Dissertation by Seongyeon Ko
This dissertation investigates the synchrony and diachrony of the vocalism of a variety of Northe... more This dissertation investigates the synchrony and diachrony of the vocalism of a variety of Northeast Asian languages, especially Korean, Mongolic, and Tungusic languages, which have traditionally been described as having developed from a palatal system. The dissertation rewrites the vocalic history by demonstrating that the original vowel harmony in these languages was in fact based on an RTR, rather than a palatal, contrast, and provides a formal account for the development of individual vowel systems within the framework of Contrastive Hierarchy (Dresher, 2009).
Following the general and theoretical background in Chapter 1, Chapter 2 begins to explore how the vowel contrasts in the modern Mongolic languages are hierarchically structured. It proceeds to propose an RTR analysis for Old Mongolian (contra Poppe, 1955) based on a combination of arguments from the comparative method, the typology of vowel shifts, and the phonetics of vowel features. Consequently, the palatal system in Kalmyk/Oirat is understood not as a retention but an innovation as a result of an RTR-to-palatal shift, contra Svantesson’s (1985) palatal-to-RTR shift hypothesis. Chapter 3 presents an innovative view that Middle Korean had an RTR contrast-based vowel system and that various issues in Korean historical phonology receive better treatment under the contrastive hierarchy approach. Chapter 3 also argues that Ki-Moon Lee’s (1964, 1972) Korean vowel shift hypothesis is untenable, based on the RTR analysis of Old Mongolian presented in Chapter 2. Chapter 4 shows that an RTR-based contrastive hierarchy analysis also holds for the lesser-studied Tungusic languages including Proto-Tungusic. Turning to theoretical issues, Chapter 5 investigates the minimal difference between Mongolic vs. Tungusic /i/ in terms of its transparency/opacity to labial harmony (van der Hulst & Smith, 1988). The contrastive hierarchy approaches to the Mongolic and Tungusic vowel systems in the previous chapters, coupled with a “fusional harmony” approach (Mester, 1986), provide a very simple but elegant solution to the minimal difference between the two languages, allowing us to maintain the Contrastivist Hypothesis (Hall, 2007). Chapter 6 addresses empirical and theoretical implications of the major findings in the main chapters and concludes the thesis.
Journal papers by Seongyeon Ko
The Linguistic Society of Korea, Aug 1, 2020
ALTAI HAKPO, Jun 1, 2012
This paper is an investigation of the acoustic characteristics of vowels in three Altaic language... more This paper is an investigation of the acoustic characteristics of vowels in three Altaic languages: two Mongolic languages, Western Buriat (WB) and Tsongol Buriat (TB), and a Tungusic language, Ewen. Based on the formant frequencies of simple vowels in initial syllables, we first demonstrate that all the three languages can be best described as having a tongue root (TR) contrast-based vowel system. Using various acoustic measures such as F1, F2, normalized A1-A2, B1, and center of gravity, we then compare the two vowels in each harmonic pair in search of the acoustic correlates of the RTR contrast in Altaic languages. The results show an overall resemblance to the previous acoustic findings of the ATR contrast in West African languages. F1 successfully distinguishes all vowel pairs in all the three languages. B1 and the center of gravity also differentiate most vowel pairs. However, the distinction in the values of normalized A1-A2 is observed only in WB, not in the other two languages TB and Ewen.
Korean Linguistics 15:2, Dec 2013
The Korean Vowel Shift hypothesis (KVS) has been one of the most firmly entrenched tenets of Kore... more The Korean Vowel Shift hypothesis (KVS) has been one of the most firmly entrenched tenets of Korean historical phonology since the 1960s, despite a number of published critiques from both theoretical and empirical standpoints. This paper aims to end the controversy over the KVS by demonstrating that the Mongolian loanwords, the purported primary philological evidence for the shift, do not support the KVS hypothesis. The reason for this is that the Old Mongolian vowel system that provided the source for the loans was almost certainly based on an RTR contrast, rather than the palatal contrast assumed by the KVS.
This paper revisits Oroch vowel harmony previously analyzed in Tolskaya (2008) and propose a new ... more This paper revisits Oroch vowel harmony previously analyzed in Tolskaya (2008) and propose a new analysis within the framework of modified contrastive specification (Dresher, 2009). In particular, I show that the vowel patterns in Oroch are better explained under a contrastive hierarchy [low] > [coronal] > [Retracted Tongue Root (RTR)] > [labial] than under Tolskaya’s Stratal OT approach. The proposed hierarchy not just assigns proper feature specifications to each vowel in Oroch but also provides a simple, unified solution to the transparency and opacity in Oroch vowel harmony: The transparency of /i/ to RTR harmony is due to the lack of contrastive [-RTR] specification while the opacity of /i, ʊ/ is due to its contrastive height feature specification ([-low]). In addition, the putative simple vowel /æ/ receives a better treatment as a diphthong /ia/ and its peculiar behavior resembling /i/ is ascribed to its high front vowel portion /i/.
This paper is an investigation of the acoustic characteristics of vowels in three Altaic language... more This paper is an investigation of the acoustic characteristics of vowels in three Altaic languages: two Mongolic languages, Western Buriat (WB) and Tsongol Buriat (TB), and a Tungusic language, Ewen. Based on the formant frequencies of simple vowels in initial syllables, we first demonstrate that all the three languages can be best described as having a tongue root (TR) contrast-based vowel system. Using various acoustic measures such as F1, F2, normalized A1-A2, B1, and center of gravity, we then compare the two vowels in each harmonic pair in search of the acoustic correlates of the RTR contrast in Altaic languages. The results show an overall resemblance to the previous acoustic findings of the ATR contrast in West African languages. F1 successfully distinguishes all vowel pairs in all the three languages. B1 and the center of gravity also differentiate most vowel pairs. However, the distinction in the values of normalized A1-A2 is observed only in WB, not in the other two languages TB and Ewen.
Language Research 47(1), Jun 30, 2011
This paper explores the synchrony and diachrony of the Mongolic
vowel systems within the framewo... more This paper explores the synchrony and diachrony of the Mongolic
vowel systems within the framework of contrastive hierarchy theory (Dresher 2009). First it establishes contrastive hierarchies for modern Mongolic varieties, based on which it attempts to reconstruct an RTR-based vowel system for Old Mongolian. Then it proposes a vowel shift hypothesis which claims that the basis of vowel harmony has shifted from an RTR contrast in Old Mongolian to a palatal contrast in the modern Kalmyk/Oirat variety (contra Svantesson 1985). It is shown that this shift not only conforms to all the basic criteria of the comparative methods in historical linguistics, but also corresponds to typological expectations from an Altaic perspective. The result supports the idea that RTR was the original harmonic contrast in Altaic (Vaux 2009).
Proceedings, book chapters, manuscripts by Seongyeon Ko
The Cambridge Handbook of Korean Linguistics
BLS 37, Jan 1, 2013
As observed by van der Hulst and Smith (1988), Tungusic /i/ is opaque whereas Mongolic /i/ is tra... more As observed by van der Hulst and Smith (1988), Tungusic /i/ is opaque whereas Mongolic /i/ is transparent to labial harmony (/u/ and /ʊ/ are opaque in both languages). Within the framework of contrastive hierarchy (Dresher 2009), I argue that this ‘minimal’ contrast between the two languages is due to the minimal difference in the language-specific contrastive hierarchy: Tungusic [low] > [coronal] > [labial] > [RTR] (Zhang 1996) vs. Mongolic [coronal] > [low] > [labial] > [RTR] (Ko 2010). These hierarchies in Tungusic and Mongolic assign different output specifications for /i/: [-low, +cor] for Tungusic /i/, [+cor] for Mongolic /i/. Assuming that ‘high’ vowels (with [-low] specification) block labial harmony (cf. Kaun 1995), it follows that Tungusic /i/ is contrastively high thus opaque, while Mongolic /i/, albeit phonetically high, is not contrastively so thus transparent. On the other hand, /u/ and /ʊ/ in both languages specified with [-low] are contrastively high thus opaque. This result is a strong piece of empirical support for the contrastive hierarchy approach, as well as a solution to a well known problem in the theory of harmony systems.
Uploads
Dissertation by Seongyeon Ko
Following the general and theoretical background in Chapter 1, Chapter 2 begins to explore how the vowel contrasts in the modern Mongolic languages are hierarchically structured. It proceeds to propose an RTR analysis for Old Mongolian (contra Poppe, 1955) based on a combination of arguments from the comparative method, the typology of vowel shifts, and the phonetics of vowel features. Consequently, the palatal system in Kalmyk/Oirat is understood not as a retention but an innovation as a result of an RTR-to-palatal shift, contra Svantesson’s (1985) palatal-to-RTR shift hypothesis. Chapter 3 presents an innovative view that Middle Korean had an RTR contrast-based vowel system and that various issues in Korean historical phonology receive better treatment under the contrastive hierarchy approach. Chapter 3 also argues that Ki-Moon Lee’s (1964, 1972) Korean vowel shift hypothesis is untenable, based on the RTR analysis of Old Mongolian presented in Chapter 2. Chapter 4 shows that an RTR-based contrastive hierarchy analysis also holds for the lesser-studied Tungusic languages including Proto-Tungusic. Turning to theoretical issues, Chapter 5 investigates the minimal difference between Mongolic vs. Tungusic /i/ in terms of its transparency/opacity to labial harmony (van der Hulst & Smith, 1988). The contrastive hierarchy approaches to the Mongolic and Tungusic vowel systems in the previous chapters, coupled with a “fusional harmony” approach (Mester, 1986), provide a very simple but elegant solution to the minimal difference between the two languages, allowing us to maintain the Contrastivist Hypothesis (Hall, 2007). Chapter 6 addresses empirical and theoretical implications of the major findings in the main chapters and concludes the thesis.
Journal papers by Seongyeon Ko
vowel systems within the framework of contrastive hierarchy theory (Dresher 2009). First it establishes contrastive hierarchies for modern Mongolic varieties, based on which it attempts to reconstruct an RTR-based vowel system for Old Mongolian. Then it proposes a vowel shift hypothesis which claims that the basis of vowel harmony has shifted from an RTR contrast in Old Mongolian to a palatal contrast in the modern Kalmyk/Oirat variety (contra Svantesson 1985). It is shown that this shift not only conforms to all the basic criteria of the comparative methods in historical linguistics, but also corresponds to typological expectations from an Altaic perspective. The result supports the idea that RTR was the original harmonic contrast in Altaic (Vaux 2009).
Proceedings, book chapters, manuscripts by Seongyeon Ko
Following the general and theoretical background in Chapter 1, Chapter 2 begins to explore how the vowel contrasts in the modern Mongolic languages are hierarchically structured. It proceeds to propose an RTR analysis for Old Mongolian (contra Poppe, 1955) based on a combination of arguments from the comparative method, the typology of vowel shifts, and the phonetics of vowel features. Consequently, the palatal system in Kalmyk/Oirat is understood not as a retention but an innovation as a result of an RTR-to-palatal shift, contra Svantesson’s (1985) palatal-to-RTR shift hypothesis. Chapter 3 presents an innovative view that Middle Korean had an RTR contrast-based vowel system and that various issues in Korean historical phonology receive better treatment under the contrastive hierarchy approach. Chapter 3 also argues that Ki-Moon Lee’s (1964, 1972) Korean vowel shift hypothesis is untenable, based on the RTR analysis of Old Mongolian presented in Chapter 2. Chapter 4 shows that an RTR-based contrastive hierarchy analysis also holds for the lesser-studied Tungusic languages including Proto-Tungusic. Turning to theoretical issues, Chapter 5 investigates the minimal difference between Mongolic vs. Tungusic /i/ in terms of its transparency/opacity to labial harmony (van der Hulst & Smith, 1988). The contrastive hierarchy approaches to the Mongolic and Tungusic vowel systems in the previous chapters, coupled with a “fusional harmony” approach (Mester, 1986), provide a very simple but elegant solution to the minimal difference between the two languages, allowing us to maintain the Contrastivist Hypothesis (Hall, 2007). Chapter 6 addresses empirical and theoretical implications of the major findings in the main chapters and concludes the thesis.
vowel systems within the framework of contrastive hierarchy theory (Dresher 2009). First it establishes contrastive hierarchies for modern Mongolic varieties, based on which it attempts to reconstruct an RTR-based vowel system for Old Mongolian. Then it proposes a vowel shift hypothesis which claims that the basis of vowel harmony has shifted from an RTR contrast in Old Mongolian to a palatal contrast in the modern Kalmyk/Oirat variety (contra Svantesson 1985). It is shown that this shift not only conforms to all the basic criteria of the comparative methods in historical linguistics, but also corresponds to typological expectations from an Altaic perspective. The result supports the idea that RTR was the original harmonic contrast in Altaic (Vaux 2009).
This contrastivist view will shed new light on a variety of controversial issues in the phonology of Middle Korean vowels such as the asymmetry of the vowel inventory, the harmonic feature of the vowel harmony, the so-called discrepancy between the vowel system and harmony (K-M Lee 1972), and the neutrality of the vowel /i/ to the vowel harmony. It is shown that all these issues are resolved together within the contrastive hierarchy [coronal] > [low] > [labial] > [RTR], established on the independent basis of the phonological patterns in Middle Korean. In view of this hierarchy, the Middle Korean vowel system is analyzed as a RTR-based two-height vowel system (J Kim 1999, J-K Kim 2000) despite the apparent three-way height distinction. The difference between the phonetic and the phonological vowel system is attributed to the phonetic effect of sympathetic/antagonistic feature combination between tongue root and height features (Archangeli and Pulleyblank 1994, J-K Kim 2000).
The contrastivist approach also explains the historical development of the Korean vowel system, from Late Middle Korean through Early Modern Korean to modern regional dialects. It is argued that the changes in the vowel systems are best accounted for in terms of the changes in the contrastive hierarchy. For example, the change from Middle Korean to Early Modern Korean is analyzed as the change from the Middle Korean contrastive hierarchy [coronal] > [low] > [labial] > [RTR] to the Early Modern Korean contrastive hierarchy [coronal] > [low] > [high] > [labial], explaining the two different phonological merger patterns of the so-called alay a as neutralization of minimal contrast (RTR neutralization in Middle Korean vs. labial neutralization in Early Modern Korean) under the different hierarchies. In a similar vein, the synchronic variations in the vowel systems of modern dialects receive a comparable explanation: the two directional tendencies in the development of vowel system in modern dialects (Kwak 2003), i.e., the loss of labial contrast in North Korean dialects and the decrease of the number of height distinction in South Korean dialects, are ascribed to the flux in the relative hierarchy between [high] and [labial] in Early Modern Korean.
The present research, inspired by the analysis of Manchu vowel systems in Dresher and Zhang (2005), seems to provide a typologically plausible treatment of the Korean vowel system within the areal context of Northeast Asia, particularly in relation to Tungusic, although it calls for further research into other Northeast Asian languages such as Mongolic.