ABSTRACT
This chapter argues that the diminutive consonant symbolism systems described by Nichols are cases of consonant harmony; the consonant alternations resulting from phonological assimilation processes. It presents three arguments in favor of treating consonant symbolism as a phonological process. The chapter discusses three possible counter arguments to the phonological assimilation analysis. It argues that a non-phonological analysis of this phenomena fails to explain the pattern of alternations observed, and forces the adoption of a rule formalism that is excessively powerful. The chapter suggests that the patterns observed in the consonant alternations that comprise consonant symbolism are explained if we assume that consonant symbolism is a phonological assimilation process. In all of the languages exhibiting consonant symbolism, the diminutive forms trigger the consonant shifts. Several of the languages reviewed by Nichols do not have productive consonant alternations, but show only a handful of forms which reflect a vestigial consonant symbolism.
