Re-Approaching Schneider's Law Geminates and Syllable Margins Katerina Markoulaki

RE-APPROACHING SCHNEIDER’S LAW GEMINATES AND SYLLABLE MARGINS

By KATERINA MARKOULAKI

A Thesis submitted to the School of English Aristotle University of Thessaloniki in partial fulfillment of the requirements

for the degree of

MA in LINGUISTICS

Thesis Supervisor: NINA TOPINTZI

Thessaloniki SEPTEMBER 2018

TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGES ABBREVIATIONS ...... iv

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ...... v

ABSTRACT ...... vi

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 The phenomenon ...... 1

1.2 Previous work ...... 2

1.3 The proposal ...... 4

1.4 Dissertation‘s structure ...... 4

2. MANIFESTATIONS OF THE LAW

2.0 Introduction ...... 6

2.1. Inuktitut dialects ...... 6

2.1.1. Eastern dialects (Inuttut and Inuttitut) ...... 8

2.1.2. Western dialect (Siglitun)...... 9

2.2. Trukese (Chuukese) ...... 10

2.3. Japanese ...... 11

2.4. Dogrib ...... 13

3. TWO GEMINATES ONE SYLLABLE: THAT‘S WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YOU SHARE

3.0 Introduction ...... 16

3.1 Geminates ...... 16

3.1.1 Phonological representations...... 16

3.1.2 Moraic theory ...... 17

3.1.3 Flopped structure and markedness ...... 18

3.2 SL: Ban on two geminates within the same syllable ...... 20

3.3 Data analysis ...... 23

3.3.1 Inuktitut: One syllable straddling both its syllable margins ...... 23 ii

3.3.2 Trukese: moraic margins ...... 29

3.3.3 Japanese: two geminates one syllable ...... 33

3.3.4 Dogrib: two geminates one syllable ...... 37

4. DISCUSSION

4.0 Introduction ...... 39

4.1 Implications for geminates ...... 39

4. 2 The problem with SL as an OCP effect ...... 41

4.3 Alternative analyses for Inuktitut ...... 42

4.3.1 Analyses discussed in other works ...... 42

4.3.2 Alternative considerations not discussed in other papers ...... 43

4.4 This dissertation ...... 45

5. CONCLUSION ...... 47

REFERENCES ...... 49

iii

ABBREVIATIONS

C Consonant CC Consonant Cluster G Geminate OCP Obligatory Contour Principle OT Optimality Theory SL Schneider‘s Law SR Surface Representation V Vowel UR Underlying Representation

μ mora σ syllable

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to thank my thesis supervisor, Nina Topintzi, first of all for introducing me to the fascinating world of phonology and for providing her help and expertise from the very beginning. Her guidance and patience while I was trying to find my way for this thesis are greatly appreciated. Needless to say, all errors are my own. Thanks also to my professors and colleagues of the MA in linguistics of AUTh. Their positive attitude made the process of this thesis easier. I am extremely grateful to my parents for their love and support. Without them this thesis would have been impossible. I am also grateful to my sisters for believing in me. Thanks to all the friends and family who pushed me for the better.

ABSTRACT

The present thesis discusses the phenomenon known as Schneider‘s Law which describes a consonant cluster reduction in sequences of consonant clusters (CCV(V)CC  CCV(V)C). The phenomenon is found in three dialects of Inuktitut, while it has also been claimed to apply in Dogrib. Two more languages are proposed here that SL finds application in; Trukese and Japanese. This dissertation claims that SL is a phenomenon that concerns geminates occupying both margins of a single syllable. The ability of geminates to straddle the syllable boundaries allow them to belong to two syllables at the same time. That is also part of the reason why they are marked segments and syllables do not tolerate to have two of them. For Inuktitut, it is further shown that SL involves only geminates (in contrast to the previously believed notion that it was associated with all consonant clusters) with regressive assimilation being a crucial part of SL, since it creates geminates. For Japanese and Dogrib the definition of SL is sufficient as a ban on geminates on both syllable margins, while for Trukese a further specification is needed for the prohibition concerning the moraicity of the margins. The dissertation provides OT analyses for SL in the four languages, while it also takes into consideration the weight representation of geminates.

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 The phenomenon

Schneider‘s Law (henceforth SL) or the Law of Double Consonants is about a phenomenon that bans sequences of CCV(V)CC. It was first noticed in Inuktitut, an Eskimo language, and it was observed as a phenomenon that in such sequences deletes the first consonant of the second consonant cluster (Smith 1975; Massenet 1976). The high degree of regressive assimilation leading in gemination in the dialects that present SL lead to a re-evaluation of the phenomenon as a ban on syllable-adjacent geminates (Dresher and Johns 1995). That is, the deletion of the consonant is a result of the ban on syllable-adjacent geminates, since regressive assimilation is total. This definition was taken up and used for Dogrib, an Athabaskan language, claiming to present a similar prohibition (Jaker 2012). Based on this definition, this thesis proposes other two languages that present SL, but they have never been associated with this phenomenon in the literature: Trukese1 and Japanese. Geminates present an intriguing issue overall. They are involved in a heated debate about their phonological representation. Namely, the prevailing candidates are the segmental length analysis (Ringen and Vago 2011) and the underlying weight representation (Hayes 1989) of geminates. The first claims that geminates are inherently long which means that they have two C slots on the timing tier. The latter views geminates as underlyingly moraic segments; they have one mora in their underlying representation. While this strikes as a small difference it leads to very different predictions about geminate behavior in languages (for more details see for example Davis 2011). The intriguing case of geminate representation makes even more compelling the mystery of SL. While various attempts have been made to explain SL, nothing seems to really put an end to the issue. This dissertation endeavors to add to the SL‘s research, not only by providing another analysis, but also by collecting other languages that seem

1 My greatest thanks to Nina Topintzi for suggesting the application of SL in Trukese. 1 to present what has been claimed to be SL. The dissertation also makes reference to the geminate debate by clearly assuming the underlying weight representation as the appropriate choice.

1.2 Previous work

SL is first observed in the Inuttitut dialect of Inuktitut by Lucien Schneider (1966). While he does not analyze the phenomenon, he calls it ‗the law of double consonants‘ (in the original ‗la Loi des double consonnes‘). Being the first to point out the phenomenon, later researchers called the phenomenon ‗Schneider‘s Law‘ (e.g. Collis 1970) after him. However, the phenomenon is already obvious in previous data of SL – first appearing at about the late 19th century (e.g. Bourquin 1891; see also Pigott 2012 for more information)—yet no one else noticed the consonant alternations (Dorais 1976). SL appears in only three dialects of Inuktitut; Inuttitut, Inuttut and Siglitun (Dresher and Johns 1995). The rule takes its form through time with various attempts of analysis. It starts with Rischel (1974) who proposes that the Law prohibits sequences of closed syllables thus simplifying the codas of VCCVCCV sequences by deleting the second coda. Smith (1975) for Inuttut and Massenet (1986) for Inuttitut point out that such a formulation cannot account for cases in which a word-final coda is not deleted after another closed syllable. That is to say, that a word with a sequence of (C)VCCVC/# is acceptable without deletion. Instead, Smith (1975: 105) describes the phenomenon as a prohibition of …CC(V)VCC… sequences assuming that there must be ―an intervening intervocalic simple consonant‖ between intervocalic consonant clusters. Smith (1977) also notes the alternations of consonants in consonant clusters of the same morpheme that may appear if no consonant cluster precedes (e.g. |nuna+kkut|  [nunakkut]) but never surface if it follows another consonant cluster (e.g. |tutuk+kkut|  [tuttukut]). He also suggests that SL works iteratively from left to right providing as evidence the much-cited words |nanu(k)+ŋŋua(k)+kqaa+lluni|  [nanuŋŋuaqaalluni] ―by means of killing a toy polar bear‖ and |tutu(k)+ŋŋua(k)+kqaa+lluni|  [tuttuŋuakqaaluni] ―by means of first killing a toy caribou‖. Massenet (1986) is probably the first to give a proper analysis of SL basing his work on Inuttitut data. He agrees with Smith (1977) about the application of SL iteratively from left to right providing data from Inuttitut as well. Massenet also claims that SL applies to all consonant clusters. However, he highlights the fact that consonant 2 clusters in Inuttitut have a high degree of regressive assimilation and argues that this leads to more tensed segments than in the other dialects in which this process does not apply as much. He claims that this tension is the trigger of SL which applies by deleting the word-internal coda in syllables with a tense onset. Massenet also provides an analysis including the application of the three rules –regressive assimilation, tension and then SL– in derivational cycles. Dresher and Johns (1995) are the first to claim that SL targets geminates. They point to the fact that SL applies to the dialects that have a high degree of regressive assimilation and that it has a total application in Inuttut in which regressive assimilation applies totally. That leads them to argue that all consonant clusters in Inuttut are phonological geminates. Providing a rule-based account, they assume that SL applies in Inuttut after the rule for truncation and regressive assimilation that generate geminates. After SL (whether it finds application or not) other processes like affrication and devoicing take place, which sometime may lead to surface consonant clusters. Dresher and Johns (1995: 93) build their analysis on Syllable Government and form SL rule as a prohibition of ―a governing syllable from being directly governed‖. A governing syllable is a closed syllable whose coda is ‗governed‘ by the onset of the following syllable. They also distinguish the type of government as direct if the coda is a geminate and indirect if it is a singleton consonant. Dresher and Johns also argue against a metrical analysis and an analysis based on consonant gradation. Rose, Pigott and Wharram (2012) propose a prosodic account based on the syllable constituents. They claim that ―this conditioning operated on remnants of the language‘s eroded stress system‖ (2012: 7). While they argue over a theory of syllable prominence, they discard moras assuming that syllable prominence is based on the level of syllable structure. The distinction of syllables is based on the rhyme rendering a branching rhyme as strong and an open syllable as weak. The only criterion for syllable prominence is the coda and not the nucleus leaving out the problematic vowel length for syllable weight. They also suggest that faithfulness constraints provide the key to the way some consonants assimilate. The pattern that is manifested by the syllable conditioning is a strong-weak sequence suggesting a trochee. Pigott (2012) agrees with the aforementioned analysis and further claims that Inuktitut resembles syllable-timed languages which he further supports with acoustic data. SL is also adopted for the Dogrib language by Jaker (2012) who assumes that it is a ban on adjacent geminates. He directly borrows it from the Inuktitut dialects, so he does not provide any further account; he just accepts its existence and uses it for his 3 own purpose. However, he informally defines it as a prohibition of ―geminate consonants in adjacent syllables‖ (Jaker 2012: 675). For Trukese and Japanese, the phenomenon has been noted as an Obligatory Contour Principle (OCP) effect on geminates (Davis and Torretta 1998; Muller 1999; Topintzi 2010; Ito, Kubozono and Mester 2017), but never as part of SL.

1.3 The proposal

This dissertation‘s thesis claims that SL is associated to geminates occupying both margins of a syllable. Agreeing with Massenet (1986), the violation that leads to cluster reduction is to be found on a single syllable and not directly in the relationship of the syllable with its neighboring margins. Yet the cause of the trigger is found in phonology and not in phonetics as it is suggested in Massenet. Namely, the nature of geminates as marked elements straddling the syllable boundaries is to be blamed for this phenomenon. Also borrowing ideas from Dresher and Johns (1995) I claim that in Inuttut the rule deals only with geminates based on the application of regressive assimilation. Geminate markedness on both syllable margins is also assumed to apply to Japanese and Dogrib, while for Trukese the ability of the geminate consonants to form moraic margins specifies SL as a ban on geminates that are moraic margins on both sides of the syllable. The syllable representations of this dissertation follow Hayes (1989) especially for the representation of medial geminates. For initial geminates acting as moraic onsets in Trukese the representation is based on Topintzi (2010). The analysis of SL for each language is performed within the Optimality Theory framework (Prince and Smolensky 1993; Kager 1999) placing SL as a high ranked constraint for the discussed languages. The constraint is defined as a prohibition against both margins of a single syllable having geminates, which comes as a result of the ‗flopped‘ linking of geminates to two syllables.

1.4 Dissertation’s structure

The present dissertation is structured as follows. Chapter two provides information about each language that manifests SL, as well as some representative data of the phenomenon. The phonotactics are also mentioned along with some basic claims of the

4 literature of SL. Chapter three provides the thesis of the dissertation with the relevant analysis. More specifically, §3.1 presents the issue of geminates with the relevant debate on their phonological representation with more information on the weight representation of geminates which is accepted here. §3.2 is concerned with the theoretical foundations of the thesis defining SL. In the remaining parts of section 3.3, each language is analyzed within the OT framework. Chapter four opens up a discussion about issues that stem from this thesis. The phonological representation of geminates is once more considered in the light of the proposed thesis considering possible implications (§4.1). Comments on other analyses of SL are also provided: on SL as an OCP effect which has been claimed for Trukese, Japanese and Dogrib (§4.2) and then specifically on various analyses of Inuktitut (§4.3). The advantages and disadvantages of the dissertation are also part of chapter four (§4.4). Chapter 5 concludes the dissertation.

CHAPTER 2 MANIFESTATIONS OF THE LAW

2.0 Introduction

This chapter discusses evidence from four languages that present the Law of Double Consonants; Inuktitut, Trukese, Japanese and Dogrib. The phenomenon is very prominent in the Inuktitut dialects, since the compensatory mechanism used for the application of the law targets all consecutive geminates. In Trukese, on the other hand, it is said to target geminates in adjacent syllables, but only those within the same morpheme. Japanese manifests SL in loanwords through the partial gemination of source consonants or the partial maintenance of source geminates. In Dogrib geminates in adjacent syllables are not to be found either in the underlying representation (henceforth UR) or in the surface representation (henceforth SR) of the language; rather it has been claimed to be relevant as a constraint in the Optimality Theory framework in order to rule out possible candidates. In this section the phenomenon will be discussed as it has been claimed in the literature to be a ban on geminates in adjacent syllables.

2.1. Inuktitut dialects

The Law of Double Consonants was first observed in Inuktitut. Namely, Father Lucien Schneider was the first to point out the pattern in Inuktitut, hence the name Schneider‘s Law (Dresher & Johns 1995). SL is a relatively recent phenomenon for Inuktitut since it does not manifest itself until the 20eth century (Dorais 1976). The Inuktitut language seems to have changed rapidly in the 20eth century and different dialects evolved and keep evolving differently (Smith 1977). According to Rose, Pigott and Wharram (2012) only three of the dialects of Inuktitut manifest Schneider‘s Law; Inuttut, Inuttitut and Siglitun. The definition of Schneider‘s Law in Inuktitut is not completely clear, while different authors consider different aspects of the law in order to define it. For most authors discussing Inuktitut, Schneider‘s Law involves the simplification of a consonant

6 cluster in a syllable when it follows a syllable that also has a consonant cluster (Dorais 1988; Dresher & Johns 1995; Fortescue 1983; Smith 1977). However since in the Siglitun dialect the law deletes only geminate consonants, the Law is viewed to force degemination in sequences of geminates (Rose, Pigott & Wharram 2012). Another attempted explanation includes Massenet‘s (1986: 105 as cited in Pigott 2012) theory of tension, which dictates that SL ―delete[s] a word internal coda consonant in a syllable with a tense onset‖. Inuktitut belongs to the Eskimo-Aleut language family and more specifically to the Inuit sub-family that forms the Eskimo branch along with the Yupik sub-families. Inuktitut can be found with various alternate names in the literature, including Inuttut, Inuit, Inuttitut and Eskimo, each of which may be accompanied by geographic specifications. It is spoken in some parts of Labrador, Quebec, and Western Arctic in Canada. With respect to phonotactics, Inuktitut allows maximally one consonant in onset or coda position and 2 vowels in the nucleus; that is, a syllable may be of this type (C)V(V)(C). Yet, the language allows trimoraic syllables, since two vowels and a geminate may occur in one syllable. Only the first syllable is allowed to begin with a vowel and the word-final syllable may be open or closed by a single consonant. The language is said to have extensive regressive assimilation especially in the eastern dialects, a process that creates a lot of geminates and will be vital to the analysis of SL in Inuktitut. Other phonological processes include affrication and devoicing. The pattern that seems to capture all three dialects is the ban on CCV(V)CC sequences. If such a sequence comes up through the combination of affixes, the first consonant of the second consonant cluster is deleted; CCV(V)CC CCV(V)C. In all three dialects the law works iteratively from left to right. The ban on geminates in adjacent syllables becomes transparent in Inuktitut due to its polysynthetic nature. That is, a morpheme may have a geminate in some words which does not surface when it is placed after a morpheme that contains a geminate in its last syllable. Some problems have been pointed out about the transliteration of some phonemes in written text since different authors use different writing systems (Pigott 2012). The writing discrepancy along with the recent brisk phonological changes of the language has made even more challenging the unsolved case of SL in Inuktitut.

2.1.1. Eastern dialects (Inuttut and Inuttitut)

The eastern Inuktitut dialects are those that perplex Schneider‘s Law algorithm by including non-geminate clusters in it. Labrador Inuttut and (Quebec) Inuttitut are the two eastern dialects that present SL. Inuttut is the most discussed language, while the same processes are claimed to apply to Inuttitut (Dresher & Johns 1995; Rose, Pigott & Wharram 2012). Similarly here the discussed data are from Inuttut, but the same analysis is hypothesized for Inuttitut. The key fact about the thesis analysis is the great amount of regressive assimilation in these dialects that ends up turning almost all CC to geminates. Examples in (1) are taken from Smith (1977) and he interprets the rule behind these data as ―delete the first of two (different) consonants when the preceding vowel (long or short) is immediately preceded by a consonant cluster‖ (1977: 81). That is, underlying CCs do not surface as such when another CC precedes them. They are rather simplified through deletion of the first consonant of the second consonant cluster as it is obvious in (1).

(1) Schneider’s Law in Inuttut (Smith 1977)2 a. |pukkik| + |puk|  |pukkik-puk|  [pukkipuk] ―it is low‖ b. |iŋŋak| + |tuk|  |iŋŋak-tuk|  [iŋŋatuk] ―the leaky one‖ c. |ikqa| + |kqaa| + |vuk|  |ikqa-kqaa-vuk|  [ikqaqaavuk] ―he remembers first‖ d. |nanuk| + |ŋŋuak| + |kqaa| + |lluni|  |nanu(k)-ŋŋua(k)-kqaa-lluni|  [nanuŋŋuaqaalluni] ―by means of killing a toy polar bear‖

Smith (1977) rules out the first descriptions of the phenomenon as a ban on sequences of closed syllables since there are words like [imappik] in which the word-final coda does not affect the preceding geminate. Contrastively, in (1) codas are deleted, when they are part of a consonant cluster that follows another one. The length of vowels is irrelevant as it is obvious in (1c-d). The ban on complex onsets and codas also plays a role to the deletion of some consonants as in (1d) in which the sequence of consonants occurring between the highlighted syllables |nanuk-ŋŋuak-kqaa-lluni| is reduced to two [na.nuŋ.ŋua.qaal.luni]. The same thing applies to the next highlighted sequence |nanuk-

2Dresher and Johns (1995) argue that the consonant cluster that Smith (1995: 1997) writes as |kq| is actually either [kx] or [qχ]. The same view is adopted by later papers (Rose, Pigott and Wharram 2011; Pigott 2012) and will be also adopted by this paper in the analysis section. 8

ŋŋuak-kqaa-lluni|, yet this one surfaces with only one consonant in between [na.nuŋ.ŋua.qaal.lu.ni], because a consonant cluster precedes it in the previous syllable. That means, one consonant was deleted because of the prohibition of complex margins and the other consonant was deleted because of SL, thus eliminating the sequence of three underlying consonants to only one. Since this syllable is simplified the following syllable can keep its geminate. Examples (1a) and (1b) would be the perfect data to support a metrical approach for this rule, since we could claim that the rule dictates a ban on sequences of heavy syllables. Namely, in (1a) the first syllable is heavy due to the fact that it is closed by a geminate and the following syllable would also be heavy if the consonant that it is closed with was not deleted. However, example (1d) includes a sequence of syllables that even after the simplification has two heavy syllables. That is, nuŋ and ŋua are bimoraic syllables and the syllable right after them is trimoraic [na.nuŋ.ŋua.qaal.lu.ni]. The implausibility of a metrical theory based on syllable weight as a factor is also discussed in Dresher and Johns (1995) and Pigott (2012).

2.1.2. Western dialect (Siglitun)

The western dialects have less regressive assimilation and the only one of them that exhibits SL is Siglitun. In Siglitun the application of SL seems to target only geminates. Namely, only geminates go through simplification if they follow another CC (even if it is a complex one). In (2a) sequences of CCs remain as they are, when no CC precedes the geminate. Of course, the CCs that survive are always composed of two.

(2) Sequences of CC in Siglitun (Lowe 1984) a. /iqaliq/ + /kkuaq/ + /tuaq/  /iqaliq-kkuaq-tuaq/  [iqalikkuaqtuaq] ―(s)he/it went through the window‖ b. /sini/ + /llak/ + /tuaq/  /sini-llak-tuaq/  [sinillaktuaq] ―(s)he slept for a while‖

Nevertheless, when the geminate follows another CC (whether complex or another geminate) degemination occurs.

(3) Schneider’s Law in Siglitun (Lowe 1984) a. /upkuaq/ + /kkuaq/ + /tuaq/  /upkua(q)-kkuaq-tuaq/  [upkuakuaqtuaq] ―(s)he/it went through the door‖ b. uqallak/ + /llak/ + /tuaq/  uqalla(k)-llak-tuaq  [uqallalaktuaq] ―(s)he spoke for a while‖

However, these were the only data I was able to find on Siglitun and based only on these, various interpretations could apply. For example, Dorais (1976) assumes that SL in Siglitun is based on the place of articulation of the CC. Another possible explanation is that Siglitun prohibits trimoraic syllables causing the simplification of the geminate in example 3(a) –assuming that only vowels and geminates are moraic. In 3(b) the dissertation‘s proposal about geminate syllable edges may be at work. Due to the lack of sufficient data to further test the proposed hypothesis I will not attempt to analyze this dialect.

2.2. Trukese (Chuukese)

SL has not been discussed as such in Trukese. Davis and Torretta (1998), Muller (1999) and Topintzi (2010) describe the Trukese data as an OCP effect that does not allow multiple geminates within a morpheme. However, Topintzi (2010: 183) has reservations as to the OCP analysis since she suspects ―a ban on consecutive moraic consonants within the same morpheme‖. Trukese belongs to the Micronesia branch of the Austronesian language family. More specifically, it belongs to the Trukic or Chuukese sub-family which together with Ponapeic forms the Western Micronesian branch. It is spoken in Truk (or Chuuk) lagoon of Caroline Islands. Trukese can often be found in the literature as Chuukese, while other names include Lagoon Trukese or Chuukese, Chuuk, Ruk and Truk. Trukese geminates may appear word-initially and word-medially but a word cannot end in a geminate (Davis 2017). As argued in Topintzi (2010), the word-initial geminates of Trukese are moraic onsets while the word-medial ones follow the traditional ‗flopped‘ linking. Geminates in Trukese follow the moraic theory in being underlyingly moraic and so do long vowels which have two moras. Apart from geminates, no other combination of consonant clusters occurs. Only at the end of the word there can be a coda that is not part of a geminate and those kinds of codas are non- moraic (Topintzi 2010). An important phonological process of the language is geminate 10 throwback, which is a type of compensatory lengthening employed in order to satisfy the bimoraic word-minimality of the language (Topintzi 2010). SL in Trukese is obvious through the alternations of singleton-geminate consonants in SRs of words that have underlyingly two geminates in their stems. SL in Trukese concerns only geminates and unlike Inuktitut the first geminate is the one deleted. What is interesting here is that a single morpheme may have underlyingly a sequence of two geminates, but they never get to surface together.

(4) SL in Trukese (Topintzi 2010) UR Unsuffixed form Suffixed form a. /ppeppa/ [ppep] ‗skip‘ [peppa-n] ‗its skipping‘ b. /kkunnu/ [kkun] ‗rotate‘ [kunnu-n] ‗its rotation‘ c. /kkikki/ [kkik] ‗move‘ [kikki-k] ‗you move‘ d. /ffitta/ [ffit] ‗package‘ [fitta-mʷ] ‗your package‘

In all the examples of (4) the underlying representations of the words include a sequence of two geminated syllables. However, in their surface forms one geminate is deleted. Namely, final mora deletion occurs in the unsuffixed forms and since the language does not allow geminates in the end of the word, the final geminate is deleted. Once the one geminate is eliminated, the first geminate can appear, as it actually does. The interaction of word minimality and final-mora deletion at the end of words when unsuffixed leads to the appearance of those deleted geminates in surface forms. On the suffixed forms, the second geminate is word-medial, an allowed position for this language. Since the second geminate appears, the first is deleted. So, while there are two geminates in the UR of the word, something bans the appearance of both of them in the SR ending up with surface singleton-geminate alternations of underlying geminates.

2.3. Japanese

SL has never been discussed as such in Japanese just like Trukese. Nevertheless, the phenomenon has drawn the attention of various researchers, since it is combined with the enigmatic partial gemination or degemination of loanwords in Japanese. Tsuchida (1995) attributes the effect to a ban on more than one geminate in a word. However, Morimoto (2015) includes Italian loanwords of Japanese that do have two geminates as is obvious in (5). She claims instead that the asymmetry in the preservation of the 11 source geminates depends on the position of the geminate in the source word; if the syllable carries the stress of the word. Ito and Mester (2003) consider the possibility of a 2 prohibition of two geminates in a stem with the constraint NO-GEM stem. Based on this constraint, Ito, Kubozono and Mester (2017) propose that the asymmetry is the result of a ban on geminates in successive syllables which is expressed through the constraint

OCP-GEM. Exactly this analysis is that matches SL.

(5) Loanwords in Japanese with two geminates (Morimoto 2015) Italian Japanese gloss a. pannakótta pannakótta (a type of dessert) b. aɲɲolótti annyorótti (a type of pasta)

Japanese belongs to the Japonic language family and the standard dialect is Tokyo Japanese. It has three different writing systems used synchronically; Han, Hiragana and Katakana. Japanese lexicon is classified in four distinct categories with their own phonological constraints depending on the origin of the word. Namely, Yamato which is the native vocabulary, Sino-Japanese which concerns words of Chinese origin, Mimetics which includes onomatopoeic and abstract words, and Foreign lexicon which refers to loanwords (Martin 1952; Ito and Mester 1993: 1999; Morimoto 2015). While only voiceless geminates are allowed in the first two lexicons, voiced obstruents are allowed as well in the Foreign vocabulary. Geminates are very common in the Foreign lexicon and that is where SL‘s application is obvious. In Japanese geminates are allowed only intervocally, while nasals are the only codas allowed at the end of the word (Kubozono 1999). Each syllable can be maximally bimoraic, so a geminate and a long vowel never appear in the same syllable. Another interesting phonological process known as Lyman‘s Law exists that bans the appearance of two voiced obstruents in one stem (Nishimura 2006). That renders devoicing a very common phonological process, while epenthesis is a very frequent mechanism in dealing with the preservation of coda consonants of the source language that are not allowed as word-final codas in Japanese (Peperkamp, Vendelin & Nakamura 2008). In Japanese, SL is manifested in loanwords of the Foreign lexicon. While we may have words with two geminates like those in (6a-d), geminates never appear in successive syllables. In general, Japanese imposes gemination to source coda consonants in order to preserve their coda status or the mora of the source word. Ito, Kubozono and Mester (2017) suggest that the reason why ‗pocket‘ never surfaces as 12

*[pokketto] is due to the OCP-GEM constraint that rules out this candidate that includes geminates in adjacent syllables.

(6) SL in Japanese loanwords of English origin (Tsuchida 1995) English Japanese a. ‗laptop‘ rappɯtoppɯ b. ‗hatchback‘ hattʃibakkɯ c. ‗booklet‘ bɯkkɯretto d. ‗pickup‘ pikkɯappɯ e. ‗racket‘ raketto *[rakketto], *[rakketo] f. ‗pocket‘ poketto *[pokketto], *[pokketo] g. ‗ketchup‘ ketʃappɯ *[kettʃappɯ], * [kettʃapɯ]

Another example of SL comes from a Japanese loanword of Italian origin. In the Italian source word [zukkótto] only the second geminate is preserved in the Japanese loanword [zukótto]. However, the first geminate of the source word could have been preserved, since the geminated consonant exists in both languages and it is in a position in the word that geminates are allowed in Japanese. Yet, it is deleted, potentially because of SL.

(7) SL in a Japanese loanword of Italian origin (Morimoto 2015) Italian Japanese gloss a. zukkótto zukótto (a type of cake)

2.4. Dogrib

SL has been recognized in Dogrib and discussed by Jaker (2012). Jaker acknowledges the confusion around the analysis of SL and he informally proposes a SL constraint in OT. Namely, he defines SL constraint as follows: ―Geminate consonants in adjacent syllables are prohibited‖ (Jaker 2012: 675). SL in Dogrib is not obvious in the UR, nor does it have any surface singleton-geminate alternations, but it is related to the prosody of the language.- Dogrib belongs to the Athabaskan language family and more specifically to the northern Athabaskan branch. It is spoken in Canada‘s Northwest Territories between the Great Slave Lake and Great Bear Lake. Since it is a language of indigenous people, 13 distinct dialects correspond to different communities (Jaker 2012). The speakers of Dogrib are called the Yellowknives Dene, Copper Indians, Red Knives or Tatsanpt‘ine (Jaker 2012). The Dogrib language is also called Tɬįchǫ Yatiì. Jaker (2012) discusses the Waladeh dialect and Marinakis (2003) investigates the Fort Rae dialect. Geminates were not recognized in the Dogrib language as fully phonological segments before Jaker‘s work (2010: 2012). So, while Marinakis (2003) talks about long vowels, she never discusses geminates. Other authors suspected that something was different in some consonants, but they did not seem to acknowledge their phonological status (Tuttle 2005; Cook 2004). Jaker (2012) recognizes their role in syllable weight and thus to stress assignment and he argues for their existence. Dogrib is a polysynthetic language with an interesting tone development of contradicting tone patterns from neighboring languages (Jaker 2012). There are no complex consonant clusters in onsets or codas, while syllables with no onsets are permitted in all positions in the word. A coda can end only in [h] according to Marinakis (2003), or a geminate according to Jaker (2012). Important phonological processes include vowel assimilation and consonant deletion, processes that create simple structures (Marinakis 2003). Metricality in Dogrib is expressed with tonal feet, which Jaker (2010) attempts to analyze despite the haziness around the literature of what constitutes a tonal foot: for Dogrib tonal feet in words are moraic trochees with no contour tones. SL according to Jaker (2012) appears in Dogrib as a constraint in order to explain why some consonants do not undergo gemination. Gemination occurs in Dogrib as a compensatory mechanism for prosody. That is, in cases in which stress is not otherwise attracted to the desired position, a consonant is geminated in order to create a heavy syllable that will attract stress. Normally, stress draws on the penultimate if it is heavy and on the antepenultimate if the penultimate is light. That is not all though; stress is also attracted by High tones, while there is a preference for trochaic feet at the Word Level and the Postlexical level3. Nevertheless, there are some underlying iambs as well that sometimes surface as such. Jaker (2012) notes Low tones with [ ` ] while High tones are indicated by the absence of mark -the mark for High tones [ ˊ ] that appears

3 Jaker places his theory within the framework of Lexical Phonology (Kiparsky 1982; Kaisse, & Shaw 1985 among others), which assumes that phonology and morphology interact with each other in order to construct words. It divides grammar into levels, including the Lexical, which reflects the phonology- morphology interface in building the lexicon, and the Post-lexical level, which is connected to syntax and the interaction of words. The original version of Lexical Phonology is rule-based and includes some controversial properties. Parts of Lexical Phonology have been incorporated to Stratal Optimality Theory (Kiparsky 2015; Bermudez-Otero 2018). 14 here as well as the notation for primary and secondary stress are my additions aiming to avoid confusion. In the example in (8a), the second syllable attracts stress since in Dogrib the Tone to Stress Principle (TSP) is active preferring High tones for stress as that of the second syllable. But stressed syllables need to also be heavy since a foot needs at least two moras, so the second syllable also gets geminated in order to create a stressed foot –a foot with the last syllable is out of question because of NonFinality (Jaker 2012: 665). However, in the absence of SL the optimal output would be that of 4 *[(ˌk‘èn)('ned)dì] with two geminated syllables, since it would not leave any unparsed syllables as the language also avoids footless syllables (Jaker 2012). SL seems to be crucial in ruling out such a possibility. In example (8b) the stress falls on the antepenultimate since it is a syllable with high tone forming a foot with the following syllable. On an OT framework with a TSP as a high-ranked constraint and no application of SL the optimal output would be that of *[(ˌán)('nét)t‘é]with two geminated syllables, since both the antepenultimate and the penultimate would be heavy and in such an occasion they would both attract stress. The word in example (8c) is stressed on the penultimate and gemination is restricted on the second syllable for the same reasons as those in (8a).

(8) SL in Dogrib (Jaker 2012) UR gloss SR

a. /k‘è-né.dì/ ‗you drive‘ (IMP) [k‘è.('néd).dì ] *[(ˌk‘èn)('ned)dì]

b. /á-né.t‘é/ ‗you (sg.) are‘ (IMP) [('á.né).t‘é] *[(ˌán)('nét)t‘é]

c. /nà-gé.dè/ ‗they live‘ (IMP) [nà.('géd).dè] *[(ˌnàg).('géd).dè]

4 The consonants [k‘] and [t‘] are glotalized 15

CHAPTER 3 TWO GEMINATES ONE SYLLABLE: THAT‘S WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YOU SHARE

3.0 Introduction

This chapter will attempt to analyze the phenomena of SL. Chapter 2 presented the data of languages that seem to disallow geminates in adjacent syllables, as SL has claimed to do in Inuktitut. The basic idea of the analysis is that SL is associated with the syllable margins of one syllable and since geminates cross the syllable boundary belonging to two syllables, adjacent geminates can end up being parts of the same syllable. That means that SL reflects a ban on geminates belonging to both margins of one syllable. In what follows, some theories about and some characteristics of geminates are presented in order to examine what makes geminates special (§3.1). Then an account of SL is presented focusing on the syllable and its margins (§3.2). In the remaining section, each language discussed in the previous chapter is analyzed within the OT framework (§3.3).

3.1 Geminates

3.1.1 Phonological representations

From phonetics‘ point of view, geminates also known as long or double consonants are found to be more or less twice longer in duration than their singleton counterparts (Lehiste 1970; Ladefoged and Maddieson 1996; Curtis 2003; Kubozono, Ito and Mester 2009). In phonology, geminates have raised some controversy regarding their representation and especially how they are distinguished from singletons. Geminates have been fitted differently in different frameworks (Davis 2011). The three basic theories that deal with geminates are the CV theory (McCarthy 1979; Halle and Vergnaud 1980; Clements and Keyser 1983), the X theory (Levin 1985) and the moraic theory (Hyman 1985; Hayes 1989) that try to explain the behavior of syllables in prosodic phenomena. On the first two frameworks, a geminate consonant on the 16 phoneme tier corresponds to two segments on the prosodic or segmental tier in contrast to singleton consonants which correspond to one. Apart from the references of CV- and X- theories, the basic geminate representations of these frameworks include the segmental length analysis (Ringen and Vago 2011) and the root node length analysis (Selkrik 1990). Moraic theory supports the weight representation of geminates in which a geminate corresponds underlyingly to a mora on the prosodic or moraic tier (Hayes 1989). A geminate then just like a vowel always has a mora. The basic difference with singleton consonants is that while singletons may appear in the SR with a mora, this mora does not exist in the UR as it does with geminates. The X-theory treats all segments as occupying at least one X-slot in the prosodic tier and long segments as having two X-slots as seen in (9a) with the Italian word [fat:o]. The CV-theory distinguished between vowels (V) and consonants (C) as representing different types of slots and the distinction of the number of slots is similar to X-theory; A short vowel or consonant are represented with one V or C slot respectively and their long counterparts have two slots as is obvious in (9b). Moraic theory on the other hand supposes that underlyingly geminates have one mora and singleton consonants have none (more on moraic theory on the below section) as is illustrated in (9c).

(9) Geminates in the three prosodic frameworks a. Gs in X theory b. Gs in CV theory c. Gs in moraic theory X X X X X C V C C V μ μ μ

f a tː o f a tː o f a tː o

3.1.2 Moraic theory

Moraic theory (Hyman 1985; Hayes 1989) is a framework covering syllable weight and the prevailing prosodic theory. Moraic theory assumes the existence of an abstract weight-bearing unit called ―mora‖ (μ). Moras may exist underlying in segments or be assigned to them in the SR based on their position. The two basic analyses of Hyman (1985) and Hayes (1989) differ in some concepts, since the first considered all segments on the melody tier to map underlyingly to a weight-unit (mora) on the prosodic tier (10a), while the latter claimed only nuclei and codas to bear moras (10b).

(10) Moraic models a. Hyman (1985) b. Hayes (1989) UR SR SR μ μ μ σ σ

C V C (μ) μ μ μ μ

C V C C V C

Hayes‘s model seems to have prevailed in phonological theories and the final idea about weightful segments is as follows: Short vowels and geminate consonants have one mora, long vowels have two and singleton consonants are weightless underlyingly. The mora can deem a syllable light if it has one and heavy if it has two. Namely, CV syllables are always light and CVV always heavy. CVC syllables are in some languages heavy and in others light: according to Hayes (1989) all coda consonants can become heavy in some languages with the application of weight-by-position. That is, a singleton consonant can be linked to a mora on the surface representation if it is in coda position. Onsets on the other hand are said to be non-moraic, yet Topintzi (2010) argues for the moraicity of onsets in some languages admitting that they are rare, but they nevertheless exist. This dissertation agrees with Topintzi (2010) about moraic onsets as it will be obvious in the discussion of Trukese, which allows moraic onsets.

3.1.3 Flopped structure and markedness

The next issue to deal with is how geminates are represented in moraic theory in terms of syllabification. That is, if one mora corresponds to a geminate, how does it split to two syllables when it is word-medial? Moreover, how is it distinguished with their singleton counterparts in languages where all codas are moraic? The answer to this questions lies within the ‗flopped‘ structure of word-medial geminates which allows a geminate to straddle the syllable boundary and belong to two syllables (Hayes 1989). This happens with a double-linking which assigns the mora of the geminate to the first part of the geminate which functions as coda of the preceding syllable and the second part of the geminate is directly linked to the higher syllable node of the following syllable taking up the onset positions as is shown in (11a). On the contrary a singleton

18 consonant that is rendered moraic by stress-by-position is linked only to the mora (11b), while a weightless singleton coda is directly associated to the syllable node (11c).

(11) Codas in moraic theory a. Word-medial Gs b. Moraic coda c. Non-moraic coda σ σ σ σ σ σ

μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ

C V Cː V C V C C V C V C C V

With this linking the mora is assigned to the coda (since onsets are almost always non- moraic) and the geminate-singleton length contrast becomes visible. What is more, it does not leave the following syllable onsetless, since cross-linguistically onsets are preferred over codas, but at the same time they cannot bear the mora. While the benefits of this structure are significant, in OT terms such a ‗flopped‘ linking creates a marked structure and this is also obvious from the fact that while singletons appear in all languages, geminates do not (Keer 1999). Since geminates are moraic segments underlyingly, their appearance in word- initial onsets should either delete the underlying mora violating prosodic faithfulness constraints in OT or maintaining the mora and violating the constraint that bans onsets from being moraic. While the first case does not create any problem for syllabification, the latter engenders another debate about geminates. Namely, if the geminate linking remains ‗flopped‘ and there is no previous syllable to attach the mora to, where is the mora linked to? Topintzi (2010) presents the moraic representations that are possible candidates for initial geminates (after Curtis 2003) and argues for the representation that directly assigns the mora to the geminate and the syllable. The representations are presented in (12). (12c) is the one that is argued by Topintzi and followed in this dissertation for the case of Trukese. This representation creates moraic onsets which contribute to the overall weight of the syllable. The other two representations create unsyllabified parts of geminates with double-linking.

(12) Initial geminates representations a. σ b. PrWd c. σ

μ μ σ μ μ

Cː V μ μ Cː V

Cː V

3.2 SL: Ban on two geminates within the same syllable

SL as commonly understood in the literature is a ban on geminates in adjacent syllables. Yet, the descriptions of the phenomenon include a ban on CCV(V)CC type with the consonant clusters being either both of them geminates or one of them a geminate. Here I will view SL as both consonant clusters being geminates as is commonly viewed. The interesting thing about the description of SL as a phenomenon that degeminates a segment in CCV(V)CC sequences is that after all it does not refer to two syllables, but to one. The exceptional linking of geminates as codas and onsets of different syllables allow them to be parts of two syllables. So, a CVCːVCːV sequence as shown in (13) demonstrates how the second syllable is connected to two geminates (and basically in that case all three syllables are connected to at least one geminate).

(13) CVGVGV moraic representation σ σ σ

μ μ μ μ μ

C V Cː V Cː V

SL then as it will be analyzed here reflects the prohibition of two geminates being linked to the same syllable. So, no both onset and coda with parts of geminates can belong to the same syllable. In the bigger picture, maybe the double linking of geminates, links also in a way syllables. So, maybe three linked syllables in a row are also part of the target of this ban. The ‗flopped‘ linking of geminates have been the most convenient way to represent geminates. It does indeed lead to correct analyses of a lot of 20 phenomena and it is probably how geminates are represented. Yet, it seems that this double-linking is the main accomplice for the appearance of SL. The syllable and its margins are the other partners in crime. Based on the syllable and geminates, SL is defined as follows in (14).

(14) Schneider‘s Law: the prohibition of both margins of a single syllable being occupied by parts of geminates

This definition captures the Inuktitut, Japanese and Dogrib data, while it can account for the Trukese data as well with a specification; Trukese allowing moraic onset geminates presents a different case of SL which concerns moraic margins. To briefly specify the Trukese variation, the ban on geminates is again in the syllable domain and it prohibits the co-occurrence of two geminates as part of syllable margins. Crucially, though, Trukese disallows the co-occurrence of the moraic parts of geminates within the same syllable, while it has no problem with them being in adjacent syllables if the one margin of the syllable does not have the moraic geminate part. The underlying moraicity of geminates and the acceptance of moraic onsets in Trukese create slightly different circumstances for the appearance of SL. Yet, since the main characteristics are the same I still classify Trukese as part of SL. Why a ban on geminates within the same syllable? Geminates are more marked than singleton consonants, as it is obvious from cross-linguistic evidence about the absence of the first from some languages and the presence of the latter universally (Maddieson 1984). That means that if a language has geminates, it entails that it also has singletons, but not the other way around (Ito, Kubozono and Mester 2017). According to Keer 1999 the flopped structure itself is a marked structure violating constraints like CRISPEDGEμ (Baker 1998) which demands an element dominated by a mora to be dominated only by the mora and SYLL-SEG, syllable to segment association, (Rosenthal 1994) which prohibits the association of a root node with a mora and a syllable node at the same time. Two geminates then in the same syllable add more points to the markedness of the syllable. Even codas themselves are cross-linguistically marked (Keer 1999). A coda being a marked position per se multiplied by the geminate along with a marked element on the onset is what creates the ‗disturbance‘ to their host syllable. So, these languages are sensitive to the markedness of their margins and dislike both of them being marked. The ‗supermarked‘ nature of these syllables due to their geminate margins affects the appearance of SL. 21

Another point to take into consideration is that SL is manifested in languages that prefer simple syllable margins and SL can be a process that expresses exactly this effort to keep margins as simple as possible. All four languages presented here do not allow complex consonant clusters either in onset or in coda position. A type of CODACONDITION is also present in all of them: Trukese, Japanese and Dogrib allow only geminates as word-medial codas and one specific consonant each as word-final coda (and word- medial in some of them); Inuttut on the other hand, while it does allow a few consonants other than geminates as codas, it has a high number of regressive assimilation restricting the allowed codas compared to the other dialects and favoring parts of geminates and affricates as codas. These similarities point to the syllable margins of these languages and demand them to be as simple as possible. This also shows how highly ranked are markedness constraints that concern syllable structure in these languages. It seems that SL is highly connected to the phonotactics of the language, or maybe a part of it. The disfavor of complex consonant clusters even between syllables suggests a need for a smooth transition from the coda of one syllable to the onset of the following. That is where geminates come in. Gemination is the result of processes like regressive assimilation that are employed in order to achieve an optimal syllable contact. So at least the issue of geminates can be also viewed from the point of view of the Syllable Contact Law (Vennemann 1988; Davis 1998). That is, an avoidance of rising sonority on syllable boundaries or of falling of consonantal strength on syllable boundaries (depending on the version). All four languages discussed in the present dissertation seem to be subject to this law (through CODACONDITION), yet not even that is enough. While geminates do offer a smooth transition, they are marked segments and a syllable cannot bear two of them without a problem. Concerning the underlying weight representation of geminates, at least for the languages that do have prosodic patterning (Trukese, Japanese and Dogrib), more factors can be at stake regarding geminates. Namely, the fact that word-medially the only codas allowed are geminates or one specific moraic segment indicates that moraic codas are preferred word-medially. On the other hand, singleton consonants which are not underlyingly moraic are avoided word-medially and allowed word-finally, a position at the prosodic word that is quite often in languages associated with extrametricality and non-finality (Prince and Smolensky 1993; Gordon, Jany, Nash and Takara 2010; Hyde 2011). If a preference on moraic codas exists and singleton consonants are avoided for this reason, it is likely that in OT terms the DEP-μ-IO constraint (Kager 1999) which demands the mora of the output to correspond to a mora 22 in the input is ranked higher than MAX-μ-ΙΟ that prohibits the deletion of input moras in the output. This opens up the possibility of a prohibition of moraic codas in adjacent syllables, but it cannot account for all the data. Aside from the Inuktitut problem with the lack of prosodic evidence in order to make that claim, Japanese has a moraic nasal coda that can appear in adjacent syllables with geminates. The case of Japanese, however, renders a complex issue with respect to mora count. Such a theory still does not cancel the dissertation‘s thesis, but it would be a factor adding to SL. Nevertheless, since it cannot account for the Inuktitut data at the present time in lack of prosodic evidence and in search for a unified account, I leave this topic for future research.

3.3 Data analysis

In the following subsections, the data discussed in chapter 2 will be analyzed based on the proposed theory. The data will be analyzed within the Optimality Theory (OT) framework (Prince and Smolensky 1993; McCarthy and Prince 1993: 1995). In brief, OT is even today the dominant phonological model which includes the evaluation of an input (usually the UR of the word) through constraints (instead of rules) that produces an output (that of the SR) which is the optimal in comparison to the other possible outputs.

3.3.1 Inuktitut: One syllable straddling both its syllable margins

Considering the discordance of writing systems for Inuktitut, this section analyzes data as presented in Rose, Pigott and Wharram (2012), since they are the most recently adopted versions of previous data and they conveniently summarize the basic problematics of SL in Inuktitut. Consonant clusters in Inuttut are one of those issues that are not unanimously agreed upon, while some consonants are considered geminates yet written as CC. I will avoid dealing with those cases that are not unanimously agreed upon. To my knowledge, there are no other OT analyses for Inuktitut, so I will attempt an analysis that will capture some of its basic phonotactics. While geminates are generally targeted in Inuktitut, consonant clusters also seem to be deleted as a consequence of SL. However, that is the result of regressive assimilation. The most recent analyses of SL (Dresher and Johns 1995; Rose, Pigott and Wharram 2012; Pigott 2012), accepted SL as a ban on two syllable-adjacent geminates based on Dresher and Johns‘ (1995) analysis of Inuttut consonant clusters. Namely, 23

Dresher and Johns claim that all consonant clusters in Inuttut are phonological geminates; either the segment is a geminate at the initial UR of the morpheme or it comes from the regressive assimilation of a consonant cluster. So basically, regressive assimilation is total in Inuttut. Those geminates that come from assimilation may undergo further phonological processes after the assimilation and thus they do not always surface as geminates. According to Dresher and Johns, SL occurs right after the assimilation of consonants and if it does not find any application the other phonological processes may take place. While there is no need to assume that there is a type of serialism followed in SL‘s process, regressive assimilation does indeed create the environment for SL to be a ban on geminates as we will see later on. The most challenging part of Inuktitut for the analysis is the fact that it seems to be unaffected by prosody. Namely, the syllable patterns are insensitive to weight and so heavy and light syllables may occur at any possible sequence. No standard pattern seems to occur regarding syllable-weight and stress patterns; stress varies from speaker to speaker (Pigott 2012). With no prosodic data, feet cannot be formed and while at glance it seems like a prosodic phenomenon, no such account can be supported. Two geminates never appear within the same morpheme in Inuktitut; SL is a process that appears because of the combination of different morphemes. Underlyingly two geminates may be linked to the same morpheme only after the combination of a morpheme that has a geminate with another morpheme that has an initial geminate or if the first geminated morpheme has a coda that is assimilated with the onset of the following syllable creating a geminate. Since a geminate re-assigns its structure and becomes shared between two syllables, two geminates can become parts of the same syllable. For example, the morphemes /illuk/ and /kkut/ when combined they should generate the word */illukkut/. The second syllable of the compound word would normally be linked to two different geminates, thus having two different ‗flopped‘ structures. At that point SL comes into play banning the linking to geminates in both syllable margins. The problematic segments are then the second part of the first geminate and the first part of the second geminate; the first being the onset and the latter the coda of the problematic syllable. Since onsets are cross-linguistically preferred and in Inuktitut they appear more frequently than codas, between the two the coda is the one to be deleted. The deletion of the first consonant of the consonant cluster is a process that is cross-linguistically attested. Namely, Wilson (2001: 148) defines this process as ―first consonant deletion‖ and applies to ―intervocalic biconsonantal clusters‖. In fact, the 24 same process is found in West Greenlandic, a closely-related to Inuktitut language –yet it does not have the extra requirement of deletion when another consonant cluster precedes it. Wilson proposes the NOWEAKCONSONANT constraint claiming that preconsonantal consonants are weaker than prevocalic since they are not released into a vowel. This constraint then deletes these ‗weak‘ consonants that are deficient in perceptual cues and this deletion creates more harmonic sequences. The exceptional thing about SL, however, is that it involves two consonant clusters in determining that a ‗weak‘ consonant is to be deleted. SL constraint for Inuttut is defined as a prohibition against both syllable margins being associated with a geminate (15).

(15) *TWOGEM(σ): A syllable should not be linked to geminates in both of its margins.

SL‘s constraint is highly ranked. The constraint can be seen as a case of double violation of the NOGEM constraint in the domain of the syllable. The next thing we need to determine is how the second consonant cluster is chosen over the first. First of all, I attribute the tendency to maintain some of the consonant clusters to MAX-root (McCarthy & Prince 1995), which demands that a root node in the input must appear in the output. What causes the deletion, however, of the consonants is a modified version of NOWEAKCONS. That is, since those consonant clusters (mostly geminates) that appear on nouns (which come first in the affixed words) never delete, the second consonant that deletes is more often than not at a morpheme boundary: so the constrain is modified to reflect that: NOWEAKCONS(morph).

Since geminates are a main target of SL, NOGEM which prohibits geminates seems also relevant. These constraints create the following tableau (16).

(16) Derivation of the winner of /illuk+kkut/ with SL

/illuk+kkut/ *TWOGEM(σ) MAX-root NOWEAKCONS(morph) NOGEM  a. il.lu.kut ** * b. il.luk.kut *! * ** c. i.lu.kut ***! d. i.luk.kut ** *! *

Now let‘s see how these constraints work for a word that SL cannot find application in; that is, in words which do not have consecutive consonant clusters. A constraint that is very important in shaping the optimal output, but irrelevant to SL is *Complex. Inuktitut does not allow more than two consonants in onset or coda position, so this is evidently a high-ranked constraint. Yet, it does not apply to the nucleus so a

(ONS, CODA) (ONS) specification is needed. I will use *COMPLEX , a combination of *COMPLEX (CODA) and *COMPLEX (Kager 1999) or NOCOMPLEXONSET and NOCOMPLEXCODA (Prince and Smolensky 1993).

(ONS, CODA) (17) * COMPLEX : *[σ CC, *CC ]σ (No complex onsets and codas)

Apart from the already discussed constraints one more constraint is needed in order to capture even more candidates. Namely, DEP-IO which blocks epenthesis and demands the correspondence of output segments to input segments (Kager 1999).

(18) An example of a word with no SL

/nunak + kkut/ *COMPLEX *TWOGEM DEP-IO MAX-root NOWEAKCONS (ONS, CODA) (σ) (morph)  a. nu.nak.kut * * b. nu.nak.kkut *! * c. nun.nak.kut *! * * d. nun.na.kut *! **! e. nu.na.kut **!

In tableau (18), the most faithful candidate (18b) is discarded due to the violation of (ONS, CODA) *COMPLEX . *TWOGEM(σ) violation bombs out the one that would include two geminates (18c). The candidate that both epenthesizes and deletes a geminate has two fatal violations of DEP-IO and MAX-root (18d). MAX-root also clears out the candidate with no geminates (18e). The actual output violates NOWEAKCONS (morph) and NOGEM, which are ranked low and hence is the optimal output. It is worth the time to also see an example of regressive assimilation in those cases in which there is no consonant deletion. The only constraint that needs to be added is CODACONDITION (Goldsmith 1990; Ito & Mester 1993; Prince and Smolesnky 1993) which prohibits codas to have their own place. Following the application of

CODACONDITION in Japanese, that is specified to include geminates and nasals

26 homorganic to the next consonant, similarly in Inuttut CODACONDITION allows as codas only parts of geminates or stops; Stops can be codas word-finally without any change, but word-medially they must be homorganic with the following consonant, thus creating affricates. Another point to make is that regressive assimilation in Inuttut does not create the fricative geminates *[vv], *[ss], *[xx], *[χχ], *[ll] and *[łł], but rather the geminate [ff], the affricates [ts], [kx], [qχ], [tl] and [tł] (Dresher and Johns 1995; Pigott

2012). That means that another necessary constraint is NOGEM(VoiceObtr) and

NOGEM(VoicelessSpirant) which prohibits voiced obstruent and voiceless spirant geminates (Dresher and Johns 1995) respectively. In the following tableaux, regressive assimilation and affrication are observed as results of CODACONDITION.

(19) Coda condition in Inuttut

/ kiŋuk+vak/ CODACOND NOGEM(Voi *TWOGEM DEP-IO MAX- NOWEAK ITION ceObtr) (σ) root CONS

(morph)  a. ki.ŋuf.fak * b. ki.ŋuk.vak *! * c. kiŋ.ŋuk.vak *! * * d. ki.ŋuv.vak *! * e. kiŋ.ŋuf.fak *! * * f. ki.ŋu.vak *!

(20) Affricates as the result of CODACONDITION

/mumik+siutik / CODACON NOGEM(Vo *TWOGEM DEP-IO MAX- NOWEAK DITION icelessSpirant) (σ) root CONS

(morph)  a. mu.mi.tsiu.tik

b. mu.mik.siu.tik *! * c. mu.mis.siu.tik *! * d. mu.mi.siu.tik *!

Now, let‘s move on to a case that SL seems to delete a CC. For example, the word /iŋŋak-tuk/ surfaces as [iŋŋatuk]. While the word appears to have a CC between its morpheme boundaries, this CC is not accepted in the language since it violates

CODACONDITION. Normally, the language solves this type of violation through regressive

27 assimilation, which in this case would be a candidate like *[iŋŋattuk]. However, this candidate violates SL and this leaves us with an optimal output that of [iŋŋatuk]. In the following tableau, we see how SL is actually involved in the deletion of a CC.

(21) SL and seemingly deletion of CC

/iŋŋak-tuk/ CODACON *TWOGEM DEP-IO MAX- NOWEAKCONS DITION (σ) root (morph)  a. iŋ.ŋa.tuk * b. iŋ.ŋak.tuk *! * c. iŋ.ŋat.tuk *! * d. i.ŋat.tuk * *!

One last thing is needed now in order to close the section of Inuttut analysis. Namely, some consonant clusters appear to be complex rather than geminates in the SR. For example, words like |iqχa-qχaavuk| that undergo consonant deletion and become [iqχaχaavuk]. According to Dresher and Johns (1995), these CCs are underlying geminates. That is, the only CCs that appear in SR apart from geminates are affricates. We saw above how affricates can be the result of morpheme combination since some types of geminates are banned in Inuttut. The reverse can also apply here; underlying geminates that are banned in the language appear as affricates. That means that the underlying representation of |iqχa-qχavuk| is actually /iχχa-χχavuk/ and since this geminates are banned they surface as affricates. With all the constraints mentioned throughout this sub-section, the proposed constraint ranking of Inuttut is finalized in (22) below.

(22) *COMPLEX>> CODACONDITION>> NOGEM(VoiceObtr), NOGEM(VoicelessSpirant)>>

*TWOGEM(σ)>> MAX-root, DEP-IO>> NOWEAKCONS(morph)>> NOGEM

This ranking and the assumption of underlying geminates create the following tableaux for the most cited Inuttut words in (23).

(23) Underlying geminates part of SL

/nanuk+ŋŋuak+χχaː+lluni/ *COMPLE NOGEM(Voic *TWO MAX- NOWEAKCONS X elessSpirant) GEM(σ) root (morph) a. [na.nuŋ.ŋua.χaːl.lu.ni] *** ** b. [na.nuk.ŋŋuak.χχaːl.luni] **! * ** *** c. [na.nuŋ.ŋuaχ.χaːl.lu.ni] * *! ** d. [na.nu.ŋuaχ.χaː.lu.ni] * ****! *

/tuttuk+ŋŋuak+χχaː+llu.ni/ *COMPLE NOGEM(V *TWO MAX- NOWEAKCONS X oicelessSpirant GEM(σ) root (morph)

) a. [tut.tu.ŋuak.χaː.lu.ni] **** * b. [tut.tuk.ŋŋuak.χχaːl.lu.ni] **! * *** *** c. [tut.tu.ŋuaχ.χaː.lu.ni] *! ****

d. [tu.tu.ŋua.χaː.lu.ni] ******! e. [tu.tuŋ.ŋua.χaːl.lu.ni] **** **!

3.3.2 Trukese: moraic margins

The ban on syllable-adjacent geminates for Trukese occurs under quite special circumstances, since it seems to occur in those words that include a moraic onset geminate along with a word medial-geminate. Trukese presents a rare case in which geminates can be both moraic onsets and moraic codas with ‗flopped‘ structure word medially. That means that in the underlying representation of a word that begins with a geminate and the same initial syllable is closed by a geminate both margins of the syllable are moraic, as in (14).

(24) Moraic representation of the underlying word /ppeppa/ σ σ

μ μ μ μ

pː e pː a

The first syllable of the word in (24) is a trimoraic syllable and come to think only about that it should be unproblematic, since trimoraic syllables are generally allowed in Trukese. For example, all words in (25) are trimoraic since the geminate has one mora and the long vowels add two more moras (remember that non-geminate codas occur only at the end of the word and are non-moraic).

(25) Trukese trimoraic syllables (Davis 2017) UR gloss /n/ relational suffix a. /ttoo/ clam sp. [ttoo-n] b. /kkææ/ taro sp. [kkææ-n] c. /ččaa/ blood [ččaa-n]

Yet, such a word as that in (24) never gets to surface per se; only one of the two geminates appears. In the URs of (4) all the words begin with two geminates (for argumentation of the UR see Topintzi (2010)). The unsuffixed forms of Trukese delete the final mora of the word and since Trukese does not allow final geminates, degemination occurs. However, in the suffixed form where the second geminate can and does appear, the first geminate does not surface.

Topintzi (2010) notes that two geminates can occur together in Trukese, but assumes that this happens only between morpheme boundaries. She cites the word ‗kučču-ŋŋaw‘ from Muller (1999) which combines two morphemes and means ‗to fit badly‘. Assuming that the first geminate is a medial geminate, since it appears in the middle of the morpheme, its moraic representation is ‗flopped‘ and the mora is syllabified to the first syllable of the word. Then the second geminate, whether it remains an initial geminate or it is syllabified as a moraic coda and an onset, it gives its mora either to the second or the third syllable of the compound word. That means that in either case we never have two moraic edges within the same syllable, thus no violation of SL. 30

The fact that no other types of codas are allowed word medially and that the allowed codas are non-moraic nevertheless renders geminates as the only segments capable of creating such a situation in Trukese. The exceptional case of them being moraic onsets is another factor for this result. Still there is a preference for moraic codas over moraic onsets, even within this situation. When in question of which of the two gets to appear (provided that no other constraint eliminates one of the two), the moraic coda is preferred, even if its ‗flopped‘ linking violates representational constraints of the mora. The ban on two geminates within the same syllable applies here, too, yet it becomes more specific, since it focuses more on the moras of the geminates than their markedness. Regarding the rarity of moraic onsets across languages (Topintzi 2010), such an observation is clearly not easily found elsewhere. However, that such a type of SL exists could be a good reason why languages do not allow moraic onsets in the first place. Since codas are mostly favored as moraic, if there exists across languages a high constraint that prohibits two moraic onsets within the same syllable, then languages prefer onsets to be weightless in order to allow codas to be moraic.

(26) MORAICCODA>> MORAICONSET

Moving on to the OT analysis, what I suggest for Trukese is that SL manifests itself as a ban on two moraic margins within the same syllable. The formulation for Trukese geminates constraint is one that renders violable those syllables that have both of their margins associated with a μ. With that in mind, I propose a constraint based on Prince and Smolensky‘s (1993) ‗DON‘T-ASSOCIATE‘ constraints which prohibit various associations and have been used for syllable margins with the type *M/…. Based on this group of constraints, the case of SL in Trukese needs to be specified and it is formalized in the following constraint (27).

(27) *2M(σ)/μ : No two moraic margins within the same syllable

Topintzi (2010) has already made a convincing OT analysis for Trukese, so I will replicate the constraint ranking and simply change the OCPGEM constraint with the proposed SL constraint. The relevant constraints as analyzed in Topintzi include only four constraints and their ranking yields the correct output. NOCODA is ranked lower than *MORAICONSET pointing to the correct direction of the degeminated margin. Higher 31 of the previous two is the IDENT-LINK-μ which allows the moraic onsets to appear in the first place and is defined in (28).

(28) IDENT-LINK-μ: ―Corresponding mora-segment associations between input and output must be that same‖ (Topintzi 2010: 182)

All these are dominated in the ranking hierarchy by *2M(σ)/μ of SL. Now these constraints point to the desired output in the tableau in (29). Candidate (29b) does not violate the high-ranking constraint IDENT-LINK-μ, which would render it the winner if SL did not operate. Yet *2M(σ)/μ is active and since candidate (29b) has two moraic margins in one syllable, it is ruled out. Candidates (29c) and (29d) violate both IDENT-

LINK-μ and *MORAICONSET, which are higher ranked than NOCODA which is violated by the winner (29a).

(29) SL acting in the suffixed form of the word /ppeppa+n/ (replication of the tableau in Topintzi 2010: 184)

/ppeppa+n/ *2M(σ)/μ IDENT-LINK-μ *MORAIC ONSET NOCODA  a. pep.pan * * b. ppep.pan *! * * c. pe.ppan * *! d. ppe.pan * *!

For the word ‗kučču-ŋŋaw‘ both syllabifications of the second geminate are possible. That is, there might be an intervening constraint that demands the mora to remain in the same morpheme, thus maintaining the moraic onset in the compound word *[kuč.ču.ŋŋaw]. In lack of further evidence, however, I will assume that the correct representation is the one that re-syllabifies the moraic onset of the second morpheme to a moraic coda of the first morpheme which matches the present constraint ranking [kuč.čuŋ.ŋaw]. I remind that either way SL is not violated and both geminates can appear without problem as is seen in (30).

(30) SL inactive in kučču-ŋŋaw

/kučču+ŋŋaw/ *2M(σ)/μ IDENT-LINK-μ *MORAIC ONSET NOCODA  a. kuč.čuŋ.ŋaw ** b. kuč.ču.ŋŋaw !* * c. kučču.ŋaw !* * d. ku.čuŋ.ŋaw !* *

3.3.3 Japanese: two geminates one syllable

Traditionally we view geminates as one segment in the melody tier that ‗splits up‘ to two syllables. Here however we see how because two geminates can belong to two syllables at a time, two different syllable-adjacent geminates can belong to one syllable. To remember the Japanese phonotactics relevant to loanwords I will mention some high-ranked constraints that affect the adaptation, but that will not be included in the present analysis since they are not important for SL. To begin with, the English source words that include complex onsets and codas are adapted in the Japanese loanwords with epenthetic vowels between the complex clusters since Japanese allows only one consonant in each syllable margin. That means that a high ranked constraint in

(ONS, CODA) the language is *COMPLEX (see (17)), so a coda composed of two consonants like that in the word ‗pops‘ cannot be transferred per se in Japanese. An equally important constraint is that of CODACOND (Goldsmith 1990; Ito & Mester 1993), which for Japanese translates as a ban on any coda that is not part of a geminate or a moraic nasal (Ito and Mester 2015; Ito, Kubozono and Mester 2017). LOANWORDCORRESPONDENE (Tsuchida 1995) notes that all segments of the source word are maintained in the output.

Since CODACOND does not allow a word to end with a non-nasal singleton consonant, but

LOANWORDCORRESPONDENE demands all segments to be kept, Japanese employs compensatory mechanisms that will account for both constraints. For example, the consonant clusters of the source word are maintained by employing epenthetic vowels and when they are codas in the source word they are geminated in order to maintain the coda status of the consonant. Moving on to the relevant to SL constraints, Japanese native lexicon does not have as many geminates as the Foreign does. Following Ito, Kubozono and Mester‘s

(2017) analysis based on prosody, NOGEM is a not so high-ranked constraint in the

Foreign lexicon, yet sometimes it gets to determine the winner. FAITHCODA (Ito, Kubozono and Mester 2017) –maintain a coda in the source word as a coda in the 33 loanword– and the more specific FAITHCODA/_]WD –specification for the word-final coda of the source word– dominate NOGEM and as a result more often than not geminates are not only allowed but also the optimal output. NONFINALITY-XFT‘ (Ito, Kubozono and Mester 2017) shows a disfavor of final head feet in prosodic words (with the exception of minimal words): e.g. (po‘te)to ‗potato‘ and not *po(te‘to). Similarly, INITFT demands a prosodic word to begin with a foot, for example (mas)(saa)dʒi ‗massage‘ is preferred over *ma(saa)dʒi. HEADDEP prefers output prosodic heads to correspond to input segments, that means that accented epenthetic vowels have a violation of this constraint. The highest ranked of all the previous constraints is that of SL, which here I translate as

*TWOGEM(σ), no two geminates part of the same syllable. This constraint replaces Ito,

Kubozono and Mester‘s (2017) OCP-GEM and Tsuchida‘s *TWOGEMINATES (no more than one geminate in a word). The ranking related to SL is as follows:

(31) *TWOGEM(σ), HEADDEP>> FAITHCODA/_]WD>> INITFT >> NOGEM

This ranking creates the following tableau (32), for words like those in (6e-g).

(32) Derivation of the winner [poketto] (after Ito, Kubozono and Mester 2017)

‗pocket‘ *TWOGEM(σ) FAITHCODA/_]WD INITFT NOGEM a. po(keˊt)to * * b. (pok)(keˊt)to *! ** c. (poˊke)to *! d. (poˊk)(keto) *! *

While the candidates *[poketo] and *[pokketo] violate the crucial constraint

FAITHCODA/_]WD, *[pokketto] is eliminated by SL and the constraint *TWOGEM(σ) which dominates the other constraints. The syllable that contains parts of two geminates *[pokketto] is an extremely marked syllable for the Japanese Foreign lexicon and that is why it is outperformed by [poketto]. On the other hand words that contain two geminates like those in 6(a-d) can be explained with more or less the same constraints. For those words Tsuchida (1995) assumes that there are two geminates, because there are two stems in the source word. While indeed these words have two stems in the source word, it is unclear how the 34 stems implicate the adaptation in Japanese. These words can have two geminates since they do not violate SL. The most interesting case is that of [pikkɯappɯ], which prefers to be faithful to the coda status of the [k] consonant and the onsetless syllable of the source word. In order for that to happen it uses an epenthetic vowel <ɯ> and creates two syllables –since a syllabification like *[pik.kɯap.pɯ] would create a trimoraic syllable which is prohibited in Japanese. Since the two geminates are not in the same syllable SL does not apply. Some more constraints are needed here. Namely, since trimoraic syllables are not allowed, the constraint *3μ (Kager 1999) that prohibits them is relevant. Another constraint that is generally important is ONSET (Prince and Smolensky 1993) which demands syllables to have onsets word-medially. While in general it seems to be a high ranked constraint, here it either is not so high-ranked or it needs a clarification as to the allowance of onsetless syllables at the beginning of a stem (and that justifies Tsuchida‘s intuition for the stems). However, here for simplicity I assume that ONSET is lower than other more crucial constraints, but it can be assumed to be a modified for stems version.

(33) Tableau for the loanword [pik.kɯ.ap.pɯ]

‗pickup‘ /ˈpɪk.ʌp/ *3μ *TWOGEM FAITHCODA/ FAITHCOD ONSET INITFT A (σ) _]WD a. pik.kɯ.ap.pɯ * b. pik.kɯap.pɯ !* * c. pik.kap.pɯ !* d. pi.ka.pɯ !* * e. pi.kap.pɯ !* *

SL is even more prominent in the adaptation of the Italian word [zukkotto] which becomes [zukotto] in Japanese. The two languages have similar syllable structures and phonetic inventory (Morimoto 2015). In the Italian [zukkotto], all phonemes exist in Japanese and the syllable structure does not violate important Japanese constraints like

(ONS, CODA) *COMPLEX or CODACOND that are violated by the English words. Geminates are generally allowed in this position and there is no restriction for the phoneme [k] to be geminated (e.g. [takkuru] from the English ‗tackle‘). The word could supposedly be adapted as it is in Japanese. Nevertheless, that is not the case, apparently because SL does not apply in Italian, while it does apply in Japanese.

(34) Moraic analysis of [zukkotto] a. Italian [zukkotto] –source σ σ σ

μ μ μ μ μ

z u k o t o

b. Japanese [zukotto] –loanword σ σ σ

μ  μ μ μ

z u k o t o

Morimoto (2015) analyzes this word with stress-related constraints. What rules out the last two candidates in (35) for Morimoto is the unfaithfulness in preserving the weight of the stressed syllable of the source word [zuk.'kot.to]. While that can also be a factor, the analysis of SL in loanwords from English can equally apply here.

(35) Tableau for /zuk.kot.to/

/zuk.kot.to/ *TWOGEM(σ) FAITHCODA/_]WD FAITHCODA INITFT NOGEM  a. zu.kot.to * * * b. zuk.kot.to *! ** c. zuk.ko.to *! * d. zu.ko.to *! *

Similarly, the Italian words pannakótta and aɲɲolótti do not pose any problem for SL and are adopted as pannakótta and annyorótti. Again, with the same constraints there can be obtained the correct output, as is seen in (36).

(36) Tableau for /pannakótta/

/pannakótta/ *TWOGEM(σ) FAITHCODA/_]WD FAITHCODA INITFT NOGEM  a. pan.na.kót.ta ** b. pan.na.kó.ta *! * c. pa.na.kó.ta *! * * d. pa.na.kót.ta !* * *

3.3.4 Dogrib: two geminates one syllable

The case of SL in Dogrib is similar to that of Japanese. Namely, SL refers to the prohibition of parts of two geminates in the same syllable. Since that is already discussed in the previous sub-sections, in the remaining of this section I will briefly present Jaker‘s (2010: 2012) analysis on Dogrib related to SL replacing the related to the discussed phenomenon constraint –I will exclude those constraints that are low ranked and do not have a say in the optimal output. Geminate data on Dogrib are discussed only by Jaker, since he is the first to fully acknowledge their phonological presence in the language. Jaker (2012) suggests the Prosodic Reversal Hypothesis which claims that words follow three stages in prosody. The Inner Stem Level (Level 2) and the Outer Stem Level (Level 3) have left-to-right iambic patterns, while the Word Level (Level 4) forms right-to-left trochees. A foot must not have contour tones. That is, two light syllables that compose a foot are of either (High-High) or (Low-Low) tone and the first of the two syllables is stressed, while the same restriction applies to heavy syllables –both CVV and CVC are heavy (Jaker 2010). High tones attract stress and part of the phenomena that include consonant gemination are in order to create a foot with a heavy syllable in the syllable that has the high tone. This requirement is captured by the constraint Tone-to-Stress Principle (TSP) defined in (37) below.

(37) Tone-to-Stress Principle (TSP): High toned syllables must have level-1 gridmarks. (Jaker 2012: 674)

The lower ranked constraint that can, nevertheless, exclude a candidate that connects to

SL is PARSE(σ) which demands every syllable to be dominated by a foot. Then, FTBIN-

MIN(μ) prohibits a foot from consisting of only one mora, that is, a degenerate foot. The highest ranked constraint is that of SL, *TWOGEM(σ). The ranking is as follows: 37

(38) *TWOGEM(σ) >> TSP >> FTBIN-MIN(μ) >> PARSE(σ)

This ranking predicts the correct winner for the word /k‘è-né.dì/ in (39) below.

(39) Analysis of /k‘è-né.dì/ after Jaker (2012)

/k‘è-né.dì/ *TWOGEM(σ) FTBIN-MIN(μ) TSP PARSE(σ)

 a. k‘è.('néd).dì **

b. (ˌk‘èn).('néd).dì !* *

c. k‘è.('né).dì !* **

d. (ˌk‘èn).('né).dì !* *

e. ('k‘è.né).dì !* *

What is interesting here is that SL, rules out an otherwise perfectly suitable candidate like that in (39d) which has two qualified feet and the primary stress can be attracted by the high tone. Yet, since this form includes a syllable with parts of two geminates in its margins, (ˌk‘èn).('néd).dì, thus violating SL, it is not accepted. The words in (8) are analyzed similarly.

(8) SL in Dogrib (Jaker 2012) UR gloss SR

a. /k‘è-né.dì/ ‗you drive‘ (IMP) [k‘è.('néd).dì] *[(ˌk‘èn).('ned).dì]

b. /á-né.t‘é/ ‗you (sg.) are‘ (IMP) [('á.né).t‘é] *[(ˌán).('nét).t‘é]

c. /nà-gé.dè/ ‗they live‘ (IMP) [nà.('géd).dè] *[(ˌnàg).('géd).dè]

CHAPTER 4 DISCUSSION

4.0 Introduction

Chapter three established SL as a phenomenon that manifests in a single syllable and that it is entirely concerned with geminates. This section discusses various issues that stem from the previous chapters. Namely, geminates which are the central issue analyzed here are viewed through their phonological representation examining the possible implication that SL might cause them (§4.1). Then the reservation for the alternative analysis of SL being an OCP effect that is given in the literature for the three out of the four languages is explained (§4.2). Inuktitut is the language that has received the most analysis for SL thus demanding special attention. §4.3 comments on the analyses that are found in the literature for SL and it also considers other possible explanations. §4.4 discusses the outcomes of the dissertation with its advantages and disadvantages.

4.1 Implications for geminates

In the previous section it was mentioned that geminates in moraic theory are underlyingly moraic –a view also adopted in this dissertation. However, SL is a phenomenon that can delete even underlying geminates in order to satisfy its constraint. If geminates were underlyingly moraic should not the mora be retained in some way as it happens in compensatory lengthening that the mora of a geminate (or any other segment as a matter of fact) is transferred to another segment (Hayes 1989)? Does it provide evidence in favor of segmental length analysis (Ringen and Vago 2011) that argue for the underlying length of geminates and against the underlying moraicity? Or to put it simply does SL pose a problem for moraic theory? To answer simply, SL does not form any counterargument for the underlying weight representation of geminates. To elaborate, firstly all three languages that 39 manifest prosodic characteristics assign moras to geminates and Inuktitut that does not offer prosodic cues does not show any evidence against geminates being moraic. Moreover, the case of Trukese shows that geminates (even initials) are moraic, while singletons are not. Even the analysis of SL in Trukese presents a ban on two moraic margins which apparently is above the faithfulness constraint to not delete moras of the input in the output. Come to think about it in the OT framework, it just happens that one constraint is higher than the other; that does not mean that the mora is not there underlyingly. It is not like the case of compensatory lengthening since in languages that employ this process the constraint ranking is probably quite different than those presented here. After all, just because geminates are underlyingly moraic that does not mean that their mora should always surface (Davis 2011). Topintzi and Zimmermann (2014; under review) attempting to capture exactly this statement propose that Containment theory can account for all the manifestations of geminates with and without moras on the SR without disrupting their underlying moraicity. Namely, Containment (Prince and Smolensky 1993) assumes that all elements in the input are contained in the output; that means that all phonological elements are always there, but if they are not associated with the highest prosodic node they do not get to be phonetically visible in the output. That is, geminates always have an association line with a mora, yet the phonetic visible association line may not be linked to the mora but directly to the syllable tier from the timing tier (Topintzi and Zimmermann). For example in (40) below, the solid lines represent underlying associations and the dotted lines represent epenthetic associations. In order for the geminate to be weightful in the SR the dotted line must connect its mora with the syllable node. If the epenthetic line directly associates the segment with the syllable node, the segment appears as weightless in the SR. The underlying association is still there, but it is not phonetically visible anymore.

(40) Geminates in containment theory (Topintzi and Zimmerman under review) a. Weightful geminate in the SR b. Weightless geminate in the SR σ σ σ σ

μ μ μ μ μ μ

V C V V C V 40

Another issue to consider is the part of the geminate that is syllabified as an onset. Namely, why does it not bear any part of the mora? Considering the Trukese case in which the prohibition of SL is very specific concerning two moraic margins, is there any case that this is an implication in the other languages as well? It is worth considering that part of the reason of the ban on two geminates within the same syllable includes the fact that geminates are moraic segments. That is, despite the syllabification the syllable may still see geminates, even if they are onsets, as moraic segments and since codas are indisputably moraic, syllables do not accept both of their margins having any kind of association with moras (similarly to Trukese). Another point for future research then includes the geminate onset part and the possibility that some moraic ‗trace‘ is there constantly.

4. 2 The problem with SL as an OCP effect

What this dissertation claims to be a ban concerning moraic margins, various authors have claimed it to be an OCP effect. Although this has been also mentioned in various parts in section 2, I will mention the basic claims about OCP here collectively. For Trukese, Davis and Torretta (1998), Muller (1999) and compromisingly Topintzi (2010) use the constraint OCP GEM (morpheme) assuming that the root of SL is a prohibition of more than one geminate appearing in a morpheme. For Japanese, Ito, Kubozono and

Mester (2017) propose the constraint OCP-GEM that reflects a ban on geminates in adjacent syllables. For Inuktitut and for Dogrib, Dresher & Johns (1995), Pigott (2012), Rose, Pigott & Wharram (2012) and Jaker (2012) define SL exactly how Ito, Kubozono and Mester define OCP-GEM. Obligatory Contour Principle or OCP was originally proposed by Leben (1973) after his observation that in Mende same-tone sequences do not appear, but only contour sequences. This idea was later taken up and extended to features. The most cited definition of OCP is that of McCarthy (1986: 208) which states that ―at the melodic level, adjacent identical elements are prohibited‖. OCP has been used for various features and segments and has been claimed to block and trigger rules (Yip 1988). For example, Japanese devoicing within words have been attributed to OCP prohibiting multiple [+voiced] segments within a word (Kawahara 2011). The most obvious problem with OCP as the answer to SL is that SL does not refer to elements of the melodic level. That is, no tone or specific feature is involved in 41 geminates. SL deals with the skeletal and mora tier instead. For example, in Trukese SL is triggered by the moras of the margins regardless of the segments in the melodic tier. As Topintzi (2010: 184) pertinently notes OCP does not traditionally refer to ―abstract notions such as weight‖. Moreover, in Inuktitut SL may be triggered by any consonant combination as long as it happens to be within a consonant cluster that follows another consonant cluster. Besides, geminates are represented by one long segment in the melodic tier, if the feature that is supposed to trigger OCP is [+long] (as geminates were defined by Chomsky and Halle (1968) before the realization that this is not the case), then this feature should trigger OCP for long vowels, too. That means that words like [čuučuu-y] ‗urine‘ or [roonaak] ‗row lock‘ (Davis 2017) would never surface in Trukese.

4.3 Alternative analyses for Inuktitut

4.3.1 Analyses discussed in other works

Various analyses have been proposed for SL and disputed by later work. As mentioned before, SL as a rule deleting codas was rejected on the grounds of absence of deletion when there is a word-final coda. Metrical approaches pose the problem of syllable weight not being affected by the presence of long vowels (argued also in Dresher and Johns (1995) and Pigott (2012)), which means that there is no ban on heavy syllables. Stress is also unrelated since it is almost completely based on the speaker and not on phonological rule (Pigott 2012), a fact that rules out consonant gradation which is based on stress and is found on other Inuit dialects. Massenet (1986) offers the first formal analysis of SL and as discussed in section 1.2 it involves the notion of tension. While his argument has been rejected by Dresher and Johns (1995) and Rose, Pigott and Wharram (2012), it is not contradictory to this dissertation‘s thesis. Namely, Massenet acknowledges that the source of SL is on the syllable margins. Their relationship causes the deletion of the coda. It may as well be true that the existence of codas before tense onsets is something that the language dislikes triggering the phonological constraint of SL. While Massenet‘s account is based on phonetics (a reason for Rose, Pigott and Wharram (2012) to reject his theory), there is no reason to be assumed as an argument against a phonological account. On the contrary, it can be seen as a peripheral argumentation supporting the phonological theory. SL can in fact be the result of phonetics-phonology interplay. 42

Dresher and Johns (1995) while they provide a lot of evidence for regressive assimilation their analysis of Syllable Government is hasty. While it does account for the data, it mostly looks like another description. They do not provide sufficient theoretical background information to substantiate their theory. Rose, Pigott and Wharram also reject it disagreeing with the principles of Government Phonology. Rose, Pigott and Wharram (2012) also lack in analysis, since for example they provide some OT constraint ranking, but they never analyze their data within it. It is also questionable the grounds of syllable prominence. Why is it that only the coda is taken into consideration for syllable prominence? Moreover, since Pigott (2012) claims no particular patterns on stress, duration, pitch or intonation, while Rose, Pigott and Wharram discard moras, on what part of prosody is their analysis based on?

4.3.2 Alternative considerations not discussed in other papers

The lack of prosodic effects in Inuktitut is the reason why moraic approaches are usually abandoned. Nevertheless, the analysis of SL could be part of moraic theory. Not in the traditional sense with codas contributing to the weight of the syllable, but as moras of codas being prohibited in consecutive syllables. It is quite obvious that SL is oblivious to the overall weight of the syllable when it comes in deleting a coda consonant –an observation used against metrical theories of SL since it is blind to vowel length (Dresher and Johns 1995). However, the phenomenon primarily describes an alternation of closed and open syllables. It could be assumed that Inuktitut bans sequences of moraic codas –this also captures the initial intuition that assumed SL to be a ban on CVC sequences (Rischel 1974). The basic observation against the initial ban on CVC sequences was that word-final codas do not get deleted when they follow closed syllables (Smith 1975). If a ban on sequences of moraic codas was assumed, it could be claimed that word-final codas are non-moraic or extraprosodic as it happens in many languages (Gordon, Jany, Nash & Takara 2010; Hyde 2011). For the remaining codas the assumption would be that they are either geminates, thus moraic, or weight- by-position applies and they acquire a mora. For example, a word like /tuttu(k)-ŋŋua(k)- kχaː+llu.ni/ would demand coda deletion, since there would be four consecutive moraic codas and the language would not like such sequences. While such a theory could account for all the data, it cannot be firmly supported by data from the Inuktitut language. That is, there is no stress-pattern that can allow the forming of prosodic feet in order to render the word-final syllable extraprosodic. 43

Moreover, considering the fact that a moraic coda does not affect the overall weight of the syllable and it does not create weight alternations of syllables, it is unclear as to why this happens. Yet, if we were open to widening the moraic scope, such a theory could possibly make some sense of the data. Further research is needed as to the syllable weight of Inuktitut. In correspondence theory, harmony of consonants explains various processes that lead to assimilation of consonants. Similarly, Bennett (2015) discusses how harmony can cause dissimilation of consonants. The dissimilation includes consonants that encircle a vowel; that is, syllable margins. Bennett (2015: 1) uses the term ‗dissimilation‘ ―to refer to situations where surface consonants obligatorily disagree in some respect‖. This can act as a driving force of consonant change or deletion in our case of cluster simplification and degemination. While there are a lot of constituents of this theory that resemble SL, on the same ground of an OCP effect it is unclear how geminates could be claimed to participate in that process. Throughout Bennett‘s analysis the criteria for harmony are based on the features of the consonants. Can we base a theory about geminates on them having common features? Another point that needs further investigation in Inuktitut is geminate onsets in morphemes. To elaborate, a lot of morphemes in Inuktitut have geminate onsets, which of course never appear as onsets, partly because the morphemes in which they appear in are not free morphemes and partly (and crucially) because Inuktitut does not allow complex onsets. The only place that a geminate onset can and does appear in is when it becomes word-medial with its attachment to another morpheme. For example, the bound morpheme -ŋŋuak can be realized with its geminate only if the geminate becomes a coda of the preceding morpheme-syllable like in [nanuŋŋuakχaːlluni] (and of course provided that no other CC precedes it). Yet, what does that mean for Inuktitut? How did these morphemes end up with initial geminates? Does the re-assignment of the mora to the previous syllable and thus another morpheme affect SL? These questions are connected to the need for further research for Inuktitut syllable weight. Regarding the confusing data on metricality as provided in Pigott (2012) and the recent appearance of SL, it is likely that the language moves towards a slow shift to metricality. That is, the lack of metricality and the different prosodic patterns potentially have triggered SL as a compensatory mechanism to establish some sort of metricality. This process may need some time to settle and be agreed upon by all the speakers of the language. So, similar to Rose, Pigott and Wharram‘s (2012) intuition that at some point

44 there was some kind of metrical system in the language, the exact opposite could be true; the language could be changing from non-metricality to metricality. It could also be related to a ban of morphophonology with a constraint like ‗one geminate per morpheme‘, since morphemes of the data appear always with one geminate. For example, the morphemes |illuk| and |kkut| have one geminate each, but when they fuse into one word, the geminate of the second morpheme becomes part of the first morpheme which already has a geminate. This combination never allows both geminates to survive since that would lead the first morpheme to end up having two geminates. Pigott (2012) also notes the alternations of the affix that denotes third singular person for negation, [ŋŋituk] and [ŋittuk], which resembles the Trukese surface alternations of underlying words that include two geminates. However, Inuktitut morphemes appear in the data to be of no more than two syllables, something that makes it hard to support conclusions including morphemes. We would need an at least three-syllable morpheme with a geminate to see if its combination with another word that would create a geminate is also prohibited.

4.4 This dissertation

The basic advantage of this dissertation is that it attests SL cross-linguistically. That is, it suggests the application of the law in four different languages assuming that it has more or less the same application. Another point is that it is the only paper that provides an OT analysis for SL in Inuktitut, while it moves away from the rule-based accounts that dominate Inuktitut literature. Moreover, by reducing the problem to the smaller possible constituent can make more precise predictions. Namely, instead of assuming an interaction between syllables, the problem is contained in only one syllable. The dissertation also takes into consideration the phonological debate about geminates aiming at a more complete analysis of the constituents included and not dismissing an important aspect of geminates. Generally, this dissertation adds to the discussion about geminates, while it points to the need of further analysis of syllable margins. The analysis of Trukese as manifesting a ban on moraic margins may actually provide a more fruitful discussion in the future including the nature of moraic margins. That is to say, if moraic margins allow only one of them or none of them to carry a mora, either onset or coda, and we know that cross-linguistically the weight is normally assigned to codas when it comes to margins, it can actually say a lot about the common non- moraicity of onsets. 45

One of the main weaknesses is the fact that throughout the dissertation more questions are addressed than those that are actually answered. An important question that this dissertation never attempts to answer is SL in Siglitun; while I assume that SL has the same definition in Siglitun (e.g. the surface consonant clusters that seem to also intervene in degemination might be underlying geminates) since it includes only degemination and not complex cluster reduction, the lack of a decent amount of data restrains such an attempt of analysis. It is also important to acknowledge that the theoretical foundations of the thesis are not solid when it comes to syllable margins. While the solution is directed towards syllable margins and markedness, more alternatives are given, which is likely confusing; yet I could not dismiss the fact that there might be more factors at stake. A recurrent thing in this dissertation is relevant once more; there is room for more research here.

CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSION

The present dissertation re-addressed the question concerning the phenomenon of cluster reduction known as Schneider‘s Law. The analysis was based on the assumption that SL concerns only geminates and not any type of consonant cluster, while it reduced the application of the phenomenon to a single syllable contrastively to previous analyses that talked about consecutive syllables. The cause of the phenomenon was argued to be the markedness of geminates alongside the prohibition of marked elements to both syllable margins. Moreover, the application of SL was claimed to also be relevant in Trukese and Japanese which been previously assumed to manifest an OCP effect concerning geminates. With the addition of these languages to the languages that were previously listed in the literature as presenting SL, Inuktitut and Dogrib, this dissertation offered a collection of four languages that manifest the phenomenon. Based on the proposed definition of SL, OT analyses were carried out for these languages. SL does not threaten in any way the weight representation of geminates. For one, their representation in moraic theory as segments that straddle the syllable boundaries are part of the reason they are claimed to be part of SL on the first place. In section four more arguments were discussed explaining how the degemination of even underlying geminates is not an alarming issue. Moreover, the case of Trukese in which SL is found to be a result of the moraicity of both syllable margins works as an argument in favor of the weight representation. Geminates are a gripping issue in phonology, while the specifics of their nature and their behavior are still being discovered. Throughout this dissertation various questions were asked, only the crucial ones regarding the phenomenon were answered. While this dissertation attempted to give an answer to the mystery of SL, more research remains necessary. Between the crucial unanswered questions is the syllable weight in Inuktitut. This language needs a formal analysis of its prosodic situation to see how it can fit in moraic theory. The most interesting question this dissertation opened was connected to the assumption that a syllable allows only one moraic margin. This proposition demands further research to determine if it is a constraint that can be found

47 cross-linguistically and how is that connected to overall moraic theory which assumes only codas to be moraic.

REFERENCES

Baker, B. (1998). Edge-crispness: Segment to mora isomorphism. In Curtis, E., Lyle, J. and Webster, G. (Eds.), Proceedings of the Sixteenth West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (pp. 33-47). Stanford, Calif: CSLI Publications. Bennett, Wm. G. (2015). The phonology of consonants: Harmony, dissimilation and correspondence. Cambridge studies in Linguistics 147. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Bermúdez-Otero, R. (2018). Stratal Phonology. In S.J. Hannahs & A. E. K. Bosch (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of phonological theory (pp. 100-134). Abingdon: Routledge. Bourquin, T. (1891). Grammatik der Eskimo-sprache. London: Moravian Mission Agency. Chomsky, N. & Halle, M. (1986). The sound pattern of English. New York: Harper and Row. Clements, G.N. & Keyser S.J. (1983). CV phonology: A generative theory of the syllable. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Collis, D. (1970) Études philologiques et linguistiques des languages Esquimaux. Internord, 11, 263-282 Cook, E-D. (2004). A Grammar of Dëne Sųłiné (Chipewyan). Winnipeg, Man: Algonquian and Iroqoian Linguistics, University of Manitoba. Curtis, E. K. J. (2003). Geminate weight: case studies and formal models (Doctoral dissertation). University of Washington. Davis, S. (1998). Syllable contact in optimality theory. Korean Journal of Linguistics, 23, 181-211. Davis, S. (2011). Geminates. In M. van Oostendorp, C.J. Ewen, E. Hume & K. Rice (Eds.), The Blackwell companion to phonology (pp. 873-897). Malden, MA; Oxford: Wiley- Blackwell. Davis, S. (2017). Geminates and weight-manipulation phonology in Chuukese (Trukese). In H. Kubozono, The phonetics and phonology of geminate consonants (pp. 203-259). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Davis, S. & Torretta, G. (1998). An optimality-theoretic account of compensatory lengthening and geminate throwback. NELS, 28, 111-125. Dorais, L-J. (1976). Some phonological characteristics of eastern Canadian Inuit. Anthropological Linguistics, 18(8). 387-92.

Dorais, L.-J. (1988). Tukilik: An Inuktitut grammar for all. Québec: Association Inuksiutiit Katimajiit Inc. Dresher, E.B. & A. Johns. (1995). The law of double consonants in Inuktitut. Linguistica atlantica, 17, 79-95. Fortescue, M. (1983). A comparative manual of affixes for the Inuit dialects of Greenland, Canada, and Alaska. Copehangen: Meddelelser om Grønland. Goldmith, J. (1990). Autosegmental and metrical phonology. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. Gordon, M., Jany, C., Nash, C. & Takara, N. (2010). Syllable structure and extrametricality: A typological and phonetic study. Studies in Language, 34, 131-166. Halle, M. & Vergnaud, J-R. (1980).Three dimensional phonology. Journal of Linguistic Research, 1, 83-105. Hayes, B. (1989). Compensatory lengthening in moraic phonology. Linguistic Inquiry, 20, 253-36. Hyde, B. (2011). Extrametricality and non-finality. In M. van Oostendrop, C.J. Ewen, E. Hume & K. Rice (Eds.), The Blackwell companion to phonology (pp. 1027-1051). Oxford: Blackwell-Wiley. Hyman, L. (1985). A theory of phonological weight. Publications in Language Sciences. Dordrech, Holland; Cinnaminson, USA: Foris Publications. Ito, J., Kubozono, H. & Mester, A. (2017). A prosodic account of consonant gemination in Japanese loanwords. In H. Kubozono, The phonetics and phonology of geminate consonants (pp.283-320). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Ito, J. & Mester, A. (1993/1995). Japanese phonology: Constraint domains and structure preservation. In Goldsmith (Ed.), The handbook of phonological theory (pp. 817-838). Cambridge, MA: Blackwell. Ito, J. & Mester, A. (1999) The phonological lexicon. In Natsuko Tsujimura (Ed.), The handbook of Japanese Linguistics (pp. 62-100). Oxford: Blackwell. Ito, J. & Mester, A. (2003). Japanese morphophonemics: Markedness and word structure. Cambridge; Massachusetts; London, England: MIT Press. Ito, J. & Mester, A. (2015). Word formation and phonological processes. In H. Kubozono (Ed.), The handbook of Japanese phonetics and phonology (pp. 363-395). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. Jaker, A. M. (2010). Be careful what you throw out: Gemination and tonal feet in Weledeh Dogrib. In A.L. Berez, J. Mulder & D. Rosenblum (Eds.), Fieldwork and linguistic analysis in indigenous languages of the Americas (pp. 203-22). Manoa: University of Hawai‘i Press. 50

Jaker, A. M. (2012). Prosodic reversal in Dogrib (Weledeh dialect). (Doctoral dissertation). Stanford University, California. Kager, R. (1999). Optimality Theory. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Kaisse, E.M. & Shaw, P.A. (1985). On the theory of Lexical Phonology. Phonology, 2(1), 1-30. Kawahara, S. (2011). Japanese loanword devoicing revisited: A rating study. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 19, 705-723. Keer, W. E. (1999). Geminates, the OCP and the nature of CON (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from https://rucore.libraries.rutgers.edu/rutgers-lib/38464/ Kiparsky, P. (1982). Lexical morphology and phonology. In I.S. Yang (Ed.), Linguistics in the morning calm (pp. 3-91). Seoul: Hanshin Publishers. Kiparsky, P. (2015). Stratal OT: a synopsis and FAQs. In Y. E. Hsiao & L.-H. Wee (Eds.), Capturing phonological shades withi.n and across languages (pp. 2-44). Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing. Kubozono, H. (1999). Mora and syllable. In Tsujimura, N. (Ed), The handbook of Japanese phonological linguistics (pp. 31-61). Oxford: Blackwell. Kubozono, H, Ito, M. & Mester, A. (2009). Consonant gemination in Japanese loanword phonology. In Linguistic society of Korea (Ed.), Current issues in unity and diversity of languages: Collection of papers selected from the CIL 18 (pp. 953-973). Seoul: Linguistic Society of Korea. Ladefoged, P. & Maddieson, I. (1996). The sounds of the world’s languages. Oxford; Cambridge, MA: Blackwell. Lehiste, I. (1970). Suprasegmentals. Cambridge; Massachusetts; London, England: The M.I.T. Press. Levin, J. (1985). A metrical theory of syllabicity (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/15321 Lowe, R. (1984). Basic Siglit Inuvialuit Eskimo dictionary. Inuvik, QC: Association Inuksuit Katimajiit Inc. Maddieson, I. (1984). Patterns of sounds. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Marinakis, A. (2003). Seeking simplicity: The preference for minimal syllable structure in Dogrib. (Master‘s thesis). Retrieved from https://dspace.library.uvic.ca/handle/1828/428 Martin, S.E. (1952). Morphophonemic of standard colloquial Japanese. Language, 28(3), 7-115.

Massenet, J.-M. (1986). Etudes phonologiques d’un dialecte Inuit Canadien. Inuvik, QC: Association Inuksuit Katimajiit Inc. McCarthy, J. (1979). Formal problems in Semitic phonology and morphology (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from http://www.ai.mit.edu/projects/dm/theses/mccarthy79.pdf McCarthy, J. (1986). OCP effects: Gemination and antigemination. Linguistic Inquiry, 17(2), 207-263. McCarthy, J. & Prince, A. (1993). Generalized alignment. In G. Booij & J. van Marle (Eds.), Yearbook of morphology (pp. 79-153). Dordrecht: Kluwer. McCarthy, J. & Prince, A. (1995). Faithfulness and reduplicative identity. In J. Beckman, L.W. Dickey and S. Urbanczyk (Eds.), University of Massachusetts Occasional Papers in Linguistics 18 (pp. 249-384). Amherst, MA: GLSA. Morimoto, M. (2015). Degemination in Japanese loanwords from Italian. (Master‘s thesis). Retrieved from https://search.proquest.com/openview/a0ebeda442bb87b445fe8004517d0554/1?pq- origsite=gscholar&cbl=18750&diss=y Muller, J. (1999). A unified mora account of Chuukese. In S. Bird, A . Carnie, J. Haugen and P. Norquest (Eds.). Proceedings from WCCFL 18. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press. Nishimura, K. (2006). Lyman‘s Law in loanwords. Phonological Studies, 9, 83-90. Peperkamp, S., Vendelin, I. & Nakamura, K. (2008). On the perceptual origin of loanword adaptations: experimental evidence from Japanese. Phonology, 25, 129-164. Pigott, P. (2012). Degemination and prosody in Labrador Inuttut: An acoustic study. (Master‘s thesis). Retrieved from http://www.ucs.mun.ca/~yrose/resources/Pigott--- 2012---Degemination-and-Prosody-in-Labrador-Inuttut-An-A.pdf Prince, A. & Smolensky, P. (1993). Optimality theory: Constraint Interaction in Generative Grammar. Malden, MA; Oxford, UK; Victoria, Australia: Blackwell Publishing Company. Ringen, C. & Vago, R.M. (2011`). Geminates: Heavy or long? In C. Cairns & E. Raimy (Eds.), Handbook of the syllable. Leiden: Brill. Rischel, J. (1974) Topics in West Greenlandin phonology. Copenhagen: Akademisk Forlag. Rose, Y, Pigott, P. & Wharram, D. (2012). Schneider‘s Law revisited: The syllable-level remnant of an older metrical rule. Proceedings from Phonology in the 21st Century in

honour of Glyne Piggott. Montréal, QC: McGill Working Papers in Linguistics.

Rosenthal, S. (1994). Vowel glide alternations (Doctoral dissertation). University of Massachusetts, Amherst. Schneider, L. (1966). Grammarian Esquimmaude de sous-dialecte de l’Ungava. Quebec: Ministère des Richesses Naturelles, Direction Générale du Nouveau-Québec. Selkrik, E. (1990). A two-root theory of length. University of Massachusetts Occasional Papers 14, 123-171. Smith, L. (1975). Labrador Inuttut surface phonology. International Journal of American Linguistics,41(2), 97-105 Smith, L. (1977). Some morphophonemic processes of Labrador Inuttut affixation. International Journal of American Linguistics, 43(2), 77-84. Topintzi, N. (2010). Onsets: Suprasegmental and prosodic behavior. Cambridge, UK; New York: Cambridge University Press. Topintzi, N. & Zimmermann, E. (2014). As alive as ever: the geminate debate under Containment. In A. Assmann, S. Bank, D. Georgi, T. Klein, P. Weisser & E. Zimmermann (Eds.), Topics at InfL (pp. 65-90). Linguistishe Arbeits Berichte 92, Universität Leipzig. Topintzi, N. & Zimmermann, E. under review. Containment as the key to ‗heavy-vs.-long‘ geminate debate. Linguistic Inquiry Tuttle, S. (2005). Duration, Intonation, and Prominence in Apache. In S. Hargus & K. Rice (Eds.), Athabaskan Prosody (pp. 319-344). Amsterdam: Philadelphia; John Benjamins Publishing Company. Tsuchida, A. (1995). English loans in Japanese; Constraints in loanword phonology. Working Papers of Cornell Phonetics Laboratory, 10, 145-164. Venemmann, T. (1988). Preference Laws for Syllable Structure. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Wilson, C. (2001). Consonant cluster neutralization and targeted constraints. Phonology, 18, 147-197 Yip, M. (1988). The Obligatory Contour Principle and phonological rules: A loss of identity. Linguistic inquiry, 19(1), 65-100.