Table of Contents

Acknowledgements………………………………………………………………….….2

Introduction………………………………………………………………………….....3

1 Hungarian Vowel Harmony……………………………………………………........5

1. 1 The Hungarian Vowel Inventory………………………………………………........5

1. 2 Vowel Harmony……………………………………………………………….........6

1. 2. 1 The Role of Vowels in Harmony……………………………………………........7

1. 2. 2 The Role of Vowel Harmony in the Selection of Suffixes………………….........8

1. 2. 3 Stems and Harmony................................................................................................9

1.2.4 The Behaviour of Neutral (Transparent) Vowels...................................................14

1.2.4.1 The Vowel e.........................................................................................................15

2 Research and Data Analysis......................................................................................17

2. 1 Vacillating Stems – Data from Online Corpora.......................................................17

2. 2 Relative Frequency of Suffixes – Data from the HNC.............................................22

2. 3 Vacillating Stems and the Role of Paradigmatic Uniformity...................................23

2. 4 A Brief Comparison of Various Data.......................................................................27

3 Optimality Theory and Vacillating Stems………………………………………....29

3.1 The Basic Principles of Optimality Theory……………………………………..….29

3.2 An Optimality Theoretic Analysis of Vacillating Stems………………………..….32

3.2.1 Partially Ranked Constraints……………………………………………………..32

3.2.2 Unranked Constraints………………………………………………………….....45

Conclusion……………………………………………………………………………..54

Bibliography...................................................................................................................56

2

Acknowledgements First of all, I would like to say thanks to my mentor and supervisor Dr. Szilárd

Szentgyörgyi, who aroused my interest in linguistics, especially in English and

Hungarian phonology. He encouraged me to partake in the Students’ Research Circle

Movement and to write my thesis on this topic. He also supported me in continuing my

study and work in this field after graduation, too.

I am greatly indebted to Zara Wanlass from the University of Iowa for providing

me with the raw data of her analysis and thus helping me with my research.

I am also very grateful to some of my fellow students and co-founders of the

Linguistics Research Circle (also known as NyeKK), Anna Csernák, Gergely Harrach

and Krisztina Szöllősi and my phonetics and phonology seminar leader from the

Institute of German Studies, Balázs Huszka, who also encouraged me to do individual

research and supported me throughout this process.

A special thanks goes to Anna Csernák, who acted almost like a second

supervisor to me when I began to write my conference paper, sacrificing a lot of her

time and energy to help me with my research. She never hesitated to provide me with

books, articles or even some good ideas whenever I needed it and she never let me give

it up.

Last but not least, I would like to thank my fellow students and professors from

the Institute of English and American Studies for making the years spent at this

university a pleasant and rewarding experience.

3

Introduction

Vowel harmony is a much-studied area of the Hungarian language. This paper studies a

phenomenon that proves to be difficult not only for foreign learners but can also be

problematic for native speakers. There are certain words that contain a back harmonic

vowel followed by one or more neutral (transparent) vowels. These are referred to as

vacillating stems because they can take back as well as front suffixes (e.g. fotelban /

fotelben, ’armchair-iness’, hidrogénnak / nek ’hydrogen-iness’). Both forms are equally

grammatical and used by native speakers. Some speakers use only the back or the front

variant of the same suffixed stem, whereas others tend to vacillate between the two

variants or use the back variant with some suffixes and the front one with other suffixes.

Vacillating stems have been subject to a great deal of research recently. For

example, with the help of the ’wug’-test (Hayes & Londe 2005) Hungarian speakers

were asked to attach suffixes to words that do not exist in the Hungarian language but

do not violate its phonotactic rules. Students in the Padányi Secondary School in

Veszprém were also given a questionnaire with sample sentences containing vacillating

stems in both forms (i.e. each word with a front and a back suffix). Students were asked

to choose the form that they consider more natural (Csernák 2006). Research was

carried out in online corpora, namely in the Hungarian National Corpus and the Magyar

Webkorpusz on the Szószablya project website (Wanlass 2007).

It is a widespread assumption that vacillating stems, as opposed to harmonic and

neutral stems, do not show uniformity within one paradigm. The purpose of our data

collection and statistical analysis was to elucidate whether these stems in fact behave

inconsistently in the paradigm or show some kind of uniformity. Therefore the focus of

our data analysis was the paradigm of each collected and tested vacillating stem.

According to McCarthy (2005), inflectional paradigms (like the paradigms of

vacillating stems – the suffixed forms) greatly differ from derivational paradigms. In an

inflectional paradigm each member has an inpact on the other members and each

member can become the base of an assimilation process, ensuring paradigmatic

uniformity. Therefore, there is no need for one particular base for paradigmatic

uniformity (as opposed to derivational paradigms (Benua 1997). The other purpose of

our analysis was to find out whether there is no need for one base (i.e. a form to which

other members of the paradigm tend to conform), if it is possible to talk about

paradigmatic uniformity in the case of vacillating stems.

4

The study in the paper is based on a survey carried out in the Padányi Secondary School

in the autumn of 2005 (Csernák, 2006) and data collected from online corpora. Suffixed

forms of vacillating stems were collected from the Hungarian National Corpus and the

Magyar Webkorpusz on the Szószablya project website (Wanlass, 2007).1 The relative

frequency of suffixes was tested on the Hungarian National Corpus.

The phenomenon will be dealt with in the framework of Optimality Theory

(Prince & Smolensky 1993). According to this theory, the surface representation of a

word is the result of language-specific ranking of universal constraints. This paper

attempts to model the distribution of front and back suffixes with the help of partially

ranked constraints in the first part of the optimality theoretic analysis and with unranked

constraints in the second part.

The structure of the paper is the following. In section 1, we provide an overview

of Hungarian vowel harmony, including vacillating stems and their vowels and the

peculiar behaviour of the vowel e. In section 2, we discuss the surveys and analyse their

data. In section 3, we give a short description of the main principles of Optimality

Theory, then we attempt to give an optimality theoretic account for the behaviour of

vacillating and anti-harmonic stems based on the data collected from various sources.

1 I am greatly indebted to Zara Wanlass (University of Iowa) for providing me with the raw data of

her research. All errors are mine.

5

1 Hungarian Vowel Harmony

1. 1 The Hungarian Vowel Inventory

The Hungarian vowel inventory based on the description of (Ringen &Vago 1998: 394)

is the following:

Front Back

[- rounded] [+ rounded] [- rounded] [+ rounded]

(1)

short long short long long short long

High (close) i í ü ü u ú

Mid é ö ő

o ó

Low (open) e á a

The places of articulation of the fourteen vowels are shown in the above table. The

features front and back refer to the horizontal movement of the tongue. We differentiate

high, mid and low vowels according to the vertical position of the tongue. The

distinctive features [+ rounded] and [- rounded] refer to the involvement of lips in the

articulation. The fourteen vowels can be divided into seven long-short pairs. The [+

high] vowel pairs only differ in length as opposed to [- high] vowels, which differ both

in length and quality.

The contrast between the duration (length) of the mid vowel pairs o-ó and ö-ő is

phonologically relevant: they do not only differ in length but also in closeness. The

most striking contrast is to be found in the case of the a-á and e-é vowel pairs.

However, several words that contain these vowels show long-short alternation in the

singular-plural forms (nyár ’summer Sg’- nyarak ’summer Pl”, kéz ’hand-Sg’ – kezek

’hand-Pl’), just like ordinary vowel pairs that do not really differ in quality (víz ’water-

Sg’ – vizek ’water Pl”, tő ’stem-Sg’ – tövek ’stem-Pl”). This proves that they are long-

short pairs regardless of the difference in quality. (Nádasdy & Siptár 1994: 63-64)

É is a central vowel as far as the vertical position of the tongue is concerned.

However, from a phonological point of view, it does not belong to that group, being the

long counterpart of e. Moreover, it behaves as the front pair of á in suffixes (-nál / -nél,

-vá / -vé), therefore it might as well be classified as an underlyingly low vowel. Length

also plays an important role in the sonority sequence: the long member of the long-short

6

vowel pairs is more sonorant (except for the e-é pair – then the short one). Lower

vowels are more sonorous than higher ones; rounded vowels are more sonorant than

their unrounded counterparts (Ringen 1999). However, others claim the opposite

(Kassai 1998: 126).2

1. 2 Vowel Harmony

In several languages certain segments within one particular domain (e. g. a word or a

syllable) must have certain distinctive features that are identical. This phenomenon is

called harmony in phonology. Harmony can involve consonants or vowels. (For

example, there are languages in which only obstruents are involved.)

The most widely accepted means of describing harmony is spreading. It means

that a feature in question is spreading from a segment to the other adjacent segments

that are able to have this feature. Spreading might be obstructed by the so-called

blocking segments. If a consonant or a vowel (in our case: a vowel) behaves as a

blocking segment, the adjacent vowels to the right will be placed into another domain,

i.e. they will not be involved in the harmony. As opposed to blocking segments, neutral

(transparent) segments will not take part in the process.

As mentioned earlier, in Hungarian only vowels take place in this process. There

are two basic types of harmony: fronting (palatal) harmony and rounding (labial)

harmony. The domain of fronting harmony is the word. It involves the stem and the

suffixes, but complex words do not belong here as the appearance of a new root (e.g.

láb][fej) signifies the beginning of a new domain. Words with prefixes do not count,

either, because they also belong to more than one harmonic domain.

Fronting harmony is to be observed in the majority of Hungarian words –

usually, we find only front (születéseteknek ’your birth-dat’) or back

(boldogtalanságotoknak ’your sadness-dat’) vowels within one word. However, there

are words that contain both front and back vowels (hotel ‘hotel’, allűr ‘allure’, maci

‘teddy bear’, fiú ‘boy’) and certain suffixes are non-harmonic by nature (e.g. fazoníroz

’trim’, bodorít ’curl’, kalapért ’to / fot the hat’, mindenkor ’everytime’).3

2 On Hungarian vowels see (Bolla: 1982), (Bolla: 1995), (Gósy: 2004), (Kassai: 1998), (Kenesei: 2000), (Szende: 1976) 3 For more details on Hungarian vowel harmony see (Benus (to appear), (Dienes: 1997), (Oostendorp: 2004), (Rebrus 2000), (Reiss: 2003), (Ringen & Szentgyörgyi: 2004)

7

1. 2. 1 The Role of Vowels in Harmony

As far as harmony is concerned, Hungarian vowels are divided into two groups: neutral

(transparent) vowels and harmonic vowels. Front unrounded vowels like e, é, i, í are

neutral – most ’mixed’ words contain at least one of these vowels. They do not play a

role in vowel harmony. For instance, the noun maci ’teddy bear’ will take a back suffix

(macinak ’teddy bear-dat’) because the only harmonic vowel in the stem (that plays a

role in the process) is a back vowel. All [+ back] vowels are harmonic, whereas only

rounded [- back] vowels (ö,ő,ü,ű) are harmonic. Unrounded [- back] vowels are neutral.

The vowel e has a special role: sometimes it behaves as a harmonic vowel, sometimes

as a neutral vowel. (Nádasdy & Siptár 1994: 96)

The following table shows the role of vowels in harmony (the % indicates that the

vowel in question sometimes behaves as a harmonic vowel, sometimes as a neutral

vowel):

(3)

HARMONIC ROLE HORIZONTAL MOVEMENT OF THE

TONGUE HARMONIC

VOWELS

NON-HARMONIC

VOWELS

FRONT VOWELS ö, ő, ü, ű, (e %)

BACK VOWELS a, á, o, ó, u, ú

i, í, é, (e %)

(Nádasdy & Siptár 1994: 96)

8

1. 2. 2 The Role of Vowel Harmony in the Selection of Suffixes

Hungarian vowel harmony is governed by the stem vowel. It has a definite direction and

the harmonic value of the suffix depends on the harmonic value of the stem vowel. It is

only possible if suffixes are able to alternate in accordance with the stem. (Nádasdy and

Siptár 1994: 96)

Examples of alternating suffixes are the following (Siptár & Törkenczy 2000: 65):

(4)

ú ű (láb-ú ’-legged’, fej-ű ’headed’)

u ü (ház-unk ‚our house’, kert-ünk ’our garden’)

ó ő (vár-ó ’waiting’, kér-ő ’asking / suitor’)

o e ö (ház-hoz ’house-all’, kert-hez ’garden-all’,vödör-höz ’bucket-all’)

á é (vár-ná ’would wait for it’, kér-né ’would ask for it’)

á e (ház-ban ’house-iness’, kert-ben ’garden-iness’)

Non-alternating suffixes contain either only neutral vowels (hatig ’till six o’clock’,

katonaként ’as a soldier’, Kovácsék ’the Kovács (Smith) family’) or back harmonic

vowels that do not harmonise with the stem vowel (ötkor ’at five o’clock’, fazoníroz ’to

trim’, csekkol ’to check’) (Kertész 2003). No non-alternating suffix contains an e.

(Nádasdy & Siptár 1994: 108)

9

1. 2. 3. Stems and Harmony

Stems are divided into the following groups: If the last vowel in the word is harmonic,

the stem is called a harmonic stem. (I) If the last vowel is neutral (transparent), the stem

is neutral. (II) There are simple (A) and complex (B) stems within each group.

IA Simple harmonic stems: the last vowel of the stem is harmonic. They might contain

further harmonic vowels that harmonise with the last vowel as far as frontness is

concerned. They might contain neutral vowels, but not in the last syllable. Suffix

harmony is governed by the frontness of harmonic vowels:

(5) IA-f: TŰZ-type

[- back]

tűz 'fire' tűznek 'fire-dat' tűztől 'fire-abl'

tükör 'mirror' tükörnek 'mirror-dat' tükörtől 'mirror-abl'

öröm 'joy' örömnek 'joy-dat' örömtől 'joy-abl'

szemölcs 'verruca' szemölcsnek 'verruca-dat' szemölcstől 'verruca-abl'

rézsű 'slope' rézsűnek 'slope-dat' rézsűtől 'slope-abl'

(6) IA-b: HÁZ-type

[+ back]

ház 'house' háznak 'house-dat' háztól 'house-abl'

kupa 'goblet' kupának 'goblet-dat' kupától 'goblet-abl'

koszorú 'wreath' koszorúnak 'wreath-dat' koszorútól 'wreath-abl'

bika 'bull' bikának 'bull-dat' bikától 'bull-abl'

csíra 'germ' csírának 'germ-dat' csírától 'germ-abl'

példa 'example' példának 'example-dat' példától 'germ-abl'

hernyó 'caterpillar' hernyónak 'caterpillar-dat' hernyótól 'caterpillar-abl'

10

IB Complex harmonic stems: the last vowel of the stem is harmonic, but the stem

contains other harmonic vowels that do not harmonise with the last vowel as far as

frontness is concerned. The stem might contain further neutral vowels (but not in the

last syllable). These stems are also referred to as ‘disharmonic’. Suffix harmony is

governed by the frontness of the last harmonic vowel:

(7) IB-f: SOFŐR-type

[- back]

sofőr 'car driver' sofőrnek 'car driver-dat' sofőrtől 'car-driver-abl'

allűr 'allure' allűrnek 'allure-dat' allűrtől 'allure-abl'

kosztüm 'costume' kosztümnek 'costume-dat' kosztümtől 'costume-abl'

(8) IB-b: NÜANSZ-type

[- back]

nüansz 'nuance' nüansznak 'nuance-dat' nüansztól 'nuance-abl'

amőba 'amoeba' amőbának 'amoeba-dat' amőbától 'amoeba-abl'

pözsó 'Peugeot' pözsónak 'Peugeot-dat' pözsótól 'Peugeot-abl'

IIA Simple neutral stems: the stem contains neutral vowels only. Since neutral vowels

are front, these stems will take front suffixes.

(9) IIA-f: VÍZ-type

[- back]

víz 'water' víznek 'water-dat' víztől 'water-abl'

szegény 'poor' szegénynek 'poor-dat' szegénytől 'poor-abl'

kert 'garden' kertnek 'garden-dat' kerttől 'garden-abl'

11

There are approximately 60 simple neutral stems that always take back suffixes. These

are referred to as antiharmonic. The vast majority of the words in question contain i, í,

some of them contain é (cél ’goal’, héj ’peel’, derék ’waist’). Some of these stems end

in –a but the a is often lost as a consequence of suffixation (tiszt-a ’clear’, ritka-a ’rare’,

ném-a ’mute’, bén-a ’lame’). Fiú ’boy’ is a special stem that will take a back suffix

after the /u/ is deleted (fiam ’my son’). The behaviour of férfi ’man’ is also peculiar: it is

basically a vacillating stem (it can take back suffixes as well as front suffixes – férfinak

/ nek, -tól / -től), nevertheless, there are only férfias ’masculine’ and férfiak ’man-pl’;

*férfies and *férfiek are non-existent forms.

(10) IIA-b: HÍD-type

[+ back]

híd 'bridge' hídnak 'bridge-dat' hídtól 'bridge-abl'

cél 'goal' célnak 'goal-dat' céltól 'goal-abl'

derék 'waist' deréknak 'waist-dat' deréktól 'waist-abl'

IIB Complex neutral stems: the last vowel is neutral, but the stem also contains (a)

harmonic vowel(s). Suffix harmony is governed by the harmonic vowel that precedes

the neutral vowel of the last syllable. In the case of ÜVEG-type stems, both the neutral

and the last harmonic vowel are front:

(11) IIB-f: ÜVEG-type

[- back]

üveg 'glass' üvegnek 'glass-dat' üvegtől 'glass-abl'

rövid 'short' rövidnek 'short-dat' rövidtől 'short-abl'

örmény 'Armenian' örménynek 'Armenian-dat' örménytől 'Armenian-abl'

12

The transparent nature of neutral vowels manifests itself in its entirety in the case of

PAPÍR-type stems:

(12) IIB-b: PAPÍR-type

[+ back]

papír ’paper’ papírnak ’paper-dat’ papírtól ’paper-abl’

dózis 'dose' dózisnak 'dose-dat' dózistól 'dose-abl'

kordé 'barrow' kordénak 'barrow-dat' kordétól 'barrow-abl'

tányér 'plate' tányérnak 'plate-dat' tányértól 'plate-abl'

kávé 'coffee' kávénak 'coffee-dat' kávétól 'coffee-abl'

haver 'buddy' havernak 'buddy-dat' havertől 'buddy-abl'

balek 'dupe' baleknak 'dupe-dat' balektól 'dupe-abl'

maszek ‘private sector’ maszeknak ‘private sector-dat' maszektól ‘private sector-abl'

What was mentioned above can be summarised with the help of the following table

(Nádasdy & Siptár 1994: 109). (Vacillating stems are indicated by %.)

13

(13)

CONSTRUCTION SUFFIXATION Last vowel Vowels Front Back

I Simple harmonic stems (contain one or more harmonising vowels)

IA-f: TŰZ Tükör ’mirror’ , kürt ’horn’, köszörű ’grinder’, szemölcs ’verruca’, gőz ’steam’ ripők ’rogue’, rézsű ’slope’, revü ’revue’, esztendő ’year’, kesztyű ’glove’

IA-b: HÁZ kupa ’cup’, város ‚town’, koszorú ’wreath’ bika ’bull’, hernyó ’caterpillar, izom ’muscle’, tégla ’brick’, opera ’opera’, bitó ’gallows’, patika ’chemist’s’, stílus ’style’, beton ’concrete’, konkurencia ’concurrence’

I HARMONIC STEMS (the last vowel is harmonic) (a, á, o, ó, u, ú, ö, ő, ü, ű, (% e))

IB Complex harmonic stems (disharmonic stems) (contain several not harmonising vowels)

IB-f: SOFŐR attitűd ’attitude’, operatőr ‘cinematographer’, allűr ’allure ’, kosztüm ’costume’ kódex ’codex’, október ’october’, oxigén ’oxygen’ %dzsungel ’jungle’, %konkrét’concrete’, %analízis ‘analysis’

IB-b: NÜANSZ amőba ’amoeba’, ökonómia ’economy’, bürokrácia ’bureaucracy’ cölibátus ’celibacy’, ökumenikus ’oecumenical’

IIA Simple neutral stems (contain only neutral vowels)

IIA-f: VÍZ rét ’field’, szegény ’poor’, rekettye ’genista’, bili ’pot’, fillér <one hundredth of a Hungarian forint> kemping ’camping’, % férfi ’man’

IIA-b: HÍD (antiharmonic stems) cél ’goal’, derék ’waist’ % férfi ’man’

II NEUTRAL STEMS (the last vowel is neutral) (i, í, é, (% e))

IIB Complex neutral stems (contain harmonic vowels as well)

IIB-f: ÜVEG Rövid ’short’ , tőzeg ’peat’ örmény ’Armenian’, gyülevész ’mob’, hübrisz ’hubris’

IIB-b: PAPÍR kordé ’barrow’, kuvik ’sparrow owl’, csiricsáré ’gaudy’, föderatív ’federative’

14

1. 2. 4 The Behaviour of Neutral (Transparent) Vowels

Not all neutral (transparent) vowels behave in the same way. Monosyllabic words

containing front unrounded vowels usually take front suffixes (e.g. cím + nek ’title-

dat’). If a neutral vowel is followed by a harmonic vowel in the stem, the transparency

of the neutral vowel cannot be proven, because the suffix is determined by the last

harmonic vowel. (Nádasdy & Siptár 1994: 105) There are approximately 60 stems

containing neutral vowels that take back suffixes, as mentioned above (e.g. híd + nak

’bridge-dat’). (Nádasdy & Siptár 1994: 103)

Two factors can influence the choice of suffixes in the case of at least disyllabic

stems. The first one is called the height effect, based on the height of the rightmost

vowel: the phonologically low vowel [ε] occurs with front suffixes more often than the

mid vowel [e:], which occurs with front suffixes more often than the high vowels [i] and

[i:]. The radír-type complex neutral stems will take back suffixes (radír + nak). If the

last syllable contains an é, the stem is likely to vacillate between back and front suffixes

(konkrét + nak/nek ’concrete’). Stems that contain an e as the last vowel are the most

likely to take front suffixes (dzsungel + nak / nek ’jungle’). The second generalisation is

referred to as the count effect. For example, BNN (back + neutral + neutral) stems take

front suffixes more often than BN (back + neutral) stems (Hayes & Londe: 6).

Generally, high vowels are the most transparent, thus the least harmonic. The

mid vowel é is less transparent and more harmonic than the high vowels i and í. The

low vowel e is the most harmonic and the least transparent. The hierarchy of

transparency is thus: i > í > é > e. (Kontra & Ringen 1986: 2)

Not only quality but quantity can also influence the choice of suffixes. If a back

vowel in a stem is followed by several transparent vowels, the stem will vacillate in

most of the cases:

(14)

back vowel + i + i aszpirin 'aspirin' + nak / nek

back vowel + i + é oxigén 'oxygen', klarinét 'clarinet' + nak / nek

back vowel + e+ i / í hokedli 'kitchen stool', agresszív 'aggressive' + nak / nek

15

However, there are exceptions (based on data collected from the Hungarian National

Corpus):

(15)

back vowel + i + e manifeszt 'manifest' + *nak / nek

back vowel + é + e katéter 'catheter' + *nak / nek

o Stems can vacillate when a harmonic vowel is between two neutral vowels

(hidrogén + nak / nek ’hydrogen-dat’) (Csernák 2006) However, krizantém

’chrysantemum’ only takes front suffixes (based on the Hungarian National

Corpus).

o If the harmonic stem vowel is followed by more than one e vowels, the e will

always behave as a harmonic vowel and take front suffixes (e.g. november +

*nak / nek ’november-dat’). (Siptár & Törkenczy 2000)

o Less frequent words are more likely to take back suffixes. (Hayes & Londe

2005: 15)

1. 2. 4. 1 The Vowel e

As mentioned earlier, e seems to be the odd-one-out among front unrounded vowels.

There is no stem in which a back harmonic vowel is followed by an e and will always

take a back suffix. (Kontra & Ringen 1986: 4), (Nádasdy & Siptár 1994: 108) There are

no non-alternating suffixes containing e. (Kontra & Ringen 1986: 4), (Nádasdy & Siptár

1994: 108) There are no anti-harmonically suffixed stems containing e (Kontra &

Ringen 1986: 4), (Nádasdy & Siptár 1994: 108), unlike i (lik + as ’with holes’), í (híd +

nak ’bridge-dat’) and é (cél + hoz ’aim-all’). In the case of the csekkol-type stems it is

the otherwise alternating suffixes that are incapable of alternation.4

Several ideas have been proposed about the underlying representation of the e

vowel: (i) we can assume that there are two types of e in the mental lexicon: one of

them is harmonic, the other is neutral (transparent) (Nádasdy & Siptár 1994: 96), or (ii)

the entire word (i.e. the vacillating stem) has two different underlying forms (e.g. fotel

’armchair’– containing a neutral e or a harmonic e) (Siptár & Törkenczy 2000: 169); 4 For detailed analysis of this phenomenon see (Kertész 2003)

16

(iii) e can also be regarded simply as a harmonic vowel (Ringen & Vago 1995: 311,

Rebrus & Törkenczy 2005: 279).

Although these assumptions make the analysis of these phenomena easier, they

are not totally acceptable. If we assume that there are two underlying forms of a

segment, the two underlying forms will have only one surface representation that will

sometimes behave as harmonic, sometimes as neutral. The idea that there are two

underlying representations of a word is not plausible, either, as duplication in the

lexicon should be avoided. Furthermore, if e is harmonic, how would we explain the

fact that only stems containing e (but not other harmonic vowels) vacillate? This would

be a great coincidence.5

5 On vacillating stems see (Benus (to appear)), (Deme: 1994), (Kontra & Ringen: 1996), (Siptár: 1993)

17

2 Research and Data Analysis

This paper reports data collected from various sources. The inflected forms of

vacillating and anti-harmonic stems were collected from the Hungarian National

Corpus6 (henceforth HNC) and the Magyar Webkorpusz, on the Szószablya project

website7 (Wanlass 2007). Inflected forms of nouns were tested in the HNC in order to

measure the relative frequency of suffixes. The third source of data is a survey carried

out in the autumn of 2005 in the Padányi Secondary School (Csernák 2006).

It has been proven by research that vacillating stems do not show uniformity

within one paradigm in the way harmonic and anti-harmonic stems do. The aim of this

study is to investigate whether the behaviour of these stems is totally unpredictable or

there is a certain analogy behind it. It has also been mentioned that inflectional

paradigms are different from derivational paradigms as far as paradigmatic uniformity is

concerned (McCarthy 2005). In inflectional paradigms each member has an inpact on

the other members and each member can become the base for an assimilation process,

ensuring paradigmatic uniformity. Therefore there is no need for one particular base for

paradigmatic uniformity (as opposed to derivational paradigms (Benua 1997). The other

aim of our analysis was to find out whether there is no need for one base (i.e. a form to

which other members of the paradigm tend to conform), if it is possible to talk about

paradigmatic uniformity in the case of vacillating stems.

6 http://corpus.nytud.hu/mnsz/index_hun.html The corpus was started started in 1998 at the Department of Corpus Linguistics of the Research Institute for Linguistics of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences (HAS) under the supervision of Tamás Váradi. The objective was to create a 100-million-word balanced reference corpus of present-day Hungarian. From 2002 began a new effort to extend the area of data collection to the Hungarian language use of the whole Carpathian Basin in Hungarian Language Corpus of the Carpathian Basin project. Aim was to create a 15-million-word corpus of Hungarian language beyond the borders of Hungary. The truly national Hungarian National Corpus, containing language variants form Slovakia, Subcarpathia, Transylvania and Vojvodina also, was introduced in November 2005. The first Hungarian corpus covering language variants from also beyond the border of Hungary have been completed as the result of joint work of the Hungarian Language Offices and the Department of Corpus Linguistics. 7 http://www.szoszablya.hu

18

2. 1 Vacillating Stems – Data from Online Corpora

In the original study (Wanlass 2007) the following fourteen common alternating

suffixes were measured:

(16)

Case Front Back Gloss

Instrumental -vel -val -with

Translative -vé -vá -(turn) into

Illative -be -ba -into

Inessive -ben -ban -in

Superessive -en/ön -on -on

Elative -ből -ból -out of

Dative -nek -nak -to/for

Adessive -nél -nál -at

Sublative -re -ra onto

Allative -hez/höz -hoz to

Delative -ről -ról of/about/from top of

Ablative -től -tól from

Comparative -ebb -abb more (ex: bigger)

Plural -ek -ak

(Wanlass 2007)

As the Accusative -t is a very common suffix but was not included in the above table,

we completed the list with it. Although -ak is listed above as the only back plural suffix,

the default form of it is -ok if the given word is not a lowering stem.8 As every stem was

suffixed as if it was a lowering stem, we collected these data again by adding the suffix

–ok to words that are not lowering stems. The additional inflected forms with the

aforementioned suffixes (that were not included in the previous study) were collected

from the Hungarian National Corpus.

Among the words included in the study (APPENDIX I) were stems classified as

vacillating (e.g. hotel ’hotel’, agresszív ’aggressive’, konkrét ’concrete’ etc), neutral

(e.g. papír ’paper’, dózis ’dose’, kávé ’coffee’) and disharmonic (oxigén ’oxygen’,

varieté ’cabaret’, november ’november’) by Siptár & Törkenczy (2000). We added

8 On lowering stems see (Szentgyörgyi: 1998)

19

several other words to the list that can also be interesting, for example férfi ’man’ and

izé <a filler>. Both contain only front unrounded (i.e. neutral vowels), however, both

words exhibit vacillation. Férfi is a stem containing only neutral vowels, which,

interestingly enough, takes back suffixes in the vast majority of the cases. There is one

suffixed form of this stem that never takes front suffixes (férfies is regarded as

ungrammatical, only férfias ’manly’ is used by native speakers of Hungarian.

Although izé <a filler> is typically used in speech, it might be found in

colloquially written texts, therefore it is worth searching in online corpora as well. It is a

neutral stem and would normally take front suffixes. However, it is often heard with a

back suffix in colloquial speech. (For example: Mondtam az izénak…’I told it to

the…what he’s called…’) Data from online corpora indicate that this variation only

occurs in speech, but not in writing.

Several other words were added, too. We tried to choose words of different

forms that could be vacillating:

o Stems containing a back vowel followed by a front neutral vowel (e.g.

fotel ’armchair’, farmer ’jeans’ or ’farmer’

o Stems containing a back vowel followed by two front neutral vowels

(e.g. porfirin ’porphyrin’, ametiszt ’ametyst’, katéter ’catheter’)

o Stems containing two back harmonic vowels followed by a front neutral

vowel (e.g. produktív ’productive’, pantomim ’pantomime’)

o Stems that contain a front neutral vowel followed by a back vowel and a

front neutral vowel (e.g. krizantém ’chrysanthemum’)

o Stems that contain two or three back vowels followed by one or two front

vowels (e.g. harakiri ’harakiri’, szalamander ’salamander’, paralízis

’paralysis’)

o Least common types of stems that might vacillate (e.g. hipochonder

’hypochondriac’ (two back vowels between two neutral vowels),

vegetatív ’vegetative’ (two neutral vowels followed by a back and a

neutral vowel), kvalitatív ’qualitative’ (a back vowel is followed by a

neutral, a back and a neutral vowel)

The additional more than 200 stems were collected from the Hungarian Dictionary and

will be tested in the Hungarian National Corpus and other Internet sources / corpora.

The analysis of these additional data is still in the process.

20

As a result of the aforementioned changes and additions, the data reported in this paper

do not correspond precisely to those in the original study (Wanlass, 2007).

It is also interesting to note that certain words that were identified as vacillating

stems exhibit an amount of vacillation (e.g. analízis ’analysis’, klarinét ’clarinet’) that is

smaller than haver ’pal’ that is considered to be neutral (APPENDIX I).9

The data collected show that it is hard to make generalisations about the

behaviour of different types of vacillating stems based on their form, that is, not all

stems of the same form display the same extent of vacillation. However, there are

general tendencies to be observed. In the following, we attempt to describe these

tendencies about the behaviour of different types of vacillating stems:

BN (back-neutral) stems: Stems containing a back vowel followed by a neutral

vowel (e.g.: fotel ’armchair’, hotel ’hotel’, haver ’pal’, farmer ’jeans’ or ’farmer’):

These stems take mostly front suffixes, especially those that contain e. Haver ’pal’

seems to be an exception because it takes back suffixes in the majority of the cases. The

words of this type that take mostly back suffixes tend to be the ones that have i, í or é as

their last stem vowel. That might be due to that fact that e is the most harmonic and i,í

are the least harmonic among neutral vowels. This is reflected by the tendencies to take

front or back suffixes: Stems containing e are the most likely to take front suffixes and

stems having an é in the stem are more likely to take front suffixes than stems

containing an í as the last stem vowel but are more likely to take back suffixes than

stems with a vowel e (based on data collected from the Hungarian National Corpus).

BNN (back-neutral-neutral) stems: Stems that contain a back vowel followed by

two neutral vowels (e.g. porfirin ’porphyrin’, ametiszt ’ametyst’, katéter ’catheter’):

These stems are more likely to take front suffixes than back suffixes, except for matiné

’matinee’ and klarinét ’clarinet’. The reason for matiné taking mostly back suffixes and

other stems of this type taking front suffixes might be explained by the fact that certain

polysyllabic words having similar endings to common Hungarian or foreign free or

bound morphemes tend to take suffixes as if they were compounds. (For the detailed

description of this phenomenon see chapter 2.3.)

9 For the detailed analysis of the discrepancies between dividing words into groups (neutral, disharmonic, vacillating) see (Wanlass 2007)

21

BBN (back-back-neutral) stems: Stems that contain two back vowels followed by a

neutral vowel (e.g. produktív ’productive’, pantomim ’pantomime’):

These stems take mostly back suffixes. Words of this type can also take back suffixes

that seem to be treated as compounds. (See chapter 2.3.)

NBN (neutral-back-neutral) stems: Stems that contain a neutral vowel followed by

a back vowel and a neutral vowel (e.g. krizantém ’chrysanthemum’, destruktív

’destructive’):

Some of these stems tend to take mostly front suffixes, whereas others take back

suffixes in the majority of cases. Stems, in which the back vowel is between i and e/é

(e.g. bitumen ’bitumen’, hidrogén ’hydrogen’) take mostly front suffixes, except for the

word krizantém ’chrysanthemum’. Stems like leander ’oleander’, that contain a back

vowel sandwitched between two e-s, take almost exclusively front suffixes. Words, in

which the back vowel is between an e and an i/í (e.g. destruktív ’destructive’, deduktív

’deductive’), take mostly back suffixes. Words like illusztris ’illustrious’, in which the

back vowel is between two i-s, also take back suffixes in the vast majority of the cases.

These tendencies also show that e might be more harmonic than é and i/í and é is more

harmonic than i and í.

BBNN (back-back-neutral-neutral) and BBBN (back-back-back-neutral) stems:

Stems that contain two or three back vowels followed by one or two front vowels

(e.g. harakiri ’harakiri’, szalamander ’salamander’, paralízis ’paralysis’):

These stems take front suffixes in the vast majority of the cases. However, there is no

sufficient information about these words due to the sparse amount of words of these

type (that are likely to vacillate).

The same thing has to be mentioned in connection with the least common types

of stems that might vacillate such as hipochonder ’hypochondriac’ (two back vowels

between two neutral vowels), vegetatív ’vegetative’ (two neutral vowels followed by a

back and a neutral vowel), kvalitatív ’qualitative’ (a back vowel is followed by a

neutral, a back and a neutral vowel). Hipochonder takes mostly front suffixes, whereas

vegetatív and kvalitatív take back suffixes.

22

2. 2 Relative Frequency of Suffixes – Data from the Hungarian National Corpus

We selected 199 inflected nouns to measure the relative frequency of suffixes. The

words were selected in the following way: we tried to include all the possible types of

nouns (e.g. harmonic, neutral, disharmonic, lowering stems). Vacillating stems were not

included as it would have made the collection of data complicated as vacillating stems

can take two or three forms of the same suffix, whereas other stems only take one form.

The reasons for selecting nouns10 are the following: Nouns can take all the above

suffixes. Adjectives can only take the above suffixes if they behave as nouns. Moreover,

there are certain suffixes that can be misleading if they are attached to nouns. For

example, the superessive -on/-en/-ön alternating suffix has a different meaning if it is

taken by an adjective – in this case, the adjective becomes a modal adverb (e.g.

kedvesen ’nicely’). For similar reasons, the comparative -abb/-ebb was not included

because nouns do not normally take this suffix. It requires further resarch to get a larger

picture of the relative frequency of suffixes, including suffixes frequently attached to

adjectives. The suffixes in question in the order of relative frequency are the following

(based on data collected from the Hungarian National Corpus):

(17)

Suffix Frequency

Ak 316066

At 193892

bAn 125225

On 83236

rA 65282

nAk 60580

vAl 52192

bA 38926

bÓl 32635

hOz 29843

tÓl 20914

rÓl 18472

nÁl 10218

vÁ 5780

10 On the paradigms of nouns see (A. Jászó: 1994), (Keszler: 2000), (Kiefer: 2000)

23

The table shows that the most common suffix attached to nouns is the plural form,

whereas the translative suffix seems to be the least frequent one.

2. 3 Vacillating Stems and the Role of Paradigmatic Uniformity

It has often been mentioned that inflected stems within one paradigm seem to behave in

a uniform way, and they usually take the features of the most frequent suffix (Csernák

2006). For example, if the most frequent suffix has a + back feature, other suffixes in

the same paradigm will also be + back. This is clearly seen in the case of non-

vacillating stems:

(18) Front Frequency Back Frequency Total

fillérek 3080 fillérok 0 3080

fillérrel 1700 fillérral 0 1700

fillérre 401 fillérra 0 401

fillérbe 186 fillérba 0 186

fillérnek 58 fillérnak 0 58

fillérben 48 fillérban 0 48

filléren 40 filléron 0 40

fillérnél 19 fillérnál 0 19

fillérhez 11 fillérhoz 0 11

fillérből 0 fillérból 0 0

fillértől 0 fillértól 0 0

fillérről 0 fillérról 0 0

fillérré 0 fillérrá 0 0

TOTAL 5543 TOTAL 0

In this case, the relatively most frequent suffix happens to be the most common within

the paradigm as well. As the most frequent suffix is - back and the stem does not

exhibit vacillation, all the other stems will be - back. However, as we might expect,

the order of frequency is not exactly the same within the paradigm as in the order of

relative frequency (see table (17)): all paradigms have their own order of frequency. For

instance, in table (18) the second most frequent suffix (accusative) is not even included

since it does not contain a suffix vowel. At the same time, the least frequent suffix in

24

that paradigm is the translative vá/-vé, which happens to be the least common suffix in

the order of relative frequency as well.

What happens in the case of vacillating stems?

(19) FOTEL

Front Frequency Back Frequency Total

fotelben 1984 fotelban 1760 3644

fotelek 1107 fotelok 47 1154

fotelbe 531 fotelba 465 996

fotellel 204 fotellal 78 282

fotelből 44 fotelból 222 266

fotelre 56 fotelra 34 90 fotelen 43 fotelon 13 56

fotelnek 45 fotelnak 8 53

fotelről 0 fotelról 24 24

fotelhez 9 fotelhoz 12 23

fotellé 18 fotellá 0 18

fotelnél 1 fotelnál 1 2

foteltől 0 foteltól 2 2 TOTAL 4042 TOTAL 2666

The most frequent suffix in this paradigm differs from the highest ranked one in the

order of relative frequency (see tables (17) and (19)). The lowest ranked suffix in the

paradigm is not the same as the one in the relative order of frequency, either (see table

(19)). There are several other examples (APPENDIX I) that illustrate that the relative

order of frequency does not necessarily coincide with the order of frequency within a

particular paradigm.

The other thing to be observed is that this stem (fotel ’armchair’) shows an

extent of vacillation, however, most of the suffixes take the backness feature of the most

frequent suffix, i.e. as it is front, most of the suffixes will be front. (Certainly, for it is a

vacillating stem, there are some other suffixes that are used more often with their back

variants.)

Although the analysed words differ in the extent of vacillation, all behave in a

similar way: if the most common suffix in the paradigm (not in the relative order of

frequency) is +/- back, the majority of other suffixes will take the same feature

25

(APPENDIX I). There is only one exception to this generalisation – the word agresszív

’aggressive’11:

(20) AGRESSZÍV

Front Frequency Back Frequency Total

agresszívebb 1382 agresszívabb 1658 3040

agresszíven 1332 agresszívan 121 1453

agresszívek 569 agresszívak 0 569

agresszívvé 238 agresszívvá 269 507 agresszívnek 224 agresszívnak 13 237

agresszívvel 15 agresszívval 3 18

agresszívre 14 agresszívra 0 14

agresszívben 3 agresszívban 2 5

agresszívbe 2 agresszívba 2 4

agresszívnél 0 agresszívnál 3 3

agresszívet 1 agresszívat 0 1

agresszívből 0 agresszívból 1 1 agresszívtől 0 agresszívtól 1 1

agresszívhez 0 agresszívhoz 0 0

agresszívről 0 agresszívról 0 0 TOTAL 3780 TOTAL 2073

The most frequent suffix of agresszív is the comparative -abb/-ebb. As is shown in the

table, the word will usually take the back form of the suffix. However, if we consider

the majority of suffixes, the word will take front suffixes in most cases. Therefore, the

backness of the majority of suffixes is not identical with the backness of the most

frequent suffix.

25 stems out of the measured 282 words (including vacillating and anti-

harmonic stems) could possibly be treated as compounds by native speakers of

Hungarian (in our case: users of the internet). After having collected the relevant data,

we arrived at the following conclusion: 15 out of the measured 25 words have proven to

be treated as compounds by the majority of speakers / writers and, as a result of this,

take mostly front suffixes. These stems included words ending in –gén, -fil and –itisz

and others having an ending identical with common Hungarian words (Olivér, amulett,

ametiszt, karamell, Noémi, november, varieté). Words with an ending that is only

11 It is the only exception to the rule among the collected data (see APPENDIX I), which does not necessarily mean that there are no other exceptions.

26

similar to but not fully identical with a common Hungarian word are generally not

treated as compounds (mokasszin, aldehid) and take back suffixes. However, there are

some words having endings identical with Hungarian words, yet, are not treated as

compounds in the majority of cases (bajadér, koiné, malachit, matiné, parádé, szalámi).

Bajadér, malachit and szalámi contain two back harmonic stem vowels, which might be

the reason for their behaviour, whereas the behaviour of koiné cannot be generalised as

the amount of data found in online corpora is not sufficient for our analysis (there are

only two suffixed forms listed). No suffixed forms of the words kolompér and durábel

are found in the online corpora in question.

The seemingly exceptional behaviour of the word agresszív can be explained by

the fact that it is sometimes treated as a compound, sometimes not.

(21) AGRESSZÍV

Front FrequencyBack Frequency Total

agresszívebb 1382 agresszívabb 1658 3040

agresszíven 1332 agresszívan 121 1453

agresszívek 569 agresszívak 0 569

agresszívvé 238 agresszívvá 269 507 agresszívnek 224 agresszívnak 13 237

agresszívvel 15 agresszívval 3 18

agresszívre 14 agresszívra 0 14

agresszívben 3 agresszívban 2 5

agresszívbe 2 agresszívba 2 4

agresszívnél 0 agresszívnál 3 3

agresszívet 1 agresszívat 0 1 agresszívből 0 agresszívból 1 1

agresszívtől 0 agresszívtól 1 1

agresszívhez 0 agresszívhoz 0 0

agresszívről 0 agresszívról 0 0 TOTAL 3780 TOTAL 2073

As is clearly seen in table (21), this stem usually takes a a front suffix whenever it can

be analysed as a compound (ending in a common Hungarian noun, szív ’heart’) but it

takes a front suffix when treated as a single word, at least, as far as the first few most

common suffixes of the given paradigm are concerned. Being a noun, the word szív has

no comparative form, therefore agresszívebb is not treated as a compound in most of the

cases and can take a back suffix vowel more often than a front suffix vowel. Its

translative form is hardly ever used, either, which excludes the possibility of

27

agresszívebb being analysed as a compound and enables it to take back suffix vowels

more often than front ones. Since the inlative, adessive, elative and the ablative forms of

the the word szív are possible, agresszívbe, agresszívnél, agresszívből and agresszívtől,

respectively, can be analysed as compounds. However, this is not unequivocally so:

agresszívba/be exhibits an equal distribution of front and back suffixes according to the

Hungarian National Corpus (two founds in both cases). Agresszívnál, i.e. the form with

a back suffix vowel, is the only adessive form listed in the HNS (three founds). The

same is to be observed in the case of agresszívból/ből and agresszívtól/től, too (one

found in each case). This tendency, however, cannot be generalised in the case of the

least common suffixes in the paradigm, considering the exiguous amount of data found

in online corpora.

2. 4 A Brief Comparison of Various Data

In the following part we shall compare the results of the research of Wanlass (2007) and

Csernák (2006) to see what can be concluded from the two different collections of data.

Both papers arrive at the conclusion that in the case of vacillating stems the

choice of back and front forms differs from suffix to suffix: some words take the front

vowel version of a certain suffix while others take the back variant. The basic difference

between the two studies is that the survey carried out in the Padányi Secondary School

(Csernák 2006) queries the students’ choices of suffix, that is, students have to decide

consciously which suffix they prefer to use. As opposed to them, users of the Internet

can choose suffixes intuitively, without thinking and being observed. A further

difference is that Csernák (2006) allowed more than one option: students were free to

choose both the front and the back variant of the same suffix. Therefore, the comparison

of the results of the two studies is slightly problematic.

It is mentioned (Csernák 2006) that the suffixed forms of vacillating stems also

tend to show some kind of uniformity within the same paradigm. It is assumed that the

vowels of suffixed forms in a given paradigm are determined by the dative suffix –nAk

in a way that its backness feature will be prevalent in the same paradigm. However, this

assumption is not plausible. As we could see previously, the backness feature of the

vowel in the majority of suffixes is determined by the backness feature of the most

frequent suffixed form of the given word, which changes from paradigm to paradigm.

28

The positive aspect of the study (Csernák: 2006) is that we receive information about

those suffixed forms of the word that are not found in online corpora, for example:

(22) Wanlass (2007) Front Frequency Back Frequency Total

hidrogénre 0 hidrogénra 0 0

(23) Csernák (2006)

Hidrogén BACK FRONT BOTH I. BACK I. FRONT NOT BACK

rA 27,04 67,46 2,39 0,96 2,15 72,96

An exhaustive comparison of the results of the two studies is out of the scope of this

paper.

29

3 Optimality Theory and Vacillating Stems

3.1 The Basic Principles of Optimality Theory

Optimality Theory (henceforth “OT”) is an alternative model proposed by Alan Prince

and Paul Smolensky in 1993. It breaks away with the traditions of rule-based

phonological theories, which explained phonological phenomena with the help of

rewrite rules, i.e. forms stored in the lexicon are mapped onto surface forms in a series

of steps (in a definite order), each defined by a rule. One rule can effect the other either

by inducing (“feeding”) or blocking (“bleeding”) it. Interaction between the rules is

regulated by rule ordering. (Roca & Johnson 1999: 585)

In the OT grammar, there are only two levels of representation: the underlying

level and the surface level. The mapping from the underlying (lexical) level to the

surface level is guided and restrained by universal constraints. There are two

mechanisms playing a role in selecting the output forms: one is the generator that

generates all the possible surface forms from the underlying (lexical) representation, the

other is the evaluator that applies the constraints on the possible candidates (surface

representations), compares the candidates and selects the only optimal candidate.

(24) Generator: input => {candidate, candidate2, candidate3...}

Evaluator: {candidate, candidate2, candidate3...} => output

Evaluation is characterised by parallelism, that is, all the constraints participate in the

evaluation. This process takes place at the same time, therefore there is no order of

application, but there is a hierarchical order of constraints. The optimal surface form is

the candidate that violates the least possible constraints (with respect to the hierarchy of

constraints).

(25)

/input/ constraint 1 constraint 2

candidate (a) *

candidate (b) *!

The optimal candidate is indicated by the pointing finger. The asterisk indicates that a

constraint is violated. If the violation is fatal, and therefore the candidate cannot be

30

optimal, the asterisk is followed by an exclamation mark. Candidate (b) is not optimal

because it violates the highest ranked constraint. Here the concept of dominancy has to

be introduced: the most dominant constraint is on top of the hierarchy. The violation of

the dominant constraint is more serious than the violation of other (lower ranked)

constraints. It is important in the evaluation process which constraint is violated, but the

seriousness of the violation should also be taken into account.

(26)

/input/ constraint1 constraint2

candidate(a) * *

candidate(b) **!

(27)

/input/ constraint1 constraint2

candidate(a) *

candidate(b) * *!

In tableau (26) the highest ranked constraint is violated by both candidates, but it is

violated twice by candidate (b). Although candidate (a) violates the next constraint,

whereas (b) does not, the winner is candidate (a), since the violation of the highest

ranked constraint is the most fatal. In tableau (27) both candidates violate the dominant

constraint, but candidate (b) also violates the next constraint. Since (a) does not violate

it, it is the optimal candidate.

There are two conflicting types of constraint: (i) faithfulness constraints and

(ii) markedness constraints. Faithfulness constraints state that surface forms must

replicate their corresponding underlying forms. Markedness constraints express the

universal tendencies exhibited in the construction of segments.12

An example of faithfulness constraint is:

Ident IO(voice): The value of the feature [voice] of an input segment must be preserved

in its output correspondent.

12 There are marked and unmarked forms / structures in a language. Unmarked structures (e.g. CV syllable structure) are found in any language and are always more general and require less articulatory effort than marked forms (e.g. VC syllable structure), which are not present in all languages and are usually avoided and will only be utilised to express contrast (Kager 1999: 2)

31

An example of markedness constraint is:

*complex coda: coda must not be complex

(28)

/ke:p/ Ident IO(voice)

(a) ke:p (b) ke:b *!

(29)

/εmbεr/ *complex coda

(a) εm . bεr

(b) εmb . εr *!

In tableau (28) candidate (b) violates the faithfulness constraint, because it has a voiced

coda, unlike the underlying form. Candidate (a) is faithful to the underlying form (i.e. it

remains voiceless in the surface representation), therefore it is the winner.

In tableau (29) candidate (b) violates the markedness constraint, because it has a

complex coda, whereas candidate (a) has a simple coda, which makes it the optimal

candidate. Note that all constraints only apply to the possible candidates as output

forms; input forms cannot be regulated by constraints. This principle is called Richness

of the Base.

32

3.2 An Optimality Theoretic Analysis of Vacillating Stems

3.2.1 Partially Ranked Constraints

In this part of the chapter we are not going to give a full explanation for the behaviour

of vacillating stems. Our analysis is based on the following assumption: if there are

certain constraints that do not have a fixed place in the hierarchy, the front as well as the

back suffixes of the stem can be optimal (Ringen & Heinämäki: 1999). It is necessary to

show that these constraints are not ranked in relation to each other because otherwise

only one candidate could be judged as optimal by the evaluator. Constraints that do not

have a fixed place in the hierarchy will only be ranked in the moment of speaking.

The following constraints are from Ringen & Vago (1998):

* : Short unrounded back vowels are not allowed.

Align-R: No vowel intervenes between the right edge of back and the right edge of

the prosodic word.

SPECIFY: Segments should be specified for features.

No-Gap: Gapped configurations are prohibited. A gapped configuration is illustrated

below:

(where B is a possible anchor for F)

We introduce the following constraint:

SPECIFYroot: Segments of the root should be specified for features.

In the following optimality theoretic analysis we assume that vacillating stems are

marked in the lexicon. This explains that, for instance, aszpirin ’aspirine’ and április

’April’ have a similar form (both contain a back harmonic vowel followed by two front

unrounded (neutral) vowels) but behave in a different way: április always takes back

suffixes, whereas aszpirin can take back as well as front suffixes, i.e. it is a vacillating

stem.

33

Due to the markedness of vacillating stems the two constraints Align-R and

SPECIFYroot are not ranked with respect to each other (indicated by the dotted line) in

the following tableau:

(30)

vac/ + vA/ * SPECIFY root

Align-R SPECIFY No-Gap

(a)

+b -b +b

****

(b) A +b -b

****

*

(c)

+b -b

***

(d) I I

+b

**

**

**

(e) I

+b

*!

*

*

*

The highest ranked constraint is * because there are no short unrounded back vowels

in the Hungarian vowel inventory, therefore a word containing such a vowel will never

be optimal. SPECIFYroot and Align-R can be placed in a hierarchical order depending

on whether the word takes a back or a front suffix.

34

(31)

vac/ + vA/ * SPECIFY root

Align-R SPECIFY No-Gap

(a)

+b -b +b

****!

(b) A +b -b

****!

*

(c) +b -b

***

(c) I I

+b

**!

**

**

(e) I +b

*!

*

*

*

If SPECIFYroot is ranked higher than Align-R (31), the optimal candidate will be (c),

a stem with a front suffix. Candidate (e) cannot be optimal because it has a short

unrounded back vowel, which does not exist in Hungarian. Candidate (c) and (d) violate

SPECIFYroot because they contain underspecified vowels in the stem (indicated by

capital letters). Candidates (a), (b) and (c) violate Align-R, therefore the amount of

violation should also be taken into account: (a) and (b) have four violations, whereas (c)

has only three, therefore it is the winner.

(32)

vac/ + vA/ * Align-R SPECIFY root

SPECIFY No-Gap

(d)

+b -b +b

****!

(e) A +b -b

****!

*

(f) +b -b

***!

(d) I I +b

**

**

**

(e) I +b

*!

*

*

*

35

In tableau (32), we can see the ranking of constraints if the optimal candidate happens to

be a stem with a back suffix. In this case, the hierarchy of constraints is changed: Align-

R is ranked higher than SPECIFYroot. Candidate (e) violates the highest ranked

constraint. The next highest ranked constraint is violated by all the other candidates but

(d), therefore it is the optimal form.

The lower ranked constraints SPECIFY and No-Gap play only a minor role in

selecting the optimal candidate.

As mentioned earlier, the hierarchy of the two constraints Align-R and

SPECIFYroot are interchangeable only in the case of vacillating stems due to their

markedness. Other stems that do not exhibit vacillation are unmarked with respect to

this hierarchy. In their case, these two constraints are in a strict hierarchical order:

Align-R is always ranked higher than SPECIFYroot, as shown in tableau (33):

(33)

/ + A/ Align-R SPECIFY root

SPECIFY No-Gap

(a)

+b -b +b

***!

(b) A

+b -b

***!

*

(c)

+b -b

**!

(d) E

+b

*

*

*

Research based on data collected from online corpora (APPENDIX I) has proven that

not only non-vacillating but vacillating stems also show some kind of uniformity within

a particular paradigm. However, this uniformity is certainly not extended to all the

suffixed forms in the paradigm but it concerns the majority of them. The most common

suffixed form in the paradigm seems to trigger uniformity: most of the suffixed forms

tend to share its backness feature. (The only exception of the rule among the words

under scrutiny is agresszív ’aggressive’.)

36

’To account for phenomena like this, paradigm has become an important concept in expressing the phonological relationship between words. It is assumed that the surface shape of a word w , in a given

paradigm x can influence / determine the surface shape of another word w2, even if w2 is not derived from w in a cyclic sense. The nonderivational

paradigmatic relationships received formalisation as Output-Output correspondences in Optimality Theory.’

(Rebrus & Törkenczy 2005: 264)

We propose the following constraint:

Ident-OO(back): The backness of the suffix vowel after the stem has to be identical to

the backness of the suffix vowel of the most common suffixed form of the stem.13

To illustrate this with an example, let us see how a word (norvég ’Norwegian’) behaves

that is a vacillating stem, takes back suffixes more often than front suffixes and its most

common suffixed form is the plural form, that is, norvégok.

(34) NORVÉG

Front Frequency Back Frequency Total

norvégek 134 norvégok 367 501

norvégre 5 norvégra 20 25

norvéget 1 norvégot 21 23 norvégnek 9 norvégnak 7 16

norvégben 2 norvégban 12 14

norvégből 0 norvégból 14 14

norvéggel 1 norvéggal 8 9

norvéghez 1 norvéghoz 5 6

norvégtől 0 norvégtól 2 2

norvégről 0 norvégról 2 2 norvéggé 1 norvéggá 0 1

norvégen 0 norvégon 0 0

norvégbe 0 norvégba 0 0

norvégnél 0 norvégnál 0 0 TOTAL 154 TOTAL 458

13 On Output-Output constraints see (Benua: 1997), (Rebrus & Törkenczy 2005)

37

The above described tendency is clearly shown in table (34). Blue indicates the number

of suffixed forms that tend to share the backness feature of the most common suffixed

form of the stem. Red indicates those forms that veer away from this tendency.

The following tableau contains the stem norvég ’Norwegian’ with partially ranked

constraints:

(35)

vac/ + O / Ident-OO (back)

Align-R SPECIFY root

SPECIFY No-Gap

(a)

+b -b +b

***

(b) O

+b -b

*

***

*

(c)

+b -b

*

**

(d) E

+b

*

**

*

In tableau (35), the constraints Ident-OO(back), Align-R and SPECIFY(root) are not

ranked with respect to each other. The ranking in the moment of speaking will decide

whether the optimal form will be the back or the front variant of the same suffixed form.

The stem norvég is shown in the following tableau with a less common suffix to

account for the general tendency towards uniformity:

(36)

vac/ + O / Ident-OO (back)

Align-R SPECIFY root

SPECIFY No-Gap

(a)

+b -b +b

***!

(b) O

+b -b

*!

***

*

(c)

+b -b

*!

**

(d) E

+b

*

**

*

38

Candidate (b) and (c) violate Ident-OO(back) because (b) contains an underspecified

vowel and (c) has a front suffix vowel unlike the most common suffixed form in the

paradigm (i.e. norvégok). Candidates (a), (b) and (c) violate Align-R – (a) and (b) have

three violations and (c) has only two. Candidate (d) does not violate the first two highest

ranked constraints, therefore it is the winner. The result is a stem with a back suffix

vowel that contains an underspecified vowel in the stem.

(37)

vac/ + O / Align-R Ident-OO (back)

SPECIFY root

SPECIFY No-Gap

(a)

+b -b +b

***!

(b) O

+b -b

***!

*

*

(c)

+b -b

**!

*

(d) E

+b

*

**

*

It is obvious from tableau (37) that even if Align-R is ranked higher than Ident-

OO(back), the optimal candidate is (d), that is, a form with a back suffix vowel.

The front variant will be the winner only when SPECIFY(root) is ranked higher than

Align-R and Ident-OO(back). It is shown in tableau (38):

39

(38)

vac/ + O / SPECIFY root

Align-R Ident-OO (back)

SPECIFY No-Gap

(a)

+b -b +b

***!

(b) O

+b -b

***!

*

*

(c)

+b -b

**

*

(d) E

+b

*!

**

*

Candidate (d), which was the optimal candidate in the aforementioned cases, violates

SPECIFY(root) because it has an unspecified vowel in the stem, therefore it is ruled

out. All of the competing candidates violate Align-R but candidate (c) (a form with a

front suffix vowel) has the fewest violations (two instead of three), thus it is the winner.

The next example is sláger ’hit single’, the most common suffixed form of which is the

plural form with a front suffix vowel, that is, slágerek:

(39) SLÁGER

Front Frequency Back Frequency Total

slágerek 7497 slágerok 0 7497

slágerrel 1420 slágerral 26 1446 slágerré 433 slágerrá 4 437

slágernek 411 slágernak 3 414

slágerben 262 slágerban 2 264

slágerre 157 slágerra 0 157

slágerbe 40 slágerba 0 40

slágerhez 34 slágerhoz 0 34

slágeren 33 slágeron 0 33

slágernél 12 slágernál 0 12 slágerből 0 slágerból 1 1

slágertől 0 slágertól 0 0

slágerről 0 slágerról 0 0 TOTAL 10299 TOTAL 36

40

Table (39) is the paradigm of sláger ’hit single’. It is clearly seen that it takes front

suffixes in the vast majority of cases, just like the most common suffix in the paradigm.

There is only one case when the suffixed forms do not conform to the backness feature

of the most frequent suffixed form in the paradigm. (It is indicated by the colour red.)

However, it is not statistically significant, since the Hungarian National Corpus contains

only one example of this suffixed form.

Tableau (40) contains the word sláger with partially ranked constraints (the hierarchy is

not yet decided):

(40)

vac/ + A/ Ident-OO (back)

Align-R SPECIFY root

SPECIFY No-Gap

(a) +b -b +b

*

***

(b) A +b -b

*

***

*

(c) +b -b

**

(d) E +b

*

*

*

*

In the following tableau, the hierarchy is decided. The winner is a suffixed stem with a

front suffix vowel.

(41)

vac/ + A/ Ident-OO (back)

Align-R SPECIFY root

SPECIFY No-Gap

(a) +b -b +b

*!

***

(b) A +b -b

*!

***

*

(c) +b -b

**

(d) E +b

*!

*

*

*

41

As is seen in tableau (41), if Ident-OO(back) is ranked the highest in the hierarchy, the

optimal candidate can only be (c) – a front variant. Candidates (a) and (d) contain a

back suffix vowel, therefore they violate paradigmatic uniformity. So does candidate

(b), which has an unspecified vowel in the suffix. Thus the only possible winner is (c).

In this case, the hierarchy of the following two constraints, Align-R and

SPECIFY(root) does not count. Therefore, the hierarchy shown in tableau (42) will

also result in a winning candidate (c) (i.e. a front variant):

(42)

vac/ + A/ Ident-OO (back)

SPECIFY root

Align-R SPECIFY No-Gap

(a) +b -b +b

*!

***

(b) A +b -b

*!

***

*

(c) +b -b

**

(d) E +b

*!

*

*

*

In the above tableau, the order of Align-R and SPECIFY(root) is reversed:

SPECIFY(root) is ranked higher than Align-R. However, the winning candidate

remains (c), since Ident-OO(back), which is the highest ranked constraint, plays the

main role in selecting the optimal form.

42

The optimal candidate is also a front variant, if SPECIFY(root) is ranked the highest. It

is shown in tableau (43):

(43)

vac/ + A/ SPECIFY root

Ident-OO (back)

Align-R SPECIFY No-Gap

(a) +b -b +b

*!

***

(b) A +b -b

*!

***

*

(c) +b -b

**

(d) E +b

*!

*

*

*

In tableau (43), only candidate (d) violates SPECIFY(root) because it has an

unspecified vowel in the stem. The second highest ranked constraint, Ident-OO(back)

is violated by candidates (a), (b) and (d), since (a) and (d) contain a back suffix vowel

and (b) has an unspecified one. As (c) has a front suffix vowel, it shares the backness

feature of the most common suffixed form in the paradigm, therefore it does not violate

Ident-OO(back). Candidate (c) is also the only form that has no violations yet, thus it is

the optimal one.

There is another possible ranking of these three constraints, namely, when Align-R is

ranked the highest, as is shown in tableau (44):

(44)

vac/ + A/ Align-R Ident-OO (back)

SPECIFY root

SPECIFY No-Gap

(a) +b -b +b

***!

*

(b) A +b -b

***!

*

*

(c) +b -b

**!

(d) E +b

*

*

*

*

43

All candidates but (d) violate the highest ranked constraint, Align-R. Therefore the

hierarchical order of the next two highest ranked constraints, Ident-OO(back) and

SPECIFY(root) does not matter. The winner is candidate (c), that is, the back variant

of the suffixed form.

If we change the order of Ident-OO(back) and SPECIFY(root), the winner will be the

same candidate, provided that Align-R remains the highest ranked constraint, as is seen

in the following tableau:

(45)

vac/ + A/ Align-R SPECIFY root

Ident-OO (back)

SPECIFY No-Gap

(a) +b -b +b

***!

*

(b) A +b -b

***!

*

*

(c) +b -b

**!

(d) E +b

*

*

*

*

In tableau (45), only candidate (d), the back variant of the suffixed form, violates

SPECIFY(root) because it has an underspecified vowel in the stem. However, this is

not fatal and candidate (d) is the winner regardless of this violation, which was decided

by the highest ranked constraint, Align-R.

The hierarchical order of the three highest ranked constraints, Align-R, Ident-

OO(back) and SPECIFY(root) does not matter in the case of neutral and harmonic

stems. In any case, always the same candidate will be the winner. Let us illustrate this

with the following two tableaux:

44

(46)

/ + A/ Align-R SPECIFY root

Ident-OO (back)

SPECIFY No-Gap

(a) -b +b

**

*

(b) A -b

**

*

*

*

(c) -b

*

(d) -b

*

(47)

/ + vA/ Align-R SPECIFY root

Ident-OO (back)

SPECIFY No-Gap

(a) +b

*

(b) A l +b

**

*

*

*

(c) l +b -b

**

*

(d) l +b

*

Tableau (46) with the word fillér <one hundredth of a Hungarian forint> is an example

of neutral stems that take front suffixes, whereas tableau (47) contains a word (motor

’motorbyke’) that is a harmonic stem, containing back harmonic vowels and taking back

suffixes only. In both cases, the winner is always the same candidate regardless of the

hierarchical order of Align-R, SPECIFY(root) and Ident-OO(back). The optimal

candidate is (c) in the case of neutral and front harmonic stems (the front variant of the

suffixed form) and (d) in the case of back harmonic stems (the back variant of the

suffixed form), since these candidates do not violate any of the constraints Align-R,

SPECIFY(root) and Ident-OO(back).

45

3.2.2 Unranked Constraints

In the following, we are going to give a different account for the behaviour of

vacillating stems. This type of analysis has already been applied to Finnish-language

phenomena (Ringen & Heinämäkki 1999). It is based on the following assumption: If

we have a group of at least four unranked constraints, with their different permutations

we can get not only different candidates but also different proportions of the distribution

of front and back suffixes. In this case, we have six unranked constraints. The following

two constraints were taken from other articles:

Ringen and Vago: Hungarian Vowel Harmony and Optimality Theory (1998)

Align-R: No vowel intervenes between the right edge of back and the right edge of

the prosodic word.

Hayes and Londe: Stochastic Phonological Knowledge: The Case of Hungarian Vowel

Harmony

*[-b][-b][+b]: Two front vowels cannot be followed by a back vowel.

We introduce the following four constraints:

Ident-OO(back): The backness feature of the suffix vowel after the stem has to be

identical to the backness of the suffix vowel of the most common suffixed form of the

stem.

AGREE(str): The backness feature of the suffix vowel has to agree with the backness

feature of the vowel of the stressed syllable.

AGREE(last): The backness feature of the suffix vowel has to agree with the backness

feature of the the vowel of the stem.

AGREE(low): The backness feature of the suffix vowel has to agree with the backness

feature of the lowest vowel of the stem.

Since there are six unranked constraints, there are 720 possible hierarchies, as 6!

= 720. Depending on the 720 possibilites of the ranking of these contraints, the optimal

candidate can either be a back or a front variant of the suffixed form. These constraints

are unranked with respect to each other in the case of non-vacillating stems. The word

fillér <one hundreth of a Hungarian forint> is a neutral stem and always takes front

suffixes. The word motor ’motorbyke’ is a harmonic stem containing only back vowels

and thus takes only back suffixes. These words with unranked constraints are seen in the

following two tableaux (that is, tableaux (48) and (49), respectively):

46

(48)

/ / AGREE str

Align-R Ident-OO back

AGREE low

*-h -h+h

AGREE last

(a) -b +b

*

**

*

*

*

(b) A -b

*

**

*

*

*

(c) -b

(d) -b

*

*

*

(49)

/ / AGREE str

Align-R Ident-OO back

AGREE low

*-h -h+h

AGREE last

(a) +b

(b) A l +b

*

*

*

*

*

(c) l +b -b

*

**

*

*

*

(d) l +b

As is clearly seen in the above tableaux, the hierarchy of the constraints does not matter

in the case of neutral and harmonic stems. Regardless of the ranking of constraints, the

winner is candidate (c) in both cases. In tableau (37) it is the front variant of the suffixed

form (since the stem contains only front vowels), whereas it is the variant with a back

suffix vowel (as the stem consists of back harmonic vowels only). As the winner is

always the same candidate in all of the 720 cases, the distribution of front and back

suffixes is the following: 100% front and 0% back in the case of neutral and front

harmonic stems and 100% back and 0% front in the case of back harmonic stems.

In the case of vacillating stems, the distribution of front and back suffixes

resulting from the 720 different rankings of constraints is not as simple as it is in the

47

case of neutral and harmonic stems. Let us illustrate this with some of the most common

types of vacillating stems.

BN(back-neutral)-type stems: A back vowel is followed by a neutral vowel in the

stem (e.g. hotel ’hotel’, fotel ’armchair’). The word fotel ’armchair’ is seen in tableau

(50) with the six unranked constraints:

(50)

// AGREE str

Align-R Ident-OO back

AGREE low

*-h -h+h

AGREE last

(a) +b -b +b

***

*

*

*

(b) A +b -b

*

**

*

*

*

(c) +b -b

*

**

(d) E +b

*

*

*

These stems take front suffixes in the following cases:

o if Ident-OO(back) is the highest ranked constraint

o if AGREE(low) is the highest ranked constraint

o if AGREE(last) is the highest ranked constraint

o if *-b -b +b is the highest ranked constraint, followed by any of the above

constraints in the hierarchy

If Ident-OO(back) is ranked the highest, a front variant will be the optimal candidate,

since the most common suffixed form in the paradigm of the word fotel ’armchair’ (and

in the paradigm of other stems of this type) is the one with a front suffix vowel.

If AGREE(low) has the highest place in the hierarchy, the optimal candidate is

also the one with a front suffix vowel. The stem fotel contains a mid-vowel (o) and a

low vowel (e), therefore the variant with the suffix vowel e, that is, the front variant will

be that candidate that does not violate this constraint.

If AGREE(last) is the highest ranked constraint, the winner is the suffixed form

with the front suffix vowel. As e is the last vowel in the stem fotel ’armchair’, the

suffixed form will get a front vowel.

48

The constraint *-b -b+b has no significance in the analysis of BN stems (like fotel

’armchair’), as the suffixed forms of these words cannot contain two front neutral

vowels followed by a back harmonic vowel. If this constraint is ranked the highest, it is

not violated by any of the candidates. If it is followed by either Ident-OO(back),

AGREE(low) or AGREE(last), the second highest ranked constraint will be the first to

be violated by some of the candidates. As mentioned above, these constraints are not

violated by suffixed forms containing a front vowel (at least, in this case), therefore

these types of hierarchies will result in a winning candidate with a front suffix vowel.

In all the other cases, the winner is the back variant of the suffixed form. The

percentages can be calculated this way: 3 x 5! + 3 x 4! = 360 + 72 = 432. 432 is 60% of

720, therefore hotel-type stems will take front suffixes in 60% of the cases and back

suffixes in 40% of the cases. Approximately this is the distribution of front and back

suffixes in the case of fotel but not that of hotel (which takes more back than front

suffixes) according to the Hungarian National Corpus. However, according to other data

(Csernák 2006) the proportion of the distribution of front and back suffixes is almost the

same in the case of these words.

BNN (back-neutral-neutral)-type stems: A back vowel is followed by two neutral

vowels in the stem (e.g. agresszív ’aggressive’, aszpirin ’aspirine’, polimer ’polymer’).

The tableau of agresszív ’aggressive’ is the following.

(51)

/ / AGREE str

Align-R Ident-OO back

AGREE low

*-h -h+h

AGREE last

(a) +b -b +b

****

*

*

*

(b) A +b -b

*

****

*

*

*

*

(c) +b -b

*

***

*

(d) E +b

*

*

*

The word in the above tableau is an example of stems that contain an a followed by an e

and an í.

49

These stems take front suffixes in the following cases:

o if AGREE(last) is the highest ranked constraint in the hierarchy

o if *-b -b +b is the highest ranked constraint in the hierarchy

o if AGREE(low) is the highest ranked constraint in the hierarchy, followed by

any of the above mentioned constraints.

If AGREE(last) has the highest priority in the ranking of constraints, the optimal

candidate is also a front variant. BNN stems end in front vowels, therefore the suffix

vowel, if it agrees with the last stem vowel, will also be front.

If *-b -b+b is on top of the hierarchy, the winner will always be a front

variant of the suffixed form. In all the other cases, the winner is form with a back suffix

vowel.

If AGREE(low) is the highest ranked constraint, both the font and back variant

can be optimal, as a and e are both low vowels. In the case of such stems, a front variant

can be the winner if this constraint is followed by either *-b -b+b or AGREE(last).

In the case of agresszív-type words (stems containing an a or á, followed by e

(one or two) and / or i/í): 2 x 5! + 2 x 4! = 288. 288 is 40% of 720, therefore the

distribution of front and back suffixes is the following: 40% front and 60% back

suffixes. This is slightly problematic because the distribution of front and back suffixes

is just the opposite based on data collected from the Hungarian National Corpus: it is

40% back and 60% front. As mentioned, earlier, this word has a peculiar behaviour: it is

the exception to the rule of paradigmatic uniformity. We also made an assumption about

their exceptionality: it might be analysed as a compound in most of the cases (when the

suffixes attatched to the word agresszív ’aggressive’ could also be attatched to the noun

szív ’heart’ – e.g. agresszívhez ’aggressive-all’ and szívhez ’heart-all’ are both well-

formed and grammatical, but *szívebb ’heart-comp’ is not possible. Therefore, the

behaviour of this word might not be fully accounted for in this analysis. Furthermore,

there are no sufficient data about stems of the same form, given that this is not a very

common form of vacillating stems.

50

(52) is the tableau of aszprin ’aspirine’:

(52) / / AGREE

str Align-R Ident-OO

back AGREE

low *-h

-h+h AGREE

last (a) +b -b +b

****

*

*

*

*

(b) A +b -b

*

****

*

*

*

*

(c) +b -b

*

***

(d) II +b

*

*

*

*

This is an example of stems containing an a followed by two i-s.

These stems take front suffixes in the following cases:

o if AGREE(last) is the highest ranked constraint in the hierarchy

o if *-b -b +b is the highest ranked constraint in the hierarchy

o if Ident-OO(back) is the highest ranked constraint in the hierarchy

If AGREE(last) has the highest priority in the ranking of constraints, the optimal

candidate is also a front variant. Vacillating stems end in front vowels, therefore the

suffix vowel, if it agrees with the last stem vowel, will also be front.

If *-b -b+b is on top of the hierarchy, the winner will always be a front

variant of the suffixed form. In all the other cases, the winner is form with a back suffix

vowel.

If Ident-OO(back) is ranked the highest in the hierarchy, the optimal candidate

will be a suffixed form with either a front or a back suffix vowel, depending on the

backness feature of the most common suffixed form in the paradigm of the given word.

It tends to be a front variant in the vast majority of the cases.

In the case of aszpirin-type words (stems containing an a followed by two i-s):

3 x 5! = 360, therefore the distribution of front and back suffixes is 50-50%. However,

these words are analysed as compounds in the majority of cases, therefore almost

always take front suffixes. There is no sufficient data available about stems that have

this form and are not analysed as compounds.

51

(53)

/ / AGREE str

Align-R Ident-OO back

AGREE low

*-h -h+h

AGREE last

(a) +b -b +b

****

*

*

*

*

(b) A +b -b

*

****

*

*

*

*

(c) +b -b

*

***

(d) IE +b

*

*

*

*

The above tableau is is an example of stems which contain an o followed by an i and an

e.

These stems can take front suffixes in the following cases:

o if AGREE(low) is the highest ranked constraint

o if AGREE(last) is the highest ranked constraint in the hierarchy

o if *-b -b +b is the highest ranked constraint in the hierarchy

o if Ident-OO(back) is the highest ranked constraint in the hierarchy

If AGREE(low) has the most important place in the hierarchy of constraints, the

optimal candidate will be a suffixed form with a front vowel, since the stem contains an

o, an i and an e. O is a mid vowel, i is high and e is low, therefore the backness of the

suffix vowel has to agree with e (i.e. the lowest vowel of the stem).

If AGREE(last) has the highest priority in the ranking of constraints, the

optimal candidate is also a front variant. Vacillating stems end in front vowels, therefore

the suffix vowel, if it agrees with the last stem vowel, will also be front.

If *-b -b+b is on top of the hierarchy, the winner will always be a front

variant of the suffixed form. In all the other cases, the winner is form with a back suffix

vowel.

If Ident-OO(back) is ranked the highest in the hierarchy, the optimal candidate

will be a suffixed form with either a front or a back suffix vowel, depending on the

backness feature of the most common suffixed form in the paradigm of the given word.

It tends to be a front variant in the vast majority of the cases.

52

In the case of polimer-type stems (containing an o followed by an i and an e) the

distribution of percentages can be calculated in the following way: 4 x 5! = 480. Since

480 is approximately 70% of 720, the proportions of front and back suffixes are 70%

and 30%, respectively.

BBN (back-back-neutral)-type stems: Two back vowels are followed by a neutral

vowel. The word produktív ’productive’ is an example for these stems. It is shown in

tableau (54):

(54)

/ / AGREE str

Align-R Ident-OO back

AGREE low

*-h -h+h

AGREE last

(a)

+h -h +h

***

*

(b) A +h -h

*

***

*

*

*

(c) +h -h

*

**

*

*

(d) I +h

*

These stems take front suffixes in the following cases:

o if AGREE(last) is the highest ranked constraint

o if *-b -b +b on top of the hierarchy is followed by AGREE(last)

If the highest ranked constraint in the hierarchy is AGREE(last), the optimal candidate

will be the front variant of the suffixed form. As the last vowel of such stems is always

a front vowel, these stems will take front suffixes, if the aforementioned constraint has

the highest priority in the ranking.

Since the constraint *-b -b +b does not play a role in the analysis of these

stems (there are no front vowels followed by a back vowel), no candidates can violate it.

If it is ranked the highest in the hierarchy, the second highest ranked constraint will

decide which form is the optimal. If it is followed by AGREE(last), the winner will be

the front variant of the suffixed stem.

53

In all the other cases, the suffixed stem with a back suffix vowel will be the

winner. Thus, the distribution of front and back suffixes can be calculated in the

following way: 5! x 4! = 120 + 24 = 144, which is 20% of 720. Therefore these words

will take front suffixes in 20% and back suffixes in 80% of the cases.

54

Conclusion

In the first section, we provided a description of the Hungarian vowel inventory, vowel

harmony and the peculiar behaviour of vacillating stems. In the second section, we

reported the results of different research projects, including a survey carried out in a

secondary school and other data collections from various online corpora. After having

collected data from various sources, we analysed them, focussing on the paradigm of

each vacillating stem. We arrived at the conclusion that vacillating stems, altough they

do not behave as consistently as neutral and harmonic stems, do show uniformity in a

paradigm to a certain extent. Furthermore, there always seems to be a base for

paradigmatic uniformity, which tends to be the most common suffixed form in the

paradigm of the given vacillating stem. It can be stated that paradigmatic uniformity in

the case of these stems is in connection with the frequency of suffixes (or suffixed

forms). However, it never seems to depend on the relative frequency of suffixes in

general – what counts is the frequency within one particular paradigm, that is the

paradigm of each vacillating stem. We also learned that there is only one exception to

the rule (at least, among the words collected in the Hungarian National Corpus): this is

the word agresszív ’aggressive’.

Based on the behaviour of certain stems, it is also likely that many of them seem

to be treated as hypothetical compounds by the majority of native speakers. These are

stems that look as if they ended in common Hungarian or foreign free or bound

morphemes or having endings that closely resemble existing Hungarian words. In these

cases, the words in question almost exclusively take front suffixes (since all vacillating

stems end in neutral (front unrounded) vowels. The only exceptions are the stems

ending in –né (e.g. matiné, praliné), which behave like names containing back harmonic

vowels with <the suffix indicating the marital status of women> attached to them (e.g.

Kovácsné ’Mrs Kovács (Smith)’): they almost always take back suffixes. This theory

might give an explanation for the exceptional behaviour of the word agresszív

’aggressive’. This is a stem that could be treated as a pseudo-compound by native

speakers. Interestingly enough, there are only two suffixes among the ones tested that

cannot be attached the word szív (the word that looks exactly like the last syllable of

agresszív) and one of them is the most common suffix in the paradigm of this stem.

In the third section, we gave a brief description of the vasic principles of

Optimality Theory, then we attempted to give an optimality theoretic account for the

unusual behaviour of vacillating stems first with the help of partially ranked constraints

55

and second, with a group of unranked constraints. This part of the paper requires further

study. In the first optimality theoretic analysis (with partially ranked constraints), we

assumed that vacillating stems are marked in the lexicon. However, in the second part of

our OT analysis, we attempted to model the behaviour of vacillating and non-vacillating

stems with unranked constraints. In this analysis, we can account for the behaviour of

vacillating stems without declaring that they are marked in the lexicon. The difference

between vacillating and non-vacillating stems lies in the results of constraint ranking. In

this case, we had six constraints that were unranked with respect to each other. From the

different rankings of these six constraints we could get 720 possible hierarchies that

resulted in different (either front or back) optimal candidates in the case of vacillating

stems. However, the ranking of constraints did not make a difference for non-vacillating

stems: in all of the 720 cases, the same candidate was the winner (the front variant for

neutral and front harmonic stems and the back variant for back harmonic stems).

Nevertheless, there are still problems with the optimality theoretic analysis of

vacillating stems. Although we could account for the behaviour of these stems and

could approximately get the proportions of the distribution of front and back suffixes for

the most typical types of vacillating stems, these percentages are not yet precise enough

in certain cases. Furthermore, we have not yet provided a convincing analysis for the

exceptional behaviour of the word agresszív ’aggressive’. It also makes our analysis

more complicated and less efficient that there is only an exiguous amount of data

available on the Hungarian National Corpus about certain rare vacillating stems and

most vacillating stems do not count as the most common words. Most BNN (back-

neutral-neutral) and BBN (back-back-neutral) stems seem to be treated as compounds in

the majority of cases, therefore it is difficult to account for their behaviour the way we

tried to do in our second optimality theoretic analysis.

As it is easier to collect data with the help of Internet search programs than in

the Hungarian National Corpus and other corpora, it would be worth collecting words

this way. Data collection from the Internet and online corpora might be more useful

than carrying out a survey because Internet texts are examples of spontaneous discourse:

they use the language the way they instinctively do, without being surveilled and

consciously choosing forms that are socially more prestigeous or perceived as

gramatically more ’correct’. Having said that, it would also be worth carrying out a

survey in different parts of the counry in order to account for the regional differences as

well.

56

Bibliography

A. Jászó, Anna (ed.) (1994): A magyar nyelv könyve. Budapest: Trezor.

Benua, Laura (1997): Transderivational Identity: Phonological Relations Between

Words. PhD thesis, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.

http://roa.rutgers.edu/view.php3?roa=259

Benus, Stefan – Gafos, Adamantios – Goldstein, Louis (to appear): Phonetics and

Phonology of Transparent Vowels in Hungarian.

homepages.nyu.edu/~ag63/VowelHarmonyProject/BLS-03.pdf

Bolla, Kálmán (ed.) (1982): Fejezetek a magyar leíró hangtanból. Budapest: Akadémiai

Kiadó.

Bolla, Kálmán (1995): Magyar fonetikai atlasz. Budapest: Nemzeti Tankönyvkiadó.

Csernák, Anna (2006): Elölségi harmónia és az ingadozó tövek. TDK Conference pape,

University of Pannonia.

Deme, László (1994): A hangtan területéről. In: Deme László: Nyelvünkről,

használatáról, használóiról.

Dienes, Péter (1997): Hungarian Neutral Vowels. In: The Odd Yearbook, 151-180.

Gósy, Mária (2004): Fonetika, a beszéd tudománya. Budapest: Osiris Kiadó.

Hayes, Bruce – Cziráky Londe, Zsuzsa (2005): Stochastic Phonological Knowledge:

The Case of Hungarian Vowel Harmony.

www.ai.mit.edu/projects/dm/featgeom/hayes-hungarian-stoch.pdf

Kager, René (1999): Optimality Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

Kassai, Ilona (1998): Fonetika. Budapest: Nemzeti Tankönyvkiadó.

57

Kenesei, István (ed.) (2000): A nyelv és a nyelvek. Corvina.

Keszler, Borbála (ed.) (2000): Magyar grammatika. Budapest: Nemzeti

Tankönyvkiadó.

Kertész, Zsuzsa (2003): Vowel Harmony and the Stratified Lexicon of Hungarian.

www.ai.mit.edu/projects/dm/featgeom/kertesz-stratified.pdf

Kiefer, Ferenc (2000): A ragozás. In: Kiefer Ferenc (ed.): Strukturális Magyar Nyelvtan

3. Morfológia. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó, 569-618.

Kontra, Miklós – Ringen, Catherine O. (1986): Hungarian Vowel Harmony: The

Evidence from Loanwords. In: Ural-Altaische Jahrbücher 58, 1-14.

McCarthy, John J. (2005): Optimal Paradigms. In: Paradigms in Phonological Theory.

New York: Oxford University Press Inc., 170-210.

Nádasdy, Ádám – Siptár, Péter (1994): A magánhangzók. In: Kiefer Ferenc (ed.):

Strukturális Magyar Nyelvtan 2. Fonológia. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó, 42-181.

Oostendorp, Marc van (2004): Aspects of Vowel Harmony

www.vanoostendorp.nl/fonologie/rhodos2004.pdf

Rebrus, Péter (2000): Morfofonológiai jelenségek. In: Kiefer Ferenc (ed.): Strukturális

Magyar Nyelvtan 3. Morfológia. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó, 763-948.

Rebrus, Péter (2001): Optimalitáselmélet. In: Siptár Péter (ed.): Szabálytalan fonológia.

Budapest: Tinta Könyvkiadó, 77-116.

Rebrus, Péter – Törkenczy, Miklós (2005): Uniformity and Contrast in the Hungarian

Verbal Paradigm. In: Paradigms in Phonological Theory. Oxford: Oxford University

Press, 263-295.

Reiss, Charles (2003): Deriving the Feature-Filling / Feature-Changing Contrast: An

Application to Hungarian Vowel Harmony. In: Linguistic Inquiry 34. 199-224.

58

Ringen, Catherine O. – Vago, Robert M. (1995): A Constraint-Based Analysis of

Hungarian Vowel Harmony. In: István Kenesei (ed.): Approaches to Hungarian, Vol. 5:

Levels and Structures. Szeged: JATE, 309-319.

Ringen, Catherine O. – Vago, Robert M. (1998): Hungarian Vowel Harmony in

Optimality Theory. Phonology 15. 393-416.

Ringen, Catherine O. – Heinämäkki, Orvokki (1999): Variation in Finnish Vowel

Harmony. In: Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 17. 303-37.

Ringen, Catherine O. – Szentgyörgyi, Szilárd (2000): Constraint Reranking in the

Szeged Dialect of Hungarian. In: Gábor Alberti – István Kenesei (ed.): Approaches to

Hungarian, Vol. 7: Papers from the Pécs Conference. Szeged: JATE Press, 3-22.

Roca, Iggy – Johnson, Wyn (1999): A Course in Phonology. Oxford &. Malden, Mass.:

Blackwell Publishers

Siptár, Péter (ed.) (1993): Modern fonológiai szöveggyűjtemény II. Szeged: JATE Press.

Siptár, Péter – Törkenczy, Miklós (2000): The Phonology of Hungarian. Oxford:

Oxford University Press.

Szende, Tamás (1976): A beszédfolyamat alaptényezői. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó.

Szentgyörgyi, Szilárd (1998): Lowering: The Interaction of Phonology and Morphology

in Hungarian. PhD thesis. József Attila Tudományegyetem, Szeged

Wanlass, Zara (2007): Evidence from Online Corpora for Vacillation in Hungarian

Vowel Harmony.

http://www.nytud.hu/icsh7/absz/Evidence from online corpora.doc