Bert Vaux, University of Cambridge NAPhC 8, Concordia University, Montreal

May 10, 2014

! Goad 2012 resurrects Kaye’s 1992 proposal that the s of #sT- sequences (in e.g. English stem) is prosodified as a Coda rather than an Appendix, part of a complex Onset, etc.

! Comparison of the predictions of this theory (and its templatic and CVCV variants) and Appendix theory (Vaux and Wolfe 2009) to the empirical record demonstrates that the latter is to be preferred for a number of reasons.

! “sT” = s(ibilant) + voiceless stop 1.  prothesis in #sT- vs epenthesis in other #CC-

"  Cairene Arabic firizar ‘freezer’ vs ʔisbiitʃ ‘speech’ (Galal 2004:2) "  Standard Western Armenian:

2.  Acquisition asymmetries

source spelling UR SR gloss

a. Middle Iranian spā(h) սպայ <spay> /sbɑ/ [əspɑ] officer b. Greek drakhma դրամ <dram> /tʰɾɑm/ [tʰəɾɑm] money

Galal, Mohamed. 2004. An OT approach to loanword adaptation in Cairene Arabic. Kansas University Working Papers in Linguistics. https://kuscholarworks.ku.edu/dspace/bitstream/1808/1241/1/KWPL27-GALAL.PDF

!  KR at 3;11: TR not allowed in Onset but #sT- is allowed (Barlow 2001:305)

a. [peɪ] pray [go] grow [bo] blow [dɪn] twin [fu] few

b. [spun] spoon [skaɪ] sky [speɪ] spray [sku] screw [stɔ] straw

Barlow, Jessica. 2001. The structure of /s/-sequences: evidence from a disordered system. Journal of Child Language 28 :291-324.

! Onset "  complex (Dell 1995, Łukasewicz 2006) "  simplex with empty nucleus (Scheer 2004—see below)

!  reverse affricate "  Fudge 1969; Selkirk 1982:346, Broselow 1983, Carr 1993:212, van de

Weijer 1994:165, Wiese 1996:42

! Nucleus "  Goad and Shimada 2014

! Coda "  Itō 1982, McCarthy and Prince 1990, Rice 2003 "  Kaye 1992, Pan and Snyder 2004, Goad 2012 "  Scheer 2004 (based on misapprehension of Coda environments)

! Appendix "  Giegerich 1992, Rialland 1994, Vaux 2004, Vaux and Wolfe 2009, etc.

! traditional motivation for Coda: large number of phonological processes targeting {_C, _#} "  e.g. “it is usually the case that precononsonantal [C] and word-final

positions form a natural class, i.e. coda” (Jun 2011:1112) "  NB this set should also include (i) star, (ii) brother, etc… "  Coda theory of sT adds (i) to the mix "  CVCV theory (sort of) adds both (i) and (ii)

! why add (i) but not (ii) to the set of Codas?...

Jun, Jongho. 2011. Positional effects in consonant clusters. The Blackwell companion to phonology, Marc van Oostendorp, ed.

! Middle Indic shifts to Japanese-ish system (cf Masica 1991:172):

! key: original s debuccalizes {#_T, V_T}

Sanskrit Pali gloss

a. VsV vasana- vasana dwelling

b. #sV- saptamá- sattama seventh

c. #sRV- srṓtas sōta stream

svinná- sinna sweating

d. VsRV- sahásra- sahassa thousand

e. #sT- stana- tʰana udder

skandʰa- kʰandʰa shoulder

f. -sT- vastu- vattʰu thing

hasta- hattʰa hand

g. –Vs# (‘stream’ is an s-stem, but Skt nom. was already [srṓtaḥ])

! Russian word (Itō 1982)

σ σn σ Coda Onset

n ≥ 0

! moraic equivalent (≅M&P 1990:12)

σ σn σ µ

C C

! Coda of degenerate σ idea credited to Selkirk 1981 for Cairene Arabic (Itō 1989:242) and Itō 1982 for Russian (McCarthy & Prince 1990:15); developed further by Borowsky 1986:197-199 (English), Chierchia 1986 (Italian), Itō 1986, 1989, and M&P 1990

N.B. predicts that initial appendices act as moraic…

also Kiparsky 2003

! “the inital extrasyllabic consonant has a characteristic property of syllable-final position—it is moraic” (McCarthy and Prince 1990:15)

! Prediction: appendix s- should contribute a mora in mora-counting meters "  (Kiparsky 2003 might be able to get out of this by having the

computation carried out at the Foot level)

! An example:

McCarthy, John and Alan Prince. 1990. Prosodic morphology and templatic morphology. Linguistics Department Faculty Publication Series. Paper 16. http://scholarworks.umass.edu/linguist_faculty_pubs/16

! Sanskrit āryā meter: verses of {12µ-18µ-12µ-15µ) ! In Mṛcchakaṭika (The Little Clay Cart) 4:141-2, Sharvilaka says (tr.

from Wilson 1841:312): strīṣu na rāgaḥ kāryo fall not in love with women raktaṃ puruṣaṃ striyaḥ paribhavanti for they disdain the man who loves raktaiva hi rantavyā if one should bear you affection, love her viraktabhāvā tu hātavyā if she be scornful, let her go.

! Note the #sT- cluster in hemistich 1. Does it contribute a mora?...

Wilson, Horace. 1841. An introduction to the grammar of the Sanskrit language, for the use of early students. London, J. Madden and co.

! no!

! if the initial s- in hemistich 1 bore a mora, we’d have 13µ in the line instead of the desired 12.

! but what about the striyaḥ in the second hemistich? It looks like that may be contributing the missing 18th mora. Ypsilanti Darwin says… "  and moraic s doesn’t scan happily into tetramoraic feet: ˘˘¯ |˘˘˘¯˘ ||

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 strī ṣu na rā gaḥ kār yo rak taṃ pu ru ṣaṃ stri yaḥ pa ri bha van ti rak tai va hi ran tav yā

vi rak ta bhā vā nu/tu

hā tav yā brevis in

longo

! Coda Theory looks like it’s scored a coup with Middle Indic, but: ! The moraic versions of Coda Theory (Itō 1999, McCarthy and

Prince 1990, Kiparsky 2003) encounter a spot of trouble with mora-counting meters.

! They also have problems with non-coda-like behaviors of appendices, but let’s examine these via Kaye/Goad’s version of Coda Theory, which may not have the same mora problem. "  we won’t have time to consider CVCV GP (Lowenstamm 1996, Scheer

2004), which has additional problems due to abandoning Rhymes and conflating codas with appendices and complex onsets by saying “coda = C followed by empty Nucleus”.

!  in the following the s in #sT- doesn’t act like part of an Onset: "  Italian definite article allomorphy and Raddoppiamento Sintattico "  Ancient Greek perfect reduplication "  European Portuguese nasalization "  British English yod dropping for l[y]ure speakers

! These facts can be captured by assuming that the s- forms the Coda of an Onsetless syllable with an empty Nucleus.

! Kaye opposes his Coda analysis to an Onset analysis, but not to an Appendix analysis. Most of his cases are not problematic for the latter.

! Possible exception: Portuguese nasalization (repeated by Goad 2012):

Kaye, Jonathan. 1992. Do you believe in magic? The story of s+C sequences. SOAS Working Papers in Linguistics and Phonetics 2:293–313.

! realizations of negative morpheme /in-/ (Kaye 1992:8)

pronunciation gloss a. _V [in]admissivel inadmissable b. _OV [ĩ]pureza impurity

[ĩ]satisfeito dissastisfied c. _TR [ĩ]tratravel unsociable d. _sT [in]ʃperado unexpected

! Kaye’s GP analysis: "  initial sT- involves coda s preceded by empty Nucleus and Onset

O R | N | x x | s p e r a d o

"  EP n of /in-/ lacks skeletal slot, links to L or R (Goad 2012:342)

pronunciation gloss

a. _V [in]admissivel inadmissable

b. _OV [ĩ]pureza impurity

[ĩ]satisfeito dissastisfied

c. _TR [ĩ]tratravel unsociable

d. _sT [in]ʃperado unexpected

! problem: "  “not at all clear how to formally capture the behavior of sC clusters in

Portuguese in a principled way in a theory that treats s as an appendix…initial sC clusters are incorrectly predicted to pattern with ordinary consonant-initial bases” (Goad 342)—we should get *[ĩ]ʃperado

PrWd

σ σ | | R R | | N C O N | | | | i n s p e r a d o

pronunciation gloss

a. _V [in]admissivel inadmissable

b. _OV [ĩ]pureza impurity

[ĩ]satisfeito dissastisfied

c. _TR [ĩ]tratravel unsociable

d. _sT [in]ʃperado unexpected

feet etc. omitted for space reasons…

!!

! Kaye 1992:19: data from Cavaco dissertation “in preparation” ! her data were published in 2001 (p. 3):

spelling pronunciation gloss inesperado [inɨʃpɨˈradu] unexpected inesquecível [inɨʃkɛˈsiveɬ] unforgettable

sic for ƚ (“a consoante lateral velarizada”, Cavaco Miguel 2003:105)

Cavaco Miguel, Maria Augusta. 2001. Regência de núcleos vazios. In Razões e Emoção: Miscelânea de estudos oferecida a Maria Helena Mateus, Junho de 2001 Departamento de Linguística Geral e Românica, FLUL

Cavaco Miguel, Maria Augusta. 2003. As estruturas silábicas e a redução vocálica no Português Europeu. Rev. Est. Ling., Belo Horizonte 11.1:95-118.

! this leaves at least two plausible analyses in Appendix theory: 1.  If one uses Cavaco Miguel’s forms, delinking of Coda nasal

followed by leftward spreading of floating [+nas], as in French (and Kaye’s analysis of EP). This rule follows Epenthesis (if the relevant vowels are indeed epenthetic in this variety).

"  This form of EP doesn’t appear to allow medial Appendices—a not unusual state of affairs.

or if there turns out to be a Kaye-style variety with no epenthesis:

2.  Underlying vowel, + Coda Nasalization (indirectly) counterfed by Vowel Deletion

! If we assume following Kaye 1992 that s in #sT- is in the Coda of a defective syllable, then (350)… 1.  “since the C in an sC cluster is in an Onset, it should respect the

preferred options holding of singleton Onsets: stops preferred over more sonorous segments.”

!  Appendix Theory makes same prediction, therefore this point will be disregarded.

2.  “since sC = Coda-Onset, the well-formedness of sC should worsen as C increases in sonority, respecting the preferences for optimal syllable contact.”

!  technically incoherent as matters stand, because GP does not have syllables. !  would have to be reformulated as contact between Onset and preceding

Nuclear non-head; formulation in terms of contact between Onset and preceding consonant would be simpler and include Appendices.

! I’ve put “✔/✗” because GP technically doesn’t have syllables, but it does predict the existence of an extra unit in the phenomena under consideration.

Appendix Coda (Itō) “Coda” (Goad)

extra mora ✗ ✔️ ?

extra syllable ✗ ? ✔/✗

pattern with non-initial Codas

✗ ✔️ ✔️

extrasyllabicity ✔️ ? ✗️

there are many such cases, but we’ll just look at two.

! monosyllabic forms with initial Appendices are perceived, versified, and stressed as monosyllables, not disyllables (Hall 2007:43-44 for Czech, Rialland 1994 for French, Kiparsky 2003:155 for Russian)

! e.g. Hall 2007 on Czech SC- clusters as coda-onset sequences: “the positing of empty-headed initial syllables would disrupt the otherwise exceptionless generalization that stress in Czech falls on the first syllable of the phonological word.”

! monosyllables show exceptional CV:- reduplicant instead of usual unspecified bimoraic template (Hayes and Abad 1989) "  pus-pusa ‘cats’ (357) "  tra:-trak ‘trucks’ (359) "  bi:-biks ‘Vicks ointments’ (*bik-biks) (359)

Hayes, Bruce and Maryam Abad. 1989. Reduplication and syllabification in Ilokano. Lingua 77:331-374.

! GP can get most such cases via e.g. “count # of overt nuclei”, but then the simple notion of Nucleus ends up doing little to no work in the theory.

! We should expect at least some of these phenomena to simply reference the number of syllables or moras, without extra conditions such as “containing overt Nuclei”.

! As far as I can tell, there are NO phenomena of this sort, calling into question the assertion that sT- clusters involve extra Codas, Nuclei, etc.

subcases: • phenomena that affect Codas but not Appendices • phenomena that affect Appendices but not Codas

English (KR 3;6, Barlow 2001:299)

a. [aɪsi] icy b. [gæshapʊ] grasshopper c. [jɛs] yes

[feɪs] face [bʌs] bus [maʊs] mouse [gas] dress

d. [pũ] spoon [kaɪ] sky [peɪ] spray [gu] screw [ka] straw

Polish (O 4;0-4;4, Łukasewicz 2007:57ff)

a. /gwɔsɛm/ [gɔsɛm] voice-instr. b. /m’jɛ᷉w ᷉skɔ/ [mɛw ᷉skɔ] meat-dimin.

/ɕɔstrɨ/ [sɔstɨ] sister c. /ras/ [jas] once

/p’jɛs/ [pɛs] dog /juʃ/ [jus] already /v’jɛʃ/ [vɛs] (you) know

d. /spɔtkaw/ [pɔtkaw] (he) met /stɔnt/ [tɔnt] from here

Dutch (Joost 1;9-2;4, Lohuis-Weber & Zonneveld 1996)

a. b.

c. [bus] bloes ‘blouse’ [nɛs] fles ‘bottle’ [nɑjnɪs] walvis ‘whale’

d. [peknas] gingerbread [tɛj] ster ‘star’

•  same pattern attested with acquisition of German (Grijzenhout and Joppen 1998:6)

•  cases such as Polish ‘meat-dimin.’ may show that one can’t formulate the process in terms of s deleting after an empty nucleus

! some variation in specific details, but normally s: i.  deletes /#_T

!  peesi ‘space’, kalepa/kālepa ‘scraper’, kiulela/kiurela ‘squirrel’, kolu ‘squirrel’, kopiana ‘scorpion’, kula ‘school’, puna ‘spoon’, kaila ‘style’, kākini ‘stocking’, kila ‘steel’, pela ‘spell’, peki ‘spade (in cards)’, kia ‘steer’

ii.  triggers epenthesis elsewhere !  kalikimaka ‘Christmas’, Amoka ‘Amos’, Bosetona ‘Boston’, haukapila ‘hospital’,

makika ‘mosquito’; mokeko ‘mosque’, kēkake ‘jackass’, ʔapokekolo/aposetole ‘apostle’, aunaki/aunake/auneki ‘ounce’, gasa ‘gas’, kaunakeke/kaunatese ‘countess’, kenika/denisa ‘tennis’, lekuke ‘lettuce’, hoki ‘mule’ (< horse), monekekili/moneseteri ‘monastery’

! The facts are inconsistent with a theory wherein s occupies the same structural position in both (i) and (ii).

cf. Parker Jones, ’Ōiwi. 2009. Loanwords in Hawaiian. In Martin Haspelmath and Uri Tadmor (eds.), Loanwords in the World's Languages: A Comparative Handbook. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Pp. 771-789.

! double dissociation: "  appendices with restricted subset of coda possibilities

!  English and Eastern Armenian allow only s- (and perhaps z-) as an initial Appendix, but a wide variety of simple and complex codas

"  appendices with superset of coda possibilities !  Acoma #sC- but no internal Codas (Miller 1965); same for Mazateco (s- and ʃ-),

Haida (s- and ɬ-); cf. also Havasupai and Yuchi (all from Steriade 1994). !  Choapan Zapotec allows basically anything in an initial appendix, but only nasals

and glides in codas (Donnelly 2013).

Donnelly, Erin. 2013. The sonority hierarchy in Choapan Zapotec. International Conference on Mesoamerican Linguistics. http://scholar.berkeley.edu/erindonnelly/files/donnelly_icml2013_sonority_chozap.pdf

Jeff Zgonina

! It has been suggested that an Appendix attached to a given node in the prosodic hierarchy (say the PrWd), it may be invisible to processes targeting nodes below that (here the Foot, syllable, etc.) "  Steriade 1982 on Greek reduplication, Rubach and Booij 1990 on Polish,

Kiparsky 2003 on Arabic…

! an interesting set of possible cases in Turkish…

! stem-final obstruent voicing "  in URs, final postvocalic stops are normally voiceless in monosyllables,

voiced in polysyllables (Lewis 1967:11, Inkelas and Orgun 1995, Vaux 2005, Becker, Ketrez, and Nevins 2011, Pycha, Inkelas, and Sprouse 2007)

"  French tube → tüp, acc tüp-ü; principe → p(i)rensip, acc p(i)rensib-i ! post-vocalic final k in polysyllabic stems deletes before V-initial

level 3 and 4 suffixes (Inkelas and Orgun 1995:774) "  bebeğ-i ‘baby-acc’ but ok-u ‘arrow-acc’

! epenthetic vowels generally undergo bk and rd harmony "  French groupe → g(u)rup, flute → f(ü)lüt

! #sT- and #OR- roots behave differently:

#OR- #sT-

obs voicing ✔️ g(u)rub-u ‘group-acc’ ✗ (i)stop-u ‘stop-acc’

k deletion ✔️ b(u)loğ-u ‘block-acc’ ✗ (i)stok-u ‘stock-acc’

vowel harm ✔️ both of above ✗ both of above

! notes: "  not all speakers show these patterns "  epenthesis is optional for all the speakers I’ve consulted "  though most Tk words have non-harmonic prothesis with #sT-, current

speakers prefer #s[i/ɨ] treatment: s(ɨ)kayp ‘Skype’ etc.

! [g(V)rup]PrWd1 ! [(V)s[top]PrWd1]PrWd2

! phonological operations targeting the (lower) PrWd1 should be able to see the epenthetic (V) in grup but not in stop.

! from this we can derive a plausible account of the epenthetic vowel in (i)stop etc. not undergoing VH and not contributing to syllable count for obstruent voice and k deletion.

! (one could also posit two separate rules of epenthesis, one ordered before the relevant operations and one after, as has been proposed for various languages in the RBP literature.)

Appendix Coda (Itō) “Coda” (Goad)

extra mora ✗ 😃😃 ✔️ 😞😞 ? ?

extra syllable ✗ 😃😃 ? ? ✔/✗ 😞😞

pattern with non-initial Codas

✗ 😃😃 ✔️ 😞😞 ✔️ 😞😞

extrasyllabicity ✔️ 😃😃 ? ? ✗️ 😞😞

! Goad’s version of Coda theory fails to account for the range of attested phenomena that Appendix theory can deal with. "  Some of the problems purely involve the claim that #sT- involves a

Coda, whereas others result from embedding this claim in a GP framework.

! Appendices provide superior empirical coverage, require no more formal machinery than adoption of Weak Layering (Kiparsky 2003), and work for all of the attested extrasyllabic cases (Polish, Bella Coola…), not just #sT-. A cool case involves Ola:…

! We saw earlier that at 4;0-4;4 Ola (Polish, Łukasewicz 2007) deletes initial s-Appendices (a) but not Onset or Coda s.

!  She also appears to delete all other Appendices (b-e):

Łukasewicz, Beata. 2007. Reduction in syllable onsets in the acquisition of Polish: deletion, coalescence, metathesis and gemination. Journal of Child Language 34.1:53–82.

a. /spɔtkaw/ [pɔtkaw] (he) met /stɔnt/ [tɔnt] from here

b. /ɕp’jɛvat͜ɕ/ [pɛvat͜s] sing-infin. c. /zb’jɛra/ [bɛja] collect-3sg.pres. d. /fpadw/ [pat] (he) burst into

/xt͜ɕawam/ [t͜sawam] (I) wanted e. /ptaʃɛk/ [pasɛk] bird-dimin.

/ktura/ [ta:] which

! What then do we say about cases like the Middle Indic one, which we said earlier appears superficially to group internal Codas and #sT-? "  simple: s debuccalizes /_T "  to demonstrate Coda rather than linear analysis, one would need cases

of final /s/ in Middle Indic, but it appears not to have inherited any. "  even if the Sanskrit debuccalization of final –s had happened at the

same time as the Middle Indic debuccalizations, though, one could invoke an Onset licensing condition: s licensed only in Onset.