A Lateral Theory Of Phonology

Note: Supplemental materials are not guaranteed with Rental or Used book purchases.

ISBN: 9783110178715 | 3110178710
Cover: Hardcover
Copyright: 11/1/2004

Rent

(Recommended)

$154.12

Term

Due

Price

Semester

Dec 12

$162.23

Quarter

Aug 13

$154.12

Short Term

Jul 8

$146.00

*This item is part of an exclusive publisher rental program and requires an additional convenience fee. This fee will be reflected in the shopping cart.
Buy New

Special Order: 1-2 Weeks

$207.69
eBook

Available Instantly

Online: 1825 Days

Downloadable: Lifetime Access

$360.00

This book presents a development of Jean Lowenstamm's idea that phonological constituent structure can be reduced to a strict sequence of non-branching Onsets and non-branching Nuclei. The approach at hand is known as 'CVCV', and emerged from Government Phonology. Since its beginnings in the early 80s, the central claim of this theory has been that syllable-based generalisations are due to lateral relations among constituents, rather than to the familiar arboreal structure. The theory developed completes this approach: phonological structure and causality are fully lateralised. The first part of the book is called "What is CVCV ?". It presents the properties of the theory. The second part focusses on the reasons why it is worthwhile considering CVCV a valuable and viable approach.

Editorial note: two volumes

xxxvii

Foreword

xli

How to use this book

Conventions used in this book

liii

1. General conventions: symbols, languages, cross-references

liii

2. Phonological lingua franca and the skeleton

3. Czech and Polish spelling conventions

lvii

Part One: What is CVCV?

Chapter 1 Introduction

1. CVCV in a nutshell

(1)

2. Some core properties of Standard Government Phonology

(2)

3. Syllabic arborescence is not primitive: it derives from lateral relations among segments

(1)

4. If lateral relations are primary, syllabic arborescence has to go

(1)

5. Roadmap of Part One

(3)

Chapter 2 Open versus closed syllables in CVCV

1. The Empty Category Principle, Proper Government and vowel-zero alternations in Standard Government Phonology

(17)

1.1. Vowel-zero alternations and the Empty Category Principle

(2)

1.2. The Projection Principle, empty Nuclei and Government

(1)

1.3. Final empty Nuclei and Coda Licensing

(4)

1.4. The analysis of vowel-zero alternations in Standard Government Phonology

(6)

1.4.1. The basic pattern: vocalisation occurs before empty Nuclei

(2)

1.4.2. Intervening governing domains block Proper Government

(2)

1.4.3. Moroccan Arabic vocalisation before geminates induces disjunctivity

(2)

1.5. Proper Government is not recursive

(1)

1.6. Domains and domain-final empty Nuclei

(2)

1.7. Summary: the ECP and Proper Government in Standard Government Phonology

(1)

2. Open vs. closed syllables in CVCV: the problem and two indications

(2)

3. Internuclear communication over consonant clusters

(14)

3.1. The vocalisation of Czech prefixes

(2)

3.2. Consequences of this prefixal alternation

(10)

3.2.1. Vowel-zero alternations in Standard Government Phonology

(1)

3.2.2. Falsification of the statement "intervening governing domains block Proper Government"

(2)

3.2.3. Unvocalised prefixes occur only before branching Onsets

(2)

3.2.4. Heteromorphemic TR vs. monomorphemic TR: variable intimacy of adjacent consonants

(2)

3.2.5. Consonantal interaction

(3)

3.3. The representation of open vs. closed syllables in CVCV - first definition

(2)

4. Substantial condition on Infrasegmental Government: the internal structure of consonants

(25)

4.1. John Harris derives sonority from a non-observational property: complexity

(2)

4.2. The sonorant is the head of TR clusters

(2)

4.3. Complexity and the internal structure of consonants

(19)

4.3.1. Segmental alternations are a sovereign and unquestionable referee

(1)

4.3.2. Different approaches to the representation of consonants

(1)

4.3.3. The same set of primes for consonants and vowels

(1)

4.3.4. The undissociability of velarity and roundness makes wrong predictions

(4)

4.3.5. Dentals, derived sonority and the incompatibility of A and ?

(1)

4.3.5.1. Dentals: [t,d] are empty

(1)

4.3.5.2. Sonority is a derived category

(1)

4.3.5.3. A and ? hate each other: they cannot combine

(1)

4.3.6. Sonorants are heavy: abundant evidence

(1)

4.3.6.1. [r], [l] and nasals contain A

(1)

4.3.6.2. [r], [l] and [n] contain I, [l] contains U

(1)

4.3.6.3. Conclusion: sonorants are too complex to be governees

(1)

4.3.7. Complexity counts only Place definers

(1)

4.3.7.1. All stops have the same degree of stopness

(1)

4.3.7.2. Vocalic sonority disregards manner definers

(1)

4.3.7.3. Counting manner definers is not fair play: sonorants will be demoted before being able to score

(1)

4.3.7.4. The manner-place distinction is commonplace elsewhere

(1)

4.4. Infrasegmental Government: how complexity conditions interconso-nantal relations

(2)

5. Phonotactic condition on Infrasegmental Government: Government Licensing

(2)

6. Consequences for the ECP and final empty Nuclei

(5)

6.1. The Empty Category Principle - final version

(1)

6.2. The special status of final empty Nuclei in Standard Government Phonology

(3)

6.3. The special status of final empty Nuclei in CVCV

(1)

6.4. Government Phonology predicts that the right edge of words is special

(1)

7. Domains of Infrasegmental Government and branching Onsets are not the same

(4)

7.1. How could the empty Nucleus enclosed by TR clusters betray its existence?

(1)

7.2. When TR clusters are bare of Infrasegmental Government: French

(3)

8. Open vs. closed syllables in CVCV - second definition

(2)

9. The identity of Codas in CVCV - first definition

(3)

Chapter 3 A unified theory of vowel - zero alternations

1. Transparency of monomorphemic clusters for Proper Government

(1)

2. Vocalisation of alternation sites: Standard Government Phonology is disjunctive, CVCV is not

(3)

2.1. Why Standard Government Phonology must invoke two different causes

(2)

2.2. Why all vocalisations have the same cause in CVCV

(1)

3. Observation vs. explanation

(1)

4. Proper Government always applies

(1)

Chapter 4 Alternating vowels are present in the lexicon

1. Standard Government Phonology: alternating vowels are inserted

(1)

2. Alternating vowels may not always be identified phonetically

(1)

3. Deletion or insertion? When more than one vowel alternates with zero

(1)

4. Deletion is also enforced for theory-internal reasons

(1)

5. Alternating vowels are floating chunks of melody

(1)

6. The three-way distinction: associated vs. floating vs. no melody at all

(4)

Chapter 5 The beginning of the word: "#" = CV

1. The beginning of the word is a phonological object

(2)

1.1. Phonologists do not appear to be eager to discover the real identity of the unknown

(2)

1.2. Nobody was happy to get rid of pink panthers when the Coda was (re)introduced

(1)

2. Why do pink panthers always do the same things ?

(6)

2.1. There can be no causal relation between things that belong to different worlds

(1)

2.2. What left pink panthers do I: co-occurrence restrictions on initial clusters

(1)

2.3. What left pink panthers do II: stability of the first vowel of the word

(1)

2.4. What left pink panthers do III: strength of word-initial consonants

(1)

2.5. Disjunctivity leads us to # = CV

100

(1)

2.6. Initial vowels are stable because they are preceded by an empty Nucleus

100

(1)

2.7. Czech prefixes again

101

(2)

2.8. Summary: phonology operates only over phonological objects

103

(1)

3. Word-initial empty Nuclei prior to CVCV: Magic Licensing

103

(5)

3.1. The notorious bad guy: s+C sequences

103

(2)

3.2. Initial Codas

105

(1)

3.3. Magic Licensing

105

(1)

3.4. Initial s+C sequences in CVCV

106

(1)

3.5. The mystery of s+C sequences is also melodic: [s] is the bad guy

107

(1)

4. Restrictions on initial consonant clusters

108

(3)

4.1. Why are there no initial #RT clusters? The classical explanation is circular

108

(1)

4.2. CVCV and initial restrictions

109

(2)

4.3. What about languages without initial restrictions?

111

(1)

5. Interonset Government

111

(6)

5.1. Comparison of Interonset and Infrasegmental Government

111

(1)

5.2. Interonset Government violates the most fundamental principles of Standard Government Phonology

112

(3)

5.3. Interonset Government in CVCV has no handle on initial clusters

115

(2)

Chapter 6 The Coda Mirror

1. Scope of the Coda Mirror

117

(2)

1.1. Positional effects vs. the transmission of primes between (adjacent) segments

117

(1)

1.2. The three players and their eventual coalition: position, shared melody and stress

117

(2)

2. The basic factor: five positions

119

(2)

3. The Strong Position: empirical evidence

121

(10)

3.1. Why the Coda Mirror is the Mirror of the Coda

121

(1)

3.2. French obstruents

122

(2)

3.3. Somali stops

124

(3)

3.4. Sievers' Law: the vocalic face of the Coda Mirror

127

(7)

3.4.1. Vocalic effects of the Coda: closed syllables

127

(1)

3.4.2. Sievers' Law - the facts

128

(2)

3.4.3. Alternation sites are vocalised before Codas and after Coda Mirrors

130

(1)

4. Consequences for syllable structure

131

(1)

5. The Coda Mirror: descriptive adequacy

132

(2)

6. Government inhibits, Licensing enhances the segmental expression of the target

134

(5)

6.1. Government Licensing: French

135

(1)

6.2. Government Licensing: Czech

136

(1)

6.3. Charette (1990): consonant clusters need vocalic support

137

(1)

6.4. A good guy and a bad guy

138

(1)

7. The Coda Mirror: explanatory adequacy, or why strong positions are strong

139

(3)

8. Two ways of being weak

142

(3)

9. Positional Faithfulness and associated psycho-linguistic explanations miss the disjunction

145

(4)

9.1. Positional Faithfulness has overlooked half of the Strong Position

145

(1)

9.2. Psycho-linguistic "grounding" is no ground for the Strong Position

146

(3)

Chapter 7 Consequences of the Coda Mirror: no confusion between Government and Licensing anymore

1. The confusion of Government and Licensing in Standard Government Phonology

149

(11)

1.1. Licensing: one word for two different realities

149

(4)

1.1.1. Type I Licensing: License in order to be absent

149

(2)

1.1.2. Type II Licensing: License in order to be present

151

(1)

1.1.3. Summary

152

(1)

1.2. Government: a different word for similar phonological realities

153

(3)

1.2.1. Type I Government: the segment gluer

153

(1)

1.2.2. Type II Government: the segment-destroyer

154

(1)

1.2.3. Summary

155

(1)

1.3. Did the conception of Harris (1994a) govern the model as it stood in 1990?

156

(1)

1.4. Conclusion: lateral relations need to be identified according to their properties

157

(3)

2. Government and Licensing in CVCV

160

(5)

2.1. There is only one kind of Government

160

(2)

2.2. The special status of Infrasegmental Government

162

(1)

2.3. The identity of Codas in CVCV - second definition

163

(1)

2.4. Government and Licensing are the translation of two antagonistic situations that are found in nature

164

(1)

3. Internuclear Licensing

165

(10)

3.1. Internuclear Licensing was practiced before it was named: Kaye (1990a) and Yoshida (1993)

166

(4)

3.1.1. Vowel shortening before an empty Nucleus

166

(3)

3.1.2. The unnamed internuclear relation at hand is Licensing

169

(1)

3.2. Vowel length alternations in CVCV

170

(7)

3.2.1. Italian Tonic Lengthening

170

(1)

3.2.2. The target of spreading must be licensed

171

(2)

3.2.3. Government or Licensing?

173

(1)

3.2.4. Internuclear Government and Licensing in complementary distribution?

174

(1)

4. Typology of lateral relations

175

(2)

5. Open vs. closed syllables in CVCV

177

(4)

5.1. Third definition

177

(2)

5.2. The two typical syllable-related vocalic events: alternations in length and vowel-zero alternations

179

(2)

Chapter 8 A syntax of phonology

1. The core identity of Government Phonology: lateralisation of structure and causality

181

(10)

1.1. Vowel-zero alternations and Proper Government

182

(3)

1.2. Coda Licensing

185

(1)

1.3. Government Licensing

186

(2)

1.4. Syllable structure and its function

188

(2)

1.5. Conclusion

190

(1)

2. Remaining vertical structure and causality in Standard Government Phonology

191

(13)

2.1. Syllable structure

191

(2)

2.2. Effects of the Coda on consonants

193

(1)

2.3. Effects of the Coda on preceding vowels

194

(2)

2.4. The Binary Theorem: its interpretation and its consequences

196

(2)

2.4.1. Ternary constituents are ill-formed, intermediate structure does not matter

196

(1)

2.4.2. The price to pay: an unwarranted prediction

197

(1)

2.5. Prosodic Government

198

(1)

2.6. Coda-Onset vs. Bogus clusters

199

(5)

2.6.1. Bogus: a three-way distinction

199

(1)

2.6.2. Typical bogus clusters: tl, dl

199

(1)

2.6.3. Cam(e)ra: bogus clusters created by post-tonic syncope in English

200

(1)

2.6.4. Bogus clusters with a melodic effect: t-lenition in English

201

(2)

2.6.5. We never see a true three-way distinction

203

(1)

3. Harris (1994a): lateralisation of causality but not of structure, and a new meaning for Government and Licensing

204

(26)

3.1. Government curtails distribution, Licensing is a condition on syllable structure

204

(11)

3.1.1. New Licensing relations that parallel Government

204

(2)

3.1.2. Licensing vs. Government I: different function, different effect

206

(2)

3.1.3. A new parameter: Rhymal Adjuncts may be licensed once or twice

208

(2)

3.1.4. Why are there no Coda clusters nor word-final Codas?

210

(1)

3.1.5. Closed Rhyme Shortness lateralised

211

(1)

3.1.6. Licensing vs. Government II: Rhymal Adjuncts are constituent-licensed, but not constituent-governed

211

(1)

3.1.7. Government and Licensing viewed by John Harris and the Coda Mirror

212

(3)

3.2. Causality is only lateral: Licensing Inheritance

215

(15)

3.2.1. The general picture

216

(2)

3.2.2. Alas, foot-initial # word-initial, foot-internal # intervocalic

218

(2)

3.2.3. The status of Codas and word-final consonants

220

(2)

3.2.4. Licensing Inheritance: how it works

222

(1)

3.2.5. The strength of post-Coda consonants

223

(2)

3.2.6. Licensing Inheritance: three major problems

225

(1)

3.2.6.1. The Coda Mirror context remains disjunctive

225

(1)

3.2.6.2. Stress is a secondary, not a primary factor

226

(1)

3.2.6.3. In many systems, post-Coda consonants are insensitive to the content of the preceding Coda

227

(2)

3.2.7. Summary

229

(1)

4. CVCV: lateralisation of both structure and causality

230

(19)

4.1. Harris' advances establish a hybrid system: lateral causality but vertical structure

230

(1)

4.2. Arborescence is redundant, the null hypothesis for syllable structure is lateral

231

(10)

4.2.1. Takahashi (1993): only lateral causality, a farewell to constituency, but no additional empty Nuclei

231

(4)

4.2.2. The existence of lateral relations makes arboreal structure redundant

235

(2)

4.2.3. The null hypothesis for syllable structure is lateral: why taking two steps if one is enough?

237

(1)

4.2.3.1. The central tacit assumption: co-occurrence restrictions are due to arboreal structure

237

(1)

4.2.3.2. Co-occurrence restrictions: the parallel with syntax is phoney

237

(1)

4.2.3.3. The only critical factor is relative sonority, hence a lateral relation

240

(1)

4.3. Bogus clusters again: transforming melodic contrasts among adjacent objects into vertical structure is a bad idea

241

(2)

4.4. HIGH vs. LOW

243

(3)

4.5. Summary

246

(3)

Chapter 9 Lateral relations are head-final: length in phonology

1. Lateral relations in CVCV are automatically regressive

249

(2)

2. Vocalic length

251

(24)

2.1. Systems with inalterable vowel length

252

(1)

2.2. Syllable-sensitive vowel length

253

(6)

2.2.1. Closed Syllable Shortening

253

(2)

2.2.2. Tonic Lengthening

255

(1)

2.2.3. Three labels, one phonological reality

256

(3)

2.3. Compensatory Lengthening

259

(3)

2.4. Compensatory Lengthening is different: spreading may occur in either direction

262

(2)

2.5. All long vowels obey the same requirement: their complement is licensed

264

(2)

2.6. LOWER spreading may be in both directions, but UPPER Licensing is only regressive

266

(1)

2.7. Alternating long vowels are head-initial, their non-alternating peers are head-final

267

(4)

2.7.1. Only CVCV can build on the contrast head-initial vs. head-final

267

(1)

2.7.2. Head-final vs. head-initial also expresses the parameter on the existence of super-heavy Rhymes

268

(3)

2.8. Progressive Compensatory Lengthening: an argument in favour of CVCV

271

(4)

3. Consonantal length

275

(11)

3.1. The representation of geminates in conventional models and in CVCV

275

(1)

3.2. Standard Government Phonology: why geminates cannot be preceded or followed by consonants

276

(1)

3.3. CVCV: head-initial and head-final geminates

277

(2)

3.4. CVCV: why geminates cannot be preceded or followed by consonants

279

(1)

3.5. Geminates, RT clusters and homorganic NC clusters are one

280

(3)

Chapter 10 Syllabic and trapped consonants in CVCV

1. Setting the scene: phonological hermaphrodites

283

(1)

2. Syllabic and trapped consonants tell us about each other - we are well advised to listen carefully

284

(2)

3. The synchronic situation of trapped consonants: trapped (Polish) vs. syllabic (Czech)

286

(79)

3.1. Trapped consonants in Polish: lexically trapped or trapped by a vowel-zero alternation

286

(2)

3.2. Syllabic, but not trapped consonants constitute syllabic peaks and can bear stress

288

(1)

3.3. Czech syllabic consonants and prefixal vowel-zero alternations

289

(3)

3.4. Vocalisation of Polish prefixes before trapped roots

292

(6)

3.4.1. Morphology has got a word to say

292

(3)

3.4.2. Polish prefixes and phonological domains

295

(2)

3.4.3. How Polish prefixes behave before trapped consonants

297

(1)

3.5. Summary syllabic vs. trapped consonants

298

(1)

4. What kind of animal is a syllabic consonant?

298

(1)

4.1. Classical approaches since SPE: function, not behaviour decides

299

(1)

4.2. Why syllabic consonants do not sit in Nuclei

300

(2)

5. Do syllabic consonants spread to their right or to their left?

302

(1)

5.1. Some literature

302

(2)

5.2. A fundamental argument for left-branchers: the complementary distribution of C and C

304

(2)

6. Do syllabic consonants need to satisfy the ECP ?

306

(1)

7. Alternations of syllabic and non-syllabic versions of the same consonant

307

(2)

8. Syllabic consonants are left-branching structures: arguments

309

(1)

8.1. Synchronic situation in Germanic: complementary distribution of C and C

309

(1)

8.2. Diachronic situation: syllabic consonants come into being because a preceding vowel is lost

309

(2)

9. Syllabic consonants are left-branching: they govern in Czech

311

(3)

10. The phonological identity of trapped consonants

314

(2)

10.1. Trapped consonants are right-branching: they refuse to govern in Polish

314

(1)

10.2. Charette (1992): trapped consonants are an extreme case of Government Licensing

315

(1)

11. Summary: the identity of syllabic and trapped consonants

316

(3)

12. Phonetic correlates of syllabic and trapped consonants

319

(10)

12.1. Trapped consonants are transparent to voicing, syllabic consonants are not

319

(2)

12.2. Classical interpretation: trapped = extrasyllabic

321

(2)

12.3. An alternative solution: trapped = obstruent

323

(6)

12.3.1. Real sonorants do not undergo final devoicing Palatalised sonorants devoice word

323

(1)

12.3.2. Palatalised sonorants devoice word-finally

323

(2)

12.3.3. Trapped sonorants are obstruents

325

(1)

12.3.4. Romansch trapped sonorants are also transparent and have voiceless allophones

326

(3)

12.3.5. Summary

329

(1)

13. Diachronic confirmation: yers followed trapped, but preceded syllabic consonants

329

(27)

13.1. The Western Slavic comparatistic situation: cz CRC = pol CVRC and CRC

330

(3)

13.2. The Common Slavic and Old Church Slavonic sources of Polish vocalised liquids

333

(2)

13.3. CS tbrt and CS trot have never merged

335

(6)

13.3.1. CS tbrt and CS trbt remain distinct in Polish

335

(1)

13.3.2. CS tbrt and CS trbt remain distinct in Baltic and Eastern Slavic

335

(5)

13.3.3. The yers of OCS trbt less than CS tbrt refuse to vocalise 339

13.3.4. Summary: trapped consonants result from the loss of a following yer, but what about their syllabic peers ?

340

(1)

13.4. What has happened to Czech (and Slovak) trapped consonants?

341

(15)

13.4.1. Old Czech: sonorants from CS tbrt are syllabic against trapped from CS trbt

341

(2)

13.4.2. Secondary vocalisation of syllabic consonants in Czech (and Polish, Slovak)

343

(2)

13.4.3. The Old Czech phonemic opposition trapped less than CS trbt vs. syllabic less than CS tbrt 345

13.4.3.1. Syllabic liquids from CS tbrt do, but trapped liquids from CS trbt do not count in Old Czech verse

345

(1)

13.4.3.2. The opposition trapped vs. syllabic was phonemic in Old Czech

347

(1)

13.4.3.3. Prepositions stopped to vocalise when trapped roots became syllabic

348

(1)

13.4.3.4. Why did trapped consonants refuse to become syllabic in word-initial position?

350

(1)

13.4.4. Trapped consonants in Modern Czech: type krtit = trt less than tr't less than CS trbt 351

13.4.4.1. Inventory of trapped roots, and why they could not become syllabic

351

(1)

13.4.4.2. Do trapped roots provoke the vocalisation of prepositions ?

353

(3)

14. Summary and final amendment due to the right periphery of syllabic consonants

356

(7)

14.1. Summary

356

(2)

14.2. The right periphery of syllabic consonants

358

(2)

14.3. Phonological domains are of no rescue

360

(1)

14.4. Syllabic consonants behave like both pre- and postvocalised structures

361

(2)

15. Conclusion

363

(2)

Part Two: Why CVCV?

Chapter 1 Introduction

365

(4)

Chapter 2 Principles of argumentation I: disjunctive contexts

369

(2)

Chapter 3 Principles of argumentation II: representations and their function

371

(34)

1. What representations are good for: they are the answer of the 80's to the fundamental problem of overgeneration that has dominated the debate in the 70's

371

(24)

1.1. SPE and overgeneration

371

(1)

1.2. One option: fighting against abstractness limits the generative power

372

(3)

1.3. Another option: autosegmental representations automatically restrict the generative power

375

(2)

1.4. Structure and process: there is no natural science in absence of one or the other

377

(18)

1.4.1. OT holds that monsters could exist in nature, but accidentally do not occur

378

(1)

1.4.2. Only competition determines (a)grammaticality in OT: nothing can be inherently (a)grammatical

379

(1)

1.4.3. Computation is king: representations are only decorative in OT

379

(1)

1.4.4. Since they do not matter, representations are arbitrary and interchangeable in OT: they are doomed to disappear

380

(2)

1.4.5. Back to where we started: representations were the enemy of overgeneration

382

(2)

1.4.6. OT tools for fighting back overgeneration: markedness and grounded constraints

384

(1)

1.4.6.1. Markedness and OT

384

(1)

1.4.6.2. The fundamental source of arbitrariness in OT: anything and its reverse can be a constraint

385

(1)

1.4.6.3. Grounded constraints

387

(1)

1.4.6.4. If phonological events have exclusively non-phonological (grounded) causes, why replicate them as constraints?

390

(1)

1.4.7. Summary: structure and process have an independent existence in nature, but not in OT

391

(2)

1.4.8. Shifting burden over to GEN: a promising track to follow?

393

(1)

1.4.9. Inventing and turning wheels

394

(1)

2. Structure and process: the take of Government Phonology

395

(10)

2.1. Representations that are (en)rich(ed) enough to support parameterisation

395

(1)

2.2. Internal and final Codas: different but still the same

396

(2)

2.3. Vowel-zero alternations: enriched representations avoid absolute neutralisation and allow to express the parameter Havlik vs. Lower

398

(22)

2.3.1. Slavic vowel-zero alternations: the basic pattern

398

(1)

2.3.2. Two kinds of yers

399

(1)

2.3.3. The introduction of representations allows to get rid of the absolute neutralisation

400

(1)

2.3.4. Further enriched representations: Government Phonology

401

(2)

2.3.5. The parameter Havlik vs. Lower supposes enriched representations

403

(2)

Chapter 4 Principles of argumentation III: generality of processes

1. Introduction: SPE hocus-pocus, the baby and the bath

405

(1)

2. Vowel-zero alternations

406

(2)

3. Vowel-zero alternations and sonority sequencing in languages without initial restrictions

408

(2)

4. The yer context

410

(2)

5. The Coda Mirror, Closed syllable shortening and l-vocalisation

412

(1)

6. Summary

413

(2)

Chapter 5 Principles of argumentation IV: a better solution for extrasyllabicity than extrasyllabicity

415

(44)

1. Some elementary and consensual facts about syllabic theory

416

(1)

2. The facts that cannot be accommodated by the theory

417

(1)

3. Extrasyllabicity was created by people who believed in their theory

418

(2)

4. Type I extrasyllabicity: enforced underparsing, an edge consonant fails to be parsed

420

(11)

4.1. Interaction of unparsable consonants with other rules: typical serial solutions

420

(3)

4.1.1. German Jagd: devoicing must apply after adjunction

420

(1)

4.1.2. Stray erasure and the Prosodic Hierarchy

421

(1)

4.1.3. Polish kadra: devoicing must apply before adjunction

422

(1)

4.2. Can there be more than one extrasyllabic consonant at the right edge?

423

(3)

4.2.1. Reduction of extrasyllabic candidates by morphology

423

(1)

4.2.2. You can get a coronal for free in Germanic

424

(2)

4.2.3. Summary

426

(1)

4.3. Word-initial extrasyllabicity

426

(4)

4.3.1. Typology of initial extrasyllabicity

426

(1)

4.3.2. Word-initial extrasyllabic consonants are different I: they are not transparent to voicing

427

(1)

4.3.3. Word-initial extrasyllabic consonants are different II: they do not degeminate

428

(1)

4.3.4. The contrast is automatic if word-final extrasyllabicity is due to final empty Nuclei

429

(1)

4.4. Peripherality

430

(1)

5. Type II extrasyllabicity: deliberate underparsing, a word-final consonant does not behave like a Coda

431

(4)

5.1. If certain word-final consonants must not be Codas, what could they be?

431

(2)

5.2. Extrasyllabicity effects on both word-final consonants and the preceding vowel

433

(2)

5.3. Summary

435

(1)

6. Doubts on extrasyllabicity and an alternative view

435

(1)

6.1. There is no extrasyllabicity without serialism and a syllabification algorithm

436

(1)

6.2. Extrasyllabic once, extrasyllabic forever

437

(1)

6.3. Extrasyllabic consonants do not behave like nothing - they often behave like Onsets

437

(1)

6.4. Can we afford to allow for constituents that do not express any co-occurrence?

438

(2)

6.5. Extrasyllabic consonants adjoined to the phonological word

440

(1)

6.6. There are initial and internal s+C effects, but there are only initial extrasyllabic consonants

441

(18)

6.6.1. The regular extrasyllabic analysis of initial s+C clusters

441

(2)

6.6.2. Word-internal s+C effects

443

(1)

6.6.3. All s+C clusters cannot be contour segments either

443

(1)

6.6.4. Conclusion

444

(1)

6.7. Why are there no words with two, nine or twenty extrasyllabic consonants?

445

(1)

6.7.1. The only definition of extrasyllabicity is negative

445

(1)

6.7.2. Wild Polish initial clusters are less wild than their reputation

446

(4)

6.7.3. Conclusion: there are no extrasyllabic clusters in Polish, and probably not in Salish or any other language either

450

(2)

6.8. Confusion of causalities: there are three, not two phonologies

452

(2)

6.9. Edge consonants are special because they occur at edges: all phonology-internal solutions (such as extrasyllabicity) must be wrong

454

(1)

6.10. We need a theory of margins: final empty Nuclei and the initial CV

455

(1)

6.11. Conclusion

456

(3)

Chapter 6 Argument One Languages without initial restrictions

1. Classical syllabic theory is made of sonority sequencing, Onset Maximisation and the word-initial anchor

459

(1)

2. No co-occurrence restrictions, hence no branching constituents

460

(2)

3. Could a consonant of whatever sonority close an internal syllable?

462

(3)

4. How to have your cake and eat it: vowel-zero alternations have got nothing to do with closed syllables

465

(2)

5. Only CVCV offers a unified theory of syllable structure and vowel-zero alternations

467

(2)

Chapter 7 Argument Two What you get is NOT what you see: Tina Turner was wrong

1. Phonologists explain that Tina Turner was wrong when teaching phonemics and Onsets

469

(2)

2. Phonologists explain that Tina Turner was right when teaching Nuclei

471

(2)

Chapter 8 Argument Three Description vs. explanation of restrictions on word-initial consonant clusters

1. What circularity is: the non-independence of prediction and observation

473

(22)

1.1. The only reality that is real is the one that humans perceive: Kant, Saussure, Popper

473

(1)

1.2. How a sound prediction emerges: back and forth between data and theory

474

(1)

1.3. Circularity: overt and hidden varieties

475

(1)

1.4. Summary

476

(1)

2. The regular account of initial restrictions: "within a branching Onset sonority must increase"

476

(2)

3. Constraints are inherently circular and may inhibit research

478

(1)

4. Standard Government Phonology: constituency is redundant, it restates the lateral relations among segments a second time

479

(2)

5. Lateral relations are self-sufficient: CVCV builds on complexity and lateral relations, but does away with redundant arboreal structure

481

(1)

6. Standard Government Phonology: the left-headedness of constituents does not follow from anything

482

(1)

7. CVCV: why #RT cannot exist in typical Indo-European languages

483

(2)

8. The initial CV parameterised: morphology does (#TR-only languages) or does not (anything-goes languages) send down the initial CV

485

(1)

8.1. How can anything-goes languages exist, and why are there no #RT-only languages?

485

(1)

8.2. The distribution of the initial CV is parameterised: it is present in #TR-only languages, but absent when anything goes

485

(2)

8.3. Diacritics are arbitrary in number, nature and effect, but their effect in natural language is not

487

(2)

8.4. Anticipating on Volume 2: phonologically relevant morpho-syntactic information is translated into phonological categories

489

(1)

8.5. Why #RT-only languages cannot exist

490

(1)

8.6. Word-initial extrasyllabicity in CVCV: why there can be one extrasyllabic consonant at most

490

(1)

9. Independence of theoretical devices and the empirical target

491

(1)

10. Conclusion

492

(3)

Chapter 9 Argument Four Lower: empty Nuclei and regressive internuclear relations have been used for over 30 years in the analysis of Slavic vowel-zero alternations

1. Introduction

495

(2)

2. Slavic vowel-zero alternations and their analysis

497

(1)

3. Distributional facts and the challenge they raise

498

(3)

4. Lower - how it works and what it implies

501

(4)

5. The difference between Lower and Havlik

505

(14)

5.1. Lightner makes modern Slavic look like Common Slavic underlyingly, yet Lower is not exactly like Havlik

505

(1)

5.2. The difference: "secondary vocalisation", that is "every other" (Havlik) vs. "all but the last" (Lower)

506

(3)

6. The difference between final and alternating yers

509

(1)

6.1. Synchronic evidence

509

(1)

6.2. Diachronic evidence: only alternating yers may originate in epenthesis

509

(4)

6.3. Conclusion: Common Slavic yers and modern abstract vowels

513

(1)

7. Autosegmentalised Lower

513

(3)

8. Slavic vowel-zero alternations are caused by a lateral relation

516

(1)

9. Conclusion

517

(2)

Chapter 10 Argument Five The life of "yers" outside of Slavic and in locations where vowels do not alternate with zero

1. Introduction

519

(1)

2. Yers all over the place in Slavic?

520

(77)

2.1. The general picture

520

(1)

2.2. Czech alternations in vowel length

521

(1)

2.3. Czech and Polish [ ] - [u(u)], Polish a-e

522

(4)

2.3.1. The synchronic situation of [ ] - [u(u)]

522

(1)

2.3.2. The only solution is diachronic: the alternation in fact concerns vowel length

523

(2)

2.3.3. Polish a-e is but the nasal version of o >oo

525

(1)

2.4. Summary: the ambition of Lower is too narrow

526

(1)

3. French: yers all over the world?

527

(1)

3.1. ATRness of mid vowels in Southern varieties

527

(1)

3.2. French couldn't have yers, but it can have abstract vowels

528

(2)

3.3. Schwa - [epsilon] alternations

530

(1)

4. The big puzzle: nature produces two antagonistic patterns

531

(2)

5. Three implementations of the insight that yers are empty Nuclei

533

(1)

5.1. Empty Nuclei prior to Government Phonology I: Stephen Anderson on French

533

(6)

5.1.1. On the structural side: how to get something for nothing

533

(1)

5.1.2. On the computational side I: Coda capture

534

(2)

5.1.3. On the computational side II: Coda capture misses the basic insight of Lower

536

(3)

5.2. Tracy Hall on German: consonants preceding schwa end up as Codas, but for a good reason

539

(4)

5.2.1. On the structural side: schwa is a floating x-slot

539

(2)

5.2.2. On the computational side: the consonant preceding schwa has a good reason to end up as a Coda

541

(2)

5.3. Empty Nuclei prior to Government Phonology II: Andrew Spencer on Polish

543

(4)

5.3.1. On the structural side: a less abstract Lower

543

(2)

5.3.2. On the computational side: fill-in without causality vs. intervocalic relation

545

(1)

5.3.3. Kenstowicz & Rubach's (1987) arguments against empty Nuclei

546

(1)

5.3.4. Spencer's analysis cannot be extended to other alternations

546

(1)

5.4. Szpyra (1992a): insertion into unsyllabifiable clusters without intervocalic causality

547

(1)

5.5. We are looking for a theory of intervocalic relations

548

(3)

5.5.1. Synopsis of all analyses regarding the yer context

548

(2)

5.5.2. Why does everybody delete material without phonetic existence at the end of the derivation?

550

(1)

5.5.3. The lateral relation described by Lower is (Proper) Government

550

(1)

6. Government Phonology and yers

551

(5)

6.1. Abstract vowels can be nothing but empty Nuclei

551

(1)

6.2. Empty Nuclei are not really empty: their melody is present underlyingly

552

(2)

7. Empty Nuclei after internal Codas

554

(1)

7.1. Slavic vowel-zero alternations and French schwa-[epsilon]: no additional empty Nuclei needed

555

(1)

7.2. More empty Nuclei required

556

(3)

7.2.1. Czech vowel length

556

(3)

7.2.2. French ATRness

559

(1)

7.3. General summary thus far

559

(1)

8. There are two patterns of vowel-zero alternations in nature: Havlik and Lower

560

(1)

8.1. Government derives Havlik, not Lower

560

(2)

8.2. Havlik and Lower: how they are distributed and how they are parameterised

562

(2)

8.3. A terminological clarification

564

(1)

9. Contradictory effects of yers: there are two antagonistic lateral forces in nature

565

(2)

10. Who is who (Government vs. Licensing) and the parameterised lateral ability of schwa

567

(9)

10.1. Identification of the lateral relation through its effect

567

(1)

10.2. Licensing abilities of schwa are also parameterised (and independent from the parameter on government)

568

(2)

10.3. Western Slavic [ ] is not a regular long vowel: it was born through the voicing of the following consonant

570

(2)

10.4. French ATRness is an instance of Licensing

572

(2)

10.5. The tricky French schwa - [epsilon] is driven by Licensing as well

574

(1)

10.6. Summary: lateral abilities and the distribution of Government and Licensing

575

(1)

11. More evidence from German: the velar nasal

576

(7)

11.1. Introduction

576

(1)

11.2. The distributional situation of [η] and [ηg] in German

577

(2)

11.3. /g/ does not appear on the surface when it fails to be licensed

579

(3)

11.4. Additional evidence for the governing ability of schwa in Germanic: Dutch

582

(1)

12. Gussmann & Kaye (1993): cyclicity, domains and Reduction

583

(5)

12.1. The selection of Havlik or Lower has got nothing to do with the particular vowel that alternates

583

(1)

12.2. Domains and Reduction

583

(2)

12.3. As cyclic as Rubach (1984), but Reduction on top of that

585

(1)

12.4. Boundary abuse: selling phonology for morphology

586

(2)

13. Havlik vs. Lower: how Rubach (1984), Standard Government Phonology and CVCV encode the parameter

588

(3)

13.1. Standard Government Phonology and CVCV

588

(1)

13.2. Classical Lower as exposed in Rubach (1984)

588

(1)

13.3. Comparison of the three approaches: procedural vs. lateral solutions

589

(1)

13.4. Four different nuclear categories

590

(1)

14. Summary and conclusion of chapters II,9 and II,10

591

(6)

14.1. The study of the yer context in the past 30 years: three separate traditions

591

(1)

14.2. The West was wrong: the closed, not the open syllable is an optical illusion

592

(2)

14.3. Government Phonology has given a theoretical status to things that people have been using for a long time: empty Nuclei and lateral relations

594

(1)

14.4. Parameterisation of the lateral capacities of schwa

594

(1)

14.5. What vowel-headed Government and Licensing do to vowels and consonants

595

(2)

Chapter 11 Argument Six Unified representations for the syllable and stress

1. Introduction

597

(2)

2. Classical interpretation of stress: grids and morae

599

(14)

2.1. Empirical generalisation I: stress is distributed according to vowels and vocalic quantity (always) and Codas (sometimes)

599

(4)

2.1.1. The major parametric division across languages: CVC syllables are either light or heavy

599

(2)

2.1.2. A possible third parametric situation: the sonority of Coda consonants decides whether the syllable is light or heavy

601

(2)

2.2. Grid-based and moraic accounts of generalisation I

603

(7)

2.2.1. Moraic analysis of the Latin pattern: third but last mora

604

(1)

2.2.2. Extrametricality (dóminus, fácio) and formula

605

(3)

2.2.3. Latin viewed through the grid: syllable marking rules

608

(1)

2.2.4. How grid-based and moraic systems express the three-way typology

609

(1)

2.3. Empirical generalisation II: Onsets are invisible to stress

610

(1)

2.4. Moraic theory and grids encode, but do not explain generalisations I and II

611

(2)

3. Stress assignment and CVCV

613

(10)

3.1. Why Onsets never count: their Nucleus is not empty

613

(6)

3.1.1. Stress falls on the third but last Nucleus

613

(2)

3.1.2. Viewed from ABOVE: ungoverned empty Nuclei are invisible because they are silenced by the action of LOWER melody

615

(3)

3.1.3. CVCV: the metrical irrelevance of Onsets is in-built

618

(1)

3.2. Syllabic and prosodic generalisations are expressed by the same structure

619

(1)

3.3. Consonants are never counted, the parameter known as "Weight by Position" concerns the visibility of governed empty Nuclei

619

(1)

3.4. How CVCV expresses the third pattern: when weight is sensitive to the sonority of Coda consonants

620

(3)

3.5. CVCV explains where others observe

623

(1)

4. Conclusion

623

(2)

Chapter 12 Argument Seven Licensing power of final empty Nuclei parameterised: paired vs. impaired behaviour of internal and final Codas

1. Setting the scene: Standard Government Phonology moved back to SPE

625

(2)

2. Effects on Codas

627

(6)

2.1. Internal not equal final Coda

627

(2)

2.2. Internal = final Coda

629

(4)

2.2.1. L-vocalisation in Brazilian Portuguese

629

(2)

2.2.2. Boundary abuse: selling phonology for morphology

631

(1)

2.2.3. Boundary abuse produces absurd distributional and diachronic consequences

632

(1)

3. Effects on the vowel preceding Codas

633

(4)

3.1. Internal not equal final Coda

633

(2)

3.2. Internal = final Coda

635

(2)

4. The life of final empty Nuclei

637

(15)

4.1. How can you have your cake and eat it?

637

(1)

4.2. How you can have your cake and eat it without turning back the wheel

638

(14)

4.2.1. Coda Licensing is too rigid, and it cannot be parameterised

638

(2)

4.2.2. Lateral relations can be parameterised: a genuine tradition in Government Phonology

640

(2)

4.2.3. Word-final RT clusters exist when final empty Nuclei can govern

642

(1)

4.2.4. Final empty Nuclei can only govern Nuclei that are bare of any underlying melody (floating or attached)

643

(2)

4.2.5. All the cake: the (im)pairment of final and internal Codas depends on whether word-final consonants are licensed or not

645

(3)

4.2.6. The parametric situation of word-final consonants

648

(2)

4.2.7. When final empty Nuclei license preceding Nuclei: the variable behaviour of vowels in final closed syllables

650

(1)

4.2.8. The final parametric table

651

(1)

5. Summary

652

(1)

6. Comparison of extrasyllabicity and the parameterised lateral actorship of final empty Nuclei

652

(6)

6.1. Introduction

652

(1)

6.2. Why are there no extrasyllabic vowels? Because there are final empty Nuclei, but no final empty Onsets

653

(1)

6.3. Deliberate underparsing is Licensing, enforced underparsing is Government

654

(1)

6.4. Extrasyllabic once, extrasyllabic forever: why extrasyllabicity is not selective

655

(2)

6.5. Why there are no extrasyllabic clusters at the right edge of words

657

(1)

7. The fourth object: schwa

658

(7)

7.1. What a schwa can do

658

(3)

7.2. Summary: the four primary nuclear objects and their lateral activity in some languages

661

(4)

Chapter 13 Argument Eight The Coda Mirror

1. Classical syllable structure is unable to characterise the Coda Mirror as a natural class

665

(4)

1.1. The Coda Mirror: summary

665

(2)

1.2. Disjunctions and their consequences in phonology

667

(2)

2. Is the Coda Mirror a phonological object?

669

(3)

2.1. Tiberian Hebrew spirantisation

669

(2)

2.2. Non-disjunctive contexts win - but who wins when everybody is non-disjunctive?

671

(1)

2.3. The choice of the context determines the causality of the process

671

(1)

3. Why the Coda Mirror is as real as Onsets and Codas

672

(17)

3.1. Fortitions

672

(3)

3.2. The absence of an event is an event

675

(1)

3.3. Lenition is a positional effect that owes nothing to adjacency

675

(4)

3.3.1. Positional vs. adjacency effects

675

(2)

3.3.2. Obviously, Tiberian Hebrew spirantisation has got nothing to do with adjacency

677

(2)

3.4. How could any lenition be caused by adjacency?

679

(2)

3.5. The Mirror effect

681

(2)

3.6. When the Strong Position is prone to lenition

683

(11)

3.6.1. The Coda Mirror makes only relative predictions

683

(1)

3.6.2. The High German Consonant Shift

683

(1)

3.6.3. Did fricatives in weak positions go through an intermediate affricate stage

684

(2)

3.6.4. There is not a shred of evidence for post-vocalic affricates in any old or modern dialect

686

(2)

3.6.5. Negative evidence in diachronics: "X does not exist"

688

(1)

4. Summary

689

(2)

Chapter 14 Argument Nine News from the yer context: what happens in Codas and before an unpronounced alternating vowel

1. A particularly nasty variant of the yer context: when the schwa is unpronounced

691

(1)

2. How to escape both resyllabification and disjunctivity

692

(2)

3. The Polish palatal nasal and its implosion in internal Codas

694

(6)

3.1. Alternation of [n] and [j]

694

(1)

3.2. Alternation of [η] and [j]

695

(2)

3.3. Rhymal Adjuncts are followed by an empty Nucleus

697

(2)

3.4. Schwa is a good licensor in Polish

699

(1)

4. The German velar nasal again

700

(5)

4.1. Identical behaviour in internal and final Codas: /Νg/ -> [η]

700

(2)

4.2. [η] also occurs before unpronounced alternating vowels

702

(3)

5. Conclusion

705

(2)

Chapter 15 Argument Ten What sonorants do in Codas: a unified theory of melodic reaction on positional plight

1. The logic of the argument

707

(1)

2. Homorganic NC clusters: how the mirage of assimilation is created

708

(1)

3. The obstruent cannot impose anything on the nasal in CVCV, but the nasal may be active: there is neither master nor servant

709

(1)

4. Usually unrelated evidence I: the behaviour of nasals in final Codas (Somali, Southern French, Polish)

710

(39)

4.1. Somali: loss of place produces a dental

711

(1)

4.2. Southern French: loss of place produces a velar

712

(3)

4.3. Polish: loss of place produces a glide

715

(1)

4.4. Summary

716

(1)

5. Usually unrelated evidence II: the birth of nasal vowels (French, Portuguese, Slavic)

717

(2)

6. Something that should not happen: German homorganic CN clusters

719

(1)

6.1. Illustration and their incompatibility with Standard Government Phonology

719

(3)

6.2. Schwa in /C N#/ is not dropped under Government

722

(1)

6.3. Schwa is killed by the stabilising action of the nasal

723

(3)

6.4. Homorganicity has got nothing to do with adjacency

726

(9)

6.4.1. When the word-final nasal is promoted to a Coda Mirror consonant

726

(4)

6.4.2. Eignung: the nasal must not be homorganic because it stands in strong position

730

(2)

6.4.3. Eignung: the absence of schwa is mandatory because it is governed

732

(1)

6.4.4. Eignung: devoicing shows who is who

733

(2)

7. Usually unrelated evidence III: consequences for the genesis and identity of syllabic consonants

735

7.1. The analysis of syllabic and trapped consonants recalled

735

(1)

7.2. Germanic: why syllabic consonants are created only after schwa

735

(1)

7.3. Devoicing again: right-branching syllabic consonants do not qualify

736

(2)

7.4. Summary

738

(1)

8. General summary regarding nasals

738

(1)

9. Not only nasals react on positional plight: extension of the analysis to all sonorants

739

(3)

10. Conclusion: a unified theory for the behaviour of sonorants in Coda position

742

(3)

General Conclusion

745

(4)

Appendices

1. List of parameters and their translation into CVCV and other theories

749

(4)

2. Closed Syllable Shortening vs. diminutive lengthening in Czech

753

(6)

3. Polish two-membered word-initial consonant clusters

759

(6)

4. A short guide to 1990 Government Phonology

765

(14)

4.1. Melodic representations

765

(3)

4.2. Constituent structure

768

(11)

4.2.1. The basic architecture

768

(2)

4.2.2. A depleted version of the familiar syllabic tree

770

(1)

4.2.3. Indirect lateral conditions on the existence of skeletal slots

771

(2)

4.2.4. No resyllabification

773

(1)

4.2.5. Proper Government, the Empty Category Principle and domains

774

(3)

4.2.6. A trademark of Government Phonology: empty Nuclei

777

(2)

References

779

(46)

Subject Index

825

(16)

Language Index

841

Please wait while the item is added to your bag...

FREE SHIPPING

Rent More, Save More! Use code: BBRENTAL

5% off 1 book, 7% off 2 books, 10% off 3+ books

A Lateral Theory Of Phonology

Summary

Table of Contents

Supplemental Materials

FREE SHIPPING

Rent More, Save More! Use code: BBRENTAL

5% off 1 book, 7% off 2 books, 10% off 3+ books

A Lateral Theory Of Phonology

Summary

Table of Contents

Supplemental Materials

Digital License