stress and syllabification in arop-lokep: an optimality ... · stress and syllabification in...

SOAS Working Papers in Linguistics Vol. 14 (2006): 109-129

Stress and syllabification in Arop-Lokep: an Optimality-Theoretic account1

Mary Raymond [email protected]

Abstract This paper describes a variety of phenomena in the stress patterns of Arop-Lokep, an Austronesian language of Papua New Guinea. Arop-Lokep is a quantity sensitive language, but quantity is only relevant to secondary stress assignment, and a large number of degenerate feet are allowed (with both secondary and primary stress). Stress is assigned from the right, so that we would expect the main stress foot to be aligned to the rightmost edge of the word; however, it is possible in certain circumstances to have secondary stresses occurring further to the right than the main stress foot, because of a prohibition against primary stress on the final syllable. Extrametrical affixes and reduplication also have noteworthy effects on the placement of stress. Optimality Theory allows us to account for all the Arop-Lokep data in terms of a set of universal constraints which have already been shown to apply to other languages.

Introduction Arop-Lokep is an Austronesian language spoken by approximately 3000 people in Madang and Morobe Provinces, Papua New Guinea. The name Arop refers to the dialect spoken on Long Island in Madang Province, and the name Lokep refers to the dialect spoken on Tolokiwa and Umboi Islands in Morobe Province.

Stress is predictable in Arop-Lokep, and is therefore not contrastive (with a few exceptions which can be accounted for on morphological grounds). However, the language shows some interesting interactions between syllable weight, the phonological foot and extrametricality, particularly with regard to secondary stress placement. This paper explores these interactions and attempts to describe and account for them in terms of Optimality Theory or OT2 (Prince & Smolensky, 1993).

The phonological foot in Arop-Lokep is the moraic trochee. Stress is assigned from the right, with primary stress on the penultimate syllable. The language is unusual, however, in permitting secondary stress to the right of the main stress if the final syllable (which is not permitted to carry primary stress) is heavy, even if this creates a degenerate main foot in the penultimate position. This suggests that syllable weight is only relevant for secondary stress assignment and that other principles apply for the placement of primary stress. The trochaic foot-form is also violated as a consequence of certain extrametrical affixes, which will cause an adjacent syllable to become a

1 I would like to express my thanks to Dr. Steve Parker of SIL for his advice in preparing this paper; to Jeffrey D’Jernes for his contribution to the description of Arop-Lokep phonology; and to the people of Long Island for making this research possible, particularly to Peter Ezekiel, the main language consultant. 2 Abbreviations used in this paper: derAN – derived alienable noun; derIN – derived inalienable noun; EXCL – exclusive; IN – inalienable noun; INCL – inclusive; H – heavy (closed) syllable; L – light (open) syllable; LPM – Lexical Phonology and Morphology; NOM – nominalizing suffix (alienable); OM – object marker; OT – Optimality Theory; p – plural; POS – inalienable possessive affix; PROG – progressive form; PrW – prosodic word; ROA – Rutgers Optimality Archive; RD – lexical reduplication; s – singular. Angle brackets indicate an <extrametrical> syllable and round brackets indicate a (foot).

110 Mary Raymond

degenerate foot rather than allowing a sequence of two unstressed syllables. Reduplication stress is characterized by a requirement that each root should have its own stress. This may lead to both degenerate feet and unparsed syllables. The pressure to align main stress to the right, and thus to the rightmost root, may also lead to the placement of primary stress on the ultima in these words, satisfying right-alignment requirements but violating the prohibition on main stress on the ultima. Right-alignment also has interesting consequences for the syllabification of certain vowel sequences.

For all the data presented in this paper, the transcription of stress was determined in the following way. Each word was elicited live from the same native speaker of the Arop dialect. He pronounced each item both in isolation as well as in the sentential frame [��w�t� _____ �mulu] ‘I said _____ again’. Two other SIL linguists and I listened to each word as many times as necessary until we agreed about its stress pattern. We also took into account the intuitions of the Arop speaker in many cases. Our perception of stress was correlated primarily with an increase in loudness and vowel duration. Higher pitch was discovered not to be a reliable indicator of stress. In cases of doubt we also digitized the data using SIL's Speech Analyzer program and examined the corresponding audio waveforms and intensity graphs; a few decisions also took into account recordings of another Arop speaker and a Lokep speaker. 1. Segment inventory, syllable types and syllabification The Arop-Lokep phonemic inventory consists of 7 vowels and 13 consonants. The vowels are: /i � � � � o u/. The consonants are: /p t k b d � s m n � l r �/ (/r/ is an alveolar trill).

All Arop-Lokep syllables are derived from the following template: (C) V (C) The syllable types derived from this formula are V, CV, VC1, and CVC1. The high

vowel phonemes /i/ and /u/ and the semivowels [j] and [w] are in complementary distribution, high vowels occurring in the syllable nucleus and the semivowels in onset and coda positions, except in words of the shape (C)VViCVi, for which special conditions apply (described in detail in section 6). It is suggested that [u] and [i] are the default realizations of these phonemes and that a high vowel is realized as a semivowel in the following cases:

a) when it occurs between a syllable-nuclear vowel and a consonant (1a-b), unless the consonant is at a word boundary, in which case the high vowel is realized as a vowel in order to avoid a consonant cluster within a syllable (1c);

b) when it occurs between a syllable-nuclear vowel and a word boundary (1d-e); c) when it occurs as Vi in words of the type (C)VViCVi (1f). 1) High vowel syllabification: a. /s�ur�k/ [�s�w�r�k] ‘sea.urchin’ b. /m�il��/ [�m�j�l��] ‘feast’ c. /k�ut/ [�k��ut] ‘Kaut (village)’ d. /r�i/ [�r�j] ‘wild.grass’ e. /u�s�/ [�w�s�] ‘bird.species’ f. /t�ili/ [t��ili] ‘talis.tree’

Stress and syllabification in Arop-Lokep 111

Consonant clusters are common across syllable boundaries but are generally not permitted within the syllable, the exception being a number of words containing initial geminate consonants. These result from the elision of a reduplicated root leaving only the syllable onset consonant as a trace of the first root; this can apply to any consonant phoneme other than the plosives, and can occur word-medially (with a prefix preceding the geminate-initial root) or word-initially, as illustrated in the following examples. A historical reduplication and contraction process is posited for example 2c (see Raymond & Parker 2005):

2) Geminate consonants: a. /i+lulu/ [i�lulu] ~ [�il�lu] ‘3s+vomit’ b. /ti+m�t�+m�t�/ [ti�m�t��m�t�] ‘3p+die+die’ ~ [�tim�m�t�] c. /rr�i/ [�rr�j] ‘afternoon’ d. /n�in�i+�i/ [�n�jn��i�i] ‘give.away+NOM’ ~ [nn��i�i]

2. Default stress placement All major class lexical items must be stressed in Arop-Lokep. A stressed syllable is characterized by an increase in vowel duration and intensity. High pitch may be, but is not necessarily, a correlate of stress. By default, primary [�] stress falls on the penultimate syllable of multi-syllabic words, with secondary stresses [�] occurring on every second syllable to the left. Syllables closed with a coda consonant (VC, CVC) are “heavy” and must also be stressed. 3) Default stress placement: a. /��/ [��] ‘pig’ b. /r�n/ [�r�n] ‘fresh.water’ c. /s�l�/ [�s�l�] ‘room’ d. /m�tuk/ [�m��tuk] ‘coconut’ e. /��nnui/ [��n�nuj] ‘rainbow’ f. /kiroro/ [ki�roro] ‘possum’ g. /k�k�mbo/ [k��k�mbo] ‘nautilus’ h. /k�lun�i�/ [�k�lu�n�j�] ‘uncertain’ i. /busk�t�r/ [�bus�k��t�r] ‘bird.species’

The phonological foot in Arop-Lokep (the unit to which stress is assigned) is the moraic trochee; that is, a foot may be composed of a sequence of two light syllables, the first of which is stressed (ĹL), or of one heavy syllable (H�). A foot made up of a heavy and light syllable (*H�L) or (*ĹH) is not allowed. As will be demonstrated, a degenerate foot consisting of a single light syllable (Ĺ) will be permitted in certain circumstances. 4) Some permitted foot structures:

a. s�l� b. r�n (ĹL) (H�) c. k�k�mbo d. k�lun�i� L(H�)L (ĹL)(ĹL) e. m�tuk f. busk�t�r (Ĺ)(H�) (H�)(Ĺ)(H�)

112 Mary Raymond

The following constraints are needed to account for the default placement of stress in the language: FOOTFORM (FTFM): Moraic trochee. LEXICAL WORD PROMINENCE (LWP): A lexical word must be a prosodic word

(i.e. All lexical items must be stressed) (Prince & Smolensky 1993). FOOTBINARITY (FTBIN): A foot must contain either two moras (i.e. a nucleus

and a coda) or two syllables. WEIGHT-TO-STRESS PRINCIPLE (WSP): Every heavy syllable must be stressed

(Prince 1990). MAINRIGHT (MAINRT): The main stressed foot is aligned with the right edge

of the word. NON-FINALITY (NONFIN): Main stress does not fall on the final syllable of the

word. In the following tableaux the constraint NONFIN is ranked higher than MAINRT and

FTBIN. This accounts for examples such as [�m��tuk] and [��n�nuj], where a secondary stress occurs to the right of the primary stress and, in [�m��tuk], the penultimate syllable is parsed as a degenerate foot. The ranking of MAINRT above FTBIN is established by the selection of (a) [�bus�k��t�r] over (c) *[�busk��t�r]. (c) does better on FTBIN because it contains no degenerate feet. It is rejected because (a) is more successful on the higher-ranked MAINRT, which is violated once by (a) and twice by (c).

Tableau 1: NONFIN >> MAINRT >> FTBIN NONFIN MAINRT FTBIN

Input: /m�tuk/

a. � (�m�)(�tuk) * *

b. m�(�tuk) *!

c. (�m�)(�tuk) *! *

Input: /��nnui/

a. (��n)(�nuj) *!

b. � (��n)(�nuj) *

Input: /busk�t�r/

a. � (�bus)(�k�)(�t�r) * *

b. (�bus)k�(�t�r) *!

c. (�bus)k�(�t�r) **!

Input: /k�k�mbo/

a. (�k�)(�k�m)bo * *!

b. � k�(�k�m)bo *

The LWP constraint is ranked higher than NONFIN, in order to compel stress on monosyllabic words such as [��] and [�r�n]. [��] also violates FTBIN (which, as already shown in Tableau 1, is ranked below NONFIN).


Tableau 2: LWP >> NONFIN >> FTBIN LWP NONFIN FTBIN

Input: /��/

a. �� *!

b. � (��) * *

Input: /r�n/

a. � (�r�n) *

b. r�n *!

3. Subject agreement prefixes Subject agreement prefixes on verbs are extrametrical; they are not included in the phonological foot and are not permitted to take stress of any kind. This has some interesting effects on stress placement in verbs. A verb with a monosyllabic root receives primary stress on the verb root in the ultimate syllable position, rather than placing default penultimate stress on the prefix, even when this prefix is the closed syllable /�m+/ ‘1pEXCL’. 5) Mono-syllabic verb roots: a. /�+p�/ [��p�] ‘1s+plant’ b. /�m+p�/ [�m�p�] ‘1pEXCL+plant’ c. /k�+t�/ [k��t�] ‘2p+follow’ d. /ti+k�n/ [ti�k�n] ‘3p+eat’

This leads to a number of cases of contrastive stress between verbs and other word classes. 6) Minimal pairs: a. /i+di/ [i�di] ‘3s+go.inland’ /idi/ [�i�i] ‘1pINCL’ b. /ti+di/ [ti�di] ‘3p+go.inland’ /tidi/ [�ti�i] ‘rubbish’ c. /�+d�/ [��d�] ‘1s+hand.carry’ /�d�/ [��] ‘Ade’ (personal name) d. /ku+l�/ [ku�l�] ‘2s+go.across’ /kul�/ [�kul�] ‘Kula’ (personal name) e. /i+li/ [i�li] ‘3s+weave’ /ili/ [�ili] ‘3.days.ahead’

Multi-syllabic verb roots follow the default tendencies in assigning stress placement. However, where the above-described principles would predict secondary stress to fall on an extrametrical prefix, the stress is assigned instead to the syllable that follows (i.e. the first syllable of the root). If this syllable is light and is followed by a stressed syllable, a degenerate foot (Ĺ) is created, but this is permitted in order to avoid a stress lapse (a sequence of two unstressed syllables). 7) Multi-syllabic verb roots: a. /�+supu/ [��supu] ‘1s+peel’ b. /k�+m�llok/ [k��m�l�lok] ‘2p+tired’ c. /i+m��or/ [i�m��or] ‘3s+shrivel’

114 Mary Raymond

d. /�m+d�dup/ [�m�d��dup] ‘1pEXCL+sink’ e. /ku+s�putu/ [ku�s��putu] ‘2s+sever’ f. /ti+k�r�t�/ [ti�k��r�t�] ‘3p+fix’ g. /i+t�pulpul/ [i�t��pul�pul] ‘3s+roll’

Two further constraints are invoked to account for both of these situations. ALIGNLEFT (ALIGNL): Align extrametrical prefixes to the left (i.e. align the left edge of the foot with the right edge of the prefix). *L APSE: Two adjacent unstressed syllables are not allowed (Green & Kenstowicz, 1995).

ALIGNL is ranked higher than WSP, thus prohibiting the occurrence of stress on the first person exclusive prefix /�m+/. This is the only situation in which a violation of WSP is permitted; all other heavy syllables are stressed.

Tableau 3: ALIGNL >> WSP Input: /<�m>+p�/ ALIGNL WSP

a. � �m(�p�) *

b. (��m) (�p�) *!

c. (��m)(�p�) *!

ALIGNL is also ranked above NONFIN, in order to permit primary stress to fall on a monosyllabic verb root.

Tableau 4: ALIGNL >> NONFIN Input: /<i>+p�/ ALIGNL NONFIN

a. � i(�p�) *

b. (�ip�) *!

Also relevant to monosyllabic verb roots is the constraint LWP, which is used to rule out an unstressed candidate such as *[ip�]. *L APSE could be utilized for the same purpose, but LWP has already been shown to be ranked above NONFIN in Tableau 2, and it is therefore not necessary to invoke *LAPSE here. The importance of *LAPSE with regard to multisyllabic verb roots is discussed below.

The only situation in which a subject prefix may receive (secondary) stress is when the following verb root begins with a geminate consonant (Raymond & D’Jernes, 2003). This occurs when a reduplicated root undergoes a process of contraction (which may be historical or productive). In such cases the geminate is interpreted as two segments across the syllable boundary, the first of which becomes the coda of the extrametrical syllable and causes it to become heavy (or potentially super-heavy if the prefix has a coda). Where a geminate is prefixed with /�m+/ ‘1pEXCL’, it is degeminated to avoid a sequence of three tautosyllabic consonants (consonant clusters not being permitted in the language), but the prefix still takes secondary stress (in any position in the word), even though it would normally be extrametrical. 8) Geminate-initial verb roots: a. /�+rriw/ [��r�riw] ‘1s+wash’ /�m+riw/ [��m�riw] ‘1pEXCL+wash’


b. /�+llu�/ (< /�+lu�lu�/) [��l�lu�] ‘1s+lie’ /�m+llu�/ [��m�lu�] ‘1pEXCL+lie’

It is suggested that the reason for this unusual situation, where an extrametrical prefix is required to have secondary stress, is the weight of the first segment of the geminate. In metrical or representational terms, one would consider the first part of the geminate as being lexically associated with a stress foot or grid-mark. Geminates elsewhere in the language syllabify across syllable boundaries, consonant clusters within a syllable being prohibited. The first syllable of [��l�lu�], therefore, acquires a metrically heavy coda consonant and becomes a closed syllable, which must be stressed. Although this heavy syllable is now in penultimate position, it only takes secondary stress because of a requirement that primary stress should fall on the lexical root rather than on affixes. For words with the am- prefix, it is assumed that although degemination has occurred to avoid a *CCC sequence, the presence of the geminate in the input still results in the prefix being parsed as a heavy syllable.

McCarthy’s Sympathy Theory (1999) may be helpful in accounting for this situation. It suggests that ‘the selection of an optimal candidate is influenced, sympathetically, by the phonological properties of certain designated failed candidates’ (McCarthy 1999:4). The idea is that a certain failed candidate is selected as sympathetic to the output form by a faithfulness constraint. In this case, the candidate that would be fully faithful to the input /�m+llu�/ would begin with a super-heavy syllable, VCC, which would naturally then be stressed: [*��ml�lu�]. This sympathetic candidate influences the placement of stress on the actual winner, [��m�lu�].

With regard to multisyllabic verb roots, the constraints ALIGNL and *LAPSE must be ranked above FTBIN in order to account for words such as [ku�s��putu] and [i�m��or]. This ranking is also relevant for stress on light monosyllabic verb roots.

116 Mary Raymond

Tableau 5: ALIGNL, *LAPSE >> FTBIN ALIGNL *L APSE FTBIN

Input: /<i>+p�/

a. � i(�p�) *

b. (�ip�) *!

c. ip��5 *!

Input: /<i>+m��or/

a. (�im�)(��or) *!

b. � i(�m�)(��or) *

c. im�(��or) *!

d. (�im�)(��or) *!

Input: /<ku>+s�putu/

a. kus�(�putu) *!

b. (�kus�)(�putu) *!

c. � ku(�s�)(�putu) *

4. Object-marking suffixes Alignment is also relevant to certain object-marking suffixes. The third person singular object marker (OM) takes the form of a lexically-specified +V suffix attached to the verb root. In this it is unlike the other pronominal object forms, which are the same as the subject pronouns and can be treated as independent phonological words with no effect on the stress of the verb root. The OM suffix, however, can influence stress in a number of ways, depending on the nature of the verb root itself.

If the verb root ends with a consonant, OM affixation has the effect of adding an extra syllable to the word. This extra syllable has no effect on the stress pattern of the word, and therefore must be considered extrametrical. Primary stress falls on the penultimate syllable of the root rather than on the penultimate of the whole word. 9) Consonant-final verb roots: a. /ti+��ru�/ [ti��ru�] ‘3s+make.dirty’ /ti+��ru�+u/ [ti��ru�u] ‘3p+make.dirty+3s’ b. /i+p�sui/ [i�p��suj] ‘3s+give.birth’ /i+p�sui+u/ [i�p��suju] ‘3s+give.birth+3s’

In these examples it would be possible to consider the OM as part of a final (ĹL) foot. It is preferable, however, to regard it as not being incorporated into any foot, in order to explain why the penultimate syllable only takes secondary stress (*LAPSE will not allow this syllable to be entirely unstressed). I thus posit the following constraint: ALIGNRIGHT (ALIGNR): Align extrametrical suffixes to the right (i.e. align the

right edge of the foot with the left edge of the suffix). ALIGNR is ranked above MAINRT; thus the suffix is not counted for stress purposes

and the main foot is aligned to the edge of the root rather than the edge of the word. 3 The candidate *[ip�] can also be eliminated by LWP, as in Tableau 2. The candidates *[im�(��or)] and *[(�im�)(��or)] are also ruled out by NONFIN.


With an input form such as /ti+��ru�+u/, this could potentially result in a sequence of two unstressed syllables after the primary stress (candidate (d) in Tableau 6), which may be avoided by ranking *LAPSE above ALIGNR. This ranking can only be satisfied by placing secondary stress on the penultimate syllable; the issue then is whether the OM suffix is incorporated into this additional foot. There are two possibilities: in one scenario, the final syllable of the root forms a foot on its own, which is degenerate (the final consonant of the root being the onset of the final syllable, which in this analysis would be extrametrical). The other option, the inclusion of the OM in the foot, is also slightly problematic; candidate (c) in Tableau 6 below is just as much a violation of ALIGNR as candidate (a) is; the extrametrical suffix is still footed. Neither of these solutions is entirely felicitous, but it is simpler not to claim that the OM is incorporated in the foot. This would require us to restrict the scope of ALIGNR to primary feet; there is no other justification in the data for doing this, and the other possibility, involving a degenerate foot, seems more likely given that degenerate feet are already so common in this language. FTBIN is violated, but the ranking of MAINRT above FTBIN has already been established from unambiguous data.

Tableau 6: *LAPSE >> ALIGNR >> MAINRT Input: /ti+��ru�+u/ *L APSE ALIGNR MAINRT

a. ti(��)(�ru�u) *!

b. � ti(��)(�ru)�u **

c. ti(��)(�ru�u) *! d. ti(��ru)�u *! *

If the verb root ends with a vowel, the OM vowel replaces it in the phonetic form. The metrical structure of the word does not change; the OM is counted for stress placement (as was the root-final vowel), but being in a word-final open syllable is never stressed itself. 10) Vowel-final verb root: a. /�+lono/ [��lono] ‘1s+help’ /�+lono+i/ [��loni] ‘1s+help+3s’ b. /i+k�r�+k�t�/ [i�k�r��k�t�] ‘3s+bite+sever’ /i+k�r�+k�t�+i/ [i�k�r��k�ti] ‘3s+bite+sever+3s’

In the majority of cases, the OM vowel is different from the final vowel of the verb root, as in 7, but a small number of verbs have an OM vowel that is identical to the root-final vowel, as in 8 below. In this situation primary stress falls on the final syllable and the penultimate is left unstressed (this is the only circumstance in which there is no stress on the penultimate syllable). This creates a number of minimal pairs between the verb on its own (which may be transitive or intransitive), and the verb plus the third person singular object marker. 11) Verb root with identical final vowel and OM: a. /i+k�r�t�/ [i�k��r�t�] ‘3s+fix’ /i+k�r�t�+�/ [i�k�r��t�] ‘3s+fix+3s’ b. /�+k�m�t�/ [��k��m�t�] ‘1s+see’ /�+k�m�t�+�/ [��k�m��t�] ‘1s+see+3s’

This is a case of surface opacity, in which the input form has an impact on the way constraints are evaluated in the output form. The motivation for this is presumably

118 Mary Raymond

that without contrastive stress there would be an ambiguity between the transitive verb with an object marker, and the intransitive form of the verb. Surface opacity is highly problematic for OT and a variety of attempts have been made to account for it within the OT framework.

Sympathy Theory, discussed earlier in relation to geminate consonants, is one way of approaching the problem. It could be argued that in Arop-Lokep, geminate vowels are not allowed4; however, a candidate such as *[��k�m��t��] is faithful to the input form and is thus sympathetic. A further faithfulness constraint requires that the stress assigned to the winning candidate is the same as that on the sympathetic candidate. This ‘selector’ constraint is ranked above NONFIN to rule out *[��k��m�t�], which is unfaithful to the sympathetic candidate *[��k�m��t��]; and the candidate [��k�m��t�] is successful.

An alternative way to account for surface opacity is through Derivational OT, as proposed by Kiparsky (2000) and Rubach (2000, 2003). In this theory different strata in the derivational process can have different rankings of constraints. Thus, in the case of akamataa, the first stratum would rank MAX IO above *VV, which would cause stress to fall on the final syllable (violating NONFIN); and the second stratum would rank *VV and IDENTSTRESS higher, thus causing vowel degemination but having no effect on the stress assigned in the first stratum.

Stratum 1: MAX IO >> *VV (��k�m��t��)

Stratum 2: *VV, IDENTSTRESS >> MAX IO (��k�m��t�) Both Sympathy Theory and Derivational OT are problematic in that they force us to

propose forms that are prohibited in surface realizations. One ad hoc answer to the problem would be simply to list the 3rd person singular object forms as separate items in the lexicon. However, Lubowicz (2002) proposes an alternative approach, known as Contrast Preservation Theory or PC Theory, which seems to avoid the difficulties faced by these other models of having to posit intermediate forms and thus offers a more satisfactory solution. Contrast preservation is seen as an independent principle within OT, consisting of a family of constraints which interact with other existing constraints, and can be ranked and violated. In this case, an input-oriented contrast preservation constraint (e.g. PCINPUT) would be ranked above NONFIN.

Another issue here is that the stress on the geminate vowel is primary rather than secondary, which would be unexpected for any other word-final heavy syllable. I suggest that the sequence /�+�/ constitutes a (ĹL) foot, although this is a contradiction of the universal tendency for geminate vowels to form a single syllable.

5. Reduplication Reduplication is a productive grammatical process in Arop-Lokep. Some words

with reduplicated elements also occur lexically and are not the result of any current process of reduplication. Whether reduplication is lexical or productive has no effect on stress. Where a word is made up entirely of reduplicated elements (whether lexically or as a result of productive processes), primary stress is assigned to the rightmost root (as if it was a single prosodic word), and secondary stress to all others. 12) Complete reduplication (lexical): a. /kodokodo/ [�ko�o�ko�o] ‘intestine(RD)’ 4 Only one example of *VV violation has been observed in attested surface forms in Arop-Lokep. This is also a consequence of contrast preservation. The prepositional pronouns /k�+di/ ‘of+3p’ and /k�+idi/ ‘of+1pINCL’ surface as [�kidi] and [�ki�di] respectively.


b. /lulu/ [�lu�lu] ‘small.purse(RD)’ c. /butbut/ [�but�but] ‘joist(RD)’ d. /r�r�/ [�r��r�] ‘rope(RD)’ 13) Complete reduplication (productive):

a. /�t�l�t�l/ [�t�l�t�l] ‘person+person’ b. /�moto�moto/ [�moto�moto] ‘snake+snake (maggot)’

However, not all words where one syllable appears to be a copy of another follow this pattern. These words are presumed not to derive from reduplication, and follow the normal principles for stress placement (i.e. as described in Section 1).

14) Non-reduplication: a. /mosmos/ [�mos�mos] ‘slowly’ b. /b�lb�l/ [�b�l�b�l] ‘tree.species’ c. /d�d�/ [�d��] ‘road’ In a small number of examples, minimal pairs exist between words with

reduplication stress and words that do not involve reduplication. 15) Reduplication minimal pairs: a. /n�n�/ [�n��n�] ‘unmarried.woman (RD)’ /n�+n�/ [�n�n�] ‘place+3sPOS’ b. /d�d�/ [�d��d�] ‘hook (RD)’ /d�d�/ [�d��] ‘plug’ Several of these examples violate NONFIN by allowing primary stress to fall on the

ultimate syllable of the word. In addition, reduplication of a single open syllable in words such as dede is problematic because the result consists of two light, stressed syllables and thus of two degenerate feet, violating FTBIN. It is proposed that all root morphemes must be stressed (due to LWP), and that in the case of complete reduplication, two prosodic words (PrW) are compounded to form a single prosodic word, with stress aligned to the right. The difference between words such as [�d��d�] and [�d��] can be shown diagrammatically as follows:

A further constraint, MAINRIGHTPHRASE, is proposed to account for the right alignment of primary stress. This constraint applies only to nested structures (i.e. compounds). It is ranked above NONFIN, whereas the basic word-level constraint MAINRT is ranked below NONFIN. MAINRIGHTPHRASE (MAINRPH): In compounds, the main stress foot falls on

the rightmost root.

d� d�

PrW PrW

PrW

d�d�

PrW

Figure 1: Structure of single and reduplicated PrW

120 Mary Raymond

Tableau 8: LWP, MAINRPH >> NONFIN, FTBIN LWP MAINRPH NONFIN FTBIN

Input: /but+but/(RD)

a. (�but)(�but) *!

b. � (�but)(�but) *

Input: /d�+d�/(RD)

a. (�d�d�) *! *

b. (�d�)(�d�) *! **

c. � (�d�)(�d�) * **

d. d�(�d�) *! * *

Lexically reduplicated verb roots follow the default pattern for stress and are not affected by MAINRPH; they seem to behave as single prosodic words. 16) Reduplicated verb roots (lexical):

a. i+w�lw�l [i�w�l�w�l] ‘3s+clear.brush (RD)’ b. ku+m��m�� [ku�m��m��] ‘2s+beg (RD)’ c. i+kinkin [i�kin�kin] ‘3s+bloat (RD)’ d. i+diwidiwi [i�diwi�diwi] ‘3s+influence (RD)’ Verb roots undergoing productive reduplication, however, are treated as separate

words for stress placement. When nominalized they seem, like noun reduplications, to be compounded into a single prosodic word, with no apparent juncture between the roots. Primary stress is then assigned to the rightmost root with its attending affixes, and secondary stress to all other roots. 17) Reduplicated verb roots (productive):

a. /�m+w�t� w�t�/ [�m�w�t� �w�t�] ‘1pEXCL+speak speak’ b. /�+soro soro/ [��soro �soro] ‘1s+decorate decorate’ c. /�m+p� p�/ [�m�p� �p�] ‘1pEXCL+walk walk’ d. /�m+p� p� p�/ [�m�p� �p� �p�] ‘1pEXCL+walk walk walk’ 18) Reduplicated verb roots (nominalized): a. /diwidiw�+��/ [�diwi�i�w��] ‘influence+NOM (RD)’ b. /soro+sor�+��/ [�soroso�r��] ‘decorate+decorate+NOM’ Derived alienable nouns (derANs) such as these are a violation of *LAPSE, because

they allow two adjacent unstressed syllables. They can be accounted for on the same basis as words like [�d��d�] and [�but�but], in that they are made up of two single prosodic words compounded into one, as in the diagram below. *LAPSE must be ranked below MAINRPH. Note that LWP also applies (as for [�d��d�]) at the level of the single prosodic word, as does MAINRT; therefore a realization such as *[ di�widi�w��], while satisfying MAINRPH, is unacceptable because the stress foot on the first root is misaligned, even though its head still falls on the root. This is another situation where reference must be made to some degree of derivation. The winning candidate, [�diwi�i�w��], is a violation of *LAPSE. Other evidence clearly demonstrates that *LAPSE is ranked above MAINRT, but it is MAINRT that excludes *[ di�wi�i�w��]. Two steps are clearly involved in the construction of reduplicated words. The first stage is the alignment of each foot to each root. The second step involves the compounding of the two prosodic words and the alignment of main stress


to the rightmost root. *[di�wi�i�w��] violates MAINRT at the first stage. [�diwi�i�w��] violates *LAPSE at the second stage, after *[di�widi�w��] has been ruled out. Kiparsky (2000) describes an approach called LPM-OT (Lexical Phonology and Morphology) where full parallelism of constraints is abandoned in favor of stratified constraint systems which apply at stem, word and post-lexical levels. In this approach, the output of the stem-level is the base for the word-level. A positional faithfulness constraint such as IDENTSTRESSBASE at word level requires that stress in the base prosodic form is the same as stress in the affixed form (or that the alignment of the phonological foot corresponds between base and output). *LAPSE must, at word-level, be ranked below IDENTSTRESSBASE. Tableau 9: IDENTSB >>*LAPSE IDENTSB *LAPSE

Input: /diui+diu�+��/, Base: [�diwi, di�w��]

a. di(�widi)(�w��) *!

b. � (�diwi)di(�w��) *

Reduplicated inalienable noun (IN) roots contrast with nominalizations in that stresses are assigned separately to each root, regardless of affixes and regardless of where they fall in relation to the penultimate syllable (which always takes primary stress). 19) Reduplicated IN root:

a. /burubur�+k/ [�buru�bu�r�k] ‘finger+1sPOS’ b. /burubur�+n�/ [�buru�bu�r�n�] ‘finger+3sPOS’ c. /burubur�+m�m/ [�buru�bu�r��m�m] ‘finger+1pEXCL.POS’ INs can also be derived from reduplicated verbs. These follow the pattern for

nominalizations, stress being assigned to each root together with its affixes. 20) Reduplicated derIN root: /mod+modo+no/ [�modmo�dono] ‘be.short+be.short+3sPOS’

It is clear that grammatical classes have a significant role to play in stress placement. There is a contrast between derived and lexical nouns (whether alienable or inalienable). This can be accounted for by a variable ranking of the constraints *L APSE and FTBIN. The default ranking is *LAPSE >> FTBIN. This applies to lexical nouns. The marked ranking of these constraints is FTBIN >> *L APSE, and this applies only to derived nouns.

PrW

diwi diw��

PrW

PrW

Figure 2: Structure of reduplicated derAN

122 Mary Raymond

Tableau 10: Default ranking: *LAPSE >> FTBIN Input: /buru+bur�+n�/ *L APSE FTBIN

a. � (�buru)(�bu)(�r�n�) *

b. (�buru)bu(�r�n�) *!

Tableau 11: Derived noun ranking: FTBIN >> *LAPSE FTBIN *L APSE

Input: /diui+diu�+��/

a. (�diwi)(�di)(�w��) *!

b. � (�diwi)di(�w��) *

Input: /mod+modo+no/

a. � (�mod)mo(�dono)

b. (�mod)(�mo)(�dono) *!

Alternatively, in line with the description of nominalized reduplicated verb roots given above, we can say that in derived nouns, affixes are assigned before roots are parsed into feet, but that lexical nouns are parsed before the affixation of an IN suffix, with constraints such as *LAPSE, MAINRT and NONFIN applying at word level to ensure primary stress still falls on the penultimate syllable.

Partial reduplication is also common in Arop-Lokep. The vast majority of words containing four or more syllables involve at least partial reduplication, some deriving from productive reduplication processes, others contained in the lexicon but stressed as if they had undergone some process of reduplication in the past. In these words, primary (default) stress falls on the whole root (i.e. the root which may occur in isolation). Secondary stresses are applied to the rest of the word as appropriate, including to the penultimate syllable if it is not already stressed. 21) Partial reduplication (lexical):

a. /n�t��t��/ [n��t��t��] ‘plant.species’ b. /m�kotokoto/ [m��koto�koto] ‘gecko’ c. /d�d�d�/ [�d��d��] ‘illegitimate.child’ d. /i+p�l�l�/ [i�p��l�l�] ‘3s+beachcomb’ The progressive form of verbs is frequently expressed with partial reduplication. In

transitive verbs the object-marking vowel is included in the reduplication, even though progressive forms are always intransitive. 22) Progressive verb forms:

a. /ti+sulu/ [ti�sulu] ‘3p+shout’ /ti+sululu/ [ti�su�lulu] ‘3p+shout(PROG)’ b. /i+kodo/ [i�ko�o] ‘3s+stand’ /i+kododo/ [i�ko�do�o] ‘3s+stand(PROG)’ c. /i+p�n�+�/ [i�p�n�] ‘3s+shoot+3s’ /i+p�n�n�/ [i�p��n�n�] ‘3s+shoot(PROG)’ In partial reduplication stress we have a natural and expected situation, namely that

primary stress prefers to fall on the root of the word than on affixes or on partially reduplicated elements; for instance, it would be somewhat surprising for the reduplicant to be more prominent than the base from which it is copied. One way to


account for it would therefore be to posit another alignment constraint which requires the main stress foot to be aligned with the right edge of the root. An alternative approach, which does not require any additional constraints, is to treat these examples in the same way as the nominalization process discussed above; that is, that there are two levels in the selection process for partially reduplicated words, and that stress at word level must be identical with stress at stem level. In the cases of [�d��d��] and [i�ko�do�o], illustrated below, the winning candidates satisfy both *LAPSE and IDENTSB. In Tableau 12, the right edge of the base is marked with ].

Tableau 12: IDENTSB >> *LAPSE IDENTSB *LAPSE

Input: /d�d�+d�/, Base: [�d�d�, d�]

a. d�(�d�]d�) *!

b. (�d�d�])d� *!

c. (�d�)(�d�]d�) *!

d. � (�d�)(�d�]d�)

Input: /i+kodo+do/, Base: [i�kodo, do]

a. i(�ko)(�do]do) *!

b. � i(�ko)(�do]do)

c. i(�kodo])do *!

6. Stress and syllabification

The four univalent syllable types in the language are CV, CVC, V and VC. The only consonant clusters permitted within a syllable are geminates, which are derived from historical contractions of reduplication (as mentioned in sections 1 and 2). The distribution of the high vowel phonemes /i/ and /u/ and their semivowel correlates [j] and [w] is almost entirely dependent on syllable structure, and there are only two circumstances in which these pairs might be regarded as contrastive. It is thus desirable to treat semivowels as allophones of the high vowels if at all possible, as this completely eliminates two phonemes from the underlying segmental inventory of the language. The first circumstance where /i/ and /u/ appear in an environment where [j] and [w] might be expected involves the word-pattern (C)VViCVi, a distinctive feature of Arop-Lokep phonology, wherein the two vowels designated as Vi can stand for any of the vowels in the phonemic inventory but are identical to each other. Such words always syllabify in the pattern (C)V.Vi.CVi, even when Vi is a high vowel and is realized as a semivowel in other contexts (compare examples 20e and 21c). The second circumstance involves inalienable nouns ending in a CVV sequence; in this environment too, both vowels retain their syllabic quality, regardless of syllable structure.

Words in the (C)VViCVi pattern can be inalienable nouns, derived alienable nouns (i.e. nominalizations), derived inalienable nouns or other lexically occurring items.

124 Mary Raymond

23) (C)VViCVi words: a. /��unu/ [��unu] ‘dog’ b. /ki�d�/ [ki��] ‘outrigger.poles’ c. /t�ili/ [t��ili] ‘tree.species’ d. /tiu+nu/ [ti�unu] ‘grand.relation+3sPOS’ e. /n�i+�i/ [n��i�i] ‘boil+NOM’ f. /lu�+n�/ [lu��n�] ‘mound+3sPOS’ g. /p�+idi/ [p��i�i] ‘to+1pINCL’ When a high vowel /i/ or /u/ occurs between a syllable-nuclear vowel and a

consonant, it is normally realized as a semivowel [j] or [w], unless the consonant is at a word boundary; in this case it is realized as a vowel in order to avoid a consonant cluster within a syllable. Where there are two possible ways to syllabify a sequence of high vowels, preference is given to the syllabification that will maximize onsets and thus CV syllables; for instance, /iu/ is realized as [�ju] rather than *[�iw]. 24) High vowel realizations: a. /s�ur�k/ [�s�w�r�k] ‘sea.urchin’ b. /iu/ [�ju] ‘spear’ c. /i+n�i/ [i�n�j] ‘3s+boil’ d. /u�s�/ [�w�s�] ‘bird.species’ e. /muimui/ [�muj�muj] ‘decorative.feathers’ f. /kiuiu/ [�ki�wiw] ‘hookworm’ g. /ru�k/ [�ru��k] ‘hawk.species’ h. /k�ut/ [�k��ut] ‘Kaut (village)’

These patterns are accounted for by the following constraints: ONSET: Every syllable must contain an onset C (i.e. syllabify to maximize onsets). *COMPLEX: Complex onsets and codas are not allowed.


Tableau 13: *COMPLEX, ONSET5

*COMPLEX ONSET

Input: /kiuiu/

a. (�kjuju) *!

b. � (�ki)(�wiw)

c. ki�uju *!

Input: /iu/

a. (�iw) *!

b. � (�ju)

Input: /mui+mui/

a. � (�muj)(�muj)

b. (�mwi)(�mwi) *!*

This would lead us to predict that where Vi is a high vowel in the (C)VViCVi pattern, it should be realized as a glide; therefore, /��unu/ should become *[��wnu]. No such glide ever occurs in the language; /��unu/ is realized as [��unu].

Neither *[��wnu] nor [��unu] is a violation of the FTBIN constraint; the final syllable of *[��wnu] can be treated as unparsed, just as it is in words such as [�muntu] ‘morning’, where there is only one syllabification possible. The reason for the persistence of the (C)VViCVi shape is the constraint MAINRT, which takes priority over ONSET and requires that the main stress foot be aligned as far to the right as possible. Tableau 14: MAINRT >> ONSET MAINRT ONSET

Input: /��unu/

a. (��w)nu *!

b. � ��(�unu) *

Input: /tiu+nu/

a. (�tju)nu6 *!

b. � ti(�unu) *

c. (�tiw)nu *!

It will be noted that an input with a sequence of more than two high vowels, such as /kiuiu/, is problematic in this analysis because the successful candidate, [�ki�wiw], in

5 This data provides no evidence for the ranking of ONSET and *COMPLEX. It is worth noting that ONSET is often violated in Arop-Lokep, and *COMPLEX never, but we have no data to prove that one is ranked higher than the other; the relationship between these two constraints is not a crucial one. 6 *[ �tjunu] also violates *COMPLEX.

126 Mary Raymond

fact violates MAINRT and satisfies ONSET, while it is possible to posit a candidate [�ki.u�i.u] which satisfies MAINRT (and would therefore win over [�ki�wiw] on the basis of MAINRT >> ONSET) but contains multiple violations of ONSET.

One solution to this issue would be to invoke local conjunction of constraints, as proposed by Alderete (1997), where multiple violations of a constraint are ranked higher than a single violation. However, local conjunction of constraints, especially of the same constraint with itself, is very controversial because it subverts the principle of ‘Strictest of strict domination’ which says that if A >> B then even one violation of A is worse than a million violations of B. This is a very important feature of OT, and thus local conjunction is not a desirable solution to the problem.

An alternative approach involves comparing moraic and non-moraic syllabifications of high vowels for satisfaction of phonological constraints. In this scenario, MAINRT can only resyllabify adjacent, tautosyllabic moraic sequences. This is not the case in [�ki�wiw] because the medial glide is a non-moraic onset; therefore stress falls on the first vocoid. The problem for OT is that this assumes a derivational approach where syllabification happens before metrification; the moras have to be identified before stress can be applied. Sympathy Theory may be able to solve this by the use of a constraint IDENT(MORA), ranked above MAINRT, where the output must have the same mora count as the sympathetic or selector candidate (note that it should also be possible to rule out the candidate [ki.�u.ju] by this means).

Inalienable noun roots ending in the sequence CVV are also permitted to violate the default pattern for high vowel realizations. All IN roots end in a vowel, which is preserved as a vowel throughout the declension. Thus where the final vowel of a CVV root is a high vowel, it is always preserved in the syllable nucleus, even in positions where it would be expected to become a glide.

25) High vowels in a CVV inalienable noun: a. /�ti�u+k/ [�ti�u+k] ‘grand.relation+1sPOS’ b. /�ti�u+m/ [�ti�u+m] ‘grand.relation+2sPOS’ c. /ti�u+nu/ [ti�u+nu] ‘grand.relation+3sPOS’ d. /ti�u+du/ [ti�u+du] ‘grand.relation+1pINCL.POS’ e. /ti�u+�m�m/ [ti�u+�m�m] ‘grand.relation.+1pEXCL.POS’ f. /ti�u+�mim/ [ti�u+�mim] ‘grand.relation+2pPOS’ g. /ti�u+di/ [ti�u+�i] ‘grand.relation+3pPOS’

This can be accounted for by the variable ranking of the constraints NOCODA and FTBIN. The default ranking gives priority to FTBIN, leading to realizations such as [�m�j�l��] and [�s�w�r�k]. For inalienable nouns, NOCODA is ranked above FTBIN, producing [ti�u�m�m] and [t��i�m�m] ‘younger.sibling+1pEXCL’.

NOCODA: Syllables with no coda are preferred (i.e. syllabify to minimize codas).7

7 Note that NOCODA would also serve to select [��unu] rather than *[��wnu]. It has not been invoked in this situation because MAINRT achieves the same result and right-alignment is clearly a key principle in understanding Arop-Lokep stress processes, whereas NOCODA is only really necessary to account for INs. It would perhaps be possible to utilize MAINRT in the case of INs too, but this would involve assessing violations of MAINRT in terms of intervening moras rather than intervening feet, counting just the main stress nucleus, not its whole foot. The /u/ in [ ti�u+�m�m] is then misaligned by two intervening moras, while *[�tiw+�m�m] has three moras between the nuclear /i/ and the right edge of the word – a somewhat non-standard interpretation of MAINRT.


Tableau 15: Default ranking: FTBIN >> NOCODA FTBIN NOCODA

Input: /m�il��/

a. � (�m�j)(�l��) **

b. m�(�i)(�l��) *! *

Input: /s�ur�k/

a. s�(�u)(�r�k) *! *

b. � (�s�w)(�r�k) **

Tableau 16: Inalienable noun ranking: NOCODA >> FTBIN NOCODA FTBIN

Input: /t�i+m�m/

a. (�t�j)(�m�m) **!

b. � t�(�i)(�m�m) * *

Input: /tiu+m�m/

a. � ti(�u)(�m�m) * *

b. (�tiw)(�mim) **!

7. Summary of Arop-Lokep stress in OT From a typological point of view, stress in Arop-Lokep is noteworthy for a number of reasons. Firstly, it is a quantity-sensitive language; the WSP constraint is virtually unviolated. At the same time, however, primary stress nearly always falls on the penultimate syllable, even when this is a light syllable and the ultima is heavy. This leads to a violation of FOOTFORM (moraic trochee) and FOOTBINARITY that is most unusual for a quantity sensitive language; the low ranking of these constraints is unexpected. What these facts demonstrate is that while syllable weight is significant for the assignment of secondary stress, it is practically irrelevant for primary stress assignment. Cross-linguistically this is unusual, although not unattested.

A further point of interest, related to this, is the ranking of NONFINALITY above MAINRIGHT. Although MAINRIGHT is relatively high ranked (so that the right edge of the primary stress foot is always aligned to the edge of the word when the two final syllables are light), when the ultima is heavy, forming a foot in itself, the primary stress does not fall there but still prefers the penultimate syllable.8 In spite of the fact that main stress is clearly assigned from the right of the word rather than the left, it is possible for secondary stress to occur still further to the right. This requires us to

8 See Prince & Smolensky (1993:28-30) on Tongan, where, like Arop-Lokep, all heavy syllables are stressed but where (C)VVCV patterns always syllabify in the pattern (C)V.�V.CV. In Tongan, the main stress foot is always rightmost (Prince & Smolensky (1993) call this constraint EDGEMOST, but it has the same formulation as MAINRT: the most prominent foot in the word is at the right edge). Tongan thus contrasts with Arop-Lokep in that main stress is allowed to fall on the final syllable of the word; EDGEMOST or MAINRT is high-ranked. As we have seen, MAINRT also applies in Arop-Lokep, but unlike in Tongan it can be violated because NONFINALITY is ranked higher. The beauty of OT is that it is able to use the same constraint in both situations.

128 Mary Raymond

utilize a slightly non-standard definition of NONFINALITY for Arop-Lokep. In some interpretations of this constraint, NONFINALITY is violated if the main stress foot falls on the ultima9; thus a word ending in …(LL)# is a violation, and in a word where the final three syllables are light, primary stress must fall on the antepenultimate syllable: …(LL)L#. This is not the case in Arop-Lokep, although the ranking of NONFINALITY over MAINRIGHT might lead us to expect it. Therefore, the definition of NONFINALITY that is needed here is as follows: NONFINALITY (modified): The head of the main foot (the primary stressed

syllable) cannot fall on the ultima, even though the non-head syllable of the main stress foot may do so.

To conclude, the crucial rankings between the main constraints proposed in this paper are summarized in the following diagram. Variable rankings and some minor constraints have been omitted.

9 E.g. Prince & Smolensky (1993:42): NONFINALITY : The prosodic head of the word does not fall on the word-final syllable.

Figure 3: Overall ranking summary

NONFIN

MAINRT

FTBIN

ONSET

ALIGNL

WSP

LWP

*L APSE

MAINRPH

IDENTSB


Bibliography Alderete, John (1997). ‘Dissimilation as local conjunction.’ In Kiyumi Kusumoto, ed.

Proceedings of the North East Linguistics Society 27:17-32. Amherst, MA: GLSA. ROA 175.

Buckley, Eugene (1998). ‘Alignment in Manam Stress.’ Linguistic Inquiry 29:475-496.

Green, Thomas & Michael Kenstowicz (1995). ‘The Lapse Constraint.’ Ms: MIT. ROA 101.

Halle, Morris, & Jean-Roger Vergnaud (1978). An Essay on Stress. Cambridge: MIT Press.

Hammond, Michael (1997). ‘Optimality Theory and Prosody.’ In Diana B. Archangeli & D. Terence Langendoen, eds. Optimality Theory: an overview. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers, 33-58.

Hayes, Bruce (1995). Metrical Stress Theory. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Kager, René (1999). ‘Surface opacity of metrical structure in Optimality Theory.’ In

B. Hermans & M. van Oostendorp, eds. The Derivational Residue in Phonology. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 207-245.

Kiparsky, Paul (2000). ‘Opacity and Cyclicity.’ Linguistic Review 17:351-167. Liberman, Mark, & Alan Prince (1977). ‘On stress and linguistic rhythm.’ Linguistic

Inquiry 8:249-336. Lubowicz, Anna (2002). ‘Contrast Preservation in Phonological Mappings.’

Dissertation: University of Massachusetts, Amherst. ROA 554. McCarthy, John J. (1999). ‘Sympathy and Phonological Opacity.’ Phonology 16:331-

399. McCarthy, John J. & Alan Prince (1993). ‘Generalized Alignment.’ In Geert Booij &

Jaap van Marle, eds. Yearbook of Morphology 1993, 79-153. Prince, Alan S. (1990). ‘Quantitative consequences of rhythmic organization.’ Papers

from the Twenty-Sixth Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, vol.2:355-98. Chicago: CLS.

Prince, Alan S., and Paul Smolensky (1993). ‘Optimality Theory: Constraint interaction in generative grammar.’ Ms: Rutgers University, New Brunswick, N.J., and University of Colorado, Boulder. ROA 537.

Raymond, Mary & Jeffrey D’Jernes (2003). Arop-Lokep Phonology Essentials. Ms: Ukarumpa, PNG.

Raymond, Mary & Steve Parker (2005). ‘Initial and medial geminate trills in Arop-Lokep.’ Journal of the International Phonetics Association 35:1.

Rubach, Jerzy (2000). ‘Glide and Glottal Stop Insertion in Slavic Languages: A DOT Analysis.’ Linguistic Inquiry 31:271-317.

Rubach, Jerzy. (2003). ‘Duke-of-York derivations in Polish.’ Linguistic Inquiry 34:601-29.

stress and syllabification in arop-lokep: an optimality ... · stress and syllabification in...

Documents