Syllable Structure and Syllable-related Processes in German (Linguistische Arbeiten) [Reprint 2011 ed.] 3484302763, 9783484302761

Citation preview

Linguistische Arbeiten

276

Herausgegeben von Hans Altmann, Peter Blumenthal, Herbert E. Brekle, Gerhard Heibig, Hans Jürgen Heringer, Heinz Vater und Richard Wiese

Tracy Alan Hall

Syllable Structure and Syllable-Related Processes in German

Max Niemeyer Verlag Tübingen 1992

Die Deutsche Bibliothek - CIP-Einheitsaufnahme Hall, Tracy Alan : Syllable structure and syllable related processes in German / Tracy Alan Hall. - Tübingen : Niemeyer, 1992 (Linguistische Arbeiten ; 276) NE:GT ISBN 3-484-30276-3

ISSN 0344-6727

© Max Niemeyer Verlag GmbH & Co. KG, Tübingen 1992 Das Werk einschließlich aller seiner Teile ist urheberrechtlich geschützt. Jede Verwertung außerhalb der engen Grenzen des Urheberrechtsgesetzes ist ohne Zustimmung des Verlages unzulässig und strafbar. Das gilt insbesondere für Vervielfältigungen, Übersetzungen, Mikroverfilmungen und die Einspeicherung und Verarbeitung in elektronischen Systemen. Printed in Germany. Druck: Weihert-Druck GmbH, Dannstadt Einband: Hugo Nadele, Nehren

Table of contents Acknowledgments

Introduction

viii

-

1

Chapter 1: Theoretical principles and background on German phonology 1.1 Theoretical overview 1.1.1 Lexical Phonology 1.1.2 Syllable structure and syllabification 1.1.3 Feature geometry 1.1.4 Underspecification 1.1.5 Other constraining principles in nonlinear phonology 1.2 Background on German phonology 1.2.1 On "Standard German" 1.2.2 Phonetic inventory 1.2.3 Underlying segmental inventory 1.2.4 German word stress 1.2.5 Vowel quantity and quality 1.2.6 German schwa 1.2.7 On the cycle in German phonology Notes to Chapter 1

4 4 4 8 9 10

Chapter 2: 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4

German syllable structure and syllabification Syllabification model and theoretical assumptions Further remarks on syllable structure On ambisyllabicity Syllable- and foot-sensitive rules 2.4.1 Devoicing 2.4.2 Aspiration 2.4.3 R-Vocalization 2.4.4 Glottal Stop Insertion 2.5 Syllable Structure Algorithm 2.6 The sonority hierarchy 2.7 The German onset 2.7.1 One member onsets 2.7.2 Two member onsets 2.7.3 Three member onsets

12 13 13 14 21 23 27 33 37 40 41 41 46 49 52 53 53 56 58 59 63 65 65 66 68

VI

2.7.4 Additional syllable-initial clusters 2.7.5 Syllable-initial constraints 2.7.6 Obstruent + nasal onsets 2.7.7 Obstuent + [v] onsets 2.7.8 Coronal Fricative Adjunction and s-Dissimilation 2.8 On the cyclicity of syllabification 2.9 Fast Speech Resyllabification 2.10 Rubach(1990) 2.11 On compounds and prefixed words and postlexical resyllabification 2.11.1 Prosodification Constraint 2.11.2 Postlexical resyllabification 2.12 The German coda 2.12.1 One member codas 2.12.2 Two member codas 2.12.3 Coda clusters of more than two members 2.12.4 Coda constraints 2.13 Devoicing and Coronal Obstruent Adjunction 2.14 Remarks on the syllable structure of monomorphemes Notes to Chapter 2 Chapter 3: 3.1 3.2 3.3

The syllabification of glides and vowels Hiatus sequences and the German diphthongs The syllabification of diphthongs On the voiced fricatives [j.] and [v] 3.3.1 $ 3.3.2 [v] 3.4 Prevocalic glides 3.4.1 Obligatory prevocalic glides 3.4.2 Optional prevocalic glides 3.5 On Structure Preservation Notes to Chapter 3 Chapter 4: The velar nasal and the representation of schwa 4.1 Lexical processes involving nasal consonants 4.1.1 Lexical Nasal Assimilation 4.1.2 Lexical Nasal Spreading 4.2 Postlexical processes involving nasal consonants 4.2.1 Progressive Nasal Assimilation 4.2.2 Regressive Nasal Assimilation 4.3 The velar nasal 4.3.1 On the phonemic status of [Q] 4.3.2 g-Deletion as a cyclic rule

69 70 72 73 74 81 92 96 100 101 108 110 Ill Ill 115 121 124 126 130 134 134 142 153 153 162 168 169 172 182 184 188 188 188 192 193 193 197 199 200 202

Vll

4.3.3 Additional comments on g-Deletion 4.4 The representation of schwa 4.5 Cyclic syllabification and Schwa Epenthesis 4.6 On Structure Preservation Notes to Chapter 4

207 208 213 216 218

Chapter 5: The distribution of [ς] and [x] 5.1 Background and data 5.2 DFA and the German lexicon 5.3 [ς] - [g] alternations 5.4 On Structure Preservation Notes to Chapter 5

220 220 224 227 232 234

References

..............................237

Acknowledgments This book is a considerably revised and expanded version of Hall (1990) and incorporates two earlier studies (Hall 1989a, 1989b). A revision of the latter article is contained parts of chapter 2 and chapter 4. The final chapter is a revision of Hall (1989a). A number of individuals have contributed to the realization of this book. First and foremost, I thank Ellen Kaisse, without whose support and encouragement this work could not have been written. Her incisive comments have influenced the final shape of this book in important ways. I am also indebted to Charles Barrack, Sharon Hargus, Joseph Voyles and Richard Wiese for their comments on earlier drafts. In the chapters to follow I have incorporated a number of their suggestions. I would like to acknowledge other linguists for their help while I was writing this book: Roland Noske, Michael Prinz, Karl Heinz Ramers, Martha YoungScholten, and Si-Taek Yu. Finally, my thanks to Ursula Kleinhenz. Her support was invaluable. This work was financed in part by a fellowship from the German Academic Exchange Service (DAAD) and by the Sonderforschungsbereich "Theorie des Lexikons" (Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft).

Introduction This book examines syllable structure, syllabification, and phonological processes sensitive to syllable structure in Modern Standard German. A specific model of subsyllabic structure and an explicit algorithm for the assignment of this syllable structure are proposed and applied to certain well-known areas of German phonology. The analysis presented below is written within the framework of Lexical Phonology (cf. Kiparsky 1982;1985; Booij & Rubach 1987). I argue in the sections to follow that the German facts require a number of phonological rules to be "cyclic", in the sense defined below. Additional (noncyclic) phonological rules can either apply word-internally, or between two words in a syntactic phrase. In the following chapters I also attempt to develop a specific model of segment structure (cf. Sagey 1986; McCarthy 1988) in light of the German facts. Theories of underspecification (cf. Kiparsky 1982; Archangeli & Pulleyblank 1986) are also discussed and modified in the course of the text. Chapter 1 is divided into two parts. In section 1.11 present an overview which makes explicit most of the theoretical underpinnings which I am assuming in the chapters to follow. Here I discuss the Lexical Phonology framework and make explicit my assumptions concerning syllable structure, segment structure (i.e. feature geometry) and underspecification. The second section is devoted to certain issues in German phonology which are necessary for an understanding of the analysis I present in the chapters to follow. Here I provide the surface segmental inventory as well as what I will argue to be the underlying segmental inventory. I continue with a short discussion of three topics in German phonology: vowel quantity and quality/ word stress, and German schwa. These topics are relevant because they all crucially require rules making reference to syllable structure which play a role in the analysis presented in the following chapters. I conclude chapter 1 with an example illustrating the role of the cycle in German phonology. Chapter 2 provides a detailed treatment of German syllable structure and the assignment of this syllable structure in the course of the derivation. I argue that syllable structure assignment is predictable in a rule-based model and that the syllable structure algorithm applies cyclically, thereby supporting the widelyaccepted view that syllabification is in general a cyclic process (Kiparsky 1979; Harris 1983; Hayes & Abad 1989). An additional theoretical point I make is that morpheme final consonants cannot be universally extrasyllabic, as argued by Ito (1986), Borowsky (1986), and Rice (1989). German grammar will be shown to require two language-specific word-level ^syllabification rules, thereby contra-

dieting the commonly held view that resyllabification only occurs postlexically across a word boundary. The second of these resyllabification rules provides support for the German Sonority Hierarchy (vowels > R > 1 > nasals > obstruents) because it only applies when certain sonority requirements are fulfilled. The German Sonority Hierarchy derives additional support from restrictions on possible and impossible syllable final clusters. A number of authors have either assumed or argued explicitly that the occurrence of [+high, -cons] segments as glides or vowels in various languages is purely a function of syllable structure (Bloomfield 1933:122; Hockett 1947:266-267; Haugen 1956:214; Levin 1985; Dell & Elmedlaoui 1985). In chapter 3 I argue that, as in a number of other languages, the distribution of German glides and high vowels is predictable based on syllable structure and that the distinctive feature [syllabic] is therefore superfluous. The syllabification of German glides is accomplished by two syllable building rules whose ordering with respect to each other follows from the Elsewhere Condition (Kiparsky 1973). These syllable building rules are important theoretically because they provide additional evidence that syllabification applies cyclically. I also argue that the complementary distribution of the high front glide til and the voiced palatal fricative [j.] require both segments to derive from an underlying /I/. In addition, German grammar will be shown to require an optional rule of Fast Speech Glide Formation. This rule is important because it only applies when certain sonority requirements are fulfilled, thereby providing additional support for the German Sonority Hierarchy. An additional theoretical point I make in chapter 3 is that the Obligatory Contour Principle (henceforth OCP; Leben 1973; McCarthy 1986) operates in German as a morpheme structure condition which blocks completely adjacent segmental matrices in the underlying representation. Additional evidence is adduced that the OCP is active in the derivation as a device which blocks rules from applying which would create an OCP violation (McCarthy 1986; Yip 1988). In chapter 4 I show that certain lexical and postlexical rules involving nasal consonants apply only when certain syllable- and/or feature geometry requirements are fulfilled. I argue that all velar nasal segments not produced by one of the postlexical rules of nasal assimilation discussed below derive from either an /Nk/ or an /Ng/ cluster and that the rule of g-Deletion applies only when the /N/ and the /g/ are tautosyllabic. My analysis of the German velar nasal supports the lexical phonology model in general because g-Deletion and Nasal Assimilation are additional examples of cyclic rules. An additional theoretical point I make in chapter 4 is that German schwa should be radically underspecified so that it is represented as an empty X slot on the prosodic skeleton (cf Levin 1985) which dominates no distinctive features at all. The distinctive features for schwa are then associated with all such empty X positions by a later default rule. I also provide some empirical evidence in chapter 4

against Ito's (1989) claim that epenthesis is always accounted for directly by the syllabification algorithm. A secondary theme I discuss below concerns the extent to which Structure Preservation (henceforth SP; Kaisse & Shaw 1985; Kiparsky 1985) should be considered a universal principle. I show in the following chapters that several phonological rules introduce nondistinctive features lexically in violation of SP. In chapter 5 I present additional evidence against the commonly accepted view that SP holds throughout the entire lexicon. Here I discuss the near complementary distribution of German [ς] and [x] and demonstrate that these segments must be created lexically in violation of SP. I also show in the following chapters that nondistinctive features can be introduced in the cyclic phonology, contrary to Borowsky's (1986) claim that SP holds universally only on the first lexical level. I conclude following T. Mohanan (1989) that SP should be considered a strong cross-linguistic tendency, rather than a principle which allows no exceptions.

Chapter 1: Theoretical principles and background on German phonology 1.1 Theoretical overview The main theoretical assumptions which underlie the discussion in the following chapters are presented in this section, including theories of Lexical Phonology, syllable structure and syllabification, feature geometry, underspecification and a final section on other constraining principles in nonlinear phonology.

1.1.1 Lexical Phonology The present study operates within the Lexical Phonology framework (Kiparsky 1982, 1985; Kaisse & Shaw 1985; Hargus 1985; Pulleyblank 1986; Mohanan 1986; Booij & Rubach 1987). One of the central tenets of the Lexical Phonology model is that the lexicon is composed of a series of strata and that phonological rules apply at one or more of these levels and/or postlexically. I adopt the model in Booij & Rubach (1984; 1987), which is depicted in (1): (1)

list of words/ stems morphological rules

cyclic phonological rules

postcyclic phonological rules

syntactic component

phonological component (= postlexical rules)

Lexicon

The reader is referred to Booij & Rubach (1984; 1987) for more detailed comments concerning the model in (1) and to Kaisse (1985) for further modifications concerning the postlexical component. According to the model in (1) phonological rules can be either cyclic, postcyclic, or postlexical. Cyclic rules by definition apply more than once in the derivation, both before the first morphological rule, and again after each affix is added. Evidence for the cycle in phonology is discussed in Brame (1974), Mascaro (1976), and Booij & Rubach (1984;1987). For further discussion of the role of the cycle the reader is referred to Spencer (1991:105-119). Postcyclic rules are noncyclic, and hence apply only once in the derivation. They apply prior to the syntax and are therefore restricted to word-internal contexts. Postlexical rules are also noncyclic. In contrast to postcyclic rules, postlexical rules operate after the concatenation of words into sentences. (1) presupposes that the input to the first cycle is the unaffixed stem. In the following chapters I present ample evidence that phonology precedes morphology in this fashion. Certain authors have shown that nonlexical categories are not cyclic domains (Kiparsky 1982:32-33; Harris 1983). In this book I similarly argue that the sequence of segments which forms the input to the first cycle can include a bound root plus certain (nonnative) suffixes. In the remainder of this section I discuss additional theory-internal principles in the Lexical Phonology model which play a role in the chapters to follow. Considerable evidence has been adduced that word-internal morphological information is irrelevant for rules applying at later stages in the derivation— evidence which has led to the development of the Bracket Erasure Convention. According to earlier threoreticians (Pesetzky 1979) Bracket Erasure was assumed to hold at the end of each cycle. I am following Rubach & Booij (1990b:459) who hold that Bracket Erasure occurs at the end of the postcyclic component. One point of disagreement among lexical phonologists concerns the way in which morphologically complex words are bracketed. Kiparsky (1982) assumes that affixes do not have any independent brackets, as in (2)(a) below, whereas Halle & Mohanan (1985), Mohanan (1985) and Mohanan (1986) assume that they do, as in (2)(b): (2)(a) [[singling] [unintelligent]] (b) [[sing][ing]] [[un][intelligent]] Thus, in (2)(b) the bracketing is nondistinct from the bracketing of compound words. I assume that brackets are a formal device indicating word status. Hence, both members of a compound word are bracketed as independent lexical items ([[A][B]]) and each go through an independent cycle.

In the present study I will be assuming at least in the unmarked case the morphological structures in (2)(a) where affixes do not have their own brackets. In fact, in section 2.11 I argue explicitly against analyzing (all) German affixes as independent stems, as in (2)(b). One important point I make throughout the following chapters is that certain German prefixes and a handful of suffixes need to be bracketed as stems as in (2)(b), since these affixes behave as stems for the purposes of the phonology. In this respect, I have incorporated a suggestion made by Bates (1983) for English prefixes. One important principle is said to hold for those phonological rules which apply cyclically: Only the cyclic phonological rules in the model in (1) conform to the well-known Strict Cycle Condition (SCO, first proposed as a constraint on cyclic phonological rules by Kean (1974) and Mascaro (1976) and further modified by Kiparsky (1982,1985): (3) Strict Cycle Condition (Kiparsky 1982:41) (a) Cyclic rules apply only to derived representations. (b) A representation φ is derived with respect to rule R in cycle j iff φ meets the structural analysis of R by virtue of a combination of morphemes introduced in cycle j or the application of a phonological rule in cycle j.

The Strict Cycle Condition prevents cyclic structure-changing rules from applying to nonderived words. If structure-changing rules exist which apply to nonderived words then these rules cannot be cyclic; thus, rules not conforming to the SCC apply either postcyclically or postlexically. Kiparsky (1982) attempts to derive the Strict Cycle Condition from the Elsewhere Condition: (4) Elsewhere Condition

(Kiparsky 1973)

Rules A,B in the same component apply disjunctively to a form φ iff (i) The structural description of A (the special rule) properly includes the structural description of Β (the general rule). (ii) The result of applying A to φ is distinct from applying Β to φ. In that case, A is applied first, and if it takes effect, Β is not applied.

Kiparsky argues that nonderived words function as lexical identity rules, thereby precluding the application of any other phonological rule which would have the effect of creating a distinct or incompatible change. The claim that the Elsewhere Condition can be derived from the Strict Cycle Condition is not uncontroversial; the reader is referred to Mohanan & Mohanan (1984:592) and Janda (1987) for counterarguments. In the following chapters I simply assume that the Strict Cycle Condition and the Elsewhere Condition are separate principles, although nothing in my analysis crucially depends on this.

An additional theoretical issue I will be referring to in the following chapters is known as Structure Preservation. Kiparsky (1985) has observed that the output of a lexical rule is typically "structure preserving" in the sense that it does not introduce nondistinctive features. Based on this observation, Kiparsky argues that any rule which introduces nondistinctive features must be postlexical. The example Kiparsky cites is the devoicing of sonorants in English. Phonetically, sonorants are usually voiceless when adjacent to voiceless obstruents. Structure Preservation predicts that any values of voicing for sonorants are introduced postlexically, since voicing is not distinctive for sonorants. Kiparsky proposes that Structure Preservation be formalized in terms of marking conditions which are to be interpreted as conditions on which features may be marked for some value. Thus, the marking condition for English below in (5) holds at the underlying level and throughout the lexicon: (5) *[+son]

I

[voice] The marking condition in (5) says that sonorants cannot be marked underlyingly or lexically for the feature [voice] and predicts that the rule which introduces the nondistinctive feature [voice] onto all [+sonorant] feature matrices must be postlexical. Borowsky (1986;! 989) has modified Kiparsky's original claim concerning the domain for marking conditions. According to Borowsky, Structure Preservation holds only at the first lexical level but can be "turned off" at later levels. From a formal point of view this means that marking conditions hold only underlyingly and in the cyclic phonology. Thus, in Borowsky's view, phonological rules introducing nondistinctive features can apply postlexically or at the word level. In the following chapters I suggest that Structure Preservation requires additional modification in light of the exceptions to be discussed below. For example, I show that certain phonological rules in German violate one of the two marking conditions in (6) because they apply in the lexicon: (6) * [+cons]

* [+nasal]

[back] [high] I demonstrate that rules which violate the conditions in (6) must be lexical because they are either sensitive to morphological information or because they must apply before other lexical rules. In addition, one of the rules which violates (6) can apply in the cyclic phonology, thereby contradicting Borowsky's proposal that Structure Preservation holds only for at the earliest level in the lexicon.

δ One unresolved question in the theory of Structure Preservation is whether or not certain nondistinctive features should be allowed to be introduced by lexical rules because these features are only distinctive for a certain subset of the segments in the language. Thus, there may be a difference between the marking conditions in (6) above and the one in (7) below: (7)*[constricted glottis] Since [back] and [high] are distinctive features for German vowels, a lexical rule which introduces these features might not be as serious a Structure Preservation violation as a lexical rule which introduces [constricted glottis].

1.1.2 Syllable structure and syllabification In my treatment of German phonology I employ a model similar to the one contained in Davis (1985), where the syllable is subdivided into the three subsyllabic constituents onset, nucleus, and coda, but no rhyme:1 (8) kalt

viel

ONC ONC I 1 1^ 1A 1 XXXX XXXX MM I V I f i 1 kalt ("σ" = syllable; Ό" = onset; "N" = nucleus; and "C" = coda). In this representation each segment is either singly or multiply linked to an X position on the prosodic skeleton (Lowenstamm & Kaye 1984; Levin 1985), where X represents a segment unmarked for syllabicity. Short vowels, glides and consonants are all linked to a single X slot, and long vowels are linked to two X slots. I argue below that syllable structure is a predictable property which is assigned in the course of the derivation by a set of syllable-building rules. Thus, the present work continues the tradition set by Pulgram (1970), Hoard (1971), Kahn (1976), Steriade (1982), Levin (1985), and Rubach & Booij (1990a). German phonology will be shown to require a certain version of the Sonority Hierarchy (vowels > R > 1 > nasals > obstruents). I contend that the German Sonority Hierarchy derives support from phonological rules which apply only when certain sonority requirements are fulfilled, and from restrictions on possible and impossible syllable-final clusters.

An additional point I make below is that the distinctive feature [syllabic] is superfluous and that syllabicity is a property which is predictable based solely on syllable structure. I discuss these points in detail in chapter 3.

1.1.3 Feature geometry Recent years have seen the emergence of a theory of hierarchical structure of distinctive features (Clements 1985,1987; Sagey 1986; McCarthy 1988). The basic claim is that distinctive features matrices are not simply unordered bundles of features as assumed in Chomsky & Halle 1968 (henceforth SPE), but that these features are hierarchically organized into groupings which can function as a natural class in terms of phonological rules. I am adopting a model similar to the one contained in McCarthy (1988), which I have reproduced in (9) below:

(9) [continuant] [nasal] [voice] > [spread glottis] [constricted glottis] [high] [low] [distributed] [round]

[back]

("R"= root; "LA"= Laryngeal; "P"= Place; "L"= Labial; "C"= Coronal; "D"= Dorsal). I incorporate McCarthy's suggestion that the root node consists of the features [sonorant] and [consonantal] and that [nasal] and [continuant] are linked directly to the root. According to the configuration in (9) the root node dominates the laryngeal node and the place node and the latter dominates one of three articulator nodes. I am following Lahiri & Evers (1991) who argue that the features [high] and [low] are not linked to the dorsal articulator. In section 2.7.8 I discuss evidence that [high] behaves independently from the articulator nodes. Lahiri & Evers (1991) hold that both [high] and [low] are dominated by a "tongue position" node which is a sister of the place node. This is a question I leave open for further research.

10

Most theorists hold that languages with apical vs. laminal contrasts require [distributed] to be restricted to the coronal articulator. I assume that [distributed] is dominated by the labial articulator in order to contrast labial vs. labio-dental places of articulation. I leave open the question of whether or not [ATR] ("advanced tongue root") is dominated by a pharyngeal node (cf. McCarthy 1988). Nothing in my analysis crucially depends on the presence or absence of this node. The nodes in (9), such as Labial, Coronal and Dorsal, function in a monovalent, or "privative" function. Thus, the presence of a coronal node, for example, reflects what would be interpreted in a purely binary system as [+coronal] and the negative value does not play a role at all in the phonology. Certain linguists claim that terminal features can be privative (and not binary), in the sense that the grammar can only make reference to their presence, but not to their absence (cf. Avery & Rice 1989; Rice & Avery 1991). In the following chapters I assume that the terminal features are binary and that both the positive and negative values are present. A number of studies have argued that the model of the segment such as the one in (9) requires considerable more structure. For example, it is commonly assumed that a supralaryngeal node intervenes between the root node and the place node. In addition, it has been claimed that the feature [continuant] might not be linked to the root node as in (9) but that this feature should be associated with an intermediate node, such as the soft palate node (Clements 1987) or the stricture node (Dogil & Jessen 1989). The phenomena I discuss in the following chapters do not require this additional structure (i.e. the additional nodes). For this reason, I leave open the question of whether or not additional facts from other areas of German phonology require a model of the segment with more structure. 1.1.4 Underspecification The theory of Underspecification seeks to eliminate predictable information from distinctive feature matrices; this information is then introduced in the course of the derivation through redundancy rule. Currently two theories of Underspecification are being explored: Radical Underspecification (Kiparsky 1982; Archangeli 1984; Archangeli & Pulleyblank 1986) and Contrastive Underspecification (Steriade 1987; Clements 1988; Mester & Ito 1989). Broadly speaking, Radical Underspecification requires that only one value of each feature be present underlyingly whereas Contrastive Underspecification says that both values of a feature must be underlyingly present for the segments where this feature functions distinctively. Both theories differ from a fully-specified approach which requires all segments to be underlyingly specified for every feature.

11

A simple example illustrates these theories: (10) (a) Fully-Specified

Approach

p t k b d g m n [voice]

(b) Contrastive Approach p t k b d g m n

+ + +

[voice]

(c) Radical Approach p t k b d g m n [voice]

The matrices in (10) are from a language like German or English where [voice] only functions as a distinctive feature for obstruents but not for sonorants. In (a) all segments, both obstruents and sonorants alike, are underlyingly specified for [voice]. A number of studies have argued that the Fully-Specified Approach is unsound because independent facts require nondistinctive features to be underspecified. Thus, (a) does not find much support in the literature. According to the Contrastive Approach in (10)(b) only obstruents are marked underlyingly for [voice] and sonorants receive the value [+voice] by a default rule. The Radical Underspecification approach in (10)(c) requires only one value of a distinctive feature like [voice] to be marked underlyingly for the segments where this feature is distinctive. Thus, (10)(c) requires an additional default rule which says that obstruents unmarked for [voice] are [-voice]. A number of very intricate arguments from a variety of languages have been proposed in support of both the Radical and the Contrastive models. I present an empirical argument in section 4.4 that German schwa should be radically underspecified to the extent that this segment is represented as an X slot which is associated with no distinctive features at all. In chapter 2 I assume that only one value of the features [voice] and [high] should be present underlyingly in consonants and show that the default rules which introduce the redundant values of these features account for certain phonotactic regularities. I also argue

12

below that coronal consonants are underspecified to the extent that they lack a place node in the underlying representation. I discuss my reasoning in section 2.1. Clements (1988) and Mester & Ito (1989) point out a problem for the Radical Approach. A major difficulty for the Radical Approach would be a language in which separate morpheme structure conditions make reference to both the positive as well as the negative values of a single feature. Since morpheme structure conditions operate directly in the underlying representations such a situation would require both values of a single distinctive feature to be present underlyingly. In fact, I posit sequential constraints in section 2.1 which make reference to both values of the major class features [consonantal] and [sonorant], suggesting that these features cannot be "radically" underspecified. For the most part, the issues I discuss in this book do not require a complete commitment to a particular theory of underspecification. 1.1.5 Other constraining principles in nonlinear phonology One constraint I will be referring to "in the following chapters is the Obligatory Contour Principle (OCP): (11) Obligatory Contour Principle (McCarthy 1986:208) At the melodic level, adjacent identical elements are prohibited.

The OCP was first proposed by Leben (1973) for tonal phonology and extended to segmental phonology by McCarthy (1986), Mester (1986), and Yip (1988). As formalized in (11), the OCP ensures that a long vowel is represented as in (12)(a) below and not as in (12)(b) because the features which characterize [a] are adjacent and identical in the latter configuration: (12)(a) X X

\s

(b) *X X

ι ι

Some controversy exists in the literature concerning both the kind of adjacent identical "elements" which are barred from occurring by the OCP as well as the point in the grammar where the OCP holds. Generally speaking, the OCP derives its strongest support as a morpheme structure condition barring adjacent identical feature matrices in the underlying representations. I demonstrate in chapter 3 that the OCP operates in this manner in German phonology. Certain linguists have argued that the OCP also holds for individual adjacent nodes as well, such as the place node, or individual, adjacent features, such as [continuant] (Mester 1986; Yip 1988;1990; McCarthy 1988). I similarly argue in the chapters to

13

follow that German has OCP-related filters which function as morpheme structure conditions. The claim has also been made that the OCP holds not only in the underlying representations, but also throughout the derivation as a mechanism which can either trigger or block phonological rules (McCarthy 1986; Yip 1988;1990). In section 3.4.2 I show that the OCP can also perform this function in German phonology. A number of linguists have argued that phonological rules do not apply in general to half of a (tautomorphemic) geminate structure, as in (12)(a), without also affecting the other half (Guerssel 1978; Steriade 1982; Schein & Steriade 1986; Hayes 1986a). Various constraints have been proposed through the years to account for the "inalterability" of linked structures such as the ones in (12)(a). I assume here the well known Linking Constraint (Hayes 1986a): (13) The Linking Constraint (Hayes 1986a:321) The lines of association in the structural description of rules are interpreted as being exhaustive.

The Linking Constraint says that if a rule affects a segment which is singly linked then this rule cannot apply to this same segment in the same environment when it is multiply linked. I show in the following chapters that the Linking Constraint performs an important function in the interpretation of the lines of association in the Syllable Structure Algorithm I posit in section 2.5, and in the rule of Fast Speech Glide Formation I discuss in section 3.4.2.

1.2 Background on German phonology The following paragraphs provide information on German phonology which is required in the analysis presented in the remaining chapters. I begin by making a few comments concerning the dialect of German I am describing and devote a separate section to the surface segmental inventory, the underlying segmental inventory, German word stress, vowel quantity and quality, and German schwa. I conclude this chapter with a few remarks concerning the cycle in German phonology. Throughout this book I employ the latest IPA transcription system (Ladefoged 1990). In this system [j] is the voiced palatal fricative, [j] is the voiced palatal approximant, [j] is the high, front glide, [R] is the uvular trill and [B] is the voiced uvular fricative. 1.2.1 On "Standard German" In the present study I restrict my discussion for the most part to the dialect known as "Standard German" which is described in the three pronunciation

14

dictionaries Duden, Siebs and the Großes Wörterbuch der deutschen Aussprache. A number of authors have pointed out the inconsistencies which exist in the transcription systems employed by these reference works. The reader is referred to Pilch (1966), and Ungeheuer (1969) for discussion on this point. In the following chapters I discuss at least two rules sensitive to rate/style of speech which are not surprisingly ignored by the pronunciation dictionaries cited in the previous paragraph. These data are discussed in sections 2.9 and 3.4.2 and are based on grammaticality judgements elicited from students and faculty at the Universities of Düsseldorf and Cologne during the academic year 1989-1990.

1.2.2 Phonetic inventory In this section I list the surface segmental inventory and distinctive feature matrices of Modern Standard German. I make reference below to certain topics in German phonology which are relevant in the following chapters. The following chart lists the surface [+consonantal] segments of Standard German:

(14)

J\[ stops:

affricates:

palatolabiobUabial dental dental alveolar palatal velar uvular glottal P Ph

t th

k kh

b

d

g

pf

to

fricatives:

nasals: liquids:

m

f

s

v

z

rrj

n 1

?

t; h

(3)

J Jl

Q R

[h] and [?] are standardly assumed to be [-cons]. I analyze both segments as [+cons] and hence as a fricative and a stop respectively for language-particular reasons I discuss in section 3.3.1. [R] in Standard German is a uvular trill and is pronounced in many southern dialects as a tongue trilled [r]. Meyer-Eppler (1959), Ulbrich (1972), and Kohler (1977:169-170) note that [R] can surface in Standard German as the voiced uvular

15

fricative [«] and that this segment can devoice in certain contexts to [χ]. I hold the sonorant /R/ to be the underlying segment in Standard German and assume that both the voiced and voiceless uvular fricatives are derived segments. As in English, [3] is restricted to words borrowed into German from other languages, such as the ones in (15): (15)

Etage Ingenieur Genie Journal

[e.ta:.se] [ln.3e.nj0:Aj [3e.ni:] [3UR.na:l]

'floor 1 'engineer' 'genius' 'journal'

(In (15) and throughout the remainder of this book, "." in the phonetic transcriptions refers to a syllable boundary). Although its distribution is limited to loan words, [3] is included in the chart in (14) because there is no tendency in Standard German to assimilate [3] to another sound. The voiced palato-alveolar affricate [d3] also only occurs in recent loan words: (16)

Dschungel Job Manager

[d3U.r)al] [d30p] [ms.ni.d3A]

'jungle' '.job'manager'

Once again, I have included [d3] in the chart in (14) becuse there is no tendency in the standard language to assimilate [d3] to another segment. The sonorant consonants [m,rrjji,rj,l] can all surface as either nonsyllabic or syllabic. I show in chapter 4 that the syllabic sonorants are all derived because their syllabicity is predictable. /R/ can also surface as syllabic. However, in contrast to the other sonorant consonants, the syllabic /R/ obligatorily becomes vocalized to [A]. I discuss German /R/ in greater detail in section 2.4.3. Additional surface segments are possible in Standard German once fast speech rules are considered. Thus, Kohler (1977:217), lists both [β] and [γ] as the fast speech pronunciation of an intervocalic [b] and [g] respectively: (17) hab-e [ha:b9] leg-e [le:go]

[ha:|te] [le:ye]

'have (first sg.)' 'put (first sg.)'

Following Lombardi (1990), I assume that affricates are represented as complex segments, as in (18):

16 (b) [ts]

Γ-son I L+consj R [-cont][+cont]

[-high]

(d) [d3l

[ti]

(0

[

•son 1 fconsj R

Γ-son I [-cont][+cont]

[+vc] [+high]

[+high]

In (18) the feature specifications [-cont] and [+cont] in the affricates are linked directly to the root node. An important point regarding the representations in (18) is that the adjacent specifications of [continuant] are unordered in the underlying representations and throughout the phonological derivation. This position derives motivation from the fact that complex segments in human languages include affricates (i.e. stop + fricative) but not the reverse (i.e. fricative + stop). Only on the phonetic surface are [+cont] and [-cont] temporally ordered. The reader is referred to Lombardi (1990) for further discussion on these points. One of the most popular topics in German phonology is the status of the affricates. Thus, certain authors argue that (tautomorphemic) sequences of stop + homorganic fricative like [ts] and [pf] are single segments (Becker 1953; James 1969; Wurzel 1980a), whereas others argue explicitly that sequences like [pf] and [ts] are composed of two separate segments (Moulton 1947; Gerhardt 1950; Moulton 1962; Heike 1972; Ungeheuer 1977). The representations in (18) imply that affricates are monosegmental because they are dominated by a single root node. Thus, in the chapters to follow, I simply assume that German affricates are not composed of two separate segments.2 This assumption will only play a minor role in my analysis. Feature matrices for all (noncomplex) [+consonantal] segments are listed below in (19):

17

(19)

x^ cons

•

pphttl>kk b d g f s i g x v z 3 j . m r r j n j i r j l R h ? + + + + + + + + +++ + + + + + + + + + + + ++ + + +

son rnnt

LA vni PP Sg

Place + + _ . + . . + + + . - ++ + + .. high low Lab ++ + + + ++ dist + + + +Cor ++ +++ ++ + + Dor ++ + ++ + +++ back ++ + -_j- + + ("LA" = laryngeal node; "s.g." = spread glottis; "e.g." = constricted glottis; "Place" = place node; "Lab" = labial node; "dist" = distributed; "Cor" = coronal node; "Dor" = dorsal node). All nodes are privative. Thus, a plus indicates the presence of a node and a blank its absence. In contrast, features are binary. I assume that [h] and [?] do not have any place node or any dependent place features. Certain linguists hold that palatals (i.e. [ς] and [j.]) are coronal (Keating 1988; 1991; Paradis & Prunet 1991). I reject this position for reasons to be discussed in chapter 5. Instead, I adopt the more standard position (cf. SPE) that palatals, such as [ς] and [j], are dorsal. In my analysis no reference is made to the features [anterior] or [lateral], [s] and [/] are differentiated by the feature [high] and [1] and [R] by [continuant]. In section 2.7.8 I provide evidence that [s] and [f] are distinguished by [high] as opposed to [anterior]. I leave open the question of whether or not additional evidence from the phonology of German requires specific reference to [lateral]. All surface [-consonantal] segments are listed below in (20):

18 (20)

\ high mid

unrounded front central back ι: ι

rounded central back u: u y.y

front

I

Υ

U

e:e ε: ε

0: 0 O3

ο: ο D

θ

Α a: a

low

[λ] is the vocalized pronunciation of an underlying /R/. This segment can either surface as a glide, as in (21)(a) or a vowel, as in (21)(b): (21)(a) mehr (b) Vater

[me:A] 'more 1 [fa:.tA] 'father'

Many authors prefer to use [E] as opposed to [A]; clearly, the choice depends on the feature composition of the vocalized /R/. I return to this point below. Certain linguists have suggested that [ε:] is simply a spelling pronunciation for (Moulton 1947; Szulc 1966; Sanders 1972). In fact, speakers of many Northern dialects have no [ε:] at all and instead pronounce all Standard German [ε:] segments as [e:]. Since I am describing Standard German, I assume in the chapters to follow that German does indeed have the segment [ε:]. In addition to the vowels in (20) German has three diphthongs: [aj], [au], [oy], Much debate in the earlier literature is devoted to the question of whether or not these diphthongs are single segments or sequences of two segments. I analyze the three German diphthongs as sequences of two separate segments and discuss my reasoning in sections 2.14 and 3.2. Long vowels differ from short vowels in terms of skeletal structure:

(22) (a) X X

Va

(b) X

Ia

I am thus following the relatively uncontroversial view in generative phonological theory recognized at least as early as Trubetzkoy (1939) that length is not a distinctive feature, but a prosodic one.3 In addition to the long and short vowels in (20), German is said to have half long (tense) vowels as well (see Duden; Wurzel 1980a). Half long vowels surface only in pre-pausal position:

19

(23)

Mutti [muti·] 'mother 1 Konto [konto] 'account' Kaffee [kafe'] 'coffee 1

I make some brief remarks concerning half long vowels in section 1.2.5. I have provided the following distinctive feature matrices for all [-cons] segments below in (24): (24)

^^^ cons son cont nas Place high low ATR Lab

round Dor U-,,1, DacK

i: i I e: e ε ε: a: a o: o D u: u U y: y Υ 0: 0 ce A

+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +++

+ ++ +

+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + ++

+ + + + + + +++ + ++ + + + +++

+

+ + + + + +

(Length is represented prosodically, as in (22), and not as plus or minus [long]). The representation of vowel features in the model of the segment in (9) is controversial. I am following the assumption on much of the earlier work on feature geometry that all vowels have a dorsal articulator. Evidence supporting this position is presented in chapter 5, where I discuss the complementary distribution between [ς] and [x]. In contrast, several recent studies have advanced the claim that front vowels have a coronal articulator (Pulleyblank 1989; Lahiri & Evers 1991). In (24) I have not taken a position on the exact phonetic realization of schwa. In fact, Pullum & Ladusaw (1986) note that there is a wide range of variation in the articulatory descriptions given to schwa. Thus, certain authors do not distinguish [θ] from [λ] (cf. Gleason 1958:8; SPE).4 One question which has received considerable attention in the past is whether or not the two German low vowels [a] and [a:] are marked for tenseness. In short, certain authors claim that long [a:] is tense (and hence transcribed as [a:]) and short [a] is lax (Kloeke 1982a; Ramers & Vater 1988:124), whereas others have argued explicitly that short [a] is tense and long [a:] is lax (Wurzel 1980a:914-915). I am following the claim by a third set of authors that German low vowels are not marked at all for tenseness (Meinhold & Stock 1982; Wiese 1988). Nothing in my analysis crucially depends on this assumption.

20 An additional point of controversy concerns the classification of the low vowels as [+back] or [-back]. Certain authors treat both [a] and [a:] as [-back] (Wurzel 1970a), while others analyze only [a] as [-back] and [a:] as [+back] (Lass 1984; Benware 1986) and others argue explicitly that [a] and [a:] are both [+back] (Kloeke 1982a; Ramers & Vater 1988). I am following the latter set of authors in adopting the more or less standard SPE position concerning the classification of [a] and [a:] as [+back]. Along the same lines, earlier treatments of German phonology often assume that German vowels must also be marked for the feature [front] in addition to [back]. I only employ [back] because there is no underlying three way backness contrast (although cf. footnote 4). I am following Moulton (1962) in analyzing the vocalized / R / as [A]. In contrast, most previous analysts have treated the phonetic realization of German /R/ as [B]; my choice of [A] as opposed to [B] is based on the distinctive features which characterize this segment: Since [A] is [+back, -low], then it differs from the uvular [R] only in terms of the feature [consonantal]: (25)

[R]

+cons +son +cont -»-back -low -high

[A] -cons" +son +cont -t-back -low -high

Given the feature matrices in (25) the rule of German R-Vocalization simply involves a change in the feature [consonantal]. Were the vocalized /R/ really [fcj, then vocalization would not only alter [consonantal], but also [low], since [B] is In addition to the vowels in (24) German has the glides [u], [j], [Aj and occasionally even [y]. I argue in chapter 3 that the syllabicity / nonsyllabicity of vowels is a function of where this segment is located within the syllable. Thus, there is no need for the feature [syllabic]. Duden and Siebs agree that a number of German words contain nasal vowels [ :], [ ], [ä:], [ä], [ö:], [ö], [de:], [de]. A list of words containing these segments is provided in (26):

(26)

Balkon Pardon Teint

[balkö] [pafidö] [tf:]

'balcony' 'pardon' 'skin color'

The nasalized vowels surface only in French loan words. In contrast to [3] and [d3], which also only surface in loan words, the nasalized vowels have been

21

omitted from the chart in (24) because there is a strong tendency in the standard language to pronounce these segments with the the corresponding (short, lax) oral vowel + the velar nasal: (27)

Balkon Pardon Teint

[balkonj [paRfDQ] [ten]

1.2.3 Underlying segmental inventory The following chart lists what I believe to be the underlying [+consonantal] segments:

(28)

^^ stops:

affricates:

palatolabiobilabial dental dental alveolar palatal velar uvular glottal P

t

k

b

d

g

pf

ts

fricatives:

nasals: liquids:

f v m

s z

tX

/

ς

h

(3)

n 1

R

I am following the uncontroversial view that the three aspirated stops [ph,th,kh] and the glottal stop [?] are all derived segments because of their predictable distribution. I discuss the aspiration data in section 2.4.2. and the glottal stop facts in section 2.4.4. In chapter 3 I argue that the voiced palatal fricative [j.] is not an underlying segment. Here I show that it is in complementary distribution with the glide ft] and the vowel [i] and derive all three segments from an underlying short high front unrounded vowel. I claim in chapter 4 that the velar nasal derives from either /Nk/ or /Ng/ and that the labio-dental nasal [rrj], the palatal nasal [ji] and the velar nasal [rj] arise in the postlexical phonology by one of two nasal assimilation rules. (/N/ is understood to be a nasal consonant underspecified for place features. This underspecified segment is represented by /n/ in the underlying inventory in (28)).

22

In chapter 5 I analyze the velar and palatal fricatives [ς] and [x] as segments which derive from a dorsal fricative which is unmarked for the feature [back], This treatment is thus reflected in my choice of putting /ς/ in the underlying segmental inventory. As in English, German [h] has a limited distribution, surfacing only syllableinitially before a full vowel: (29)(a) (b)

Haus hoffen Uhu Ahorn geheuer

[haus] [hD.fen] [u:.hu] [ :.hORn] [g .hoy.A]

'house' 'hope' Owl' 'maple' 'eerie'

In postvocalic position, [h] surfaces only after long vowels and schwa. I make further comments on the distribution of German [h] in section 2.12. The following chart indicates what I will argue to be the underlying [-consonantal] segments: (30)

\ high mid low

unrounded front central back i: I e: ε:ε

(θ)

rounded front central back

y-

u:

Υ

U

0: oe

ο: D

a: a

I argue in section 1.2.5 that tenseness (i.e. [ATR]) is predictable for every [-cons] segment except for [ε:], which must be underlyingly [-ATR] because it contrasts with [e:]. All other vowels are underlyingly [OATR]. Thus, the underlying vowels in (30) are understood to be unmarked for tenseness (i.e. /I/ = [OATR]). The most notable difference between the underlying and surface vowel segments is the lack of short tense vowels from the former inventory. I discuss my reasoning for analyzing the short tense vowels as derived segments in section 1.2.5. Schwa is parenthesized because most all surface schwas are predictable by rules of epenthesis. German schwa must be recognized as an underlying segment because its presence in word-internal position in many monomorphemes and in certain prefixes is not predictable by epenthesis. I discuss this point in section 1.2.6.

23

As I mentioned earlier, the present study presupposes a certain amount of underspecification, especially in conjunction with the consonantal inventory. When my analysis crucially requires that a particular feature be "radically" underspecified then I show at this point what the underlying matrices for the relevant segments look like.

1.2.4 German word stress Although German word stress has received considerable attention in the past (Bithell 1952; Kiparsky 1966; Wurzel 1970b, 1980a,b; Benware 1980; Meinhold & Stock 1982; Giegerich 1985; F X / l+son]'

(b) Schwa Default Rule

Schwa Epenthesis inserts an empty X slot before an unsyllabified sonorant and the Schwa Default Rule associates all such empty X slots with the distinctive features for schwa.7 I provide evidence in section 4.4 that the epenthesis of schwa should in fact be subdivided into two parts, as in (60), and that it involves the epenthesis of an X and not a "V" (cf. Clements & Keyser 1983; Wiese 1988).

35

As pointed out by the linguists cited earlier in this section, all of the schwa + consonant sequences in (58) can be pronounced as syllabic sonorants in colloquial speech: ΙI Π (61) Besen [be:.zan] [be:.zn] 'broom' 'trade 1 Handel [han.del] [han.dl] 'breath' Atem [a:.tem] [a:.tm] I account for the pronunciation in the second column of (61) with the following rule of Sonorant Syllabification which follows both Schwa Epenthesis and the Schwa Default Rule:8

(62) Sonorant Syllabification

(optional)

lr>*Ϊ , θ

[+son]

According to Sonorant Syllabification a schwa and a following sonorant are delinked from their respective X positions. The sonorant consonant is then associated with the preceding nucleus. The following derivation illustrates the application of the rules presented in this section: (63)

Atem N C

A i

X XX X

1. syllabification

Va ιt ml

2. Schwa Epenthesis

*XX a t

X X

m

36

ΝC

Α Ι 3. Schwa Default Rule

\/ * f f a t θ m σ σ I ....... l .......

4. syllabification

Ν ON C A i ! i x xx χ x Va It θI mI

xm

5. Sonorant Υ ι syllabification (opt.) Υ t a m [a:.tm]

I discuss the algorithm for the assignment of syllable structure in section 2.5. In the derivation of Atem above, the two pronunciations [a:. torn] and [ar.tm] are illustrated. Wiese (1986a,1988) and Giegerich (1987) have argued that German grammar has several different versions of Schwa Epenthesis which are sensitive to the type of extrasyllabic consonant (i.e. nasal or liquid) as well as the grammatical category of the word. Furthermore, Wiese concludes that German schwa/zero alternations require that the various versions of schwa epenthesis he formalizes be ordered throughout the lexicon between morphological operations, thereby supporting the lexical phonology model. In the present study I will not be concerned with a complete analysis of German schwa /zero alternations. I will be making reference to the general rule of epenthesis in (60)(a) as well as to a more specific version of this rule which I discuss in the following section. According to the chart in (30) schwa is an underlying segment in German. While the majority of German schwas are clearly predictable on the basis of syllable structure and/or morphological conditioning, certain schwas cannot be epenthetic. Consider, for example, the following words: (64)(a) les-e gut-e (b) Giegerich Kamera

[ler.zo] [gu:.te] [gi:.ge.Rlg] [ka.mO.Ra]

'read (first sg.)' 'good (fern. sg. nom.)' 'Giegerich1 'camera 1

The words in (64)(a) contain a word-final schwa and the monomorphemes in (b)

37

a word-internal schwa. To be sure, the final schwas in (a) are uncontroversially a separate morpheme; however, this suffix must have some sort of underlying substance. The schwa in the proper names in (b) must clearly be present underlyingly. In chapter 4 I discuss the underlying form of schwa in detail and conclude that this segment should be represented nonlinearly as a single X slot which dominates no distinctive features at all. I have provided this representation of schwa below in (65)(a). The underlying form of genau appears in (b):

(65)(a) /

f /: / /

XXXXX (b) / g N a u /

The distinctive features for schwa are then associated with the empty X slots in (65) by the Schwa Default Rule. The representation for schwa in (65) differs crucially from the one in Wiese (1988) who assumes that schwa is an underlying V slot. I compare the two analyses in chapter 4.

1.2.7 On the cycle in German phonology In this section I provide a brief sketch of the model of the German lexicon I am assuming by illustrating the role of the cycle in German phonology. The cyclicity of certain phonological rules can be established on the basis of the following data from Giegerich (1987) and Hall (1989b) showing the allomorphy between the two deverbal suffixes -ei and -erei, which typically reflect a pejorative meaning: atm-en widm-en ordn-en (b) Atm-erei Widm-erei Ordn-erei (c) segel-n trodel-n bügel-n plauder-n (d) Segel-ei Trödel-ei Bügel-ei Plauder-ei

(66)(a)

[ä:t.mön] [vft.men] [3R.dnen] [a:t.m9.Raj] [vlt.m9.Raj] [OR.dne.Raj] [z£:.geln] [tR0:.deln] [by:.galn] [plau.dAn] [ze:.g8.1aj] [tR0:.de.läj] [byr.ga.laj] [plau.do.Raj]

/a:tm/ /vitm/ /ORdN/

'breathe' 'dedicate' Order' 'breathing' 'dedicating1 Ordering' 'sail' /ze:gl/ /tR0:dl/ 'loiter' 'iron' /tygl/ /plaUdR/ 'chat 1 'sailing1 'loitering' 'ironing' 'chatting'

The stems of the verbs in (66)(a) contain final unsyllabified nasal and the stems

38 of the items in (c) an unsyllabifiable liquid. Giegerich notes that the suffix -ei attaches only to the verbal stems in (c), whereas the -erei allomorph is always appended to the verbal stems in (a). He concludes that the rule of -ei /-erei allomorphy is sensitive to the number of syllables the verbal stem contains, assuming that a specific rule of schwa epenthesis, which I have formalized in (67), applies before the morphology:

(67)Liquid-Final Schwa Epenthesis

X/

[+sori| -nasj

verb Giegerich's claim is that -ei is attached to verbal stems of two syllables, whereas -erei is appended to stems of one syllable. The following words indicate that stress is the conditioning factor:

(68)(a) sing-en lauf-en ess-en back-en lack-ier-en spion-ier-en (b) Sing-erei Lauf-erei Ess-erei Back-erei Lackier-erei Spion-ier-erei

[zi.rpn] [läu.fen]

/ziNg/ /lauf/

[ .8 ] [ba.ken] [la.ki:.R9n] [Jpi.o.ni:.R9n]

/es/ /bak/ /lak/ /spi:o:N/

'sing' 'run' 'eat 1 'bake' 'lacquer' 'spy'

[zi.rp.Raj]

'singing'

[lau.fe.Raj]

'running' 'eating' 'baking' 'lacquering' 'spying'

f o c A D^ll iGiOVtiYl^J

[ba.ke.Raj] [la.ki.Ra.Räj] [Jpi.o.ni.Re.Räj]

(The /s/ in the underlying form of Spion becomes [J] by a rule I discuss in section 2.7.8.). The examples in (68) show that the true generalization is that -erei is appended to a verbal stem whose final syllable is stressed: (69)(a) (b)

Attach -erei to the verbal stem which ends in a stressed syllable Attach -ei elsewhere.

The data discussed in this section require several phonological rules to apply before the morphology. First, the German Stress Rule must apply to the verbal stems, since the allomorphy rule in (69) is sensitive to stress. Second, both Liquid-Final Schwa Epenthesis and the Schwa Default Rule feed the allomorphy rule in (69) so that the final syllable in the verbal stems in (68)(c) is rendered unstressed. Third, since Liquid-Final Schwa Epenthesis makes reference to a

39

consonant which is unsyllabified, syllabification must precede this rule. Thus, the following orderings have been established: • 1. syllabification • 2. Liquid-Final Schwa Epenthesis Γ 3. Schwa Default Rule

v,

„,

_

L

4. German Stress Rule 5. morphology

The German Stress Rule and therefore syllabification must apply after the morphology as well, since -ei and -erei undergo these rules on the second cycle. I provide additional evidence in chapters 2, 3 and 4 that syllabification applies cyclically. The preceding discussion has demonstrated the importance of the cycle because the data presented above require phonological rules to precede (and follow) morphological rules. It is not difficult to provide an example of a noncyclic rule. Consider Schwa Epenthesis in (60)(a). This rule must clearly apply only at the word level; were Schwa Epenthesis to apply on the root cycle as well, then a schwa would incorrectly be inserted before the morphology (i.e. *Atemung, given the underlying form /a:tm/). I conclude that Schwa Epenthesis must be a postcyclic (word-level) rule. In the following chapters I provide further examples of cyclic and postcyclic rules in German phonology.

40 Notes to chapter 1 1. In the following sections I also posit rules referring to higher level prosodic constituents (i.e. foot, phonological word, and international phrase). Following Nespor & Vogel (1986), I assume that these constituents are arranged in a hierarchy in such a way that the syllable is dominated by the foot, the foot by the phonological word, and the phonological word by the into national phrase. Whether or not any intermediate prosodic contituents intervene between the phonological word and the intonational phrase is a question I leave open for further research. 2. In an abstract analysis Vennemann (1968b) argues that all affricates in German are derived from single segments by various rules. Prinz & Wiese (1991) have advanced the claim that all stop + fricative sequences in German are represented phonologically as affricates. The reader is referred to Hall (1991) for an argument against this proposal. 3. Empirical arguments that length is a suprasegmental are contained in Leben (1980). Stemberger (1984) and Berg (1990) discuss extralinguistic evidence from German, such as speech errors and rhyming traditions in poetry, which crucially require length to be analyzed nonlinearly, as in (22)(b). 4.1 am following the assumption made in SPE that central vowels are [+back]. Campbell (1974:57) points out that there are languages with phonemic contrasts between front, central and back vowels. I therefore assume an additional feature (i.e. [front]) is necessary to contrast [ ] and [ j on the surface. 5. Many German words stressed on the final syllable by the German Stress Rule also contain what Giegerich (1985) refers to as "class I" suffixes. "Class I" suffixes are typically nonnative, unproductive, and usually attach to bound roots not marked for a particular lexical category. "Class II" suffixes are said to be primarily native, such as -lieh, and -ung. In contrast to the affixes of the first type, "Class II" suffixes are native, productive, and typically attach to stems marked for a particular lexical category. Examples of words with the class I suffix -al are listed in (i): (i) laryng-al [la.RYq.ga:!] 'laryngeal1 radik-al [na.di.ka:!] 'radical' (In her treatment of English morphology, Siegel (1974) similarly makes a distinction between two types of suffixes). Giegerich (1985) points out that stress assigment occurs after the concatenation of all class I morphemes. Hence, I assume that the input to the first cycle is the root (i.e. laryng-, etc.) + class I suffix(es). Cme exception to this is the suffix -ei, which Giegerich assumes is class I. In section 1.2.7 I show that stress assigment must precede the suffixation of -ei. In chapters 3 and 4 independent evidence is adduced that the input to the first cycle includes the root + suffix only when the suffix is class I. 6. Certain compounds are not stressed on the left most syllable: (i) Zweikammersystem [tsvaj.kä.nu .zYs.te:m] 'bicameral system' Vierzimmerwohnung [fi:\.tsi.mA.vö:.nUQ] 'four room apartment' The reader is referred to Benware (1987) and McNally (1988) for specific proposals concerning the stress contrasts between (i) and (40). 7. The skeletal position inserted by epenthesis is unsyllabifiable (i.e. X1). The only unsyllabifiable X slots which can undergo the Schwa Default Rule are the ones which have no features at all. Noske (1992:105) correctly points out that phonological rules can only refer to the presence of some element. Given this view, there could not be such a thing as a rule making specific reference to an unsyllabifiable skeletal position because it would make reference to the absence of a line of association. In fact, this argument against rules referring to X' could support Noske's idea that the epenthesis of schwa is really the imposition of a syllable template. However, this template cannot belong to the general algorithm which assigns syllable structure as argued by Noske. I clarify this point in section 4.5. 8. Presumable Schwa Epenthesis and Sonorant Syllabification could be two mutually exclusive operations; hence, on this view, the former rule need not feed the latter rule. This is the approach taken by Kleinhenz (1991). I leave this possibility open.

Chapter 2: German syllable structure and syllabification This chapter presents a specific model of the syllable and introduces an explicit algorithm for the assignment of syllable structure. I argue below that syllable structure is a predictable property and that the Syllable Structure Algorithm operates cyclically. In addition, evidence is provided that morpheme-final consonants cannot be extrasyllabic—contrary to the claim made by Borowsky (1986), Ito (1986), and Rice (1989) that this is universally the case. German will be shown to require two postcyclic resyllabification rules which are independent from the Syllable Structure Algorithm. The second of these rules is important because it applies only when certain sonority requirements have been fulfilled, thereby supporting the German Sonority Hierarchy I posit below. The German Sonority Hierarchy derives further motivation from the restrictions on possible syllable-final clusters.

2.1 Syllabification model and theoretical assumptions In this section I examine briefly the arguments proposed through the years for various models of the syllable and show that the German facts require a representation where the syllable dominates the subsyllabic constituents onset, nucleus, and coda, without a rhyme. Let us now consider some of the most widely accepted nonlinear representations of the syllable. Observe first the models in (1) below:

/TVs. dXa) k a l t

cvcc I I I I

(b) k a l t

The representation in (a) is the one contained in Kahn (1976) and the one in (b) in Clements & Keyser (1983). The former model consists solely of two levels: the segmental level and the level of the syllable. This representation has been shown by a number of researchers to be inadequate and I will not repeat all of the arguments here. Two drawbacks stand out in particular: 1) This model is unable to represent long vowels nonlinearly, given the commonly accepted assumption that length is an autosegmental property and not a distinctive feature; and 2) no

42

subsyllabic constituents mediate between the segmental tier and the syllable tier. I show in section 2.4 that German requires at least some subsyllabic structure since one rule has the coda as its domain. In addition, the syllabification of glides and vowels (section 3.2) crucially requires subsyllabic structure. The model in (l)(b) is characterized by a tier composed of C's and V's which intervene between the segmental melodies and the syllable node (C represents [-t-segmental, -syllabic] and V [+ segmental, -t-syllabic]). The nucleus is interpreted as a constituent associated with the CV tier but not dominated by the syllable. To be sure, (l)(b) has the advantage over the one in (l)(a) because only the former model enables vowel length to be represented nonlinearly:

(2)

V a

The reader is referred to Steriade (1988) for criticisms regarding the model in (l)(b). The model in (l)(b) is problematic in the present context for two reasons: 1) As Steriade points out, the paucity of subsyllabic structure does not allow for the possibility that certain rules ha versuch entities as their domain; and 2) The syllabicity/ nonsyllabicity of the individual segments in (l)(b) is interpreted as being underlying. I argue in chapter 3 that [syllabic] is totally redundant in Standard German because the syllabicity/nonsyllabicity of individual segments is completely predictable based on their position in the syllable. Wiese (1988) analyzes German syllable structure within the Clements & Keyser model but treats syllabicity (i.e. CV positions) as derived. I provide evidence against (l)(b) and Wiese's treatment of CV positions as derived entities in section 3.2. Regarding the criticism that syllabicity is by and large a predictable property several researchers (Lowenstamm & Kaye 1984; Levin 1985) have proposed that the skeleton be replaced by a row of X's which are defined as [+segmental] elements unspecified for syllabicity. Two models in the X theory are depicted in (3) below:

/h ^

/I

ONC I I IS XXXX

OR I XXXX

(3)(a) k a l t

(b) k a l t

l l l I

I I I I

The representations in (3)(a) and (b) consist of a segmental tier and an X tier where the latter is dominated by the more traditional subsyllabic constituents (O = onset; N=nucleus; C=coda; and R= rhyme). In the former representation the rhyme is further subdivided into a nucleus and a coda. The representation in (a)

43

or a very similar one is either explicit or implicit in many analyses, including Pike & Pike (1947), Kurylowicz (1948), Hockett (1955), Selkirk (1982), Carlyie (1988), and Ramers & Vater (1988) for German. A model along the lines of the one in (b) is employed by Halle & Vergnaud (1980), Steriade (1982), Harris (1983), and Levin (1985). Both models in (3) have been criticized on the basis of what criteria can and should be used for determining constituency. Thus, Clements & Keyser (1983) and Davis (1985;1987) point out that the arguments in favor of the rhyme as a subsyllabic constituent are weak. The major argument for the rhyme as a constituent is that cooccurrence restrictions often hold between the nucleus and the coda but not between the nucleus and the onset or the onset and the coda (cf. Cairns & Feinstein 1982:207). According to Clements & Keyser (1983) and Davis (1985;1987) there are numerous sequential cooccurrence restrictions which hold for the pre- and post-nuclear segments in English and in other languages. German similarly has such restrictions. Consider, for example, the point made by Twaddell (1939) that no German word is of the form "pf-vowel-velar stop". In fact, this gap is more general, since the segment after a "pf + vowel" sequence cannot be a velar obstruent. Thus, hypothetical German words like *pfak, *pfeg, and *pfach are impermissible. The following filter describes this gap: (4) * [-son]

[-cons]

[-son]

root node

[-cont] [+cont] place node labial node dorsal node I do not interpret the gap described above as accidental because it involves a natural class.1 The constraint on "pf-vowel-velar obstruent" sequences is not the only one involving segments not traditionally grouped together into the "rhyme". Consider, for example, the fact that no German word can begin with a schwa. (This generalization concerns the word and not the syllable because German syllables can begin with schwa: bau-e [bay.»] 'build (first sg.)1). The following filter accounts for this gap:

(5)

[θ

44

The gap described above cannot be dismissed as an accident because words beginning with schwa are unambiguously judged by native speakers to be deviant.2 Additional constraints involving German segments not dominated by the constituent traditionally known as the 'rhyme1 are described by Twaddell (1939;1940) and Augst (1971). Twaddell notes a tendency for the same consonant not to occur both pre- and post-vocalically; the more sonorous the consonant the more likely the restriction is to hold. Thus, consider the following: If a German word begins with an s// + [-cor] obstruent + vowel + obstruent, then the postvocalic obstruent cannot cannot share the same place features with the prevocalic obstruent. Thus, while the words in (6)(a) below are possible and occurring, the ones in (6)(b) are not: Skat skeptisch Skizze Spa Speise sp t Spedition Specht Speck Stadt Staat Stand still *[skak] (b) *[ske:g9] *[skaxa] *[ίρερ] *[JpOm] (0 * [-son] Γ-son ~ -cor α place

0

[ska:t] [skepttj] [skitse] [Jpa:s] [jpajz ] [fpet] [Jpeditsjo:n] [Jpect]

[Jpek] [/tat] Lita:t] [/tant]

l/t ]

'skat' 'sceptical' 'skit1 'fun 1 'food' 'late' 'moving company' 'woodpecker' 'bacon' 'city' 'state1 'stand' 'quiet1

*[ipi:be] *[/ρ0:νθ] -Ι/ρο:£θ] *[ipapfe] [-cons] "son ~ -cor aplace

An informal version of this constraint involving pre- and post-nuclear segments is in (6)(c). Interestingly, a very similar cooccurrence restriction holds in English. The reader is referred to Clements & Keyser (1983) and Davis (1985;1990) for further discussion. I am following Davis (1990;1991) who argues that the equivalent English constraint can most insightfully be understood if /t/ is underspecified to the extent that it lacks an entire place node. Under this assumption, the filter in (6)(c) has been reformalized in (7):

45

(7) *[-son] 3 [-son], [-cons] D

[-son]

root node place node

condition : [-son]b and [-son]c dominate the same place features. According to (7) the pre- and post-nuclear obstruents dominate the same place features. Since coronal obstruents have no place node, words like the last four in (6)(a) can occur. Thus, my assumptions concerning the underspecification of coronals support the position taken by Paradis & Prunet (1990) that these segments lack a place node in the underlying representation altogether. A similar constraint holds for sonorants: If /!/, /R/, /N/ or /m/ is the second member of an initial cluster then this segment cannot occur in postnuclear position. Thus, Krahl, Knall, Plan, grell, Grill, and Gnom are well-formed German words because the pre- and post nuclear sonorant consonants are not identical and rar, Rohr, Ruhr, lull-en, and nenn-en are occurring because the initial sonorant is word-initial; however, no German word exists such as *grirr, *klall, *gnenen etc. (The only exceptions to this generalization to my knowledge are frieren [fRi:R9n] 'freeze' and the city name Trier [tRi:/J /tRi:R/). The reader is referred to Vogt (1942:22) for a nearly identical constraint in Norwegian. The preceding paragraphs have illustrated that one of the arguments for the rhyme as a subsyllabic constituent is weak because negative cooccurrence restrictions often involve parts of the syllable other than the rhyme. An additional argument often cited in favor of the rhyme involves rhyming traditions in poetry as well as speech errors and word games (Fudge 1987; Treimann 1983; 1985; 1986). In fact, Clements & Keyser (1983), Davis (1985;1987) and Berg (1989) have argued that the aforementioned arguments for the rhyme also do not provide unambiguous evidence for this subsyllabic constituent. The argument against this extralinguistic evidence for the rhyme is that the data which are often cited in support of the rhyme almost exclusively involve monosyllabic words. In fact, once polysyllabic words are considered then one must conclude that the part of the syllable which either rhymes in poetry or is transposed in speech errors or word games is actually the "post-onset" part of the word. For example, in English higgeldy-piggeldy or German Techtel-Mechtel 'light love affair' and Hocuspocus rhyme because the "post-onset" part of the first word is identical to the "post-onset" part of the second word. Speech errors similarly involve the post-onset part of the word. Thus, consider the following from Fromkin (1973): (8)(a)heft lemisphere for left hemisphere (C.I,p.245) (b)Joman Rakobson for Roman Jakobson (C.7, p.245)

46

Clearly speech errors such as the ones in (8) do not provide crucial psycholinguistic evidence for the "rhyme". In this book I adopt the model of the syllable similar to the one contained in Davis (1985). In this model the syllable node dominates the three subsyllabic constituents onset, nucleus and coda, as in (9): ONC I I N XXXX I I I I (9) k a l t As indicated in (9) the nucleus and the coda are not dominated by a separate rhyme constituent; thus this representation allows for cooccurrence restrictions between "non-rhyme" segments.3

2.2 Further remarks on syllable structure In the previous section I discussed explicit arguments against the "rhyme" and proposed instead a "level" syllable-structure, where the syllable node dominates the three subsyllablic constituents onset, nucleus and coda. In this section I provide additional descriptive comments on German syllable structure and possible German syllables. The onset and coda are both optional in German; hence, the only obligatory subsyllabic category is the nucleus: (10)

Certain linguists have argued that the subsyllabic constituent "onset" is universally an obligatory constituent (Noske 1989,1992). This is a question I leave open for further study. The onset can dominate one, two, or three X slots, as in (11): kalt platt Splint σ _

σ ^Τ^

ONC

Μ

r^t—

ON

ι I

xxx

χχχχχ

χχχχχ

χχχχχχ

kam

k R a g k

m a R k t

1 ε R n s t

I I I

I I I I I

I

I I I I

I I I I I I

The third and fourth examples in (15) show that coda clusters composed of three and four members always end in one or two coronal obstruents respectively. Three and four member codas only surface morpheme-finally and never wordinternally in monomorphemes. Certain authors have argued that the final [st] sequence as in words like lernst is represented nonlinearly as an affricate (Wiese 1988; Giegerich 1989). The reader is referred to Hall (1992) for a critical discussion of this claim. The structure in (10) correctly suggests that there are German syllables of the following types. I have provided examples of words containing these syllables in word-final position in (i), and in word-internal position in (ii): (16)(a)

(b)

onset + nucleus + coda (i) kalt [kalt] Kamm [kam] viel [fi:l] Baum [b um] (ii) Konto [kon.to] Pause [pau.z9]

nucleus + coda (i) real Aal (ii) Rialdo

(c)

[Re.a:l] [a:l] [Ri.al.do]

'real' 'eel' 'rialdo (name)'

onset + nucleus (i) Konto Zebra (ii) Harmonika Spion

(d)

'cold' 'comb 1 'many' 'tree' 'account' 'break 1

[kon.to] [tse:.bRa] [haR.mo.ni.ka] [|pi.o:n]

'account' "zebra1 'harmonica' 'spy'

[ka.ka:.o] [ma:.o] [a.Ofcta] [ti.a:.Ra]

'hot chocolate1 'Mao 1 'aorta 1 'tiara 1

nucleus (i) Kakao Mao (ii) Piano Tiara

Syllables of the type (16)(a) and (b) are constrained in the following way: A nucleus + coda sequence containing three skeletal positions only occurs in

49

morpheme-final position but never word-internally in monomorphemes. I return to this point later on in this chapter.

23 On ambisyllabicity A number of authors have either assumed or argued explicitly that consonants in German can be ambisyllabic (Sievers 1893; Jespersen 1904; Trubetzkoy 1939; Bithell 1952; Kohler 1977; Giegerich 1985; Laeufer 1985; Benware 1986; Wiese 1986a,b,1988). The general claim is that a medial consonant preceded by a short (stressed) vowel belongs both to the preceding coda as well as the following onset. The representation of a word containing an ambisyllabic /t/ is depicted below in (17):4 ST* Si PNCON

(17)

χ xx χ ι ι ι ι b I t θ

In the following chapters I operate under the assumption that ambisyllabicity is a low level phenomenon that plays no role in the lexical as well as most of the postlexical phonology. Thus, I assume the structure in (18) is disallowed throughout the lexicon and possibly through the majority of the postlexical derivation as well: (18) Ambisyllabicity Filter * C Ο

My assumption that the ambisyllabic structure in (18) is not necessary in the early stages of the derivation is similar to the position taken by a number of other researchers (Wilson 1981; Selkirk 1982; Picard 1984; Giegerich 1985; Vennemann 1990a) that ambisyllabicity is simply not relevant for the phonology. I leave open the question of whether or not a multiply linked structure like the one in (18) can arise late in the derivation, in the postlexical component. In the following paragraphs I show that the arguments presented in the literature to date in favor of ambisyllabic consonants in German are consistent with my assumption that ambisyllabicity is a low-level phenomenon. The multiply linked /t/ in disyllabic words like Bitte, which are composed of a stressed short lax vowel followed by a consonant, is either explicit or implicit in Sievers (1893:225), Jespersen (1904) and Trubetzkoy (1939:196). These linguists assumed the ambisyllabic structure since lax (short) vowels are said to differ from

50

tense (long) vowels in Germanic languages by standing in close contact (fester Anschlu ) with the following consonant. Thus, Delattre (1964:91) states that "..after short stressed vowels, consonants are more arresting and often hold the closure longer: bitte [bit:»] than after long vowels biete [bi:t&]." (The [t:] does not represent a geminate consonant since (tautomorphemic) geminate consonants do not exist in German; it simply reflects the fact that the duration of the medial consonant in the words in (19)(a) below is slightly longer than the medial consonant in the words in (19)(b)). In disyllabic words this difference in contact is traditionally correlated with different syllabifications: While the syllable boundary in the words in (b) lies before the medial consonant, it is said to fall within the consonant in the words in (a): (19)(a) bitte Otto Bodden Widder Roggen schmuggeln offen (b) biete Besen Boden wieder Rogen schmiegen

[bite] [Dto] [boden] [vldA] [ROgan] [Jmugaln] [ofen] [bi:ta] [be.-ζθη] [bo:d n] [vi:dA] [Ro:gOn] [Jmi:g8n]

'please1 Otto' 'bay' 'ram 1 'rye' 'smuggle' Open1 Offer (first sg.)' 'broom 1 'floor 1 'again' 'roe 1 'nestle'

Murray & Vennemann (1983) follow Prokosch (1939) in arguing that the tendency for the optimal stressed syllable to be heavy has been active throughout the history of the Germanic languages. They account for this by postulating the Stressed Syllable Law: (20) Stressed Syllable Law (SSL) The preferred stressed syllable (in Germanic) has exactly two morae.

The mora is not further defined; however, the SSL says in effect that the first syllable in the words in (19)(a) must be ambisyllabic because it is stressed. Since these syllables contain only a short vowel the following consonant must therefore be linked to the coda as well:

51

N CON (21)

I I I I b i t s

The reason that the /t/ in bitte is said to be ambisyllabic and not simply in syllable-final position is that the medial voiced obstruent in words like Bodden would then incorrectly undergo Devoicing. Observe that the SSL makes no statement at all concerning the point in the derivation where the medial consonant in the words in (19)(a) is said to become ambisyllabic. In fact, Laeufer (1985:141) and Giegerich (1985:27) assume that the SSL operates relatively late in the derivation, after the assignment of stress. Thus, there is no a priori reason why the SSL should force one to assume that ambisyllabic consonants exist in the lexicon or even early on in the postlexical derivation. Wiese (1986a,b;1988) has taken a slightly different line of reasoning in arguing that the medial consonant in the words in (19)(a) is ambisyllabic at early stages in the derivation. Wiese takes the same position I do that German vowels are distinguished underlyingly by length and not tenseness. All surface short tense vowels are derived from underlying long vowels and undergo Vowel Shortening at some point in the derivation. Thus, underlying short vowels receive the feature [-ATR] by a rule similar to the one I posited in the previous chapter in (43)(b) whereas underlying long vowels receive the feature [+ATR] by a rule along the lines of the one in (43)(a). Wiese makes the observation for German that SPE and Fudge (1969) make for English: No German word can end in a lax vowel. Thus, while the words in (22)(a) and (b) below are occurring German words, the hypothetical ones in (c) are impossible: (22)(a) Kaffee [kafe] Auto [äuto] (b) Caf£ [kafe:] Fantasie [fantazi:] (c)

/kafe:/ /auto:/ /kafe:/ /fäNtazi:/

'coffee1 'car1 'cafe 1 "fantasy1

»[kafD] *[autc6] Noting the non-existence of German words such as the ones in (22)(c), Wiese concludes that all syllables in German must have a branching nucleus as in (23):

52

(23)Nudeus Condition (Wiese 1988:67) Nucleus /\ V C (Wiese follows Clements & Keyser (1983) who argue that long vowels in certain languages can be dominated by a VC sequence). Since short (tense) vowels can occur syllable-finally as in (22)(a), the Nucleus Condition in (23) holds only through the point in the derivation where these vowels are long but not after Vowel Shortening, which is assumed to be a postlexical rule in Wiese's model. Wiese's claim that all German syllables must have a nucleus containing two skeletal positions as in (23) consequently forces him to analyze the medial consonants in the words in (19)(a) as ambisyllabic in the lexicon so that the Nucleus Condition is fulfilled. Thus, in Wiese's view the nucleus in a word like bitte dominates both the preconsonantal vowel (i.e. /I/) and the following consonant so that the Nucleus Condition is satisfied. Clearly there is a certain amount of circularity to this argument. Ambisyllabic consonants are required at early stages in the derivation because of the Nucleus Condition and the reason the Nucleus Condition is said to hold true is that the medial consonant in the words in (19)(a) is ambisyllabic.5 The flaw in Wiese's argument hinges on the assumption that generalizations holding at word edges imply that they also hold for syllable edges. Thus, the motivation for the Nucleus Condition is based on the view that no German syllable (as opposed to word) can end in a short lax vowel. A number of researchers have shown that generalizations holding at word edges do not necessarily hold at syllable edges (Halle & Vergnaud 1980; Hayes 1980; Steriade 1982; Clements & Keyser 1983; Levin 1985; Ito 1986). In fact, I show throughout the remainder of this chapter that many generalizations in German holding at word edges do not always hold at syllable edges.

2.4 Syllable- and foot- sensitive rules I make extensive reference throughout the following chapters to four phonological rules of German that are sensitive to prosodic structure: Devoicing, Aspiration, R-Vocalization, and Glottal Stop Insertion. In this section I consider briefly the data motivating each of these rules and show that the syllable or the foot is the conditioning factor.

53

2.4.1 Devoicing The following alternations between voiced and voiceless obstruents motivate the well-known rule of Final Devoicing: (24)(a) Dieb Rad Berg brav Haus (b) Dieb-e Rad-es Berg-e brav-er Haus-es (c) les-bar Trüb-heit Brav-heit (d) les-en trüb-en brav-er

[di:p]

/dirb/

[Ra:t]

/Ra:d/

[beRk]

/befig/

[bRa:f]

/bRa:v/

[haus] [di:.b9] [Ra:.des]

/hauz/

ftmge] [bRa:.vA] [hau.zös] [le:s.ba:A] [tRy:p.hajt] [bRa:f.hajt] [le:.zen] [tRy:.b9n] [bRa:.vA]

/le:z/ /tRy:b/ /bRa:v/

'thief 'wheel' 'mountain' 'honest' 'house' 'thieves' 'wheel (gen. sg.)' 'mountains' 'more honest' 'house (gen. sg.)' 'readable' 'dimness'

'honesty' 'read' 'darken' 'more honest'

Obstruents are devoiced at the end of a word in (24)(a) and before a consonantinitial suffix in (c). The motivation for underlying forms with voiced obstruents is that many voiceless obstruents do not voice when a vowel-initial suffix is added (i.e. Rat 'advice' [Ra:t]; Rat-es [Ra:tas] 'advice' (gen. sg.)). The alternations in (24) require the following rule: (25) Devoicing [-son]—*> [-vc]/

]

Devoicing applies postcyclically; I discuss my reasoning in section 2.11.2. Certain authors have argued that Devoicing affects all obstruents in the coda (Andersen 1972, Vennemann 1978, Rubach 1990). I reject this position for reasons to be discussed in section 2.13.

2.4.2 Aspiration The following words show that a voiceless stop is aspirated in Standard German when this segment begins a stressed syllable:

54

(26)(a) Panne Prinz Platz Tanz Treppe kommen Klang Kreide Knie (b) April Diplom fatal Attrappe Akkord Eklat Akropolis

[phä.ne] [phRajs] [pMats] [thänts]

'breakdown' 'price' 'place' 'dance' 'stair 1 [kh5.mön] 'come 1 [khläQ] 'sound 1 'chalk 1 [khRäj.d9] [khni:] 'knee' h [a.p Rll] 'April 1 [di.phlo:m] 'diploma 1 'fatal' [faAl] h [a.t Ra.pe] 'dummy 1 [a.khORt] 'accord1 [e.khlä:] 'altercation1 [a.khRo:.po.lls] 'acropolis1

The syllable-initial stops in these words are all aspirated because the following vowel bears primary stress. The following rule accounts for the aspiration of voiceless stops in Standard German: (27) Aspiration (to be revised) -voice -cont [-(-spread glottis] / [ -son According to Aspiration the feature [+spread glottis] is associated with a voiceless stop at the beginning of a foot ("F" = foot). As I pointed out in chapter I, the German Stress Rule assigns left-headed feet from right to left. Hence, the voiceless aspirated stops in (26) are all foot initial. Many German dialects, especially the ones in the south have only unaspirated stops. Thus, speakers of these dialects simply do not have the rule in (27). As captured by the rule in (27) the voiceless stops in the words in (28) remain unaspirated: (28)(a) Spiel stehen Skat (b) Lappen Lampe separat

[fpfcl] [Jte:.en] [ska:t] [la.pen] [läm.pe] [ze.pa.Rä:t]

'game' 'stand' 'skat (game)' 'rag' 'lamp' 'separate'

55 The post-s stop in the words in (a) does not aspirate because this segment is not in syllable-initial position. Duden (p.55) transcribes the medial voiceless stops in the words in (b) as "weakly" aspirated (i.e. [p'Xk1]). Clearly, this transcription is an indication of the gradient nature of Aspiration (see Lotzmann 1975) and explains why certain authors (Moulton 1962:42; Philipp 1974:41) assumed that these medial stops undergo aspiration just as readily as the syllable-initial stops in the words in (26). I am restricting the environment of Aspiration to syllableinitial position before a stressed vowel because this is the one position where voiceless stops are unambiguously aspirated. A second environment for Aspiration is syllable-finally before a pause: (29)(a) Tag runt Akt Last Luft Rad Lob (b) lieb-lich Feig-ling Erlaub-nis bieg-sam

[ta:kh] [RUnth] [akth] [lasth] [lufth] [Ra:th] [lo:ph] [1ΐ:ρ.1ΐς] [fajk.llQ] [EA.laup.nis] [bi:k.za:m]

'day'round 1 'act' 'burden 1 'air 1 'bicycle'praise1 'dearly' 'coward' 'permission' 'flexible'

The final stops in the words in (29)(a) are aspirated because they occur in syllablefinal position before a pause. The last two examples in (a) show that underlying voiced stops which have undergone Devoicing also undergo Aspiration. The syllable-final stops in the words in (29)(b) are not aspirated when spoken at a normal rate of speech because they do not occur in pre-pausal position. The preceding discussion necessitates the following revision of the Aspiration rule: (30) Aspiration "-voice -cont -son

[+spread glottis] /

IP

According to (30) a voiceless stop is aspirated at the beginning of a foot and at the end of an intonational phrase (abbreviated as "IP"; cf. Nespor & Vogel 1986). I analyze Aspiration as a postlexical rule because it is a gradient process and nonneutralizing. In the following sections I use the aspiration/nonaspiration of voiceless stops as a test for determining how intervocalic consonant clusters are syllabified.

56

When not relevant I will henceforth refrain from transcribing voiceless aspirated stops in the phonetic transcriptions.

2.4.3 R-Vocalization In Standard German there are alternations between the uvular trill [R] and [ ]/[ ] (cf. Meyer-Eppler 1959; Hildebrandt & Hildebrandt 1965; Ulbrich 1972; Krämer 1979; Meinhold & Stock 1982; Griffin 1985 and earlier articles by Genthe 1895, Spieser 1895, and Klinghardt 1896). The ideolectal and dialectal variation regarding the vocalization of /R/ is vast and I will not attempt to account for all variations here. Instead, I concentrate solely on the Standard German pronunciation. The following data show alternations between [R] and [A]: (31)(a) Tier Speer Jahr Tor Uhr (b) Tier-e Speer-e Jahr-es Tor-e Uhr-en (c) studier-t lehr-t Lehr-ling spar-st spar-sam hör-t (d) studier-e lehr-e spar-e hör-e

[ti:A] t/pe:A]

[^ a πk ιR oν bΐ νa ιt

a k R

61

σ

x x¥

X X X X X m (b) k R a N k -_ * U H I c σ N

N A XXXX

W

1 V 1

·» f i 1

(c) f i 1

In the partial derivation of Akrobat Syllable Placement applies iteratively, since this string of segments contains more than one nucleus. A single prenuclear consonant is associated with the onset by the CV Rule: o

ΐ X X XNX X XNX X

1 (45)(a) a

i t

v

+>

(b) k R a N k f N

i ]l -—+·•

σ -i

O N O N i A 1 /\

X X X X XX X

9:

X

(0 f

X

1 V 1 o bL a t —-> a

f f i1 f A XXXX 1 V 1

i

....-•••τσ

i

t1

R

Vo bIV

XX

a

1t

X X X X X Ic

U 1Λ

,..·?

N O t A !

XXXX

1V 1

f

i 1

The name CV Rule is not intended to imply the existence of a prosodic skeleton composed of C's and V's; I am simply employing the terminology of Steriade (1982). The CV Rule is a universal and accounts for the generalization that VCV is always syllabified as V.CV. An important part of the structural description of the CV Rule is that it applies only to a [+cons] segment so that it is blocked from applying to a glide. I discuss this point in detail in section 3.3.1 The Onset Rule associates a single preconsonantal segment with the syllable node only after the CV Rule has applied:

62

f

o """""l

e » —"""""l,

σ Γ

χχχχχχχχχ

χχχχχχχχχ

(c)

I discuss constraints on possible and impossible syllable-initial clusters in section 2.7. The Onset Rule applies noniteratively. Syllable-initial clusters of three members are formed by the single application of the CV Rule, the Onset Rule and Coronal Fricative Adjunction which I discuss in section 2.7.8. Coda Placement associates a post-nuclear segment with the coda and links this segment to the syllable node as well:

P —P —-t

N O N O N \ /\ Λ* \ X\

χχχχχχχχχ Μ J I I V I Va t I (47)(a) a R R o b

11

f —f —4

N Q N Q N C | S\ /N T S\ I

χχχχχχχχχ ^ IJ I V I *> a k R o b

' j i _* m A i

XX Χ Χ Χ 1 1 1 (b) k R a

σ .......

- - , _ , ± ^V

l V l

(c) f i l

?x?

^. ^^ ^^ xx

l V l

*· f i l

The second consonant in a two member syllable-final duster is syllabified by the Coda Rule: (48)(a)

63

(c)

I discuss possible and impossible syllable-final clusters in section 2.12. In that section I show that the Coda Rule applies noniteratively. Syllable-final clusters composed of more than two members are created by the single application of the Coda Rule and by Coronal Obstruent Adjunction, which I discuss in section 2.12.4. The Coda Rule only applies after a short vowel. This condition ensures that long vowel + consonant + (noncoronal) consonant syllables (i.e. vielp *[fi:lp]) are nonoccurring. I return to this point in section 2.14. The Syllable Structure Algorithm applies in a structure-building fashion. The only subpart which is endowed with the power to alter preexisting syllable structure is the CV Rule. I justify this claim in section 2.8.

2.6 The sonority hierarchy In the present study I demonstrate that German conforms to the well-known Sonority Sequencing Generalization: (49) Sonority Sequencing Generalization (SSG: Selkirk 1984:116) In any syllable, there is a segment constituting a sonority peak that is preceded and /or followed by a sequence of segments with progressively decreasing sonority values.

Earlier versions of the SSG are contained in Sievers (1893:182-196), de Saussure (1901), Jespersen (1904:106), Vennemann (1972), Hankamer & Aissen (1974), Hooper (1976) and Bell & Hooper (1978). As in a number of other languages, exceptions to the Sonority Sequencing Generalization in German are systematic, since they all involve clusters of two or more adjacent obstruents at the word edges. Since stops and fricatives are equally sonorous in the German Sonority Hierarchy I posit below, the examples in (50) constitute exceptions to the SSG: (50)

Stadt Obst streich-st

[[tat] [o:pst] LftRajcst]

'city1 'fruit 1 'paint (sec. sg.)'

64

I argue later on in this chapter that the consonant or consonants which occur at the edge of the word in items like the ones in (50) remains extrasyllabic until associated with the onset or the coda by stray segment adjunction rules. Hence, I follow earlier analysts (Steriade 1982; Clements 1990) who contend that the SSG holds only at earlier stages in the derivation but not necessarily on the surface. In the sections to follow I argue that German requires the Sonority Hierarchy in (51): (51)German Sonority Hierarchy 2 3 1

1

4.5 1 R

5 ' vowels

"+son" +cons -cont

"+son" +cons +cont

[-cons]

ι I

ι 1

obstruents

nasals

[-son]

r+sor\| +nasJ L

1

4

I

1

According to the German Sonority Hierarchy the most sonorous segments are vowels and the remaining segments are decreasingly sonorous in the following order: R, 1, nasals, and obstruents. One important point concerning the German Sonority Hierarchy is that the distance between /R/ and the vowels is less than the distance between the other segments and classes of segments. Here I am following the claim made by a number of other linguists that the distance between the segments or classes of segments on the sonority hierarchy is not always identical (Steriade 1982; van der H lst 1984). I justify my claim in section 3.2. The evidence I present in support of the German Sonority Hierarchy comes from several directions. First, I argue in section 2.9 that German has an optional Fast Speech Resyllabification rule which moves a syllable-initial obstruent in an obstruent + sonorant onset into syllable-final position. I show that this rule applies only when certain sonority requirements are fulfilled. In fact, similar requirements will be seen to hold for the Fast Speech Glide Formation rule I posit in section 3.4.2. An additional piece of evidence I adduce in favor of the German Sonority Hierarchy is presented in section 2.12. Here I make explicit the point made by several previous studies of German phonology (Tanaka 1964; Wurzel 1970a; Strauss 1982) that syllable final clusters formed by the Coda Rule conform to the hierarchy in (51) in the sense that they must be separated by a minimal sonority distance of 1. Wiese (1988) has assumed a similar hierarchy for German. The main difference between his and my own is that the hierarchy in (51) makes no distinction between stops and fricatives whereas Wiese claims that fricatives in German are more sonorous than stops. I am following Clements (1990) who argues on universal grounds that stops and fricatives are equally sonorous. In

65

fact, there is no empirical evidence at all from the synchronic phonology of Standard German that stops and fricatives should be distinguished on the German Sonority Hierarchy. Thus, unless evidence can be adduced to the contrary, I assume that stops and fricatives are equally sonorous.

2.7 The German onset In this section I account for permissible and impermissible German syllableinitial clusters with a small set of language-specific positive and negative syllable-structure conditions. Initial clusters which do not conform to these conditions are syllabified by a stray segment adjunction rule I posit below. A number of earlier studies have analyzed initial German consonant clusters, including Tanaka (1964), Hirsch-Wierzbicka (1971), Philipp (1974), Ungeheuer (1977), and Kohler (1977). The treatment presented below differs from these earlier studies because I consider the syllable to be the relevant domain and not the word or morpheme.

2.7.1 One member onsets The following chart lists one member (surface) onsets both word-initially and word-internally. (52)

P t k b d

g

pf

word-initial Pa [pas] [ta:l] Tal [kam] Kamm Bau [bay] [d£.ke] Decke genau [g9.nau] Pfund [pfunt] Zeit [tsajt] Cello [ΐίε,ΐο] Dchungel [dsu.rjal] viel [fi:l] *

ts t/ d5 f s / sch n ς Chemie h hei v Vase z sehr

[fan] [ce.mi:] [hais] [va:.ze] [ze:A]

word-internal 'passport' 'valley' 'comb1 'structure' 'blanket' 'exactly' 'pound' 'time' 'cello' 'jungle' 'much 1 'beautiful' 'chemistry1 'hot' 'vase1 'very'

Papier fatal Ecke labial Radio Tango Opfer sitzen Macho Manager Seife rei en mischen Echo Uhu L we lesen

'paper' 'fatal' [e.ka] 'corner1 [la.bi.a:l] 'labial' [Ra.di.o] 'radio' [tarj.go] 'tango1 [D.pfA] 'victim' [zLtson] 'sit' [ma.t/o] 'macho' [ms.m.d3A] 'manager' [zaj.fe] 'soap1 [Rai.sen] 'rip' [mi./θη] 'mix 1 [ε.ςρ] 'echo' [u:.hu] 'uhu' [10:.νθ] 'lion' [le:.zen] 'read' [pa.pi:A] [fa.ta:l]

66

nicht

[5e.ni:] «] [man] [nltf]

lesen richtig Ast

[1β:.ζθη] 'read' [Ρίς.ϋς] 'right' 'branch' [fast]

3 Genie J- Ja m Mann n 0 1 R

'genius' 'yes1 'man' 'not'

Garage Koje immer banal sing-en billig

[ga.Ra:.3e] [ko:.j.e] [ΐ.π\λ] [ba.narl] [ζΐ.Γ)θη] [biJlcJ

parat [pa.Ra:t] Theater [te.?a:.tA]

'garage'

'bunk' 'always' 'banal' 'sing' 'cheap'

'ready' 'theater'

(In (52) I have ignored the complementary distribution of the aspirated and nonaspirated stops. Recall that both allophones occur syllable-initially depending on whether or not the relevant syllable is stressed or unstressed). A number of earlier studies have pointed out that [s] cannot occur wordinitially (Wurzel 1970a; Standwell 1973). This generalization does not involve the syllable because [s] can begin a syllable in word-internal position. I discuss this gap in section 2.7.5. A similar distribution holds for [rj], which I discuss in chapter 4. The number of German words beginning with [ς] is small, and many Germans pronounce these segments either as [/] or [k]. The number of German words containing a word-internal [h] is similarly small.

2.7.2 Two member onsets The Onset Rule requires a statement in the grammar to the effect that certain consonant clusters are permissible in syllable-initial position, whereas others are not. Possible two member onset clusters are listed in (53):

67 R

(53)

1 m

n

v

p

t

k

P b t d k g

pf ts f s

The clusters in (53) indude sequences of two [+cons] segments. I consider clusters of a consonant + glide in chapter 3. [gm] is parenthesized because this cluster occurs almost exclusively in word-internal position and rarely word-initially. I have provided examples of the clusters in (53) both word-initially and wordinternally below:

(54) pi Platz bl Blitz kl Klang gl Glanz pR Prinz bR Brei tR Tracht dR Drang kR Kranz gR groß kn Knecht gn Gnade

gm

*

kv

Quark

word-initial 'place' [plats] 'lightning' [bllts] [klar)] 'sound' 'glitter' [giants] [pRlnts] 'prince' [bRaj] 'brew' " [tRaxt] 'costume1 [dRan] 'impulse' 'wreath' [kRants] [gRo:s] 'big' [knetf] 'knight' [gna:.d9] 'mercy' [kvaRk]

'quark'

Diplom Bibliothek Eklat Iglu April Fabrik Attrappe Adrian Akrobat Agrar Akne Wagner Magma Aquarium

word-internal [di.plo:m] 'diploma' [bi.bli.o.te:k] 'library' [e.kla:] 'altercation' 'igloo' [i:.glu] [a.pRÜ] 'April' [fa.brt:k] 'factory' [a.tRa.p9] 'dummy [a:.dRi.an] 'Adrian' [a.kRo.ba:t] 'acrobat' [a.gRa:A] 'agrarian' [a.kn9] 'acne' [var.gnA] 'Wagner' [ma.gma] 'magma' [a.kva.Ri.Um] 'aquarium'

68

tsv fl Jl pfl pfR fR JR Jn Im sk /p Jt

zwei Flug Schlaf Pflanze Pfropf frei Schrift Schnee schmal Skat Spiel Stand

[tsvaj] [flurk] [flarf] [pflan.tsö] [pfRDpf]

'two 1 •flight 1 'sleep' 'plant' 'cork'

MN1 [fRlft] [/ne:J

•free' 'writing1 'snow' 'narrow' 'skat1 'game' 'stand'

[ska:t] [fpfcl] [Jtant]

Mufflon

[mu-flon]

'moufflon'

Afrika

[a:.fRi.ka]

'Africa'

A number of clusters only surface in word-initial position and are either non-occurring word internally or are treated by the phonology as heterosyllabic in this position. Clusters in (54) which simply do not occur intervocalically in monomorphemes include [pfR], [pfl], [Jl], [/R], [Jn], [Jm], [Jt], [Jp], [Jv], and [tsv]. In contrast, one cluster in (53) which occurs word-internally in monomorphemes but which is treated by the phonology as heterosyllabic in this position is [sk]. I examine s/J + consonant clusters in section 2.7.8. The fact that certain syllable-initial clusters occur only word-initially but not word-internally is not particularly surprising, since clusters displaying this distribution also occur in other languages. Significantly, certain clusters are treated by the phonology as syllable-initial word-internally even though these sequences are either rare or non-occurring word-initially. The most common of such clusters is [gm] which I treat in section 2.7.6. Additional word-internal clusters which are nonoccurring in word-initial position are examined in section 2.8.

2.7.3 Three member onsets Possible three member clusters are indicated in the following chart: pR pi tR kR kl

(55)

s

J

+ +

+

+

+

Examples of these three-member dusters are listed in (56):7

69 (56)

JpR Jpl

Sprung Splint

JtR

Strand

skR ski

Skrupel Sklave

[IpRUQ] [Jplmt] [JtRant] [skRu:p»l] [skla:va]

'jump 1 'splint' 'beach1 'scruple' 'slave1

These three-member clusters only occur at the beginning of a word, as attested by the examples in (56), or at the beginning of a stem (i.e. ge-sprung-en [ge.JpRU.rjonj 'jumped (past part.)1)· I return to this point in conjunction with my analysis of s/J + consonant clusters in section 2.7.8.

2.7.4 Additional syllable-initial dusters Rarely occurring syllable-initial clusters have been omitted from the chart in (53). I have provided a sample of words containing these sequences in (57) below: (57)(a) stop + stop pt Ptolomäus kt ktenoid (b) stop + fricative ks Xerox p/ Pschorr (c) fricative + stop sp Spektrum st Stil (d) fricative + fricative sf Sphäre (e) fricative + affricate sts Szene

[stse:.na]

'scene'

(f) fricative + nasal sm Smaragd sn Snob

[sma.Rakt] [snop]

'emerald1 'snob'

(g) fricative + liquid si Slang vl Vladimir vR Wrack

[slerj] [vla:.di.mi/J [vRak]

'slang' 'Vladimir' 'wreck'

[pto.lo.m8:.us] [kte.no.i:t]

'Ptolemy' 'ctenoid'

[kse:.RDks]

'xerox' Tschorr (name)'

[spek.tRUm] [stid]

'spectrum' 'style' 'sphere'

Occasionally certain descriptive analyses of German syllabification treat the duster in (57)(e) as fully integrated (Kohler 1977). I have not induded [sts] on the chart in (53) because its occurrence is limited to virtually one morpheme.

70

I do not hold the syllable-initial clusters in (57) to be representative of the German language because of their rarity and thus I am not considering them in the present analysis.

2.7.5 Syllable-initial constraints Consider once again the list of one member onsets in (52). German grammar requires a statement to the effect that a prevocalic [s] cannot occur at the beginning of a stem. I account for this gap by employing underspecification theory. Given the relatively uncontroversial view in markedness theory that voiced obstruents are more marked than their voiceless counterparts, I assume that only the former segments are marked underlyingly for this feature (i.e. [+voice]) whereas voiceless obstruents are not (i.e. [Ovoice]). I account for the lack of prevocalic [s]-initial stems by positing the default rule in (58)(a) below, whose ordering prior to the more general rule in (58)(b) follows from the Elsewhere Condition: (58) (a) s-Voicing

-son +cont -high Cor

(b) Default

Voicing

[-son] —*> [-voice] [+voice]/ [

[-cons

I mentioned in section 2.1 that coronal consonants lack a place node (and hence a coronal node) in the underlying representation. Since s-Voicing makes specific reference to the coronal node, this rule is preceded by the default rules which supply the missing nodes. s-Voicing says that a coronal [-high] fricative unmarked for voicing receives the feature value [+voice] at the beginning of a stem and (b) is a default rule needed in any case which says that obstruents unmarked for voicing are [-voice]. My assumptions concerning the underspecification of the feature [voice] and the two default rules in (58) ensure that no German word can surface which begins with a pre-vocalic [s]: Since all [s] segments are underlyingly [Ovoice], sVoicing fills in the blank with [+voice] prior to the application of Default Voicing. (I assume that the [s] in unintegrated loan words like Sex [seks] is exceptionally marked [-voice]). Let us now consider constraints on two-member syllable-initial clusters. I am following Clements & Keyser (1983) in accounting for permissible and impermissible syllable-initial clusters with a set of positive and negative syllable-

71

structure conditions. I have listed the positive conditions in (59)(a) and the negative conditions in (59)(b): (59) (a) Positive Syllable Structure Conditions +son +cons| (i) [ [-son] -nas -son -cont Dor [+nas]

(ii) I

(b) Negative Syllable Structure Conditions -son +cont +cons~ +voice +son [ .Cor . -nasal σ .

(i) *

(ii) · -son ~+cons~ +cont +son r _Dor _ -nasal ("ςΐ, * σ " +cons (in) * -son~| +son CorJ -nasal (*tsl, 0

[

XX

[-cont] [+cont] (iv)* -son +cons -cont +son -nasal σ[ Cor _ (v) * -son "+cons +cont +son -nasal σ .«•g .

ι

*tl)

(»hi, *hR)

Consider the positive conditions in (59)(a). According to the first condition an obstruent + liquid sequence is allowed in syllable-initial position. The second condition allows velar stop + nasal consonant sequences. Observe that this condition allows both velar stop + [n] and velar stop + [m]. The first negative condition in (59)(b) rules out *[zl], *[zR], *[5l], *[5R], the second one *[ς1], and *[ςΡ] , and the third one *[tsl], *[tsR], *[t/l], *[tjR], *[d3], and *[d3]. The fourth condition rules out *[tl] and *[dl] and the final condition *[hl]

72

and *[hR]. (Recall that I analyze [h] as [-son]). I am tentatively treating the small number of words beginning with [vl] and [vR] as accidental because these sequences are generally judged to be well-formed by native speakers. Should this gap be interpreted as systematic then an additional negative syllable structure condition would be required. Additional syllable-initial clusters not generated by the two positive conditions in (59)(a) include /s/ + nasal and /s/ + obstruent sequences which I consider in section 2.7.8. Here I show that these sequences are syllabified by a different mechanism. I posit an additional positive syllable structure condition for [kv] and [tsv] in section 3.3.2.

2.7.6 Obstruent + nasal onsets According to the examples in (54) German syllables can begin with [gn] or [kn] word-initially and word-internally. In contrast, tautosyllabic velar stop + [m] sequences have a more restricted distribution: No German syllable begins with *[km] whereas [gm] surfaces syllable-initially only in word-internal position but not in word-initial position. These facts have been summarized in the following chart:

(60)

\gn kn

wd. internal wd. initial

+

+

+

+

gm

+

km

Tautosyllabic [gm] is quite common word-internally as attested by the following words:8 (61)

Magma Dogma Sigma Pragmatik Augment Augmentation

[ma.gma] [do.gma] [zl.gma] [pRa.gmar.tik] [augment] [au.gmen.ta.tsjo:n]

'magma' 'dogma' 'sigma' 'pragmatics' 'augment' 'augmentation'

(No German word contains a word-internal tautomorphemic [km] sequence). In word-initial position Duden lists only the city names Gmilnd, Gmelin, and

73

Gmunden; I tentatively assume that these names do not reflect a true generalization concerning the sound structure of Standard German and that no German word can begin with a gm- (or km-) cluster. I account for the facts presented in this section with the following filter:

(62) [

-son +cons Dor

E

nail abj

According to (62) no German word can begin with a dorsal consonant + [m] cluster. Since I have not formalized the filter in (62) as a negative syllable structure condition the [gm] in the words in (61) can be generated by the Onset Rule, which has the power to produce any velar + nasal cluster. (62) need not refer specifically to stops because dorsal fricatives are also nonoccurring with [m] in word-initial position. For many Germans pronunciation of the words in (61) with a [gm] cluster is impossible. Thus, these speakers always devoice this :

(63)

Magma Dogma

[mak.ma] [dok.ma]

/makma/ /dokma/

The underlying forms in (63) with a /k/ are motivated by the fact that these morphemes do not have alternants with a voiced [g]. I assume that these speakers of German have simply extended the domain of the negative condition in (62) to the syllable:

(64)

-son +cons p-nall [labj [ Dor

2.7.7. Obstruent + [v] onsets According to the data in (54) [kv] is an occurring onset both word-initially and word-internally. In contrast, tautosyllabic [tsv] and [/v] can only surface wordinitially. (No tautomorphemic [tsv] or [Jv] sequence occurs in intervocalic position). These generalizations have been summarized in the following chart:

74

(65)

χ

wd. initial wd. internal

kv

+

tsv

+

/ν

+

+

Word-internal [kv] sequences (i.e. Aquarium [akva:RiUm] 'aquarium') are parsed [a.kva:.Ri.um] for reasons to be discussed in chapter 3. The reader is referred to Weithase (1964) for a discussion of the parsing of intervocalic [kv] dusters.

2.7.8 Coronal Fricative Adjunction and s-Dissimilation In this section I account for the syllabification of all s/J + obstruent or nasal clusters in the chart in (53) by positing a postcyclic rule of Coronal Fricative Adjunction which associates all stray, s// segments with the onset. In pre-consonantal position [s] and [i] are (nearly) in complementary distribution. I account for this distribution of [s] and [J] by positing a rule of Dissimilation which converts all coronal fricatives in the onset to [/] when a [-high] consonant follows. Consider first the syllabification of s// + consonant clusters. According to the positive syllable structure conditions posited in (59)(a) the only /s/ + consonant clusters which can be created by the Onset Rule are /s/+ liquid dusters (i.e. Schlaf |Jla:f] /sla:f/; Schrift [/Rift] /sRift/). In contrast, all /s/ + nasal and /s/ + obstruent sequences cannot be created by the Onset Rule because they are not allowed by either of the positive conditions in (59)(a). No positive condition was posited for /s/ + nasal and /s/ + obstruent clusters because these sequences are treated by the phonology as heterosyllabic in word internal position; thus, all German syllableinitial /s/ + consonant clusters occur only in word-initial position. Evidence supporting the heterosyllabicity of intervocalic /s/ + nasal and /s/ + obstruent clusters can be gleaned from the location of the main stress in the words in (66): (66)

Organismus Chiasmus Franziskus Minister

[OR.ga.nis.mUs] [gi.as.mUs] [fRan.tsis.kUs] [mi.nis.tA]

Organism' 'chiasmus' 'Franciscan' 'minister 1

75 (The final consonant in each of the first three words in (66) is exceptionally extrametrical). Since the penult is stressed the /s/ in the words in (66) must be in the coda. Further evidence supporting the heterosyllabicity of word-internal /s/ + consonant clusters is that a post /s/ voiceless stop is aspirated (cf. Laeufer 1985): (67)

Franziskaner maskieren riskieren asketisch Despot Aspekt

[fRan.tsls.kh :.nA] 'Franciscan' [mas.khi:.R9n] 'mask 1 [Rls.khi:.ROn] 'risk' 'ascetic' 'despot' 'aspect' [as.phekt]

Were the [s] in these words in syllable-initial position then aspiration could not apply because the following voiceless stop would no longer be syllable-initial. Additional phonological evidence supporting the heterosyllabicity of an intervocalic [s] + obstruent sequence will be presented in section 3.4.2. My claim that intervocalic /s/ + consonant clusters are heterosyllabic dearly only holds if the /s/ and the consonant are tautomorphemic with the preceding vowel. This point is made particularly dear by the data in (68): (68)

[betstehen]] [beisprechen]] [ge[stohlen]]

[bajte:.en] [ba./pRE^n [gejto:.ten]

'insist 1 'discuss' 'steal (past part.)'

I argue in section 2.11.1 that German requires an independent principle which blocks syllabification across the left syntactic bracket '[' . Thus, the reason the stem-initial /s/ in the words in (68) is in syllable initial position and not in syllable-final position is that Coda Placement cannot apply across the left syntactic bracket.9 Since the word-initial /s/ in all /s/ + nasal and /s/ + obstruent clusters cannot be syllabified by the Onset Rule, the /s/ remains extrasyllabic until the following rule of stray segment adjunction applies: (69) Coronal Fricative Adjunction -O X' Γ +cont ' Ί

-vc .Cor .

X [+cons]

76

According to (69) an extrasyllabic /s/ is attached to an onset which contains a consonant. Coronal Fricative Adjunction must apply at the word level and not postlexically. I discuss my reasoning in section 3.4.2. Certain authors have argued that "extrasyllabic" consonants remain unattached to the syllable, even on the surface (van der Hülst 1984 for Dutch; Hyman 1985:52 for German; Wiese 1988 for German). Thus, a possible representation of the preconsonantal /s/ is depicted in (70):

(70)

xxxxx I I I I I J t a n t

In (70) the word-initial "appendix" is attached to the "word" and not to the syllable. I object to the representation in (70) as a surface representation because it makes incorrect predictions concerning the application of phonological rules. Consider in this case the Aspiration rule I posited in section 2.4.2. The representation in (70) makes the incorrect prediction that the post-/s/ obstruent in [itant] should undergo aspiration (i.e. *[Jthant]) because it is "syllable-initial". Clearly, the reason why the post Lf] obstruent in (70) is not aspirated is because this segment is not syllable initial. I therefore conclude that Coronal Fricative Adjunction must associate /s/ with the syllable (i.e. the onset) and not with the "word". Several earlier authors have pointed out that in German pre-consonantal [s] and [/] are (nearly) in complementary distribution (Trubetzkoy 1939:82; Wurzel 1970a, Werner 1972, Scholz 1972). The generalization is this: [/] occurs before all [-high] consonants in syllable-initial position, and [s] occurs elsewhere. The relevant German facts have been summarized in the following chart

77 (71)

syllableinitial medial

syllablefinal

sp st sk sv

if

/k

fv sn sm si SR.

in 1m il IR

In (71) V designates an occurring sequence and blank a nonoccurring one. I return to the clusters in parentheses below. Examples of words containing the clusters in (71) are listed in (72): (72)(a) syllable-initial sk Skat Spiel ip Stand Jt schwarz Iv in schneiden im schmal Schlaf il JR schreiben (b) word-internal sp Aspekt Minister st sk Franziskus sn Bosnien sm Organismus (c) syllable-final st Last

[ska:t] [ipi:l] [itant] [ivaRts] Lfnaj.don] [ima:l] [ila:f]

[iRaj.b9n]

'skat (game 'game' 'stand' 'black' 'cut' 'narrow' 'sleep' 'write'

[as.pekt] [mi.nis.tA] [fRan.tsls.kus] [bDs.ni.9n] [OR.gan.is.mus]

'aspect' 'minister' 'franciscan' 'Bosnia'

[last]

'burden'

Organism'

78 The chart in (71) shows that pre-consonantal [s] and [/] are in complementary disribution: [/] surfaces before [-high] consonants syllable-initially and [s] elsewhere. I account for the complementary distribution described above by analyzing [s] as underlying and [J] as derived.10 [s] and [J] are both underlying segments, since they contrast in intervocalic position, and in final position. The feature [high] is radically underspecified so that only the [+high] value is present underlyingly. Thus, [s] is underlyingly [0 high] (represented henceforth as /S/), and [J] is underlyingly [+high]. These assumptions concerning underspecification are summarized in the following chart:

(73)

"\^ / s [high]

z

+

In preconsonantal position, all coronal fricatives are [Ohigh] (i.e. /S/) and become [+high] in syllable-initial position when the following consonant is [-high]. This fact is captured in the dissimilation rule in (74)(a). All remaining /S/ segments receive the feature [-high] by the default rule in (b): (74)(a) s-Dissimilation

(b) Default High

X I

X I [-high]

-son +cont Cor

[-high] -son +cont [+high] / Cor According to the dissimilation rule in (a) all basic /S/ segments receive the feature [+high] before a [-high] consonant in the onset. The Elsewhere Condition ensures that s-Dissimilation precedes Default High.11 s-Dissimilation affects [high] and not [anterior]. Were s-Dissimilation to affect [anterior] then the rule could not be formalized as a dissimilation because both [J] and [R] are [-anterior]. Observe that the complementary distribution of [s] and [/] in preconsonantal position supports the idea that the feature [high] is not dominated by the dorsal articulator, as is commonly assumed. The German facts instead provide evidence that [high] is independent from the place articulators because the rule applies before a [-high] segment which can be labial, coronal, or dorsal. My formalization of s-Dissimilation correctly predicts that the /S/ in the superlative suffix never becomes *[J] in Standard German: (75)

läng-ste

[Isgs.to]

'longest1

79 I am following Vennemänn (1983:15), who analyzes the [st] sequence in the superlative suffix as heterosyllabic. If the [s] and the [t] in -ste are heterosyllabic then we receive an immediate explanation for why the /S/ in this suffix never becomes *[]]. My rule of s-Dissimilation differs crucially from the equivalent rule posited by earlier authors (Wurzel 1970a, Scholz 1972, Standwell 1973). These linguists similarly attempted to account for the near complementary distribution of preconsonantal [s] and [J] by positing a general rule converting an underlying (fully specified) /s/ to [/] before all consonants. (Words containing /sk/ sequences were marked as exceptions). My rule of s-Dissimilation has the advantage that /sk/ sequences are not considered exceptions because I have analyzed it as a dissimilation rather than a rule changing an arbitrary feature in an arbitrary environment. Since s-Dissimilation applies to an /S/ in the onset, this rule must be fed by Coronal Fricative Adjunction: (76)

1. Coronal Fricative Adjunction L 2. s-Dissimilation

The ordering in (76) ensures that all pre-consonantal extrasyllabic /S/ segments are associated with the onset prior to the application of s-Dissimilation. The analysis presented in the preceding paragraphs is illustrated in the following derivations:

(77)

Spiel /Spi:l/

Skat /Ska:t/

Schrift /SRlft/

heiß /haß/

J3> 1. syllabification

S p i: l

2. Adjunction

S p i: l

3. s-Dissimilation

f^\ J p i: l

S k'"ä:"t

.

;"TS

S k a: t

~

S Ri f t

x-

S R I f t t^^> J R l f t

-^TS s k a: t

4. Default High [Jpi:l]

[ska:t]

h a"l*"s

h a l s [/Rlft]

[hajs]

80

In these derivations Coronal Obstruent Adjunction feeds s-Dissimilation. The Elsewhere Condition predicts that Default High follows s-Dissimilation. In the chart in (71) several clusters have been parenthesized. The parentheses around certain [s] / [J] + consonant sequences reflects the fact that these dusters are rare. In syllable-final position, [sk] only occurs in a handful of loan words: (78)

Kiosk [kiosk] brüsk [bRYsk]

'kiosk' 'abrupt'

Muthmann (1988) lists no words ending in [sp]. I leave open whether or not the paucity of syllable-final [sp] and [sk] is systematic or accidental. At any rate, my analysis correctly predicts that final *[/p], and *[Jk] are nonoccurring; The [s] in the clusters in (78) is underlyingly [0 high] (i.e. /S/) and receives the feature value [-high] by Default High. Hence, final *[/p], and *[|k] clusters cannot occur. Final *[/t] has a similar distribution: No syllable-final tautomorphemic *[Jt] is allowed. (Except for Gischt [gift] 'foam1. Here the [/] is exceptionally [+high]). The [i] is final heteromorphemic [it] (i.e. misch-t [ml/t] 'mix (third sg.)') is underlyingly ///. The parenthesized clusters in syllable-initial position are also rare and tend to occur only in recent loans. Examples of initial [sm] and [sn] are provided below: (79)

sm sn

Smog Snob

[smok] [snOp]

'smog' 'snob'

The fact that [s] + [m,n] clusters are more the exception than the rule is evidenced by the overwhelming number of lexical entries in Duden which begin with an orthographic + versus the minute number of + words. From a formal point of view I analyze the initial [s] in these words as exceptionally marked [-high] in the underlying representation. In contrast to the final clusters in (78), syllable-initial [sp] and [st] dusters can optionally be pronounced as [/p] and [|t] respectively, suggesting that these [s] + consonant sequences are in the process of becoming fully integrated into the language. Thus, consider the following items: I

(80) st

sp

Stop [stop] stabil [stabi:!] spinal [spina:!] Sputnik [sputnik]

[ftop] tftabi:!]

ifpina:!] [Jputnlk]

'stop' 'stable' 'spinal1 'Sputnik'

The pronunciation of the initial segment in the words in (80) as [J] in column II indicates that the word has become fully assimilated, and hence /S/.12

81

2.8 On the cyclicity of syllabification In this section I provide an explicit analysis of how syllable structure is assigned in the course of the derivation in morphologically complex words. I make several theoretical points. First, I argue here that syllabification in German is predictable, contrary to the claim made by Laeufer (1985) that syllable structure in German must be underlying. Second, I argue that the Syllable Structure Algorithm applies cyclically, thereby confirming the abundant evidence from other languages that syllabification is in general a cyclic process (Kiparsky 1979; Harris 1983; Hayes & Abad 1989). Third, I provide evidence against the commonly held view that morpheme final consonants must be universally marked extrasyllabic so that the CV Rule can be interpreted solely as a structure building rule (Ito 1986; Borowsky 1986, Rice 1989). Instead, I follow Levin (1985) who has argued that the CV Rule is simply endowed with the power to alter preexisting syllable structure on cycles after the root cycle. Fourth, I show that German requires a language specific rule of Resyllabification. This rule is important theoretically because it applies at early stages in the derivation, thereby contradicting the general assumption that «syllabification rules only apply postlexically across a word boundary. Consider the underlying and surface forms of the following morphologically complex words: (81)(a) stem + vowel-initial suffix lieb-e [li:.ba] /li:b/ glaub-en [glau.ben] /glaub/ Les-ung [le:.zUQ] /le:z/ Tier-e [tir.Ra] /ti:R/ freud-ig [ίΡΟν.ώς] /fROYd/ kind-isch [kln.dlj] /klNd/ (b) stem + consonant-initial suffix lieb-lich [1ΐ:ρ.1ΐς] /Μ>/ t g-lich [tE:k.llg] /ta:g/ Lieb-ling [li:p.llQ] /lib/ Wag-nis [va:k.nls] /va:g/ leb-los [le:p.lo:s] /le:b/

'love (first sg.)' 'believe' 'reading' 'animals' 'joyous' 'childish' 'dearly' 'daily1 'darling1 'risk 1 'lifeless'

The words in (81)(a) are composed of a stem ending in a consonant followed by a vowel-initial suffix. Evidence for the syllabification indicated is based on the nonapplication of Devoicing to the stem-final obstruent and the nonapplication of R-Vocalization to the stem-final /R/. The important words are contained in (81)(b) which are composed of a stem + consonant-initial suffix. Evidence for the syllabification indicated is the application of Devoicing to the stem-final

82

obstruent. This fact is noteworthy because the word-internal obstruent + sonorant consonant sequences are all permissible syllable-initial clusters; thus, the data in (81)(b) appear to be problematic for the general assumption that onsets are always maximalized. I account for the syllabification of the data in (81) by stipulating that the Syllable Structure Algorithm applies cyclically: Stems are syllabified on the first cycle and the affixes on subsequent cycles. Furthermore, only the CV Rule but not the Onset Rule can change preexisting syllable-structure:

(82)

lieb-lich

kind-isch /klNd/

«yd*1' l.syllab.

·*** 1. morphology

.,.·?.„

Q$ i i I""·. xx xχ

l i b

k I N d

I V

I

I I I I

?Kf x

?. . .

f jf m mi ff 1 i b ] l I ς

k l N d ] Ιί

ONC

ONC

Ι Λ

uceus y. Placement

..,···£,..

PNC ! Λ. i xxxx

I

Ν

i

xI xV x xI X I X I X I 1 i b ] 1 Ις

Ν

i

xx

I I I I I k l N d ] IJ

••••"l Ο Ν C ON | Λ | i Ι

-""Τ*«» ......... O N CO Ι Ι ΠΜ

1YAll U

k'iNd]!

xxxx xxx

3.CVRule

I I IX IX xx xx

ι Ν I xx

xx xx

4. Onset Rule

^

>?·...

ONC ONC Ι Λ 1 I I I XXXX XXX 5 . Coda Placement

ι ν ι ι ιι

l i b l l l g

X^r·*»

Ο I x 1

-

Ν C Ο NC 1 I I xxx 1 1 1

k l N d J

icx

it

83

postcydic: V J

1. Devoicing

O N C ONC vΙ - Λ- I ' ' '

χχχχ χχχ ιl νi pι ] ι1 ιι ις [1ί:ρ.1ΐς]

In these derivations the stems have been syllabified on the root cycle. After the affixes have been appended the Syllable Structure Algorithm applies once again. The important point here is that the CV Rule can apply either in a structure building or a structure changing function. The structure changing aspect of the CV Rule is ensured by the ambisyllabicity filter in (18), which blocks multiply linked structures throughout the lexical derivation. Hence, the Ambisyllabicity Filter precludes formalizing the CV Rule as a structure changing operation. In (82) the CV Rule applies as an obligatory rule, and since a multiply linked structure is created the line of association between the relevant X slot and the coda which dominates it is delinked. The Onset Rule only applies in a structure building fashion. Thus, it cannot apply to the /b/ in lieb-lich and consequently bleed Devoicing (i.e. *[li:.bllg]). I return to this point below. My claim that the CV Rule can change structure whereas the Onset Rule (as well as the other subparts of syllabification) is not an ad hoc stipulation: The fact that only the CV Rule changes structure is simply a consequence of the universal syllabification V.CV.13 Compare now the derivations in (82) with the ones in (83) where syllabification applies only after all morphology: (83)

1. morphology

lieb-lich

kind-isch

/li:b/

/klNd/

XXXX XXX I V | I I | 1 i b ] 1 Ις

σ:

σ:

Ν Ν Λ ο2. Nucleus NT ι , C Syll. X \/ X X| X ΙX| X| 1 1 XΙ & Placement l i b ] 1 Ις

X X X x

XX

I I I I

I I

ρ:

σ:

Ν

Ν

k i N d ] IJ

Χ Χ Χ χ Χ χ

ΙΙ Ι Ι | Ι k ι Ν d ] ιJ

84

3. CV Rule

...σ

ja

......f

"N

'N

Ο Ν

χ χχχ ννΤ,ΓΜ i I b' ] l 1 ς

1

θ" Ν

!

ί!ίιίJ.^ ί! .ίχ 1| k i N d ]

σ

s* ON

O N

ι Λ

l l

XXXX XXX 4. Onset Rule

ιl vi bι ] ιl ιι ις N

Λ6N C

Wfif

5 . Coda Placement l i b M i g

0 N CO NC

ik fi M N d ]-

6. Devoicing 11ί:.ωΐς]

[km.dij]

In these derivations syllabification applies noncyclically, only after all morphemes have been appended. This is the view which is either explicit or implicit in earlier approaches to German syllabification (Hooper 1972; Vennemann 1972). The problem with the noncyclic solution is that the Onset Rule cannot be blocked from applying to the /b/ in lieb-lich. In fact, the noncyclic solution is weak on empirical grounds. Recall from section 1.2.7 where I discuss the -ei l-erei allomorphy. Here I showed that syllabification must apply on the root cycle before the first morphological operation because syllabification is the input to rules applying on the first cycle. Let us now return to the derivations in (82). Two positions have been taken in the literature concerning the structure changing function of the CV Rule. Levin (1985) has claimed that the CV Rule is simply endowed with the power to resyllabify a single syllable-final consonant. This fact is reflected in her formalization of the rule: N"

N

(84)

I / (XO) X-MX)

A

/N

I X

85

(N = nucleus; N" = onset). Ito (1986), Borowsky (1986), and Rice (1989) have alternatively proposed that the last consonant in a morpheme should be universally extrametrical. The extrametricality is erased automatically upon suf fixation since the Peripheral! ty Condition (Hayes 1980; Harris 1983) specifies that extrametrical segments are permitted only at the edge of the constituent. The data in (81) support Levin's position. My reasoning is that if the stem final consonant in the words in (81)(b) were extrasyllabic by universal convention then the Onset Rule would apply to this segment on the second cycle: (85)

lieb-lich

/lib/ cycle 1: 1. syllabification cycle 2: J

σ

...... 1 l i: b

σ

Λ

1. morphology

1 i: b ] 1 Ι ς

2. syllabification

σ σ /Ι .,-··:>Τ\. l i: b ] l ι ς

postcydic l.Devoicing

—

In this derivation the /b/ remains unsyllabified until -lieh is appended on the second cycle; this /b/ then incorrectly moves into syllable-initial position by the Onset Rule. Thus, the German facts presented up to this point provide evidence against the view espoused by Borowsky (1986), Ito (1986), and Rice (1989) that morpheme final consonants should be universally extrasyllabic and support the position taken by Levin (1985) that the CV Rule is simply universally endowed with the power to change syllable structure. My claim that the Onset Rule applies only in a structure-building function is apparently falsified by the data below in (86), which are composed of a stem ending in an obstruent and a sonorant consonant followed by a vowel-initial suffix:

86 (86)

nebl-ig zylindr-isch widr-ig fiebr-ig m bl-ieren registr-ieren filtr-ieren

[ne:.blig] [tsY.lln.dRl/] [vi:.dRIg] [fLbRltf [m0.bli:.R3n] [Re.gis.thRi:.R»n] [fll.thRi:.R9n]

/Ne:bl/ /tsYllNdR/ /vi:dR/ /fi:bR/ /m0:bl/ /Re:gistR/ /filtR/

'foggy' 'cylindrical' 'adverse' 'feverish' 'furnish' 'register' 'filter 1

The syllabification of the words above is based on the nonapplication of Devoicing to the medial obstruent in the first five examples and the application of Aspiration to the /t/ in the last two items. (Pronunciation of these words where the medial obstruent is optionally devoiced, as in [ηβ:ρ.1ΐς], will be discussed in section 2.9.) All word internal syllable initial clusters in the words in (86) occur word-initially and word-internally, as I pointed out in section 2.7. The important point regarding the syllabification of the words in (86) is that the Onset Rule has apparently applied on the second cycle in a structure-changing fashion, contrary to the point I made above that this subpart of the Syllable Structure Algorithm only builds structure. I account for the syllabification facts in (86) by stipulating that syllable structure is assigned cyclically, as in the derivations in (82) above. After the suffixes are appended, the stem-final sonorant consonant is then moved into syllable-initial position by the CV Rule. Since the Onset Rule only applies in a structure-building function, I have posited the following language-specific Resyllabification rule which moves the obstruent in these and similar words into syllable-initial position: (87) Resyllabification C Ο t»-- ϊ Χ Χ

Ι

Ι

[-son] [+son] condition: The two segments in (87) are tautomorphemic. According to Resyllabification an obstruent in the coda moves into syllableinitial position when followed by a syllable-initial sonorant. An important part of the structural description of Resyllabification is condition that the two segments are tautomorphemic. This condition ensures that Resyllabification occurs in words like the ones in (86) but no in words like the ones in (81)(b). Consider now the derivations in (88):

87

lieb-lich /lib/

nebl-ig /N erb l/

(88)

cycle 1:

σ• 1. Nucleus & Syll. Placement

2. CV Rule

XXXX X |V ll n e b l

XXXX

lyl i ιb σ --Ί

φΝ XXXX X

?X XXXX

n e b l

l i b

lV ιι

Λς ON TΑ s

XXXX X

3. Coda Placement cycle 2:

l. morphology

W l i b

lV ll

n e b l

wm n e b l]l g

Λ ι

JCXX X X X

ly ι 1 1 ι

σ

A

XXXX X X X 2. Nucleus & Syll. | \] | | | | Placement n e b l]l g

N XXXX X X X

ly ι ιιι l i b ]l ι ς C 9N

3. CV Rule

XXXX f Χ χ n e b l]l g

4. Onset Rule

V v V

TVT l l l

l i b ]l ι ς

88

• ffft

XXXX X X X

l V l l l l

5. Coda Placement n e b l ] l g

postcvclic

XXXX X X X

Il Vi Ib ] ll ll ςl

xxxx" k x i

lV l l M

1. Resyllabification n e b l ] l g

σ pS*C O IN ΗΤΑ l T l l XXXX X X X

ιl γi ιp ] ιl ιι ις

2. Devoicing [ne:.bllg]

[1ΐ:ρ.1ΐς]

(The /!/ in /Ne:bl/ cannot be associated with the coda on the first cycle because /bl/ is not a possible coda cluster). In these derivations the stems are syllabified on the first cycle. After the suffixes in nebl-ig and lieb-lich are added on the second cycle syllabification reapplies, followed by the language-specific rule of Resyllabification. The important point here is that the /b/ in nebl-ig undergoes the Resyllabification rule, whereas the /b/ in lieb-lich does not, because Resyllabification only applies when the obstruent and sonorant are tautomorphemic.14 In this section. I have provided an explicit account of how syllable structure is assigned in the course of the derivation, including the apparently contrastive cases like lieb-lich vs. nebl-ig. This analysis has thus not only demonstrated that syllabification in German is predictable, but that the Syllable Structure Algorithm applies cyclically. In fact, I provide additional evidence based on the syllabification of glides and vowels in chapter 3 that the Syllable Structure Algorithm must apply cyclically. My approach to German syllabification is important theoretically for another reason as well. In the derivation in (88) I have shown that German requires a language-specific rule of Resyllabification. This point is noteworthy because it undermines the commonly held assumption that resyllabification rules apply only postlexically across a word boundary. Since the German rule of Resyllabification applies lexically at early stages in the derivation, the present analysis contradicts this view. Let us now consider the additional data in (89) which are composed of a stem ending in a (voiced) obstruent + sonorant consonant followed by a vowel-initial

89

suffix. These data are important because they show additional support for the Resyllabification rule in (87). (89)

Siedl-ung Handl-ung schmuddl-ig paddl-e ebn-en Ordn-ung ordn-en Redn-er unsr-e Basl-er

[a.dlurj] [han.dlUQ] [fmu.dlig] [pa.dle] [er.bnan] [DR.dnurj] [OR.dnon] [Re:.dnA] [un.zR9] [ba:.zU]

/zi:dl/ /haNdl/ /smudl/ /pad!/ /e:bN/ /DRdN/ /Re:dN/ /uNzR/ /bazl/

'settlement' 'plot' 'dirty' 'paddle (first sg.)' 'make even' Order (noun)' Order (verb)' 'speaker' Our (fem. sg.) One from Basel'

The syllabification of the words in (89) is based on the nonapplication of Devoicing to the medial obstruent. (This medial obstruent can optionally devoice. I discuss this pronunciation in section 2.9). The items in (89) are of interest because the word-medial syllable-initial clusters (i.e. [dl], [dn], [ZR], [zl], [bn]) are otherwise nonoccurring in word-initial position. Recall that I circumvented a similar problem in section 2.7.5 with respect to [gm] by postulating the filter in (62) which holds only word-initially and not syllableinitially. This possibility is not open here because not all of the word-internal clusters in (89) are generated by the positive syllable structure conditions in (59)(a). Thus, the question is how the word-internal syllable-initial clusters in (89) are produced by the Syllable Structure Algorithm in the first place. One option is to follow a suggestion of Mohanan (1989). In her analysis of Malayalam syllable structure, Mohanan argues that syllable well-formedness conditions are not identical in each module of the grammar. Thus, in the present context, one could argue that the positive syllable structure conditions which hold for the Syllable Structure Algorithm allow the entire class of obstruent + sonorant consonants only in the postcyclic phonology but not cyclically as well. This option is not necessary, since the word-internal syllable initial clusters in the words in (89) can be moved into syllable-initial position by Resyllabification in (87) under the stipulation that the conditions I posited in (59) do not hold for this rule. Thus, Resyllabification is capable of generating virtally any word-medial syllable-initial cluster composed of an obstruent and a sonorant. In fact, Resyllabification's independence from the positive and negative syllable structure conditions is not particularly surprising, since this rule is not a part of the Syllable Structure Algorithm in the first place.

90 Consider now the following derivations: (90)

Ordn-ung /ORdN/ cycle 1:

1. Nucleus & Syll. Placement

f D

f f ί R d N

2. Coda Placement

Ο

R d N

3. Coda Rule

X X X X D -R d N

p-... ¥Χ fΧ Χ Χ Ι

cycle 2:

ι

1. morphology

l X l D

X X X X X l l l . l l R d N] U g

2. Nucleus & Syll. Placement

I ff D

f f ί ί f R d N ] u rj

X o

........... ? O N l l X X X XX R d N] U

3. CVRule 4. Onset Rule

Υx x^x x 5. Coda Placement

D

T .......

xx

R d N] U

91

postcydic

X

X X X

1. Resyllabification

D

R d N ] u r)

2. De voicing

—

XX

[OR.dnUQ] (I disregard the derivation of [Q] from /Ng/ above). In these derivations the Onset Rule cannot apply at step 4 of cycle 1 to the /d/ in Ordnung because the /dN/ cluster is not allowed by the positive syllable structure conditions in (59)(a). Instead, Resyllabification applies to this segment because this rule in Standard German is not governed by the positive and negative syllable structure conditions in (59). The data in (89) are from Standard German. Vennemann (1972) points out that in many dialects, especially those in the north, the word-internal syllableinitial clusters in these and similar words are nonoccurring. Thus, the words in (89) are all pronounced by many Germans with an obligatorily devoiced medial obstruent: (91)

Ordn-ung Red-n-er Basl-er

[ORtnurj] [Rert.nA] [ba:s.lA]

/ORdN/ /Red/ /ba:zl/

The data in (91) show that many Germans obligatorily devoice the medial obstruent when an onset cluster would be produced which does not conform to the positive and negative syllable structure conditions in (59). The underlying forms of words like the ones in (91) have not been restructured with a medial voiceless obstruent because the words in (91) all have voiced alternants: (92)

Ord-en Red-e Basel

[DR.den] [Re:.do] [ba:.zel]

Order 1 'speech' 'Basel'

In order to block the application of Resyllabification to the medial obstruent in the words in (89) I assume that these speakers of German have simply extended the domain of the positive and negative syllable structure conditions in (59) to Resyllabification as well:

92

(93) Resyllabification (Northern Dialects)

I

f

[-son] [+son] condition: The two segments in (93) are tautomorphemic; positive and negative syllable structure conditions in (59) hold.

2.9 Fast Speech Resyllabification In this section I present data motivating a Fast Speech Resyllabification rule, according to which an obstruent in a syllable-initial obstruent + sonorant cluster is moved optionally into syllable-final position. I show here that this rule only operates when certain sonority requirements are fulfilled: The closer the medial obstruent and sonorant consonant are on the German Sonority Hierarchy the more likely the rule is to apply. Fast Speech Resyllabification therefore provides evidence for the German Sonority Hierarchy. Consider the words in (94), which contain a medial obstruent + nasal sequence. The items in (a) are stressed on the syllable before this cluster and the ones in (b) are stressed on a following syllable. Observe that a medial voiced obstruent can optionally undergo Devoicing in colloquial speech:15

(94)(a) Akne Dogma Wagner leugn-en regn-en trockn-er Ordn-ung (b) Signal Magnet Prognose Ignoranz Signalisieren Dogmatismus

I [ä.kne] [dD.gma] [vä:.gnA] [loy.gnen] [Re":.gnan] [tRO.knA] [OR.dnunJ [zl.gnä:l] [ma.gn&t] [pRo.gno:.ze] [i.gno.Rants] [zi.gna.li.zi:.ROn] [do.gma.tfs.mus]

[äk.ne] [d5k.ma] [vä:k.nA] [loyk.nan] [tROk.nA] [DRtnurj] [zlk.nä:l] [mak.n6:t] [pRok.no:ze] [ik.no. Ränts] [zlk.na.li.zi:.R9n] [dok.ma.tis.mUs]

'acne' 'dogma' 'Wagner' 'deny1 'rain 1 'dryer' Order 1

'signal' 'magnet1 'prognosis' 'ignorance1 'signal' 'dogmatism'

The words in (94) contain medial obstruent + nasal sequences. In the first column the obstruent is in syllable-initial position and in the second column this obstruent is in syllable-final position. Phonetic evidence for the two possible

93

syllabifications is that underlyingly medial voiced obstruents can surface as either voiced or voiceless. I account for the free variation in (94) with the following (optional) rule:

(95) Fflsf Speech Resyllabification

ς χ

ο χ

[-son]

[+son]

(first

formulation)

According to Fast Speech Resyllabification, the obstruent in an obstruent + sonorant onset is reassociated with the coda. (95) must feed Devoicing, in order to account for the devoiced obstruents in the second column of (94): 1. Fast Speech Resyllabification (96) *-2. Devoicing Fast Speech Resyllabification can only occur if the onset contains two segments, since a single intervocalic consonant is never devoiced: (97)

les-e

[le:.ze]

*[le:s.e]

'read (first sg.)1

The reader might suspect that Fast Speech Resyllabification is superfluous, given the language-specific Resyllabification rule in (87). On this view one could account for the free variation in (94) by stipulating that Resyllabification in (87) is optional. However, this possibility will not explain all of the facts in (94), since the free variation is also exhibited in monomorphemic words. Thus, in a word like Wagner [va:.gnA] the [gn] cluster is created by the Onset Rule, which is obligatory like all other subparts of the Syllable Structure Algorithm. German grammar therefore requires some mechanism for moving the left most consonant in a V.CCV sequence into syllable-final position. The following words contain a medial obstruent + /!/ sequence. Observe that the same kind of free variation is exhibited in these words as in the words in (94).

(98)(a) nebl-ig krabbl-e schmuggl-e Handl-ung ekl-ig

Ι [ηέ:^1ΐς] [kRa.bte] [Jmu.gle] [h n.dlun] [έ:.1αΐς]

Π [ηέ~:ρ.1ΐς] [kfiap.le] [Jmuk.te] [h ntlUQ] [έ*.1ΐς]

'foggy1 'scratch (first sg.)' 'smuggle (first sg.)' 'plot' 'icky1

94

Adler Iglu Dublin Mecklenburg (b) Bibliothek Publikation

[ :.dU] [i:.glu] [da.blln] [ml.klan.bURk] [bi.bli.o.te":k] [pu.bli.ka.tsjo:n]

[a:tU] [i:k.lu] [dap.lln] [mlk.ten.bURk] [bip.li.ot&k] [pup.li.ka.tsjo:n]

'eagle1 'igloo1 'Dublin' 'Mecklenburg' 'library1 'publication1

The data in (98) show that the obstruent in a medial obstruent + /!/ cluster can optionally undergo Fast Speech Resyllabification. Phonetic evidence for this resyllabification is the application of Devoicing to the medial voiced obstruent. One point needs to be stressed concerning the data presented up to this point, While most of my informants agreed that the pronunciations in both columns of (98) are grammatical, they all agreed that an obstruent in a medial obstruent + nasal cluster is more readily devoiced that an obstruent in a medial obstruent + lateral sequence. I return to this point below. The following data contain a medial obstruent + /R/ sequence:

(99)(a)

klebr-ig widr-ig Zebra Hydra (b) vertebral Integral Akkropolis

Ι [kte.bratf [vi:.dRIg] [tse:.bRa] [hy:.dRa] [v8R.te.bR :l] [in.te.gR :!] [a.kRo:.po.lis]

Π ??[Μέ:ρ.Ρΐς] ??[vi:t.RIg] ??[tse:p.Ra] ??[hy:t.Ra] ??[vER.tep.R :l] ??[ln.tek.Ra:l] ??[ak.Ro:.po.lls]

'sticky1 'adverse1 'zebra1 'hydra' 'vertebral' 'integral' 'acropolis'

Most of my informants either questioned or rejected completely the pronunciation in the second column where the obstruent shows the effects of Fast Speech Resyllabification and Devoicing.16 The following words contain a medial obstruent + glide sequence:

(lOOXa)

(b)

Radio Gymnasium Opium asiatisch Religion trivial Beduine

Ι [Ra:.d;o] [gYm.n :.zium] [6:.pium] [a.2ja:.tlj] [Re.li.g|o:n] [tRi.vja:!] [be.dui:.ns]

Π *[Ra:tjo] *[gYm.n :s.jum] *[o:pjum] *[as4a:.tlj] *[Re.lik.j6:n] *[tRifja:l] *[bet.yi:.ne]

'radio 1 'high school' Opium' 'asian' 'Religion' 'trivial' 'Beduine'

95

The pronunciation in the second column of (100) shows the effects of Fast Speech Resyllabification and Devoicing. The pronunciation of these and similar words with a devoiced obstruent is ungrammatical. I interpret the facts presented up to this point as support for the German Sonority Hierarchy: The closer the distance on the Sonority Hierarchy between the two segments the more likely the rule is to apply. Since obstruents and nasals are adjacent on the German Sonority Hierarchy, the ^syllabification of the obstruent in the words in (94) can occur. Resyllabification of the obstruent in an obstruent + nasal sequence occurs more readily than in an obstruent + /!/ duster because the distance between /!/ and the obstruents is greater than the distance between nasals and obstruents on the German Sonority Hierarchy. The facts in (99) and (100) can be explained similarly. For many Germans the «syllabification of an obstruent when either /R/ or a high glide follows cannot occur because the distance between the obstruents and /R/ and obstruents and high glides is greater than the distance between obstruents and other sonorant consonants. The generalization is that Fast Speech Resyllabification only applies when the distance between the two medial consonants on the German Sonority Hierarchy is no greater than 2. Given this condition, Fast Speech Resyllabification occurs freely when the cluster is composed of an obstruent + nasal or obstruent + /!/, but not when the cluster consists of an obstruent + /R/ or obstruent + glide. I have therefore reformalized Fast Speech Resyllabification in (101) below:17 (101) Fast Speech Resyllabification C Ο

(optional)

U· X

[-son] condition : The sonority distance between [-son] and [+son] is no greater than 2. In a cross-linguistic survey Greenberg (1978) shows that tautosyllabic clusters more differentiated in sonority are preferred to clusters less differentiated in sonority. I assume that the sonority condition on Fast Speech Resyllabification reveals the effects of this universal tendency: Onset clusters further apart on the sonority hierarchy are "preferred" to onset clusters which are closer together and thus Fast Speech Resyllabification applies only in the latter case. Fast Speech Resyllabification applies at the word level and not postlexically because it never applies between two words in a syntactic phrase: (102)

die Gnade

[di:.gna:.de]

*[di:k.na:.de]

'the mercy1

96

In addition, Fast Speech Resyllabification must be a postcyclic rule because it precedes Devoicing, which I argue in section 2.11.2 must apply in the lexicon as a postcyclic rule. Since Fast Speech Resyllabification precedes a lexical rule, it too must apply in the lexicon.

2.10 Rubach (1990) A recent attempt to describe the German syllabification facts with apparently less machinery is contained in Rubach (1990). In Rubach's view, syllable structure assignment in German can be accomplished without a language specific rule of Resyllabification as in (87) or a Fast Speech Resyllabification rule. I reject Rubach's analysis because he cannot account for all of the facts presented in the previous two sections. For the sake of thoroughness I consider several alternative approaches in Rubach's model and show that they all fail to account for the data and conclude that any complete treatment of German syllabification must recognize two separate resyllabification rules. The syllabification of words like nebl-ig which are composed of a stem ending in an obstruent + sonorant consonant + vowel-initial suffix is accomplished in Rubach's model with a rule of Sonorant Syllabification which makes a final unsyllabifiable sonorant consonant syllabic, as well as a rule of Sonorant Desyllabification which erases the syllable node of a sonorant consonant before a vowel-initial suffix. An important point in Rubach's analysis is that Devoicing is a postcyclic rule which is ordered before Desyllabification: (103)

nebl-ig /ne:bl/

glaub-lich /glaub/

cycle 1: fr

1. syllabification

! n e b l

2. Sonorant syllabification

s%** ? n e b 1

3. syllabification

I η e b 1

«"'r^ g l a u b

97 cycle 2:

σ

Α.

1. morphology

η e b l ]ι g σ

2. syllabification

σ

ΛΙ

σ σ

η e b 1 ] ι "g

σ

U>

g l a u b ]1 ι ς (J

1?

g l a u b ]ί Ί ς

postcyclic 1. Devoicing

-----

g l a υ b ]l I ς

„

Λ 2. Sonorant desyllabification

η e b l]l g

3. syllabification

σ σ /Ι...............Ν η e b l]l g [glaup-ΐΐς]

In the derivations in (103) Devoicing applies to the /b/ in glaub-lich before Sonorant Desyllabification applies to the syllable node over the /!/ in nebl-ig. Syllabification consequently moves both the /b/ and the /!/ in the latter word into syllable-initial position because /bl/ is a permissible syllable-initial cluster. The derivations in (103) cannot account for the data presented earlier, where a medial voiced obstruent in an obstruent + sonorant consonant cluster is optionally devoiced (i.e. [ne:p.llg] for nebl-ig). This difficulty could presumably vanish if Devoicing is ordered after Sonorant Desyllabification. Thus, on this view the free variation [ηε:Μΐς]/[ηβ:ρ1ΐς] can be explained by stipulating that Devoicing is obligatory and the postcyclic Onset Rule optional. (This possibility is not explicit in Rubach (1990). I discuss the derivation in (104) to illustrate that the German syllabification facts cannot be accounted for with a rule of Sonorant Syllabification and Desyllabification):

98

(104) cycle 1:

nebl-ig /ne:bl/ g

nebl-ig /ne:bl/ „

/·'·,

/-Χ

1. syllabification

» e: b l

n e: b l

2. Sonorant syllabification

ή e: b 1

ή e: b 1

3. syllabification

η e: b 1

glaub-lich /glaub/ p1 „..•ι" '?":::

g l a Ub

ΛΚΛ

cycle 2;

/f A ne:bl]lg σ σ ο

1. morphology

/f /P ne:bl]ig σ σσ

2 . syllabification

ne:bl]ig

ne:blJig

1. Sonorant /f ^ desyllabification η e: b ll I g

/f ί\ n e: b 1] I g

2. syllabification /j ,,,,,ι·'1^ (Onset Rule opt.) η e: b ll l g

/\-~ .···'[{ n e: b 1] l g

3. Devoicing

ne:plllg

/Γ /Ι Ν

/I AJ\

^ , -^ ,

glaubJll?

postcyclic

g l a u p 11 I C

In these derivations the postcyclic Onset Rule is optional. In order to account for the pronunciation of nebl-ig with a medial [b] the Onset Rule applies, bleeding Devoicing and in order to account for the pronunciation of the same word with a medial [p] the Onset Rule does not apply and the /b/ consequently undergoes Devoicing. Observe that Devoicing is an obligatory rule because it must apply word-finally (i.e. Tag [ta:k] / *[ta:g]) and word-internally before a consonantinitial suffix, as in glaub-lich. The argument against the derivation in (104) is that the ordering of Devoicing after Sonorant Syllabification cannot account for the free variation between certain word-internal obstruent + sonorant consonant clusters. Thus, consider the data in (94) and (98) which contain word internal syllable-initial clusters which do not occur word-initially. I have reproduced some of these words below:

99

(105)

Handl-ung Ordn-ung

Ι [han.dlurj] [OR.dnurj]

Π [hant.lurj] [ORtnurj]

Rubach analyzes words like the ones in (105) in the same manner as nebl-ig under the stipulation that the word-internal [dl] and [dn] clusters are heterosyllabic on the surface. On Rubach's view [dl] and [dn] in words like the ones in (105) cannot be tautosyllabic because they are unable to be produced by the Onset Rule, which must conform to the positive and negative syllable structure conditions for German. Thus, consider the following derivation:

Handl-ung /haNdl/

(106)

cycle 1: 1. syllabification

σ

..... V««: ........

h a n d 1

2. Sonorant syllabification 3. syllabification cycle 2:

σ

1. morphology

h a n σ

2. syllabification

h a n

,

1 ]u rj

postcyclic 1. Devoicing 2. Sonorant desyllabification 3. syllabification

σ Ι*· , ., a η d 1 Ju σ σ ^/Tf^· ........... ""PS. h a η d l ]υ Q [hand.lurj]

The important step in this derivation is the nonapplication of the Onset Rule to the /d/ because [dl] in Rubach's opinion does not conform to the positive syllable structure conditions for German syllable-initial clusters. Thus, in Rubach's view the surface syllabification is [hand.lurj] even though the [d] is voiced. The optional pronunciation of the data in the second column of (105) prove to be a decisive argument against the possible derivation in (104) where

100

Devoicing is ordered after Sonorant Desyllabification. My reasoning is that the Onset Rule in Rubach's view cannot produce a [dl] cluster; thus, the [dl] cluster must be heterosyllabic after the application of Sonorant Desyllabification. Were the derivation in (104) correct then Devoicing would apply obligatorily to the /d/, since this segment is syllable-final. In fact, Rubach himself apparently anticipated this criticism by referring to the optional pronunciation in the second column of (105) in a footnote. Here he assures us that the pronunciation of the words in (105) with an optionally devoiced medial obstruent does not really exist: "This is indeed the surface syllabification (referring to [hand.lUrj]). There seems to be a contradiction when one checks the data with native speakers. For example, they syllabify Handlung 'act' as Hand-lung and pronounce the d as [t]. However, when pronouncing the whole word they say [d]. The contradiction is only apparent. When the speakers are forced to divide this word into syllables and the boundary falls after d, Final Devoicing sets in as a rule and changes the /d/ to [t]. These are performance problems, and they do not affect the structure of the argument (Rubach 1990:83; emphasis my own).

This statement is false. Not only are both columns in (105) in free variation for many speakers, but many other speakers, only have the pronunciation in column II. In fact, there is another argument against the idea that German has a cyclic rule of sonorant syllabification, as assumed by Rubach. Recall from section 1.2.7 that there is an allomorphy rule which is sensitive to the number of syllables of the stem. Were German to have a general rule of sonorant syllabification which precedes the morphology then the generalization concerning the distribution of -ei and -erei would be lost. I have shown in this section the consequences of Rubach's (1990) treatment of German syllabification which recognizes no resyllabification rules and conclude that one must recognize these rules as a part of German grammar in order to explain the entire range of facts.

2.11 On compounds and prefixed words and postlexical resyllabification As in a number of other languages, the CV Rule in German never alters preexisting syllable structure (in slow speech) in the juncture stem + stem or prefix + stem. In the following section I account for the nonapplication of the CV Rule in these morphological contexts by invoking the Prosodification Constraint (Rubach & Booij 1990b), according to which the derivation of prosodic structure is blocked by the constituency bracket "[". In section 2.11.2 I show that this constraint no longer holds postlexically after Bracket Erasure has gone into effect

101

and that the CV Rule can therefore apply whenever its structural description is met. 2.11.1 Prosodification Constraint Consider the slow speech syllabification of the compounds and prefixed words in (107) below. I comment on my assumptions concerning the morphological bracketing of the prefixes in (107)(a) shortly. (107)(a) prefix + stem

[[Ab][art]] [[Ab][ruf]] [ent[artet]] [Ver[ein]] (b) compounds [[Tag] [arbeit]] [[Weg][rand]]

[?ap.?a:At] [?äp.Ru:f] [?öit.?ä:A.tat] [fEA.?ajn]

/ap//a:Rt/ /ap/ /Ruf/ /a:Rt/ /alN/

'modification' 'call' 'degenerate1 'union 1

[tä:k.?aR.ba|t] [v&k-Rant]

/ta:g/ /aRbait/ /ve:g/ /RaNd/

'day labor1 'way side'

The words in (107)(a) are composed of a prefix + stem and the ones in (b) of a stem + stem. Evidence for the syllabification indicated includes the application of Devoicing to the stem-final obstruents in (b) and the application of Glottal Stop Insertion in both (a) as well as (b). (I discuss the fast speech pronunciation of the items in (107) where a glottal stop is absent in the following section). Compare now the syllabification data in (107) with the words in (81)(a) where the final consonant in a stem moves into syllable-initial position when a vowelinitial suffix is appended. Since the glottal stop is absent throughout the lexical derivation, the the CV Rule must be blocked from applying to the final consonant of the prefix in (107)(a) and to the final consonant of the first word of the compound word Tagarbeit in (107)(b). Based on the data presented in (107) I am invoking the principle in (108): (108) Prosodification Constraint (Rubach & Booij 1990b) Derivation of Prosodic Structure is blocked by the constituency bracket [. The Prosodification Constraint ensures that neither the CV Rule, the Onset Rule, nor any other subpart of the Syllable Structure Algorithm can apply across the left syntactic bracket in (107).18

An important point regarding the constraint in (108) is that the juncture prefix + stem and stem + stem blocks syllabification not only in German, but in other languages as well. For this reason I interpret the Prosodification Constraint as one parameter along which certain languages can vary. Thus, languages like

102

Polish and German have the Prosodification Constraint whereas languages like Spanish (Harris 1983) and Malayalam (Mohanan 1989) presumably do not. The Prosodification Constraint can only be invoked in the lexicon, since the word internal brackets in words like the ones in (107) are not present postlexically. Thus, the prediction is that resyllabification between the two members of a compound, the juncture prefix + stem and between two words in a syntactic phrase is possible postlexically. In fact, this resyllabification can occur in German; I delay discussion of this point until the following section. Let us now return to the bracketing of the prefixed words in (107)(a). A wellknown fact about German prefixes is that they are either separable or inseparable. Several properties distinguish these two sets of prefixes, two of which are relevant here. First, only the separable prefixes bear primary stress: (109)(a) än-fängen äuf-stehen hin-gehen h6r-kommen (b) be-tr£ten ent-fernen

'begin' 'get up' 'go to' 'come from' 'enter' 'remove'

Second, as the name implies, only the separable prefixes can be separated from the stem in a syntactic phrase: (110)(a) Ich fange morgen an. Er steht jetzt auf. Wo kommst du her? Geht ihr morgen hin?

'I'll start tomorrow.' 'He's getting up now.' 'Where are you from?' 'Are are you going there tomorrow?'

(b) Er entfernt den Fleck. 'He's removing the spot.' Betreten Sie das Zimmer! 'Enter the room!1 The preceding discussion has suggested that separable prefixes are more "wordlike" than the inseparable prefixes. I interpret this from a formal point of view by analyzing only the former prefixes as morphological words: [[an][fangen]] [[auf] [stehen]] [[hin] [gehen]] [[her] [kommen]] (b) [be[treten]] [ent[fernen]]

103

In terms of Lexical Phonology only the word-like separable prefixes in (lll)(a) go through the first cycle, since I analyze these prefixes as morphological words. In contrast, the inseparable prefixes are treated as other affixes which do not undergo an independent cycle. In fact, a very similar proposal to the effect that certain English prefixes go through the first cycle is contained in Bates (1983). The present analysis of German prefixes accounts for the stress patterns in the words in (109) as well. Since the separable prefixes are analyzed as separate words they undergo the German Stress Rule, as do the stems to which they attach. The stress pattern of the words in (109)(a) is in fact identical to the compound words like Bahnhof [b :nh :f] 'train station' I discussed in (38) of section 1.2.4. Thus, I assume that the Compound Stress Rule accounts for the primary and secondary stresses in (109)(a).19 The following derivations demonstrate the operation of the Prosodification Constraint and the morphological bracketing in (111): (112)

Ab-art /ap/ /a:Rt/

cycle 1:

σ

o~

Ί

1. syllabification

^*Ί

[aρ] [a:"R t]

Tag-arbeit /ta:g/ /aRbalt/

ο

σ

ι^Ίι

σ

*ί·

[U:g]

ΐΜΐι

[ Rb'Vft]

ent-art-et /a:Rt/

σ **»

[a:R t]

cyd** Λ

G Γι

σ

σ

Jx, .χ*·...

[έΝ t [fa: R t]9t]

„ , .,. ..

1. syllabification postcyclic 1. Coronal Obst. Adjunction

2 {*..., Dap][a:R(;D

2. De voicing iL

'hb

3. R-Vocalization [|ap][a:A t]]

i*

^

V

i^^h__

[[ta7k][aA bait]]

^

^^L·

[ε N t [ [ΪΆ t] θ t]

postlexical: 1. Glottal Stop Insertion

^ ^ ?ap?a:At

σ σ 2. syllab.

?ap?a: At [?ap.?a:At]

A K ^ ta:k?aAbait

σ

σ σ

ta:k?aAbait [ta:k.?aA.bajt]

^ ?, ?

σ

σ

?ent?a: [?6nt.?a:A.tet]

104

In these derivations all stems as well as the separable prefix ab- have been syllabified on the first cycle.20 On the second cycle the inseparable prefix ent- is syllabified. Stem-final consonants are syllable-final and not syllable-initial because syllabification (i.e. the CV Rule) cannot apply across the constituency bracket"[" by the Prosodification Constraint. Let us now return to the data in (81)(b) which are composed of a stem + consonant-initial suffix. The difficulty with respect to these words is how to block the Onset Rule from applying on the second cycle (i.e. why [Η:ρ.1ΐς] and not *[1ί:.Μις]). Given the Prosodification Constraint, one could presumably argue that these and similar words are analyzed by native speakers as compounds (i.e. [[Lieb] [ling]] as opposed to [[Lieb]ling]). Given this alternative bracketing one could conclude that syllabification in German is noncyclic and that the Prosodification Constraint could be invoked to block the Onset Rule from applying across a left syntactic bracket. Thus/ consider again the derivation in (83) where I pointed out the difficulties with a noncyclic approach. Were the syntactic bracketing of this word [[Lieb][ling]] then the Onset Rule would be blocked by the Prosodification Constraint. This alternative would also require no languagespecific Resyllabification rule; thus, a word composed of a stem ending in an obstruent + sonorant consonant + vowel-initial suffix like nebl-ig would be syntactically [[nebl]ig] and the syllabification of the /b/ into syllable-initial position could be accomplished by the Onset Rule which can apply in this syntactic context because -ig is not bracketed as a stem. I reject this analysis because there is no evidence from stress or other areas of German phonology that all of the suffixes in (81)(b) are "word-like". Thus, a treatment of German phonology which requires that suffixes such as -nis and -ling be syntactically [nis] and [ling] could not account for the fact that words containing these suffixes are not stressed like compounds. In fact, word stress facts can be adduced that certain German suffixes should indeed be analyzed morphologically as stems. Thus, consider the following words: (113)(a) leb-los Eigen-tum (b) nebl-ig freund-lich Wag-nis kind-isch

[le:p.lo:s] [aj.g®n.tu:m] [ηέ:.Μΐς] [fRDyntllg] [va:k.nls] [kln.dlj]

'lifeless' 'property' 'f°ggy' 'friendly' 'risk' 'childish'

Giegerich (1985:105) observes that only the suffixes in (113)(a) but not the ones in (113)(b) bear secondary stress.21 Giegerich (1985;1989) accounts for the contrastive stress patterns in (113) by assuming that all (native) suffixes go through an independent cycle as stems and that only the suffixes in (113)(a) undergo the

105

German Stress Rule because they are the only ones which have heavy syllables. (Giegerich posits a rule of final consonant extrametricality which renders the syllables in the suffixes in (113)(b) light). Note that Giegerich could not explain the fact that monosyllabic words ending in a short vowel + single consonant like Kamm [kam] 'comb' are stressed. Thus, it makes little sense to stipulate that -lieh [ ] is a stem which undergoes rules in an independent cycle and is not subject to stress assignment because it consists of a light syllable when monosyllabic words of the same structure like Kamm [kam] are stressed. In fact, Giegerich's approach is similar to the claim made by certain linguists that suffixation is nondistinct from compounding in terms of bracketing (Halle & Mohanan 1985). Thus, according to these linguists even the suffixes in (113)(b) should have their own brackets and thus go through an independent cycle. Note that this assumption is problematic for any analysis of German syllabification. Consider the compound [[Tag][arbeit]] vs. the suffixed word [[sag][e]] in an approach which does not recognize a difference in bracketing in compounds vs. inflected words. Given this bracketing it would be literally impossible to block the CV Rule from applying to the stem final /g/ in the former word but to allow it to apply to the stem final /g/ in the latter word. Clearly, this difficulty can be avoided by recognizing that not all suffixes should be bracketed as stems. In contrast, I only analyze the suffixes in (113)(a) as stems:

(114)(a) [UeblDos]] [[Eigen][tum]] (b) [[nebl]ig] [[freund]lich] [[Wag]nis] [[kind]isch] This bracketing ensures that only the suffixes in (113)(a) undergo stress assignment and that the stem + suffix structure ultimately undergoes the Compound Stress Rule as well. An additional German suffix which must be analyzed as a stem is -artig. Thus, consider the following data: (115) verschieden-artig affen-artig baum-artig sand-artig zwerg-artig

[fSA.Ji:.dan.?ä:A.tlg] [ä.fcn.?ä:A.tL·;] [bäum.?ä:^.tlg] [zänt.?ä:A.uX] [tsv£Rk.?a:A.tig]

'various' 'ape-like' 'tree-like' 'sand-like' 'dwarf-like'

Evidence for the syllabification above concerns both the application of Devoicing to the stem-final consonant in the last two examples as well as the application of

106

Glottal Stop Insertion. Fleischer (1982: 281) lists -artig as a vowel-initial staff ix. If this is so then the data in (115) are counterexamples to the generalization that the CV Rule can apply to a stem final consonant when a vowel initial suffix is appended. I take the facts in (115) to provide support for treating -artig as a stem: [artig]: (116) [[verschieden] [artig]] This analysis derives support for three reasons. First artig is an occurring German word, although it does have the lexicalized meaning 'good; wellbehaved'. Second, this "suffix" behaves as a stem in terms of syllabification since the stem-final consonant is not resyllabified (obligatorily) into syllable-initial position by the CV Rule. Third, words like the one in (115) are stressed like compounds with a secondary stress on the initial syllable of -artig. I have argued in this section that German requires the Prosodification Constraint in order to block syllabification across the juncture prefix + stem and stem + stem. In the remainder of this section I consider and reject several possible treatments of the German facts where no reference to the Prosodification Condition is made. One could presumably make the case that the Prosodification Constraint is superfluous in words like the ones in (107) because of the presence of the glottal stop. This possibility cannot work because Glottal Stop Insertion is an optional rule. Alternatively, one could claim that the Prosodification Principle can be eliminated if the CV Rule and Onset Rule were to include the appropriate brackets in their structural descriptions. This possibility is untenable, given standard assumptions concerning the interpretation of phonological rules: Compare the derivations of Les-ung, lieb-lich and Tag-arbeit. In order to explain the fact that only a single consonant is associated with the syllable node on the second cycle the following formalization of the CV Rule is apparently necessary: Q i X

N

(117) [+cons] (]) (117) presents difficulties because the right syntactic bracket is optional. This bracket is optional because the CV Rule applies when the C and V are tautomorphemic in lieb-lich and when they are heteromorphemic as in Les-ung. Observe that if the bracket is not present in the structural description of (117)

107

then there is no way to block the rule from applying to the final /g/ in the compound Tag-arbeit. The preceding paragraph has described an insurmountable difficulty in reanalyzing the German facts where no reference to the Prosodification Condition is made. Clearly, the reanalysis described above must be rejected because it cannot account for the fact that the CV Rule does not apply across the left syntactic bracket. Another alternative to the Prosodification Constraint is to exploit a model of the lexicon where morphological rules are assigned to particular levels and to assume that syllabification is formalized differently at different levels. For the sake of thoroughness, I conclude this section by considering and ultimately rejecting this alternative. Observe the possible model of the German lexicon in (118) which is similar to the one explicit in Wiese (1988). On this view, morphological rules are ordered into one of three lexical levels. (118)

I.

Derivation

II.

Compounding

III.

Inflection

The difficulty with this model is that there is no way to block the CV Rule from applying at level 3 to the final consonant in the first word of a compound because Bracket Erasure ensures that all word-internal brackets are erased at the output of each level (cf. Mohanan 1986). One could possibly retain the model of the lexicon in (118) and stipulate that the CV Rule (as well as the entire syllable structure algorithm) applies only within a prosodic domain, such as the phonological word, where the phonological word in German would presumably include all prefixes and stems. In fact, the claim that syllabification has a prosodic domain in various languages is implicit in van der Hülst (1984) and explicit in Booij (1985), Nespor & Vogel (1986), Conn (1989), and in Yu (1992) for German. I reject this interpretation because the prosodic hierarchy implies that constituents lower on the hierarchy (i.e. syllables) are present before higher level constituents (i.e. phonological words) are formed. Thus, consider the prosodic structure of the word Mann below in (119):

108

phon. word foot

(119) man If the phonological word is the domain for syllabification then the implication is that the phonological word is present prior to the application of syllabification. In fact, Booij (1988:518) correctly points out that an analysis requiring the phonological word to be the domain for syllabification results in a paradox: Since phonological words dominate the syllable in the prosodic hierarchy, how could the phonological word therefore be the domain of syllabification? Observe that this difficulty cannot be avoided by stipulating that all prosodic structure is erected simultaneously, since the paradox remains.

2.11.2 Postlexical «syllabification The Prosodification Constraint can only be invoked as a principle blocking certain syllabifications in the lexicon but not postlexically. My reasoning is that the word internal brackets of the prefixed words and compounds are no longer present postlexically because they are erased by Bracketing Erasure. Thus, the prediction is that postlexically syllabification is no longer constrained by the Prosodification Constraint and resyllabification across the two words in a compound or two words in a syntactic phrase is possible. In fact, such a resyllabification in German does indeed occur, and it is to these data to which I now turn. Laeufer (1985:170-198) notes that the final consonant in the first word of a compound or a prefix can resyllabify in fast speech when the following stem begins with a vowel. I have listed compounds and affixed forms below in (120) which show this resyllabification:

(120)(a) [|Tag][arbeit]] [[Schlag] [anfall]] Ob) [[bäum] [artig]] [[ab][artig]]

[tä:k.?aR.bajt] [Jlä:k.?an.fal] [bäum.?a:A.t^] [?äp.?a:A,.tlg]

[ta:.kaR.bajt] [Jla:.kan.fal] [bäy.ma:A.tlg] [ä.pa:A.üg]

'day labor1 'stroke'tree-like' 'deviant'

The slow speech syllabification in the first column is substantiated by the application of Devoicing to the final obstruents and by the application of Glottal Stop Insertion. In the second column the final consonant of the first word of the compounds in (120)(a) and the final consonant of the stem Baum and the prefix ab- in (120)(b) resyllabifies in fast speech into syllable-initial position. Note that

109

the final consonants in (120)(a) undergo Devoicing prior to syllabification; I return to this point below. The syllabification in the second column in (120) occurs postlexically because it can also occur in between two words in a syntactic phrase:

(121) Der Tag ist

Ι [ta:k.?ist]

Π [ta:.kist]

'the day is1

The data in (121) show that «syllabification can occur between two words in a syntactic phrase. Observe once again that Devoicing must apply prior to this «syllabification. Essentially, the German facts discussed up to this point support Steriade's (1982) contention that the CV Rule always applies first in the cycle and in some languages across a word boundary. I interpret the German data as evidence that the CV Rule (as well as the entire Syllable Structure Algorithm) applies continuously throughout the derivation, both in the lexicon and postlexically in order to avoid *VC.V. I consider derivations below. In (120) Devoicing must crucially precede this postlexical application of the CV Rule because the consonant which moves is always voiceless (i.e. [ta:.kaR.baitj and not *[ta:.gaR.bait]). Thus, the question is why Devoicing must apply prior to the postlexical CV Rule.22 One possibility is to say that Devoicing applies postlexically before the CV Rule. I reject this option because it requires a regular phonological rule to apply before the CV Rule has a chance to eliminate the CV.C syllabification. Clearly the difficulty can be avoided by ordering Devoicing in the lexicon as a word-level rule. Given this ordering, Devoicing applies to the stem-final obstruents in (120) and the incorrect syllabification *[ta:.gaR.bait] is blocked lexically by the Prosodification Constraint. This same line of reasoning can be used to show that R-Vocalization must apply lexically. Consider the following data, noting in particular that an /R/ never resyllabifies postlexically into syllable-initial position:

(122)(a) [[Tier][arzt]] (b) Das Jahr ist

Ι [ti:A.?aRtst] [ja^.ftst]

Π *[ti:.RaRtst] *[ja:.Rlst]

'veterenarian' 'the year is'

Clearly the nonapplication of the CV Rule postlexically to the /R/ in these and similar items can be accounted for by ordering R-Vocalization in the lexicon as a word-level rule. Recall that R-Vocalization associates the feature [-cons] with a post-vocalic tautosyllabic /R/. Given this formalization, the CV Rule cannot apply to this segment postlexically because the CV Rule only affects a [+cons] segment. (I show in section 3.3.1 that the CV Rule never applies to the second half of an (intervocalic) diphthong).

110

Consider now the following derivations: (123)

[[SchlagHanfall]] /Slarg/

[[Schlag] [anf all]] /aNfal/

cycle 1: 3 1 . syllabification

,.;!
glo.fi:l]

'touch' 'tangent' 'fake 1 'astringe' 'astringent1 'color' 'prolong' Officiate' 'laryngologist' 'laryngology' 'laryngeal' 'laryngitis' 'meningitis' 'pharingealize1 'anglicism1 'anglo1 'anglicize' 'anglican' 'anglia' 'anglophile'

The words in (38) pose a potential problem for the present analysis, following the commonly accepted view in Lexical Phonology that the input to the first cycle is the unaffixed stem. Given this view of the cycle, g-Deletion is predicted to apply on the root cycle before the suffixes are appended. Thus, in a word like Tang-ens, the question is how g-Deletion can be blocked from applying to the /g/ in the root Tang- on the first cycle.

208

I account for the data in (38) by invoking the widely-accepted argument proposed by Brame (1974) that the string of segments constituting the first cycle must show up elsewhere in the language as a phonetic word sequence in order to count as a cyclic domain. Kiparsky (1982:32-33) has pointed out that this requirement on what string of segments constitutes the first cycle is too strong for many inflectional languages and proposes instead that only lexical categories are cyclic domains—a suggestion which receives strong empirical support from Harris's (1983) treatment of Spanish syllabification and stress. Note that the suffixes in (38) are appended to /Ng/ final bound roots which are probably not marked for lexical category membership. Thus, roots like tang-, fing-, laryng-, and angl- alone cannot constitute the sequence of segments which form the input to the first cycle. Thus, the preceding discussion presupposes that the input to the first cycle in the words in (38) consists of the sequence "root plus class I suffix" (i.e. Tang+ens, tang+ier-, Angl+ist, etc.).6 I conclude this section with a brief comment concerning the implications of my treatment of Nasal Assimilation and g-Deletion. Since these rules apply in the cyclic phonology the question is whether or not the Strict Cycle Condition has been violated, since both rules apply to monomorphemic words. In the case of Nasal Assimilation this is not so, because this rule has been formalized purely as a feature spreading rule. That is, Nasal Assimilation applies only to /N/ which is unmarked for place features; thus, Nasal Assimilation is a structure-building rule and is therefore free to apply to monomorphemes. Slightly more problematic is the application of g-Deletion to monomorphemes, since this rule is clearly structure-changing. Note that the application of g-Deletion to monomorphemes is not necessarily incompatible with the Strict Cycle Condition, given Clements Keyser's (1983) claim that phonological rules applying on the same cycle can create a derived environment. Assuming then that Nasal Assimilation can set up a derived environment, the application of g-Deletion to a monomorpheme in the cyclic phonology is straightforward, since Nasal Assimilation creates this derived environment. Note that g-Deletion has been formalized so that it only applies after a nasal tautosyllabic with /g/ where these two segments share the same place features. This formalization thus ensures that a /g/ in an [rjg] cluster deletes only in a derived environment.

4.4 The representation of schwa In this section I examine instances of g-Deletion when a schwa follows the underlying /Ng/. Since a /g/ in an /Ng/ cluster deletes when schwa follows in monomorphemic words, I argue here that schwa should be represented as an empty X slot which is unsyllabifiable until the Schwa Default Rule associates the

209

features for schwa with all such empty X slots. This representation of schwa consequently allows all instances of g-Deletion to be subsumed into the syllablefinal environment. Consider the words in (39), which contain the velar nasal followed by schwa: (39)(a) sing-en fang-e lang-er Spreng-ung-en Handl-ung-en (b) Dengler Mangel Finger G ttingen (c) Inge Ingeborg Engerau Angerapp

[zi.rpn] [zl.rpn] [fa.rp]

[1ε. QA] [JpRE. rju. r)9n] [han.dlu.rjen] [dealA] [derj-lA] [ma.rpl]

[fi.QA] [gce.tLrjen]

[1.1)9] [i.rj9.bORk] [e.rp.Rau]

[a.rp.Rap]

/ziNg/ /faNg/ /laNg/ /spRENg/ /haNdl/ /deNglR/ /maNgl/ /flNgR/ /gcetlNgN/ /INg9/ /iNgebORg/

/eNg^Rau/ /aNg8Rap/

'sing' 'catch (first sg.)' 'longer' 'explosions' 'plots' 'Dengler (name)1 'lack' 'finger 1 'G ttingen' 'Inge' 'Ingeborg' 'Engerau' 'Angerapp'

In (39)(a) g-Deletion applies to the stem-final /g/ on the first cycle, prior to suffixation. The deletion of the /g/ in the -ung suffix in the final two words in (39)(a) when [θη] follows can be explained similarly because NA and g-Deletion apply to /uNg/ on the second cycle, prior to the suffixation of /N/.8 Deletion of the /g/ in the monomorphemes in (b) is predictable if g-Deletion precedes Schwa Epenthesis: r 1. Nasal Assimilation -2. g-Deletion (40)

- 3. Schwa Epenthesis

In fact, the ordering in (40) follows from the fact that NA and g-Deletion are cyclic and Schwa Epenthesis postcyclic. · Consider now the proper names in (39)(c). In these and similar examples a /g/' deletes in an /Ng/ cluster before schwa. In fact, the deletion of /g/ in this context follows from the syllable-final environment if the schwas in (39)(c) are represented as X slots which are not dominated by a syllabic nucleus. Given this underspecified analysis of schwa, the /g/ in a word such as Inge is syllable-final at one stage in the derivation since this /g/ is followed by an empty (and hence unsyllabifiable) X slot. This X slot is unsyllabifiable because it does not dominate any distinctive features, including crucially [-cons]. The Schwa Default Rule then

210 assigns the features for schwa to all empty X slots. Only at this point can Nucleus Placement erect a nucleus over schwa, since it is [-cons]. The preceding discussion is illustrated in the derivation in (41 ):8 (41)

Inge

ι XT ι er« n 1. Nucleus & Syll. Placement

Ganges

!

?

9

Ϋ

¥

¥

X X X X I l l l N g

X X X X X X l l l l l l g a N g ε s

..··? ON ON XX X X X X

2. CVRule

1 L g' ε' g al N

._„___

κ

ΐί χ χ χ χ 3. Coda Placment

Ι Ι Ι

5

χ*Τ

S

-^Τ'

ON ς ON ς X X X X X X

I I I I I I

g a N g ε s

Ι Ν g

X X X X 4. Coda Rule

l

l

l

I N g ON C

S.Nasal. .. . A Assimilation

X X X X ,I l, l, ! Q g

Yχ fχ 6. g-Deletion

j n

ON C

X X X X X X |l |l |l |l |l |l g ^ Q g 6 8

211

fc „ ou 7. Schwa

Xl Xι Xj

Default Rule

I g θ

σ σ Γ^ ! Ν CΝ

ι ι ι

8. Nucleus & Syll. Placment

χ| χ | χ| I

σ

Ι Ν Ι X 9. CV Rule

θ ..... Ο Ι X

σ

1 Ν Ι X

ιI Qι θι

In the derivation in (41) Inge and Ganges are assigned syllable structure on the first four steps. The important point is that the final schwa in Inge is represented as an X slot which is completely unsyllabifiable because it is associated underlyingly with no distinctive features. Since this X slot does not dominate [-cons] Nucleus Placement cannot apply to this segment. Only after the Schwa Default Rule applies can Nucleus Placement associate this segment with syllable structure. The derivation of Inge differs crucially from the derivation of Ganges because the /g/ in the latter word is followed by the front, mid, lax vowel [ε]. Since this segment is associated underlyingly with the feature [-cons], Nucleus Placement erects the nucleus over this segment and the CV Rule consequently moves the /g/ into syllable-initial position. My treatment of German schwa as an empty X slot differs crucially from the generally accepted view in nonlinear phonology that syllabicity is specified in the underlying representation of the underspecified vowel. Thus, my analysis crucially depends on the representation in (42)(b) as opposed to the ones in (42)(a):

¥X

V X I I (42)(a) / / / / (b) / / The representation of the unspecified vowel as an X slot dominated by an underlying nucleus is assumed in Levin (1985) whereas Archangeli & Pulleyblank (1986) opt for the underlying V slot. I

or

212

The reason I reject the two representations in (42)(a) is that either one would necessitate an additional environment for g-Deletion:

•'σ (43) g —>· 0 I [+nasal] This reformulation now reflects the near unanimous tendency among previous investigators to include schwa as one of the environments which trigger gDeletion.9 Observe that the schwa environment for deletion would necessitate an additional environment for the word level version of g-Deletion in (37). Thus, if one were to insist that g-Deletion applies after all morphology then the following formalization would be required:

(44) g My main criticism of this version of g-Deletion is that the three environments do not constitute a natural class. Thus, a logical question concerning the gDeletion rule in (44) is what a syllable boundary, a right syntactic bracket and schwa all have in common. The present analysis avoids this difficulty by employing the g-Deletion rule in (32) and by modifying the commonly accepted view concerning the underlying form of an unspecified vowel. The g-Deletion rules in (43) and (44) are open to an additional criticism as well: These rules cannot explain why the only vowel in the German language that triggers g-Deletion is schwa, the only unspecified vowel in the language. Were one to posit a g-Deletion rule with a schwa environment the question of why schwa and not some other vowel such as /oe/ triggers the rule would remain a mystery. The consequences concerning the representation of schwa as in (42)(b) are that the alternative formalizations of g-Deletion in (43) and (44) can be rejected. Thus, all of the words in (41)(c) which contain a velar nasal followed by schwa can be derived straightforwardly because the /g/'s in these items are all syllable-final at the point where g-Deletion applies.

213

4.5 Cyclic syllabification and Schwa Epenthesis In this section I provide additional evidence that g-Deletion and Nasal Assimilation apply cyclically. I conclude by arguing against the position taken by Lapointe & Feinstein (1982) and I to (1989) that epen thesis should be accounted for directly by syllabification. Consider now the following verb stems which end in an /Ng/ cluster followed by a liquid. These data are important because they provide additional evidence that Nasal Assimilation and g-Deletion apply cyclically: (45)

quengel-n angel-η klingel-n

[kvE.rpln] [a.rjeln] [kli.rpln]

/kusNgl/ /aNgl/ /kliNgl/

'whine' 'fish 1 'ring'

Recall from chapter 1 that the rule of Liquid-Final Schwa Epenthesis, which I have reproduced in (46) below, applies as a cyclic rule: (46)(a) Liquid-Final Schwa Epenthesis

(b) Schwa Default Rule

Γ+sonl '

X X

-"verb

Liquid-Final Schwa Epenthesis applies cyclically because it feeds the -eil -erei allomorphy rule I posited in (69) of section 1.2.7. Observe that the -eil -er ei allomorphy also implies that the Schwa Default Rule in (46)(b) applies cyclically as well, as I pointed out in section 1.2.7. The data in (45) are important because they require that Nasal Assimilation and g-Deletion be ordered prior to Liquid-Final Schwa Epenthesis, otherwise the /g/ in these stems would incorrectly be syllabified into syllable-initial position. Thus, the previous discussion presupposes the following derivations: (47)

Klingel-ei /kliNgl/ cycle l:

fxffxx 1. syllabification

k l I N g l

214

2. Nasal Assimilation

3. g-Deletion

Λ

T

·

· ι -r^*

X X X X

k l i 0

g l

k l i r) l

*

4. Liquid-Final Schwa Epenthesis

5. Schwa Default Rule

6. syllabification

Λ.

Λ.

^\

^V

l l l l k l l Q

Λ. Λ.

| l

k l ι η

O N \ X X X l l l k l l

ONIC l i ! X XX l l l Q e l

cycle* 1. morphology

k l l Q θ 1 a ι

O N ONONC l l l l l j

xxxxxxxx 2. syllabification

k l I Q θ l a I [kllQ lai]

In these derivations, Nasal Assimilation and g-Deletion apply cyclically and precede Liquid-Final Schwa Epenthesis:

215

• 1. Nasal Assimilation - 2. g-Deletion (48) ^ 3. Liquid-final Schwa Epenthesis

Consider once again the data in (45). Words like these whose stems end in an /Ng/ duster plus a sonorant consonant provide good evidence against the claim made by certain linguists that epenthesis rules are accounted for directly by syllabification (cf. Lapointe & Feinstein 1982; Ito 1989). Were epenthesis to result directly from syllabification then the stem-final /g/ would be syllable-initial and could therefore not be eliminated by g-Deletion. These points are illustrated in (49): (49)

Mangel /maNgl/

σ

σ

ί

r

χ χ χ χ χ χ 1. syllabification

m a N g

Χ?Χ 9 Macal

2. Nasal Assimilation

X

X

X

l

ST*** X

| | l l m a n g

X

X

l *

3. g-Deletion

*[mar).gal] (For ease of exposition I have ignored subsyllabic constituency in (49)). In order to block *[ma.rjgel] Nasal Assimilation and g-Deletion must precede "syllabification" at step 1. This would be impossible because syllabification is the input to g-Deletion. In the present analysis *[ma.rjg9l] is blocked because Nucleus Placement erects a nucleus only over a [-cons] segment and not over the most sonorous segment in a string. Ito's position presents difficulties for a second reason. The general epenthesis of schwa in German is triggered not only by the phonological environment (i.e. extrasyllabic consonant) but also by the morphological category of the word as well. (See Wiese 1986b,1988; Giegerich 1987 for details). This complication could only be circumvented in Ito's theory by stipulating that instead of different schwa epenthesis rules ordered in the lexicon that German has instead several versions of syllabification which are sensitive to morphology and ordered in the lexicon. This solution in fact undermines her claim that epenthesis is simply a consequence of syllabification, since "syllabification" would have to be trivialized

216

to the extent that it must make reference to the morphological category of the word as well as the lexical level where it is syllabified.

4.6 On Structure Preservation The analysis of the German velar nasal presented in the preceding sections has important implications concerning Structure Preservation, as I mentioned earlier. In this section I examine briefly the consequences the present chapter has for the theory of where marking conditions are and are not applicable. Consider first the epenthesis of schwa via either the general rule of Schwa Epenthesis, or Liquid-Final Schwa Epenthesis. I pointed out in section 1.3.6 that (almost) all German schwas are epenthetic and that all underlying schwas contain no distinctive features. In fact, I presented empirical evidence in section 4.4 that German schwa cannot dominate any distinctive features at all. This point is important because the application of the Schwa Default Rule in the lexicon violates Structure Preservation: Since the distinctive features for [θ] are not underlying, the epenthesis of this segment in the lexicon involves the epenthesis of a "novel" segment. Consider once again Nasal Assimilation in (2)(a). This rule creates [rj] in the cyclic phonology, thereby violating the general marking condition in (50) below: * [+nasal] (50)

I

t+high]

According to the marking condition in (50) no German nasal can be marked lexically for the feature [high]. The important point is that Nasal Assimilation is a non-structure-preserving rule because it introduces underlyingly nondistinctive values of [high] onto [+nasal] feature matrices. To be sure, other proposals have been made in the literature concerning the extent to which Structure Preservation is valid as a universal principle. As I pointed out earlier, Borowsky (1986; 1989) argues on the basis of data from English that SP holds only at level 1 but not at level 2 in her model of the lexicon. Thus, in Borowsky's view, marking conditions like the one in (50) remain in force universally only at the first lexical level but can be "turned off" at level 2. Clearly the present analysis contradicts this claim, since the velar nasal is created in the cyclic phonology. Were the German velar nasal the only example in the literature of a nonstructure preserving rule applying in the cyclic phonology in violation of SP then one might view the present analysis with suspicion. The literature is, however, replete with non-structure-preserving rules applying in the cyclic phonology.

217

Consider, for example, Archangeli's (1984) treatment of the vowel system in the Yokuts dialect of Yawelmani. Archangeli (1984: 142) posits a rule of Lowering which creates the nondistinctive [e(:)] at level 1. Furthermore, two default rules which fill in the missing nondistinctive values of [low] are ordered prior to Lowering in violation of SP. In addition, Harris (1989) has uncovered evidence that the rules of Dentalization and ae-tensing in Belfast English both apply at level 1 in violation of SP. Finally, Hayes & Abad (1989) argue that all surface glottal stops in Ilokano are inserted by a rule which applies in the cyclic phonology. I conclude that the German velar nasal is yet another counterexample to the claim that Structure Preservation is a universal constraint which holds either throughout the entire lexicon, or simply in the cyclic phonology.

218 Notes to chapter 4 1. The analysis presented in the following pages is based on the idea suggested at least as early as Sapir (1925) for English and Deeters (1939) and Fischer-J0rgensen (1952) for German that final [nj segments derive from /Ng/. Linguists holding the alternative position—that [Q] is an underlying segment in German-include Moulton (1962), Adamus (1965), Penzl (1968), Vennemann (1974;1982), Meinhold & Stock (1982) and Benware (1986). I present arguments against this position below. 2. Obligatory assimilation of a stem-final /N/ is also blocked from applying before the /b/ in the suffix -bar: (i) brenn-bar /breN/ [bRen.ba/J 'burnable1 I assume that that the nonapplication of NA in (i) requires -bar to be analyzed as a phonological word. 3. A similar analysis of the English velar nasal is presented in Borowsky (1986). In the present chapter I only consider the Standard German velar nasal facts. Thus, I am ignoring the northern dialects where a word-final /g/ is devoiced and not deleted (i.e. [dln,k] for Ding.) As I pointed out in section 1.3.3 an additional source of the velar nasal is in the nativized pronunciation of French loan words containing a nasalized vowel: I II (i) Balkon [balk ] [balkorj] 'balcony' 4. Sequences of (or)] are rare and *[cerj) nonoccurring. I assume tentatively that these gaps are purely accidental. 5. Recall from section 2.12 that words such as the ones in (34) can surface even in Standard German with a post-velar nasal [k] (i.e. [arjkst]) Γ assume-following Kohrt (1980) ~ that this [k] is epenthetic. Observe that this assumption derives additional support in the pronunciation of a word like Hemd [hemt] 'shirt' as [hempt]. 6. The only example to my knowledge of & class I suffix + /Ng/ final root where the root is an occurring word is diphthong-ier-en [dIf.tog.gi:.Rdn] 'diphthongize'. In fact, the word Diphthong itself is composed of a prefix + bound root (diph+thong; cf. Monophthong). Two words which remain problematic for the present analysis are listed in (i): (i) Zwingli [tsvlrjli] 'Zwingli' Orang-Utan [oRan?u:tan] Orangutang' Assuming that the post-nasal /g/ in these words deletes by a syllable-final rule of g-Deletion would be problematic if they are monomorphemic. As far as Zwingli is concerned, this is probably the case, but the situation is less clear for Orang-Utan, which behaves phonologically like a compound. Thus, consider the fact that the [u:] in this word is stressed and that this [u:] is preceded by a glottal stop. For these reasons, I analyze Orang-Utan as a compound:[[Orang][Utan]] and assume that the number of problematic cases is restricted to the single word Zwingli. 7. The epenthesis of schwa in (39)(a) is morphologically conditioned, as pointed out by Giegerich (1987), and hence cannot be accomplished by the general rule of Schwa Epenthesis, which is triggered by an unsyllabified sonorant consonant. Thus, consider the following alternations between all nominal and verbal [n] and [θη] suffixes (adjectival suffixes containing schwa do not have schwaless alternants: blau [blau] 'blue' blau-en [blaydn] "blue (nom. sg. masc.)'). (i)(a) handel-n [han.deln] /haNdl-N/ 'act' wander-η [van.dAn] /vandR-N/ 'hike 1 Gabel-η [ga:.b»ln] /ga:bl-N/ 'forks' (b) geh-en [ge:.9n] /ge:-N/ 'go' fall-en (ίί.ίθη] /fal-N/ 'fall' Narr-en [na.R9n] /NaR-N/ 'fools' The data in (i) show alternations between [n] and [θη], where the latter alternant surfaces only after a preceding stressed syllable. I account for this alternation by assuming a basic /N/. The

219 schwa epenthesis rule in (ii) below accounts for the pronunciation of the words in (i)(b) which contain a final [en]: (ii) 0 —^. χ /

[+son

~ σ s ("os" = stressed syllable; "s" = strong). All X's inserted by (ii) are associated with the features for schwa by the Schwa Default Rule. 8. Wurzel (1980a) analyzes all word-final schwas-as in Inge -as a separate mopheme. As I pointed out in this chapter, the input to the first cycle consists of the sequence "root + class I suffix". Since Ing- is a bound root the string of segments which form the input to the first cycle is Ing+e. In fact, this position derives further support from the related name Ing+o IlQgo]. Were the input to the first cycle the root (i.e. /iNg-/), then the /g/ in this word would incorrectly delete. 9. Interestingly, the environment for German g-Deletion (syllable-final and before schwa) is identical to the environment for the rule in Bordeaux French known as Loi de Position, which accounts for mid vowel alternations in this language. (I thank Ellen Kaisse for pointing out this example). According to Selkirk (1978) and Booij & Rubach (1987:4-6) the mid vowels /e, 0, o/ in open syllables alternate with the mid vowels /ε, ce, 0 / in closed syllables, or in open syllables followed by a syllable with schwa. The aforementioned authors account for these alternations by assuming that the French foot consists of one syllable, or two if the second contains a schwa. Under this assumption, mid vowels are tense at the end of a foot and lax otherwise. The possibility of analyzing g-Deletion as a rule applying at the end of a foot is not possible because German feet can be mono-, bi- or trisyllabic, as I pointed out in section 1.2.5.

Chapter 5: The distribution of [ς] and [x] In this chapter I examine the near complementary distribution of the voiceless palatal and velar fricatives and argue that both [ς] and [x] derive from an underlying dorsal fricative which is unmarked for the feature [back]. The main theoretical point I make is that the rule spreading the nondistinctive feature [back] onto certain [+consonantal] feature matrices applies lexically in violation of Structure Preservation. In this chapter I also provide a short summary of most of the rule orderings argued for in the previous chapters.

5.1. Background and data The distribution of German [ς] and [x] is probably the most well known topic in the field of German linguistics; numerous scholars of various theoretical persuasions have also discussed this issue, including Vietor (1915), Forchhammer (1924), Bloomfield (1930), Trubetzkoy (1939), Moulton (1947), Leopold (1948), Trim (1951), Dietrich (1953), Trost (1958), Heike (1961), Moulton (1962), Adamus (1965), Pilch (1966), Jones (1967), Vennemann (1968a), James (1969), Bluhme (1970), Wurzel (1970a), Zacher & Grischchenko (1971), Scholz (1972), Werner (1972), Standwell (1973), Issatschenko (1973), Philipp (1974), Griffin (1977), Ungeheuer (1977), Meinhold & Stock (1982), Kloeke (1982a,b), Ronneberger-Sibold (1988) and Fox (1990). The majority of the linguists cited above have argued that /x/ is the basic segment because this is a less marked segment than /ς/, although certain analysts (Dressier 1976; Wurzel 1980a; Basbell 1984) believe the palatal to be basic because of its wider distribution. My treatment differs from all previous analyses since I argue that neither segment is "basic". Instead, both [ς] as well as [x] are produced by a rule of Dorsal Fricative Assimilation or by a default rule which turns all remaining dorsal fricatives into palatals. My position is thus closer to those authors who consider /ς/ to be underlying. Let us now examine the German data. The following words illustrate the distribution of postvocalic, syllable-final [ς] vs. [x]:1 (l)(a)

siech ich Pech

[ζί:ς] [icj [pscj

'sickly' T 'bad luck'

221

(b)

Gespr ch reich euch B chlein Ger chte W chnerin h chlich Buch Spruch Koch hoch Hauch nach Bach

[g3.JpR£:g] [RajcJ [oycj [bYg.lajn] [g9.RYg.t9] [vcec.na.Rin] [η0:ς.1ΐς] [bu:x] pRUx] [kox] [ho:x] [haux] [na:x] [bax]

'conversation' 'rieh' 'you(familiar plural)' 'booklet1 'rumors' 'maternity case' 'highly' 'book' 'saying1 'cook' 'high' 'breath1 'after' 'brook1

These examples show that [ς] occurs after [-back] vowels while [x] surfaces only after [+back] vowels. A similar distribution of postvocalic [ς] and [x] occurs across syllable boundaries (where the dorsal fricatives are thus syllable-initial): (2)(a)

(b)

riechen Richard Mechanik Echo Gem cher schmeicheln keuchen Fl che K che L cher Buche Bruche Knochen rauchen Sprache machen

[Ηϊ:.ςθη] [RLgaRt] [me.ga:.nik] [ε,ςο] [ga.mE:.gA] [Jmaj.geln] [koy-ςθη] [ί!ν:.ςθ] [kY-ςθ] [Ιοβ.ςΑ] [bu:.x9] [bRU.xa] [kno.xen] [Rau.x n] [JpRa:.xa] [ma.xen]

'smell' 'Richard' 'mechanics' 'echo' 'chambers' "flatter 1 'pant' 'curses' 'kitchen 1 "holes' 'beech tree' 'break (opt. dat. sg. -e)' 'bone 1 'smoke 1 'language1 'do1 f

^7

The distribution of the palatal fricative is more widespread, however, since it also appears after [n, 1, R] both tauto- and heterosyllabically: (3)(a)

solch manch

[ζοίς] [mang]

'such' 'many'

222

(b)

durch Dolche Arch ologie manch-er schnarchen

[dURcJ [αοΐ.ςθ] [aR.ge.o.lo.gi:] [π\3Π.ςΛ] [JnaR-ςθη]

'through' 'swords' 'archaeology' 'many (masc. sg. nom.)' 'snore 1

Recall from section 2.13 that no German syllable ends in *[π\ς]. I comment on the pronunciation of words like durch where /X/ follows the optionally vocalized [A] later on in this chapter. Word-initial /X/ segments are uncommon. One generalization concerning word-initial /X/ is that it almost always surfaces as [ς]:2 (4)

Chirurg Chemie Cherub China

[ctaURk] [ςεπΰ:] [ce:RUp] [gi:na]

'surgeon' 'chemistry' 'cherub 1 'China 1

The distribution of the German velar fricative is entirely predictable, since it surfaces only after back vowels. Indeed, the wider distribution of [ς] led certain linguists cited earlier to assume a basic fully specified palatal. In contrast, I am positing the following rule of Dorsal Fricative Assimilation (DFA), which derives [x] and [ς] from a previously unspecified state: (5) Dorsal Fricative Assimilation (OfA: to be revised) [-cons] [-son] node root [+cont] place node dorsal node [back]'

DFA spreads the feature [back] from a vowel onto an immediately following dorsal fricative.3 A couple of comments are in order concerning underspecification and feature geometry. The only underlying fricative in German with a dorsal articulator is /X/. (///, /3// /s/, and /z/ have a coronal articulator). The other surface dorsal fricative is [j], which derives from III . The feature [back] is not only redundant for fricatives, but for all other consonants as well. (The only other [+back] consonants are the velar nasal, which is a derived segment, and /R/. Since the uvular /R/ does not contrast with a

223

[-back] /R/, I analyze [back] as a redundant feature for /R/). In addition, following general assumptions in markedness theory I analyze fricatives as underlyingly [+continuant] and stops as [Ocontinuant]. My assumptions concerning underspecification are summarized below in (6) where I have only included the relevant segments and the relevant features / nodes:

\^ s

ζ ί 3 χ k g voice + + + cont + + + + + Dorsal + + + Cor. + + + + (6) high + + + + +

Recall from chapter 2 that voiced obstruents are analyzed as underlyingly [+voice] and voiceless obstruents as underlyingly [Ovoice]. [high] is similarly "radically" underspecified, so that only ///, /3/, and the velars are underlyingly [+high]. (The velars may be unmarked for [high], in which case [+high] would be assigned by default to all obstruents with the dorsal articulator. I leave this possibility open for now). I argued in chapter 3 that the voiced palatal fricative [:::

N g l OY g Nl

N }g

4. Resyllabification 5. Fast Speech Resyllabification

______

6. g-Spirantization (optional) 7 . Devoicing 8. DFA

σ ^»«Jis.-^ ioYgNltrN"g ~

----------[iDy.gnun]

-----

χκ. ^*»«i c-— l ο ΫgNKJ N g ^^ -^W—l Ο Υγ N J N g

i D cN u N g

IDY"

------[loyk.nunj

lΓθΥ~ς [loyg.nurj]

In these derivations all three surface variants in (26) can be generated by assuming that German grammar contains two resyllabification rules and that gSpirantization is ordered after Fast Speech Resyllabification. The analysis presented up to this point requires the following rule orderings:

231

•1. Resyllabification

(28)

2. Fast Speech Resyllabification 3. g-Spirantization 4. Devoicing L

i:

r 5. Dorsal Fricative Assimilation 6. I-Desonorization

The ordering of the first four rules in (28) can be gleaned from the derivation in (27). Recall that Devoicing and Dorsal Fricative Assimilation are unordered with respect to each other. Consider now the following data which contain [ς] after /R/ These words are important because they require Dorsal Fricative Assimilation to precede RVocalization: Ι Π (29) Kirche [kiR-ςθ] [ΙίΐΑ.ςθ] /kiRXe/ 'church' schnarchen [/η3Ρ.ςθη] [/ηβλ.ςθη] /sNaRX/ 'snore' durch [dURcJ Μυλς] /dURX/ 'through 1 Ronneberger-Sibold (1988) points out that [ς] can surface after the vocalized allophone of /R/, which is [+back], and assumes that these data provide evidence that the distribution of German [ς] and [x] require the fully specified palatal to be underlying. I account for the nonoccurrence of a post /R/ velar fricative in the words in (29) by ordering Dorsal Fricative Assimilation prior to R-Vocalization: 1. Dorsal Fricative Assimilation (30) L 2. R-Vocalization Most of the rule orderings assumed in the preceding chapters have been summarized below in (31):

232

(31)

• 1. Resyllabification 2. Fast Speech Resyllabification 3. g-Spirantization L 4. Dorsal Fricative Assimilation • 5. Coronal Obstruent Adjunction 1

6. Devoicing

" 7. Regressive Voicing Assimilation 8. Default Tenseness Rules : 9. Vowel Shortening : 10. Fast Speech Glide Formation -11. I-Desonorization L 12. R-Vocalization In section 3.4 I showed that R-Vocalization must follow Fast Speech Glide Formation and that the latter rule is ordered after Fast Speech Resyllabification. Fast Speech Glide Formation is preceded by Vowel Shortening and the Default Tenseness Rules. Coronal Obstruent Adjunction feeds Devoicing, and the latter rule feeds Regressive Voicing Assimilation. (The last three orderings were justified in section 2.12). In section 3.4 I showed that I-Desonorization is ordered after Fast Speech Glide Formation

5.4 On Structure Preservation In this section I discuss the relevance of my German [ς]-[χ] analysis has for the theory of Structure Preservation. I show here that Structure Preservation is violated because Dorsal Fricative Assimilation creates [ς] and [x] lexically in violation of the marking condition which says that consonants are unmarked for the feature [back] throughout the lexicon. In the spirit of Kiparsky (1985) I assume that marking conditions are a formal device indicating that certain features are nondistinct for certain classes of segments. Thus, in the present context [back] is redundant for all consonants.

233

I conclude on the basis of the treatment of German [ς]/[χ] presented here as well as the analysis contained in the previous chapters that Structure Preservation has the status of a strong cross-linguistic tendency rather than an absolute principle which does not allow exceptions. In the preceding sections I argued that all surface voiceless palatal and velar fricatives are derived by two rules: Dorsal Fricative Assimilation, and the default rule in (8). Since these rules introduce the nondistinctive feature [back] they are predicted to be postlexical so that the marking condition in (32) is not violated: * [+cons] (32) [back] According to the marking condition in (32) all consonants must be unmarked lexically for backness. The velar stops [k] and [g] and [R] receive the feature [+back] by default rules. Dorsal fricatives receive the feature [back] via DFA, or the default rule in (8). The important point is DFA is non-structure-preserving because it introduces underlyingly nondistinctive features of [back] on [+cons] feature matrices-and, since this rule is non-structure-preserving, it is predicted to be postlexical. The problem with analyzing DFA as a postlexical rule is that this process is sensitive to morphological information: DFA only applies when /X/ and the preceding vowel are tautomorphemic. Thus, this rule cannot be postlexical because Bracketing Erasure requires that all morphological brackets be erased at the end of each stratum. In the present study I have shown that certain phonological rules introduce nondistinctive features at both lexical levels in violation of various marking conditions. The Structure Preservation violations I have discussed need to be reconsidered in light of similar violations in other languages, as I pointed out in the previous chapters. Thus, the question is what status Structure Preservation has in Universal Grammar. My conclusions are that the status of Structure Preservation as a linguistic universal need to be modified. In this context, I am following Mohanan (1989:609) who has illustrated that Structure Preservation is violated in certain respects in the phonology of Malayalam. Mohanan concludes that Structure Preservation is not an absolute principle which does not allow exceptions; instead, the fact that most but not all non-structure preserving rules tend to be postlexical should be viewed as a strong cross-linguistic tendency which can thus allow exceptions. Only if Structure Preservation is viewed in this new light can the numerous exceptions in German phonology as well as in the phonology of other languages find an explanation.

234 Notes to chapter 5

1. One gap in (1) is *[β:ς], which I analyze as purely accidental. Also, hoch and Bochum [bo:xUm] 'Bochum (city name)' are the only stems with long [o:] before [x]. The only stem to my knowledge which contains an Ις] preceded by [0:] is hoch-. Kohler (1990) notes that the velar fricative is in free variation with the voiceless uvular fricative for many speakers after nonhigh back vowels (i.e. [bax]/ [ba^]). I assume that German has an additional rule to account for this fact. 2. An extremely small number of word-initial /X/ segments are pronounced as [x]: (i) Junta [xUnta] Jose [xoze:] In fact, many Germans pronounce these words with an initial [h]. The words in (4) all contain [ς] followed by a front vowel, [ς] can surface for some Germans before a back vowel as well: (ii) Cholesterin fcolesteRi:n] 'cholesteral1 Charisma [caRlsma] 'charisma' Many of my informants pronounced these words with an initial [k]. 3. Certain linguists have argued that palatals are coronal (Keating 1988; 1991; Paradis & Prunet 1991). In terms of feature geometry, this position requires [x] to have a dorsal node and [ς] a coronal node. I reject this treatment because DFA crucially requires both [x] and [ς] to have the dorsal articulator, since [back] spreads from the dorsal node of a vowel to the dorsal node of a following /X/. 4. The tautomorphemic condition was also assumed by Dressier (1976) and Wurzel (1980a). Borowsky (1990) has examined a number of rules in several languages which only apply within a single morpheme. She attempts to eliminate tautomorphemic conditions in rules by invoking the notion of a "word-level cycle". In Borowsky's view morphological rules are assigned to two lexical levels and all word-level phonological rules apply prior to the word-level morphology; thus, word-level phonological rules applying only within a single morpheme but not across (level 2) affixes need not refer to tautomorphemicity in their structural descriptions because they apply, according to Borowsky, before the relevant morphological operations. Although Borowsky's proposal is advantageous because it has eliminated a large class of rules requiring a condition involving tautomorphemicity, it is doubtful that all word-level rules can actually precede the relevant morphological rules. Consider, for example, German Schwa Epenthesis (/a:tm/ —> [a:tem]). I argued in section 1.2.6 that this rule applies at the word-level but that it cannot precede word-level suffixes (i.e. Atm-ung : [artmUn] and not *fa:tomUn]). 5. I assume the underlying representation for -chen contains no schwa (i.e. /XN/). According to Wiesemann (1970:68) -chen is pronounced [ςΐη]. I leave open the question of whether or not the underlying form of -chen contains a full vowel for some speakers. -chen is the most productive diminutive suffix in Standard German and can be attached to virtually any noun stem. Certain words such as the ones in (i) below are historically composed of a noun stem + chen but are now analyzed as monomorphemic: (i) M dchen [πτε:ΐς9η] 'girl 1 Kaninchen [kani:ng9n] 'rabbit' The word M dchen is only historically related to Magd [ma:kt] 'maiden', whereas no motivation at all can be made for analyzing Kaninchen as Kanin+chen. 6. In chapters 3 and 4 I argued that prefixes and stems are separate phonological words in German because two phonological rules are blocked from applying between the juncture prefix + stem and stem + stem. In fact, the morphosyntactic contexts in (12) suggest that DFA also has the phonological word as its domain. This alternative is attractive, assuming that additional evidence can be adduced that -chen is a phonological word. The reader is referred to Iverson & Salmons (1991) for a similar treatment of DFA. I leave this possibility open for now.

235 7. In Standard German an underlying /G/ spirantizes only when /I/ precedes. Kiparsky (1968), Koutsoudas et al. (1974) and Iverson (1976) have discussed dialects described by Schirmunski (1962:302) where /G/ spirantizes after other vowels as well (i.e. Tag 'day' /taG/ — > [ta:x]). I make some remarks on this more general version of g-Spirantization later on in this chapter. 8. Duden, Siebs and the Gro es W rterbuch der deutschen Aussprache all prescribe the following pronunciation for words containing -lieh which attach to stems anding in /IG/: (i) k nig-lich [k0:.nlk.llg] 'royal' According to the reference works cited above a final /G/ is pronounced as [k] (and not [ς]) when the following morpheme contains [ς]. In fact, virtually all Germans who have g-Spirantization pronounce the /G/ in words like the one in (i) as [ς]. For a possible treatment of the pronunciation of words like the ones in (i) where the /G/ surfaces as [k] the reader is referred to Hall (1989a). 9.Wurzel (1980a:957-958) alternatively accounts for the [gj-ΐς] alternations with two rules (Spirantization and Devoicing), where the former rule alters the feature continuancy and backness. Meinhold & Stock (1982:203) postulate a single rule which converts the underlying fully specified /g/ in the words in (17Kb) and (18)(b) directly to [ς].

References Abbreviations used: BLS CJL CLS IJAL IULC JL LA LB LI Lng. NELS NLLT Ph.Y. WCCFL

Proceedings of the Berkeley Linguistics Society Canadian Journal of Linguistics Proceedings of the Chicago Linguistics Society International Journal of American Linguistics Indiana University Linguistics Club Journal of Linguistics Linguistic Analysis Linguistische Berichte Linguistic Inquiry Language Proceedings of the Northeast Linguistic Society Natural Language and Linguistic Theory Phonology Yearbook Proceedings of the West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics

Adamus, M. (1965). "Zum phonologischen Status des velaren Nasals in den neugermanischen Sprachen." Kwartalnik Neofilogiczny 12: 272-278. Andersen, H. (1972). "Diphthongization." Lng. 48:11-50. Archangeli, D. (1984). Underspecification in Yawelmani phonology and morphology. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT. [Published 1988, New York: Garland.] Archangeli, D. & D. Pulleyblank (1986). The Content and Structure of Phonological Representations, ms.: Cambridge, Ma. Aronoff, M. (1976). Word Formation in Generative Grammar. Cambridge, Ma.: MIT Press. Askedal, J. (1981). "Zum phonematischen Status des Velaren Nasals [Q] im Deutschen." Neuphilologische Mitteilungen 83: 467-474. Askedal, J. (1984). "Über Anlautende Konsonantenverbindungen im Deutschen." Neuphilologische Mitteilungen 85: 369-374. Äugst, G. (1971). "Über die Kombination von Phonemsequenzen bei Monenen." LB: 11:37-47. Avery, P. & K. Rice (1989). "Segment Structure and Coronal Underspecification." Phonology 6.2: 179-200. Basb011, H. (1984). Review of I. Maddiesson (1984). Ph.Y. 2: 343-354. Bates, D. (1983). "A Metrical Analysis of English Prefixes." BLS 9:1-9. Becker, H. (1953). "Zur monophonematischen Wertung." Zeitschrift für Phonetik und allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft 7: 253-258. Becker, T. (1990). Analogie und morphologische Theorie. München: Fink. Beckmann, F. (1990). Review of Wiese (1988). Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 9: 249-263. Bell, A. & J. Hooper (1978). "Issues and Evidence in Syllabic Phonology." In: A. Bell & J. Hooper (eds.) Syllables and Segments. Amsterdam: North Holland Publishing Co.: 3-24. Benware, W. (1980). "Zum Fremdwortakzent im Deutschen." Zeitschrift jür Dialektologie und Linguistik 3: 289-312. Benware, W. (1986). Phonetics and Phonology of Modern German. An Introduction. Washington D.C.: Georgetown University Press.

238 Berg, T. (1989). "On the internal structure of polysyllabic rnonomorphemic words: The case for superrimes." Studia Linguistica 43: 5-32. Berg, T. (1991). "Unreine Reime." Zeitschrift ßr Sprachwissenschaft 9: 3-27. Bierwisch, M. (1967). 'Skizze der generativen Phonologie." Studia Gratnmatica 6: 7-34. Bithell, J. (1952). German Pronunciation and Phonology. London: Methuen. Bloomfield, L. (1930). "German and x." Le Maitre Phonetique 20: 27-28. Bloomfield, L. (1933). Language. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Bluhme, H. (1970). "Das phonologische System des Deutschen." Lingua 25: 358-380. Booij, G. (1985). "Coordination Reduction in Complex Words: a case for prosodic phonology." In: van der Hülst & N. Smith (1985) Advances in Nonlinear Phonology. Dordrecht: Foris. Booij, G. (1988). Review of Nespor & Vogel 1986. ]L 24:515-525. Booij, G. (1989)." On the representation of diphthongs in Frisian." JL 25: 319-332. Booij, G. & J. Rubach. (1984). "Morphological and Prosodic Domains in Lexical Phonology." Ph.Y. 1: 1-27. Booij, G. & J. Rubach (1987). Tostcyclic versus Postlexical Rules in Lexical Phonology." LI 18:1^14. Borgstrem, C. (1937). 'The dialect of Barra in the Outer Hebrides." Norsk Tidsskrift for Sprogvidenskap 8: 71-242. Borowsky, T. (1986). Topics in the Lexical Phonology of English. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Massachusetts/ Amherst. [Published 1990, Garland: New York.] Borowsky, T. (1987). "Antigemination in English phonology." U 18: 671-678. Borowsky, T. (1989). "Structure Preservation and the Syllable Coda in English." NLLT 7:145-166. Borowsky, T. (1990). "On the Word-Level." unpublished ms. Meijboomlaan, The Netherlands. Braches, H. (1987). German Word Stress and Lexical Phonology. M.A. Thesis: Simon Fräser University, Vancouver. Brame, M. (1974). "The cycle in phonology: stress in Palestinian, Maltese, and Spanish." LI 5: 39-60. Cairns, C. & M. Feinstein (1982). "Markedness and the Theory of Syllable Structure." U 13:193-226. Campbell, L. (1974). "Phonological features: problems and proposals." Lng. 50: 52-65. Carlyle, K. (1988). A Syllabic Phonology of Breton. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Toronto. Chomsky, N. & M. Halle (1968). The Sound Pattern of English. New York: Harper and Row. Christdas, P. (1987). "On constraining the power of Lexical Phonology: Evidence from Tamil." NELS 17: 122-145. Clements, G. N. (1985). "The geometry of phonological features." Ph.Y. 2: 225-252. Clements, G. N. (1987). "Phonological Feature Representation and the Description of Intrusive Stops." CLS 23: 29-50. Clements, G. N. (1988). 'Towards a substantive theory of feature specification." NELS 12: 90-109. Clements, G. N. (1990). "The Role of the Sonority Cycle in Core Syllabification." In: J. Kingston & M. Beckman (eds.) Papers in Laboratory Phonology I. Between the Grammar and Physics of Speech. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press: 283-333. Clements, G. N. & S. J. Keyser (1983). CV-Phonology. A Generative Theory of the Syllable. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Cohn, A. (1989). "Stress in Indonesian and bracketing paradoxes." NLLT 7:167-216. Davis, S. (1985). Topics in Syllable Geometry. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Arizona. [Published 1988, Garland: New York.] Davis, S. (1987). "On a non-argument for the Rhyme." /L 25: 211-217. Davis, S. (1990). "An Argument for the Underspecification of [coronal] in English." Lf 21:301-306. Davis, S. (1991). "Coronals and the Phonotactics of Nonadjacent Consonants in English." In: C. Paradis & J.-F. Prunet (eds.) The Special Status of Coronals: Internal and External Evidence. New York: Academic Press: 49-60. Deeters, G. (1939). "Phonologische Bemerkungen zum Baltischen Deutsch." Travaux du cercle linguistique de Prague 8: 130-137. Delattre, P. (1964). "Comparing the Vocalic Features of English, German, Spanish and French." International Review of Applied Linguistics 2.2: 71-99.

239 Dell, F. & M. Elmedlaoui (1985). "Syllabic Consonants and Syllabification in Imdlawn Tashlhiyt Berber." Journal of African Languages and Linguistics 7: 105-130. Dietrich, G. (1953). "[ ] and [x] im Deutschen—ein Phonem oder zwei?" Wiener Linguistische Gazette 2: 17-20. Dogil, G. & M. Jessen (1989). "Phonologic in der Nähe der Phonetik: die Affrikaten im Polnischen und im Deutschen." In: M. Prinzhorn (ed.) Phänologie. Linguistische Berichte Sonderheft 2/89. Dressler, W. U. (1972). "In support of extrinsic rule ordering: German /ng/." Wiener Linguistische Gazette 2: 17-20. Dressler, W. U. (1976). "Morphologization of phonological processes: Are there distinct morphological processes?" In: A. Juilland (ed.) Linguistic Studies offered to Joseph Greenberg. Vol. 2. Saratoga: Anma Libri: 313-337. Dressier, W. U. (1981). "External evidence for an abstract analysis of the German velar nasal." In: D. L. Goyvaerts (ed.) Phonology in the 1980's. Ghent: Story-Scientia: 445-467. Duden. Aussprachewörterbuch: Der Große Duden 6 (1962). M. Mangold et al (eds.) Mannheim: Bibliographisches Institut. Eisenberg, P. (1991). "Syllabische Struktur und Wortakzent. Prinzipien der Prosodik deutscher Wörter." To appear in: Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 10. Essen, O. von (1951). "Die Silbe- ein phonologischer Begriff." Zeitschrift für Phonetik und Kommunikation 5: 199-203. F£ry, C. (1986). "Metrische Phonologic und Wortakzent im Deutschen." Studium Linguistik 20: 1643. Fischer-J0rgensen, E. (1952). "On the definition of phoneme categories on a distributional basis." Revue Internationale de Linguistique Structural 6: 8-39. Fleischer, W. (1982). Wortbildung der deutschen Gegenwartssprache. Leipzig: VEB Bibliographisches Institut. Forchhammer, J. (1924). Die Grundlage der Phonetik. Ein Versuch die phonetische Wissenschaft auf fester sprachphysiologischer Grundlage aufzubauen. Heidelberg: Carl Winters Universitätsbuchhandlung. Fox, A. (1990). The Structure of German. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Fromkin, V. (ed.) (1973). Speech Errors as Linguistic Evidence. The Hague: Mouton. Fudge, E. C. (1969). "Syllables." JL 5: 253-286. Fudge, E. C. (1987). "Branching structure within the syllable." JL 23: 359-377. Futaky, I. (1968). "Trubetzkoys Regeln für monophonematische Wertung und die schriftdeutschen Affrikaten- Bemerkungen zu einem Aufsatz von N. Morciniec." Phonetica 16:14-24. Genthe, S. (1895). "Deutsches r." L· Maure Phonetiaue 10: 180-200. Gerhardt, D. (1950). "Zum Lautsystem des Neuhochdeutschen." Zeitschrift ßr Phonetik und Allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft 4: 132-137. Giegerich, H. (1985). Metrical Phonology and Phonological Structure. German and English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Giegerich, H. (1987). "Zur Schwa-Epenthese im Standarddeutschen." LB: 112: 449-469. Giegerich, H. (1989). Syllable Structure and Lexical Derivation in German. IULC. Gleason, H. (1958). Workbook in Descriptive Linguistics. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Greenberg, J. (1978). 'Some Generalizations concerning Initial and Final Consonant Clusters." In: ]. Greenberg (ed). Universals of Human Language, vol. 2. Stanford: Stanford University Press: 243280. Griffin, T. D. (1977). "German [x]." Lingua 43: 375-390. Griffen, T. D. (1985). Aspects of Dynamic Phonology. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Großes Wörterbuch der deutschen Aussprache (1982). E. Krech et al. (eds.) Leipzig: VEB Bibliographisches Institut. Guerssel, M. (1978). "A Condition on Assimilation Rules." LA 4: 225-254. Guerssel, M. (1986). "Glides in Berber and Syllabicity." U 17: 1-12.

240

Hall, T. (1989a). "Lexical Phonology and the distribution of German [ ] and [x]." Phonology 6.1:117. Hall, T. (1989b). "German syllabification, the velar nasal and the representation of schwa." Linguistics 27: 807-842. Hall, T. (1990). Syllable Structure and Syllable-Related Processes in German. Ph.D dissertation. University of Washington. Hall, T. (1991). "Über ein ungültiges Argument für den Affrikatenstatus von Plosiv + Frikativ Sequenzen im Deutschen." LB 134: 310-313. Hall, T. (1992). "Syllable Final Clusters and Schwa Epenthesis in German." In: P. Eisenberg, K. H. Ramers, & H. Vater (eds.) Silbenphonologie des Deutschen. Tübingen: Narr: 208-245. Halle, M. & G. N. Clements (1983). Problem Book in Phonology. Cambridge, Ma.: MIT Press. Halle, M. & K. P. Mohanan (1985). "Segmental phonology of Modern English." U16: 57-116. Halle, M. & J. R. Vergnaud (1980). "Three dimensional phonology." Journal of Linguistic Research 1: 83-105. Halle, M. & J. R. Vergnaud (1987). An Essay on Stress. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Hammond, M. (1984). Constraining Metrical Theory: A modular Theory of Stressing and Destressing. Ph.D. dissertation, UCLA. Hankamer, J. & J. Aissen. (1974). 'The sonority hierarchy." In: Natural Phonology. Parasession of the Chicago Linguistics Society. 131-145. Hargus, S. (1985). The Lexical Phonology of Sekani. Ph.D. dissertation, UCLA [Published 1988, New York: Garland.] Harris, J. (1983). Syllable Structure and Stress in Spanish. A Nonlinear Analysis. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Harris, John (1987). "Non-structure preserving rules in Lexical Phonology. Southeastern Bantu harmony." Lingua 73: 255-292. Harris, John (1989). 'Towards a lexical analysis of sound change in progress." JL 25: 35-56. Haugen, E. (1956). "The Syllable in Linguistic Description." In: M. Halle, & H. McLean (eds.). For Roman Jakobson. The Hague: Mouton: 213-221. Hayes, B. (1980). A Metrical Theory of Stress Rules. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT. Hayes, B. (1986a). "Inalterability in CV Phonology." Lng. 62: 321-350. Hayes, B. (1986b). Review of H. Giegerich (1985). JL 22: 229-235. Hayes, B. (1986c). "Assimilation as spreading in Toba Batak." U 17:467-499. Hayes, B. (1988). "A revised parametric metrical theory." NELS 17: 274-289. Hayes, B. (1989). "Compensatory Lengthening in Moraic Phonology." U 20.2: 253-306. Hayes, B. & M. Abad (1989). "Reduplication and Syllabification in Ilokano." Lingua 77: 331-374. Heike, G. (1961). "Das phonologische System des Deutschen als binäres Distinktionssystem." Phonetica 6: 162-176. Heike, G. (1972). Phänologie. Stuttgart: J. B. Metzlerische Verlagbuchhandlung. Hildebrandt, B. & L. Hildebrandt (1964). "Das deutsche R." Linguistics 11: 5-20. Hintze, F. (1948). "Zu den Phonemen f und v im Inlaut deutscher Wörter." Zeitschrift für Phonetik und Allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft 5: 364-366. Hirsch-Wierzbicka, L. (1971). Funktionelle Belastung und Phonemkombination. Hamburg: Helmut Buske Verlag. Hoard, J. (1971). "Aspiration, Tenseness and Syllabication in English." Lng. 47: 133-140. Hockett, C. (1947). "Componential analysis of Sierra Popoluca." IJAL 13: 259-267. Hockett, C. (1955). A Manual of Phonology. Baltimore: Waverly Press. Höhle, T. & H. Vater (1978). "Derivational Constraints und die silbischen Konsonanten im Deutschen." In: H. Birnbaum (ed.) Studia Linguistica Alexandra Vasilii Filio Issatschenko a collegis amicüque oblata. Lisse: de Ridder: 169-186. Hooper, J. (1972). "The Syllable in Phonological Theory." Lng. 48: 525-540. Hooper, J. (1976). An Introduction to Natural Generative Phonology. New York: Academic Press. Hülst, H. G. van der (1984). Syllable Structure and Stress in Dutch. Dordrecht: Foris.

241 Hülst, H. G. van der & N. Smith (eds.) (1982). The Structure of Phonological Representations. Dordrecht: Foris: 1-46. Hulst, H. G. van der & N. Smith (eds.) (1985). Advances in Nonlinear phonology. Dordrecht: Foris. Hyman, L. (1985). A Theory of Phonological Weight. Dordrecht: Foris. Issatschenko, A. (1963). "Der phonologische Status des velaren Nasals im Deutschen." Zeitschrift für Phonetik, Sprachwissenschaft und Kommunikationsforschung 16: 77-84. Issatschenko, A. (1973). "Das Suffix -chen und der phonologische Status des [ ] im Deutschen." Deutsche Sprache 1.3: 1-6. Issatschenko, A. (1974). "Das 'Schwa mobile' und 'Schwa constans' im Deutschen." In: U. Engel & P. Grebe (eds.) Sprachsystem und Sprachgebrauch. Festschrift für Hugo Moser zum 65. Geburtstag. Düsseldorf: Schwann: 142-171. Ito, J. (1986). Syllable Theory in Prosodic Phonology. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Massachussets, Amherst [Published 1988, New York: Garland] Ito, J. (1989). "A Prosodic Theory of Epenthesis." NLLT 7: 217-260. Ito, J. & R. A. Mester (1986). "The phonology of voicing in Japanese: Theoretical consequences for morphological accessibility." U 17: 49-73. Iverson, G. (1976). "A guide to sanguine relationships." In: A. Koutsoudas (ed.) The Application and Ordering of Grammatical Rules. The Hague: Mouton: 22-40. Iverson, G. & J. Salmons (1991). "The Place of Structure Preservation in German Diminutive Formation." ms. Milwaukee. James, J. (1969). "The German consonantal system and the problem of affricates." Linguistics 52:4555. Jespersen, O. (1904). Phonetische Grundfragen. Leipzig: Teubner. Jones, D. (1967). The Phoneme: Its Nature and Use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kahn, D. (1976). Syllable-based generalizations in English phonology. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT. Kaisse, E. (1985). Connected Speech. The Interaction of Syntax and Phonology. New York: Academic Press. Kaisse, E. & P. Shaw (1985). "On the theory of Lexical Phonology." Ph.Y. 2: 1-30. Kamprath, C. (1985). "The syllabification of consonantal glides: Post-peak distinctions." NELS 16: 217-229 Kaye, J. & J. Lowenstamm (1984). "De la syllabiciteV' In: F. Dell, D. Hirst, & J. R. Vergnaud (eds.) Forme Sonore du Langage. Paris: Hermann: 123-160. Kean, M.- L. (1974). "The strict cycle in phonology." U 5:179-203. Keating, P. (1988). A Survey of Phonological Features. IULC. Keating, P. (1991). "Coronal Places of Articulation." In: C. Paradis & J.-F. Prunet (eds.) The Special Status of Coronals: Internal and External Evidence. New York: Academic Press: 29-48. Kenstowicz, M. & J. Rubach. (1987). "The phonology of syllabic nuclei in Slovak." Lng. 63:463-497. Kiparsky, P. (1966). "Über den deutschen Akzent." Studia Grammatika VII: 69-98. Kiparsky, P. (1968). "Linguistic universale and linguistic change." In: E. Bach & R. Harms (eds.) Universals in Linguistic Theory. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston: 170-202. Kiparsky, P. (1973). " "Elsewhere" in phonology." In: S. Anderson & P. Kiparsky (eds.) A Festschrift for Morris Halle. New York: Holt: 93-106. Kiparsky, P. (1979). "Metrical Structure Assignment is Cyclic." U 10: 421-441. Kiparsky, P. (1981). "Remarks on the metrical structure of the syllable." In: W. U. Dressier, O. Pfeiffer, & J. Rennison (eds.) Phonologica 1980. Akten der Vierten Internationalen PhonologieTagung. Wien, 29. Juni 1980: 245-256. Kiparsky, P. (1982). "Lexical phonology and morphology." In: I.-S. Yang (ed.) Linguistics in the Morning Calm. Seoul: Hanshin: 3-91. Kiparsky, P. (1984). "On the Lexical Phonology of Icelandic." In: C. C. Elert, I. Johansson, & E. Strangert (eds.) Nordic Prosody HI. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell: 135-164. Kiparsky, P. (1985). 'Some consequences of Lexical Phonology." Ph.Y. 2: 83-138.

242 Kleinhenz, U. (1991). Die Alternation von Schwa mit silbischen Sonoranten im Deutschen. Thesis: University of Cologne. Klinghardt, H. (1896). "Deutsches r." Le Maitre Phonetique 11: 24-26. Kloeke, W. U. S. van Lessen (1982a). Deutsche Phonologic und Morphologie. Merkmale und Markiertheit. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Kloeke, W. U. S. van Lessen (1982b). "Externe Argumente in der Sprachbeschreibung." In: T. Vennemann (ed.) Silben, Segmente, Akzente. Tübingen: Niemeyer: 171-182. Kohler, K. (1977). Einführung in die Phonetik des Deutschen. München: Erich Schmidt. Kohler, K. (1990). "German." Journal of the International Phonetic Association 20.1: 48-50. Kohrt, M. (1980). "Rule ordering, rule extension, and the history and present state of /ng/ clusters in German." Linguistics 18: 777-802. Koutsoudas, K., G. Sanders & C. Noll (1974). "The application of phonological rules." Lng. 50:1-20. Kramer, W. (1979). Akustische-phonetische Untersuchungen zum vokalischen {R/ Allophon des Deutschen. Hamburg: Buske. Krech, E. (1968). Sprechwissenschaftlich-phonetische Untersuchungen zum Gebrauch des Glottisschlageinsatzes in der allgemeinen deutschen Hochlautung. Basel: Kargel. Kurka, E. (1965). "Zur Aussprache der Lautkombination [kv] = qu im Hochdeutschen." Phonetica 13: 53-58. Kurylowicz, J. (1948). "Contribution a la theorie de la syllable." Biuletyn polskiego towarzystwa je zykoznawczego 8: 80-114. Ladefoged, P. (1990). "The revised International Phonetic Alphabet." Lng. 66: 550-552. Laeufer, C. (1985). Some Language-Specific and Universal Aspects of Syllable Structure and Syllabification: Evidence from French and German. Ph.D. dissertation, Cornell University. Lahiri, A. & V. Evers (1991). "Palatalization and Coronality." In: Paradis & J.-F. Prunet (eds.) The Special Status of Coronals: Internal and External Evidence. New York: Academic Press: 79-100. Lapointe, S. & M. Feinstein (1982). "The Role of Vowel Deletion and Epenthesis in the Assignment of Syllable Structure." In: van der Hülst & N. Smith (1982): 69-120. Lass, R. (1984). Phonology. An Introduction to Basic Concepts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lauttamus, T. (1990). "A Note on the Status of Categorial Features in the Phonological Feature Hierarchy." Lingua 81: 285-300. Leben, W. (1973). Suprasegmental phonology. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT. Leben, W. (1980). "A Metrical Analysis of Length." U 11: 497-509. Lenerz, J. (1985). "Phonologische Aspekte der Assimilation im Deutschen." Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 4.1: 5-36. Leopold. W. F. (1948). "German eh." Lng. 24:179-180. Levin, J. (1985). A Metrical Theory of Syllabicity. Ph.D. dissertation. MIT. Lieber, R. (1981). On the Organization of the Lexicon. Ph.D. dissertation. . Lieber, R. (1987). An Integrated Theory of Autosegmental Processes. Albany: State University of New York Press. Lombardi, L. (1990). "The Nonlinear Organization of the Affricate." NLLT 8: 375-425. Lotzmann, G. (1975). Zur Aspiration der Explosivae im Deutschen. Ein sprechwissenschaftlichphonetischer Beitrag zur Deutschen Hochlautung. Göppingen: Alfred Kümmerle Verlag. Lowenstamm, J. (1981). "On the Maximal Ouster Approach to Syllable Structure." U12:575-604. Lowenstamm, J. & J. Kaye (1984). "Compensatory Lengthening in Tiberian Hebrew." In: L. Wetzels & E. Sezer (eds.) Studies in Compensatory Lengthening. Dordrecht: Foris: 97-132. Maddieson, I. (1984). Pattern of Sounds. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Mascaro, J. (1976). Catalan Phonology and the Phonological Cycle. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT. McCarthy, J. (1986). "OCP effects: Gemination and antigemination." LI 17: 207-263. McCarthy, J. (1988). "Feature Geometry and Dependency: A Review." Phonetica 45: 84-108. McCarthy, J. & A. Prince (1986). Prosodic morphology, ms. Amtierst.

243 McCarthy, J. & A. Prince (1990). "Foot and Word in Prosodic Morphology: The Arabic Broken Plural." NLLT 8: 209-283. McNally, L. (1988). "Prosody and Morphology in German compounding." Proceedings of the Eastern State Conference of Linguistics: 326-337. Meinhold, G. & E. Stock (1982). Phänologie der deutschen Gegenwartssprache. Leipzig: VEB Bibliographisches Institut. Menzerath, P. (1954). Die Architektonik des deutschen Wortschatzes. Bonn: Dummlers. Mester, R. A. (1986). Studies in Tier Structure. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Massachussets, Amherst. [Published 1988, New York, Garland.] Mester, R. A. & J. Ito (1989). "Feature Predictability and Underspecification: Palatal Prosody in Japanese Mimetics." Lng. 65: 258-293. Meyer-Eppler, W. (1959). "Zur Spektralstruktur der /r/-Allophone des Deutschen." Acustica Beiheft 9: 246-250. Mohanan, K. P. (1985). "Syllable-structure and lexical strata in English." Ph.Y. 2: 139-155. Mohanan, K. P. (1986). Lexical Phonology. Dordrecht: Reidel. Mohanan, K. P. & T. Mohanan (1984). "Lexical phonology of the consonant system in Malayalam." LI 15: 575-602. Mohanan, T. (1989). "Syllable Structure in Malayalam." Li 20: 589-625. Morciniec, N. (1957). "Zur phonologischen Wertung der deutschen Affrikaten und Diphthonge." Zeitschrift für Phonetik und allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft 11: 49-66. Moulton, W. G. (1947). juncture in Modern Standard German." Lng. 23:321-343. Moulton, W. G. (1956). "Syllabic nuclei and final consonant clusters in German." In: M. Halle, H. G. Lunt & H. McLean (eds.) For Roman Jakobson. The Hague: Mouton: 372-381. Moulton, W. G. (1962). The Sounds of English and German. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Mueller, H. (1958). "Length as a phoneme in the German vowel system." Journal of the Canadian Linguistics Association 4: 35-37. Murray, R. & T. Vennemann. (1983). 'Sound change and syllable structure in Germanic Phonology." Lng. 59: 514-528. Muthmann, G. (1988). Rückläufiges deutsches Wörterbuch. Handbuch der Wortausgänge im Deutschen mit Beachtung der Wort- und Lautstruktur. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Nespor, M. & I. Vogel (1986). Prosodic Phonology. Dordrecht: Foris. Noske, R. (1982). "Syllabification and syllable-changing rules in French." In: H. van der Hülst & N. Smith (1982): 257-310. Noske, R. (1989). "Syllable Geometry." Belgian Journal of Linguistics 4: 119-144. Noske, R. (1992). A Theory of Syllabification and Segmental Alternation. With studies on the phonology of French, German, Tonkawa, and Yawelmani. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Brabant. Odden, D. (1986). "On the Role of the Obligatory Contour Principle in Phonological Theory." Lng. 62: 353-383. Odden, D. (1988). "And Antigemination and the OCP." U 19: 451-475. Paradis, C. & J.-F. Prunet (1990). "On Coronal transparency." Phonology 6: 317-348. Paradis, C. & J.-F. Prunet (1991). "Asymmetry and Visibility in Consonant Articulations." In: C. Paradis & J.-F. Prunet (eds.) The Special Status of Coronals: Internal and External Evidence. New York: Academic Press: 1-28. Penzl, H. (1968). "The history of the third nasal phoneme of modern German." Proceedings of the Modern Language Association 83: 340-346. Pesetzky, D. (1979). "Russian Morphology and Lexical Theory." ms. MIT. Philipp, M. (1974). Phonologic des Deutschen. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer. Picard, M. (1984). "English aspiration and flapping revisited." C/L 29: 42-57. Piggot, G. & R. Singh (1985). "The phonology of epenthetic segments." C/L 30:415-451. Pike, K. & E. Pike (1947). "Immediate Constituents of Mazateco Syllables." IJAL 13: 78-91.

244 Pilch, H. (1966). "Das Lautsystem der hochdeutschen Umgangssprache." Zeitschrift für Mundartforschung 33: 247-266. Prinz, M. & R. Wiese (1991). "Die Affrikaten im Deutschen und ihre Verschriftung." LB 133: 165189. Prokosch, E. (1939). A Comparative Germanic Grammar. Baltimore: Waverley Press. Pulgrum, E. (1970). Syllable, Word, Nexus, Cursus. The Hague: Mouton. Pulleyblank, D. (1986). Tone in lexical Phonology. Dordrecht: Reidel. Pulleyblank, E. (1989). "The Role of Coronal in Articulation Based Features." CIS 25: 379-393. Pullum, G. & W. Ladusaw (1986). Phonetic Symbol Guide. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Ramers, K. H. (1988). Vokalquantität und -qualität im Deutschen. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Ramers, K. H. & H. Vater (1988). "Einführung in die Phonologie." Kölner Linguistische Arbeiten Germanistik 16: 1-158. Reed, C. (1965). "Vowel Length in Modern Standard German." Seminar 1:41-47. Reis, M. (1974). Lauttheorie und Lautgeschichte; Untersuchungen am Beispiel der Dehnungs- und Kiirzungsvorgänge im Deutschen. München: Fink. Rennison, J. (1981). "What is schwa in Austrian German? The case for epenthesis, and its consequences." In: W. U. Dressler, O. Pfeiffer, & J. Rennison (eds.) Phonologica 1980: Akten der Vierten Internationalen Phonologie-Tagung. Wien, 29. Juni 1980: 351-356. Rice, K. (1989). "On Eliminating Resyllabification into Onsets." WCCFL 8: 331-346. Rice, K. & P. Avery (1991). "Laterality and Coronality." In: C. Paradis & J.-F. Prunet (eds.) The Special Status of Coronals: Internal and External Evidence. New York: Academic Press: 101-124. Robinson, O. (1974). "Das deutsche [i]." Jahrbuch für Internationale Germanistik 6: 72-81. Ronneberger-Sibold, E. (1988). 'Verschiedene Wege der Phonemisierung bei Deutsch (Regionalsprachlich) , ." Folia Linguistica 22: 301-313 Rubach, J. (1990). "Final devoicing and cyclic syllabification in German." U 21: 79-94. Rubach, J. & G. Booij (1990a). "Syllable structure assignment in Polish." Ph.Y. 7.1:121-158. Rubach, J. & G. Booij (1990b). "Edge of Constituent Effects in Polish." NLLT 8:427-463. Sagey, E. (1986). The Representation of Features and Relations in Non-Linear Phonology. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT. Sanders, W. (1972). "Hochdeutsches /ä:/-'Ghostphonem' oder Sprachphänomen?" Zeitschrift für Dialektologie und Linguistik 39: 37-58. Sapir, E. (1925). 'Sound Patterns in Language." Lng. 1: 5-47. de Saussure, F. (1914). Course in General Linguistics. C. Bally & A. Sechehaye (eds.) New York: McCraw Hill (1959). Schein, B. & D. Steriade (1986). "On geminates." U 17: 691-744. Schirmunski, U. (1962). Deutsche Mundartkunde: vergleichende Laut- und Formenlehre der deutschen Mundarten. Berlin: Akademie Verlag. Scholz, H. -J. (1972). Untersuchungen zur Lautstruktur deutscher Wörter. München: Fink. Seiler, H. (1962). "Laut und Sinn: Zur Struktur der Deutschen Einsilber." Lingua 11: 375-387. Selkirk, E. (1978). "The French foot: On the status of "mute" e." Studies in French Linguistics 1: 141150. Selkirk, E. (1982). "The Syllable." In: H. van der Hülst & N. Smith (1982): 337-382. Selkirk, E. (1984). "On the major class features and syllable theory." In: M. Aronoff & R. Oehrle (eds). Language Sound Structure. Cambridge, Ma.: MIT Press: 107-137. Shannon, T. (1984). "The Syllable as a descriptive and explanatory parameter in German Phonology." In: W. U. Dressler, O. Pfeiffer & J. Rennison (eds.) Wiener Linguistische Gazette Beiheft 3. Discussion Papers for the fifth international phonology meeting: 235-239. Siebs. Deutsche Aussprache: reine und gemässigte Hochlautung mit Aussprachewörterbuch (1969). 19th edition. H. de Boor at al (eds.) Berlin: de Gruyter. Siegel, D. (1974). Topics in English Morphology. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT. Sievers, E. (1893). Grundzüge der Phonetik. Leipzig: Breitkopf und Härtel. Spencer, A. (1991). Morphological Theory. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

245 Spieser, H. (1895). "Deutsches r." Le Maiire Phonetique 10: 211-213. Standwell, G. (1973). "On German Segmental Phonemes." Zeitschrift für Dialektologie und Linguistik 40: 279-294. Stark, J. (1974). "Aphasiological evidence for the abstract analysis of the German velar nasal [n]." Wiener Linguistische Gazette 7: 21-37. Stemberger, J. (1984). "Length as a Suprasegmental: evidence from speech errors." Lng. 60:895-913. Steriade, D. (1982). Greek Prosodies and the nature of Syllabification. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT. Steriade, D. (1984). "Glides and Vowels in Romanian." BLS 10: 47-65. Steriade, D. (1987). "Redundant Values." CLS 23: 339-362. Steriade, D. (1988). Review of Clements & Keyser (1983). Lng. 64:118-129. Strauss, S. (1982). A L·xicalist Phonology of English and German. Dordrecht: Foris. Szulc, A. (1966). "The phonemic status of NHG [$:]." Kwartalnik Neofilogiczny 13: 425-429. Tanaka, H. (1964). "Die Konsonantenverbindungen im Deutschen." Muttersprache 74:167-177. Ternes, E. (1987). Einführung in die Phänologie. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft. Treiman, R. (1983). "The structure of spoken syllables, evidence from novel word games." Cognition 15: 49-75. Treiman, R. (1985). "Onset and rimes as units of spoken syllables: evidence from children." Journal of Experimental Child Psychology 39: 161-181. Treiman, R. (1986). "The division between onsets and rimes in English syllables." Journal of Memory & Language 25: 476-491. Trim, J. L. M. (1951). "German h, , and x." Le Maitre Phonetique 96:41^2. Trost, P. (1958). "Systematic support for the / distinction in German." Word 14: 243-246. Trubetzkoy, N. S. (1939). Grundzüge der Phänologie. Göttingen: Vandenhoek & Ruprecht. Twaddell, W. (1939). "Combinations of consonants in stressed syllables in German." Acta Linguistica 1: 189-199. Twaddell, W. (1940). "Combinations of consonants in stressed syllables in German." Acta Linguistica 2: 31-50. Ulbrich, H. (1972). Instrumental phonetisch-auditive R-Untersuchung im Deutschen. Berlin: Akademie Verlag. Ungeheuer, G. (1969). "Duden, Siebs, WDA: drei Wörterbücher der deutschen Hochlautung." In: U. Engel, P. Grebe, H. Rupp (eds.) Festschrift für Hugo Moser zum 60. Geburtstag am 19. Juni 1969. Düsseldorf: Schwann: 202-217 Ungeheuer, G. (1977). "Phonetik und Phonologie des Deutschen im Grundriss." In: Materialien zur Phonetik des Deutschen. IKP-Forschungsberichte. Reihe H. Band 6. Hamburg: Helmut Buske Verlag: 63-95. Vennemann, T. (1968a). German Phonology. Ph.D. dissertation, UCLA. Vennemann, T. (1968b). "Die Affrikaten in der generativen Phonologie des Deutschen." Phonetka 18: 65-76. Vennemann, T. (1970). "The German velar nasal. A case for abstract phonology." Phonetica 22: 6581. Vennemann, T. (1972). "On the theory of syllabic phonology." IB 18:1-18. Vennemann, T. (1974). "Phonological concreteness in natural generative grammar." In: R. W. Shuy & C. J. N. Bailey (eds.) Toward Tomorrow's Linguistics. Washington D.C: Georgetown University Press: 202-219. Vennemann, T. (1978). "Universal syllabic phonology." Theoretical Linguistics 5: 175-215. Vennemann, T. (1982). "Zur Silbenstruktur der deutschen Standardsprache." In: T. Vennemann (ed.) Silben, Segmente, Akzente. Tübingen: Niemeyer: 261-305. Vennemann, T. (1983). "Causality in language change. Theories of linguistic preferences as a basis for linguistic explanations." Folia Linguistica Historica 6.1: 5-26. Vennemann, T. (1986). Neuere Entwicklungen in der Phonologie. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

246

Vennemann, T. (1990a). "Syllable Structure and Syllable Cut Prosodies in Modern Standard German." In: P. M. Bertinetto, M. Kenstowicz & M. Loporcaro (eds.) Certamen Phonologicum II: Papers from the Cortona Phonology Meeting 1990. Torino: Rosenberg & Sellier: 212-243. Vennemann, T. (1990b). "Syllable Structure and Simplex Accent in Modern Standard German." CIS 26. Victor, W. (1915). Elemente der Phonetik des Deutschen, Englischen, and Französischen. Leipzig: O. R. Reisland. Vogt, H. (1942). 'The Structure of the Norwegian Monosyllable." Norsk Tidssrift for Sprogvidenskap 12: 5-29. Weithase, I. (1964). "Einige Bemerkungen zur Aussprache des 'qu' im Neuhochdeutschen." Münchener Studien zur Sprachwissenschaft 17: 109-122. Werner, O. (1972). Phonemik des Deutschen. Stuttgart: Metzler. Wiese, R. (1986a). "Schwa and the structure of words in German." Linguistics 24: 695-724. Wiese, R. (1986b). "Zur Theorie der Silbe." Studium Linguistik 20:1-15. Wiese, R. (1988). Silbische und lexikalische Phänologie. Studien zum Chinesischen und Deutschen. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Wiese, R. (1991). "Was ist extrasilbisch im Deutschen und warum?" To appear in Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 10. Wiese, R. (1992). "A phonology of German." ms. Düsseldorf. Wiesemann, U. (1970). "Problems in the analysis of the segmental phonemes of Northern Standard German." Linguistics 64: 60-69. Wilson, S. (1981). Non-phonological ambisyllabicity. MA thesis, University of Washington. Wurzel, W. U. (1970a). Studien zur deutschen Lautstruktur. Berlin: Akademie Verlag. Wurzel, W. U. (1970b). "Der Fremdwortakzent im Deutschen." Linguistics 56: 87-108. Wurzel, W. U. (1980a). "Phonologie: Segmentale Struktur." In: K. E. Heidolph et al (eds.) Grundzüge einer deutschen Grammatik. Berlin: Akademie Verlag: 898-990. Wurzel, W. U. (1980b). "Der deutsche Wortakzent: Fakten-Regeln-Prinzipien. Ein Beitrag zu einer natürlichen Akzenttheorie." Zeitschrift für Germanistik 3: 299-318. Yip, M. (1988). "The Obligatory Contour Principle and Phonological Rules: A Loss of Identity." Li 19: 65-100. Yip, M. (1990). "Feature geometry and cooccurrence restrictions." Phonology 6: 349-374. Yu, S.-T. (1992). Unterspezifikation in der Phonologie des Deutschen. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Zacher, O. & N. Grishchenko (1971). "Hauchlaut-Achlaut-Ichlaut der Hochdeutschen Gegenwartssprache in phonologischer Sicht." Folia Linguistica 5: 109-116.