotrytomakephonologicalnotions,likefeaturesandmarkedness,asuniversalaspossible.

Thetheory,however,hastoallowforthecross-linguisticvariationthatweFind.

DataofL

Universals and phonological theory

Thatis,wecanaskwhatinphonologyisuniversalandwhatcanvary?

IthinkthateffortstomakeindividualfeaturesuniversalworkatalevelthatistoospeciFic anddoesnotaccountforthecross-linguisticvariabilitythatweFind.

Butthereissomethingrightaboutsayingthatfeaturesareuniversal—notatthelevelofindividualfeaturesbutataconceptuallevel.

Universals and variable proper0es in phonological theory

ContrastiveHierarchyTheoryisatheorythatallowsustohaveauniversalfeaturetheorywithoutuniversalfeatures.

Andthatiswhatwewilltalkabouttomorrow.

Forfurtherreading,seeDresher(2014;2019):

Dresher,B.Elan.2014.Thearchnotthestones:Universalfeaturetheorywithoutuniversalfeatures.Nordlyd 41.2:165–181.UniversityofTromsø— TheArcticUniversityofNorway.

ReferencesArchangeli,Diana.1988.UnderspeciEicationinphonology.Phonology 5(2):183–207.Bohn,Graziela Pigatto.2015.AquisiçaodasvogaistonicasepretonicasdoPortuguesBrasileiro.Doctoraldissertation,UniversityofSaoPaulo.

Bohn,Graziela Pigatto.2017.Theacquisitionoftonicandpre-tonicvowelsinBrazilianPortuguese.JournalofPortugueseLinguistics 16(7),1–5.DOI:https://doi.org/10.5334/jpl.184

Bohn,Graziela Pigatto &RaquelSantanaSantos.2018.Theacquisitionofpre-tonicvowelsinBrazilianPortuguese.Alfa:Revista deLinguística (SaoJosedoRioPreto)62(1):191–221.

Calabrese,Andrea.2005.Markednessandeconomyinaderivationalmodelofphonology.Berlin:MoutondeGruyter.

CamposAstorkiza,Judit Rebeka.2009.Minimalcontrastandthephonology– phoneticsinteraction.Munich:Lincom Europa.

Chomsky,Noam.1964.Currentissuesinlinguistictheory.TheHague:Mouton.Chomsky,Noam&MorrisHalle.1968.ThesoundpatternofEnglish.NewYork,NY:Harper&Row.Dinnsen,DanielA.1992.Variationindevelopingandfullydevelopedphoneticinventories.InCharlesA.Ferguson,LisaMenn,&CarolStoel-Gammon(eds.),Phonologicaldevelopment:Models,research,implications,191–210.Timonium,MD:YorkPress.

Dinnsen,DanielA.1996.Context-sensitiveunderspeciEicationandtheacquisitionofphoneticcontrasts.JournalofChildLanguage 23:31–55.

Dinnsen,DanielA.,StevenB.Chin,MaryElbert,&ThomasW.Powell.1990.Someconstraintsonfunctionallydisorderedphonologies:Phoneticinventoriesandphonotactics.JournalofSpeechandHearingResearch33:28–37.

Dresher,B.Elan.1998.Childphonology,learnability,andphonologicaltheory.InTej Bhatia&WilliamC.Ritchie(eds.),Handbookoflanguageacquisition,299–346.NewYork:AcademicPress.

Dresher,B.Elan.2009.Thecontrastivehierarchyinphonology.Cambridge:CUP.Dresher,B.Elan.2007.VariabilityinTrubetzkoy’sClassiEicationofPhonologicalOppositions.TheLACUSForum33,133–142.

Dresher,B.Elan.2014.Thearchnotthestones:Universalfeaturetheorywithoutuniversalfeatures.Nordlyd41.2:165–181,specialissueonFeaturesed.byMartinKramer,SandraRonai,&PeterSvenonius.UniversityofTromsø— TheArcticUniversityofNorway.

Dresher,B.Elan&DanielCurrieHall.2020.Theroadnottaken:TheSoundPatternofRussian andthehistoryofcontrastinphonology.JournalofLinguistics 57(2):405–44.DOI:https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022226720000377.

Fikkert,Paula.1994.Ontheacquisitionofprosodicstructure(HILDissertations6). Dordrecht:ICGPrinting.Halle,Morris.1959.ThesoundpatternofRussian:Alinguisticandacousticalinvestigation.TheHague:Mouton.Secondprinting,1971.

Hirayama,Manami.2003.ContrastinJapanesevowels.TorontoWorkingPapersinLinguistics 20:115–32.https://twpl.library.utoronto.ca/index.php/twpl/article/view/6234.

Ingram,David.1988.Jakobsonrevisited:SomeevidencefromtheacquisitionofPolishphonology.Lingua 75:55–82.

Ingram,David.1989.Firstlanguageacquisition:Method,descriptionandexplanation.Cambridge:CUP.Jakobson,Roman.1941.Kindersprache,Aphasie,undallgemeine Lautgesetze.Uppsala:UppsalaUniversitetsArsskrift.

Jakobson,Roman.1968.Childlanguage,aphasia,andphonologicaluniversals.TranslationbyA.R.Keiler ofJakobson1941.TheHague:Mouton.

Jakobson,Roman.1974.Lenguaje infantil yafasia.TranslationbyEstherBenıtezofJakobson1941.Madrid:Ayuso.

Jakobson,Roman&MorrisHalle.1956.Fundamentalsoflanguage.TheHague:Mouton.Jones,Daniel.1967.Thephoneme:Itsnatureanduse,3rdedition(withanAppendixonthehistoryandmeaningoftheterm“phoneme”).Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.

Levelt,ClaraC.1989.Anessayonchildphonology.M.A.thesis,LeidenUniversity.Lightner,TheodoreMcGraw.1963.Anoteontheformationofphonologicalrules.Quarterlyprogressreport(ResearchLaboratoryofElectronics,MIT)68:187–9. 105

McCawley,JamesD.1967.Sapir'sphonologicrepresentation.InternationalJournalofAmericanLinguistics 33:106–11.

Mielke,Jeff.2008.Theemergenceofdistinctivefeatures.Oxford:OUP.Nevins,Andrew.2010.Localityinvowelharmony. Cambridge,MA:MITPress.Padgett,Jaye.2003.Contrastandpost-velarfrontinginRussian.NaturalLanguageandLinguisticTheory 21:39–87.

Polanski,Kazimierz.1993.Polabian.InBernardComrie&Greville G.Corbett(eds.),TheSlavoniclanguages,795–824. London:Routledge.

Pye,Clifton,DavidIngram,&HelenList.1987.AcomparisonofinitialconsonantacquisitioninEnglishandQuiche.InKeithE.Nelson&AnnVanKleeck(eds.),Children'slanguage(vol.6),175–90.Hillsdale,NJ:Erlbaum.

Sapir,Edward.1925.Soundpatternsinlanguage.Language 1:37–51.Stanley,Richard.1967.Redundancyrulesinphonology.Language 43:393–436.Sweet,Henry.1877.Ahandbookofphonetics.Oxford:ClarendonPress.Trubetzkoy,N.S.1939.Grundzuge derPhonologie.Gottingen:Vandenhoek &Ruprecht.Trubetzkoy,N.S.1969.Principlesofphonology.TranslationbyChristianeA.M.Baltaxe ofTrubetzkoy1939.Berkeley:UniversityofCaliforniaPress.

Trubetzkoy,N.S.2019.Principiosdefonología.Newtranslationandcriticaledn.byEstherHerreraZendeyas &MichaelHerbertKnapp.MexicoCity:ElColegiodeMexico,CentrodeEstudiosLinguısticosyLiterarios.

egg 2021 online, 26 july to 6 august

Documents

news online xchange - august 2011

august 1, 2013 online edition

tn22 august 2015 online

home-dzine online - august 2012

online edition - august 10, 2011

august 2015 nightingale online

bnb august 2012 online

online trends august 2009

topline online august

online edition - august 31, 2011

b&b online - august 2015

revista online 5 - 11 august

home-dzine online - august 2013

unit news online - august 2013

august 29,2014- online edition

rgu nexus online july august

august tn22 2013 online

online retailer presentation - august 2009

online edition - august 11, 2010

secure egg supply plan - aphis.usda.gov · secure egg...