High-ranking affix faithfulness in Sahaptin

        In the typology of accent systems proposed by Alderete 1999, accentual
languages have either root-controlled accent or affix-controlled accent. In root-controlled
accent languages, affix accent only surfaces in words which contain unaccented roots;
otherwise, root accent surfaces. In affix-controlled accent languages, affixes impose an
accentual pattern on stems. Both patterns are consistent with high ranking root-
faithfulness, as predicted by McCarthy and Prince 1995. Revithiadou 1999, taking note
of languages in which affix rather than root accent surfaces, proposes a theory of head
dominance to cover such cases. When a word contains more than one accented
morpheme, the realization of multiple underlying accents is determined by HEADFAITH
>> FAITH. Morphological head is defined in the traditional way as the `morphological
determinant' of the word, that which `determines syntactic category, class and gender'.
        Sahaptin has a lexical accent system which differs from those discussed by
Revithiadou 1999 and Alderete 1999. In Sahaptin, as described by Hargus and Beavert
2002, all stems have a lexical accent ([á] etc.). The position of the accent can vary within
the stem (ï ánut'at `orphan', calámat `pipe', ï aluq'át `Pacific tree frog') and is therefore
lexically specified. Affixes are accented or unaccented. In words with an accented
prefix, the accent of the prefix is realized rather than that of the stem (pá'atï'awisa `he's
begging him' < /pá/- inverse, /ïatï'áwi/- `beg, ask for', -/sa/ imperfective), and in words
with an accented suffix, the accented suffix is realized rather than the accent of the stem
(ï atï'awíïam `beggar' < /ïatï'áwi/- `beg, ask for' + -/ ïam/ agent). The leftmost prefix
accent is realized in words with multiple accented prefixes (ï ásapaï ask `put it in the
hole' < /ïá/- absolutive, /sapá/ - causative, /ïás/- `place inside, into (hole)', -/k/
imperative.sg.), and the rightmost suffix accent is realized in words with multiple
accented suffixes (paptï'anmí `priest' genitive < /pá/- inverse, /pítï'a/- `baptize', -/ïá/
agent, -/nmí/ genitive). The last example also shows that in words with accented suffix,
prefix and stem, accent is realized on a suffix. Here we extend the previous description
to take note of the fact that stems must be divided into two accentual classes: strongly
accented ([aï) (e.g. /ïiwaï i/- `wait for'), a relatively small accentual class, vs. (normally)
              ]              ï
accented (e.g. /ïatï'áwi/- `beg, ask for'). In words containing an accented prefix and a
strongly accented stem, the accent of the stem survives (paï iwáï im < /pá/- inverse,
/ïiwaï i/- `wait for', -/m/ cislocative), but in words containing an accented suffix and a
      ï
strongly accented stem, the accent of the suffix survives (iwaï itpamá `bus stop' <
/ïiwaï i/- `wait for', -/t/ gerund, -/pamá/ `for').
      ï
        As verified by OTSoft (Hayes, Tesar and Zuraw 2003), the following set of
constraints will describe the accentual system of Sahaptin: FAITH ïSUFFIX, EDGEMOST
                                                                        -
>> FAITH ïSTRONGEST >> FAITH ïPREFIX >> FAITH ïSTEM. (FAITH ïSTRONGEST is
            -                         -                    -               -
required for strongly accented stems, which we assume have some sort of lexical marking
that this constraint is sensitive to, cf. Anttila 2001) The ranking required for Sahaptin
contradicts high-ranking root faithfulness, and cannot be subsumed under head-
dominance, because not all accented suffixes in Sahaptin are morphological heads. Some
accented suffixes are category-changing (e.g. -/ïá/ agentive, -/áï/~/náï/ negative agentive,
-/t'áwaas/ instrument), but some are not (e.g. -/nmí/ genitive, -/pamá/ `for', -/át'a/ `want
to'). High-ranking affix faithfulness in Sahaptin is thus required, as it is in modern
Hebrew (Ussishkin 2005).

Alderete, John (1999) Morphologically Governed Accent in Optimality Theory. Ph.D.,
        University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
Anttila, Arto (2001) Review of Headmost accent wins. Head dominance and ideal
        prosodic form in lexical accent systems. Glot International 5. 101-08.
Hargus, Sharon and Virginia Beavert (2002) Predictable vs. underlying vocalism in
        Yakima Sahaptin. IJAL 68. 316-40.
Hayes, Bruce, Bruce Tesar and Kie Zuraw (2003) OTSoft 2.1, software package,
        http://www.linguistics.ucla.edu/people/hayes/otsoft/.
McCarthy, John J. and Alan S. Prince (1995) Faithfulness and Reduplicative Identity. In
        Jill Beckman, Suzanne Urbanczyk and Linda Walsh eds. University of
        Massachusetts Occasional Papers in Linguistics 18: Papers in Optimality Theory.
        Amherst: Graduate Linguistics Student Association. 249-384.
Revithiadou, Anthi (1999) Headmost Accent Wins: Head Dominance and Ideal Prosodic
        Form in Lexical Accent Systems. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Leiden,
        Holland.
Ussishkin, Adam (2005) A Fixed Prosodic Theory of Nonconcatenative Morphology.
        Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 23. 169-218.