Incomplete Resyllabification and Bidirectional Coupling in Spanish 2 Travis G. Bradley, UC Davis 2. Incomplete resyllabification in NCPS
1. Introduction c. derived onset [ˈreðes#aˈtaðas] ‘tied nets’
(1) Resyllabification turns a coda into a derived onset. Coda Y is Study Data source Speakers Tokens Measurements delinked from its syllable rhyme and reassociated to the following Torreira & Spontaneous 27 females, 1,257 uninterrupted syllable (for Spanish, e.g. Harris & Kaisse 1999: 137): Ernestus conversational 25 males voicing X Y V → X Y V (2012) speech from the from (= ‘completely = TE12 Nijmegen Madrid voiced’); low-band N N N N (N = nucleus) Corpus of (0-1 kHz) intensity Casual Spanish dip duration; high- Nʹ Nʹ Nʹ Nʹ (Nʹ = rhyme) band (4-8 kHz)
Nʺ Nʺ Nʺ Nʺ (Nʺ = syllable) intensity difference Hualde & Directed 16 females 684 uninterrupted (2) A common assumption among generative phonologists is that (1) Prieto (2014) conversational from voicing; percentage renders derived (a) and canonical (b) onsets structurally identical: = HP14 speech via map Madrid of voiced frames; a. σs σw σs tasks from the fricative duration Interactive m a s a m o ɾ más amor ‘more love’ Atlas of b. σs σw Spanish Intonation m a s a masa ‘mass, dough’ Strycharczuk Controlled, 10 females, 792 fricative duration; (3) Goals of this talk: & Kohlberger two-word 1 male spectral a. Motivate incomplete resyllabification by reviewing recent laboratory (2016) stimuli from characteristics of /s/ studies of Northern-Central Peninsular Spanish (NCPS) that = SK16 embedded in northern & and surrounding problematize the assumption in (2) carrier phrases central vowels b. Formalize bidirectional coupling as a gestural representation of Spain incomplete resyllabification in Articulatory Phonology c. Use the representation to analyze coronal fricative aspiration across Table 1: Acoustic phonetic studies of /s/ in NCPS that compare intervocalic Spanish dialects, a well-known test bed for previous accounts of word-initial, -medial, and -final contexts. phonological opacity based on (1) and (2) 3 4 “/s/ tended to be voiced more often in word- “In Spanish, […] only two final position than in word-initial and medial comparisons are significant in our positions (word-initial: β = -0.46, z = -2.87, statistical analysis, namely Final p < 0.005; word-medial: β = -0.52, z = -3.01, versus Initial, at p < 0.001, and p < 0.005). An ANOVA test confirmed that Final versus Medial, at p < 0.001. word position conditioned the occurrence of […] there is no difference in voicing after controlling for the effects of duration between word-initial and duration (χ2 = 11.06, p < 0.005).” word-medial tokens of /s/, but word-final tokens are significantly shorter than the rest. Thus, the duration ranking that we find in Figure 1: Percentage of fully voiced tokens of intervocalic /s/ by position Spanish is Initial, Medial > Final.” within the word (TE12: 137–138)
“For Spanish, the only comparison that reaches significance [using mixed-effects linear regression models—TGB], at p < 0.001, is Final Figure 3: Duration of intervocalic alveolar fricatives by position within the versus Medial, with final consonants word (HP14: 120) being more voiced. The greater voicing of word-final consonants is in agreement with the findings in “For each variable, we fitted a linear Torreira and Ernestus (2012).” mixed-effects regression model with Condition (Vs#V, V#sV, Vs#sV, Vs#T, VsT, VsV) as a fixed effect. The intercept was set to the Vs#V condition in all cases, in order to make comparisons between the derived onset environment and other conditions.”
Figure 2: Percentage of voiced frames of intervocalic alveolar fricatives by position within the word (HP14: 118–119)
Figure 4: /s/ duration by context (SK16: 7–8)
5 6 Speech style Canonical onsets Derived onset (7) a. Domain-initial prosodic strengthening (Keating et al. 2003) correctly predicts /s/ to be the longest in prosodic word (ω)-initial position V#sV , VsV > Vs#V (6a) but does not explain why ω-medial /s/ (6b) should be longer Casual more frequently fully voiced than ω-final /s/ (6c). In fact, domain-final lengthening would seem
(no difference) higher % of voiced frames to predict the opposite, i.e. shorter medially than finally (SK16: 15). acoustically shorter b. REMAINING QUESTION: How to capture the difference between Careful V#sV > VsV > Vs#V medial /VsV/ and final /Vs#V/ contexts in NCPS? 87.91ms 81.9ms 76.23ms Table 2: Summary of significant effects in the gradient phonetic variation of intervocalic /s/ in NCPS 3. Gestural coupling in Articulatory Phonology (5) a. HP14 suggest incomplete resyllabification. In medial /VCV/ and initial /V#CV/ contexts, (8) Articulatory Phonology (AP; Browman and Goldstein 1989) “the consonant is syllabified at the onset of the syllable, and is thus timed a. The grammar operates on abstract articulatory gestures. to start in-phase with the following vowel (Nam et al. 2009), whereas in b. Gestures are dynamically defined along both spatial and temporal /VC#V/ lexical syllabic affiliation may result in a different gestural dimensions to produce a constriction in the vocal tract. coordination, even if, as it is generally assumed for Spanish and Catalan, c. Gestures are coordinated with each other as speech is produced there is postlexical resyllabification. […] A transcription of, e.g., más amor ‘more love’ as [má.sa.mór], with the same sequence of symbols through time, with reference either to gradient degrees of phasing and the same syllable structure as masa ‘mass’ [má.sa] simply offers an within a 360° gestural cycle (e.g. Zsiga 2000) or to a reduced set of incomplete view of phonetic reality” (123–124). five temporal landmarks (e.g. Gafos 2002).
b. SK16 argue that in the word-final /Vs#V/ context, there is a gradient (9) Task Dynamics Application (TaDA; Goldstein et al. 2006; tension between gestural and lexical organization: Browman et al. 2006; Nam 2007; Nam et al. 2009) “[w]hile the affiliation of /s/ with the following vowel at the gestural level increases segmental duration […], the increase in duration is a. A computational model of speech production that operates based on limited by the affiliation of /s/ and the preceding word at the the physics of coupled oscillators and the mathematical equations of lexical/prosodic level” (16). task dynamics (see Figure 5) b. Coordination relations are formalized in intergestural coupling (6) SK16 consider prosodic misalignment as a possible representation to graphs, which are stored in the lexicon (although cf. (13) below). distinguish derived onsets (c) from canonical onsets (a,b): c. The intergestural coordination component, through a planning a. σ σ b. σ σ c. σ σ process, determines the most stable overall timing pattern for a V s V V s V V s V specified rate of speech to output a gestural score, which displays the length and relative timing of articulatory gestures. ω ω ω ω ω d. The interarticulator coordination component uses task dynamic cruce sagrado gran pesadilla redes atadas equations to derive articulatory movement trajectories, which can be ‘sacred crossing’ ‘big nightmare’ ‘tied nets’ used for vocal tract modeling and speech synthesis.
7 8
syllable- gestural (12) CURRENT PROPOSAL: Canonical onsets are coupled strictly in-phase tract/ structure- intergestural planning with V2. Derived onsets are bidirectionally coupled, simultaneously based constriction coupling graph oscillator output gesture variables in-phase with V2 and anti-phase with V1. variables speech coupling a. strictly in-phase coupling: V1C―V2 (≈ canonical onset) model gestural articulator score variables b. bidirectional coupling: V1⤏C―V2 (≈ derived onset) intergestural interarticulator coordination coordination (13) a. Smith (2018), Walker & Proctor (2019), and Bradley (2020) recast Figure 5: TaDA (Task Dynamics Application) model (Browman et al. 2006). the initial component in Figure 5 in constraint-based Optimality Theory (Prince & Smolensky 1993/2004, McCarthy & Prince 1993). (10) a. In autosegmental phonology, associated features can only be either b. Coupling graphs of an utterance are phonologically optimized—the simultaneous or linearly ordered. Classical AP in (8c) is much less main focus of this talk—then phonetically implemented in TaDA. constrained, allowing from five to 360 distinct timing relations between adjacent gestures (see Zsiga 2011). (14) Assign a violation for every b. TaDA limits gestural coordination to just two default relations: a. C―V C not coupled in-phase with the nearest following V. i. in-phase: G(esture)1 and G2 begin simultaneously. b. V⤏C⟧ V not coupled anti-phase with the nearest following C ii. anti-phase: G2 begins at or after the halfway point of G1. before the right edge of a morphological word, _ ⟧.
c. Here, I denote in-phase coupling as a solid line (G1―G2) and anti- c. *V⤏C V coupled anti-phase with the nearest following C. phase coupling as a dashed right arrow to show which gesture begins first (G1⤏G2). (14) ≈ syllable constraints of classical OT (cf. Colina 1997, 2009) (15) a. ONSET A syllable must have an onset. (11) TaDA recasts the onset-coda distinction of syllable theory as a b. ALIGN-R(MWd,σ) Align the right edge of every morphological difference in the coupling of gestures comprising an adjacent C and word with the right edge of a syllable. V, as in (a,b). Here, I also assume anti-phase coupling (c,d) for VV c. NOCODA A syllable must not have a coda. and CC sequences.1 a. Onsets are coupled in-phase with a following vowel: C―V (16) ⟦kɾuθe⟧⟦saɡɾado⟧ ‘sacred crossing’ C―V V⤏C⟧ *V⤏C b. Vowels are coupled anti-phase with a following coda: V⤏C ☞ a. (⟦…e⟧)(⟦_a…⟧) e s ― a c. Vowels in adjacent syllables are coupled anti-phase: V1⤏V2 b. e ⤏ s ― a *! d. Adjacent consonants are coupled anti-phase: C1⤏C2 c. e ⤏ s a *! *
Morphological word boundaries = ⟦…⟧, prosodic word boundaries = (…) Outputs have the same morpho-prosodic structure, shown to the left in the first 1 ‘V’ and ‘C’ denote the sets of gestures that comprise vowels and consonants, respectively. AP/TaDA eschews the traditional segment: gestures are the “atomic” units of speech production, glued together candidate, but differ in the coupling of /s/ with the surrounding vowels: strictly in- by coupling relations into larger “molecules” that cohere into word forms (Goldstein et al. 2006). phase (16a), bidirectional (16b), and strictly anti-phase (16c). 9 10 (17) ⟦pesadiʝa⟧ ‘nightmare’ C―V V⤏C⟧ *V⤏C 4. Bidirectional coupling and coronal fricative aspiration in Spanish
☞ a. (⟦…e_a…⟧) e s ― a Chinato Spanish (ChnS; Hualde 1991: 62–63)2 b. e ⤏ s ― a *! (21) a. canonical onset ezo [e.θo] ‘that’ c. e ⤏ s a *! * coda [ko.ða] ‘thing’ b. coda ejta [eh.ta] ‘this, fem.’
c. coda laj codaj [lah.ko.ðah] ‘the things’ (18) ⟦redes⟧⟦atadas⟧ ‘tied nets’ C―V V⤏C⟧ *V⤏C d. derived onset la dalaj [la.ða.lah] ‘the wings’ a. (⟦…e_⟧)(⟦a…⟧) e s ― a *!
b. e ⤏ s ― a ☞ * Río Negro Argentinian Spanish (RNAS; Kaisse 1999: 204)3 c. e ⤏ s a *! * (22) a. canonical onset dieses [dje.seh] ‘tens’ b. coda disco [dih.ko] ‘disc’ (19) a. NCPS favors strictly in-phase coupling in medial /VsV/ (17a) but c. coda dos palas [doh.pa.lah] ‘two shovels’ bidirectional coupling in final /Vs#V/ (18b). d. derived onset dos alas [do.ha.lah] ‘two wings’ b. Optimal coupling graphs containing the specifications in (16a), (17a), and (18b) are phonetically implemented in TaDA (see Figure 5). 4.1 Analysis c. The phonetic duration asymmetries in Table 2 can now be predicted as the cumulative effects of strictly in-phase CV coupling and domain- (23) Production of audible supraglottal frication requires a sufficient oral initial prosodic strengthening, as in Table 3. pressure build-up (Solé 2002, 2010), which takes longer to achieve a. in coda position, due to reduced transglottal airflow b. when overlapped by a following consonant gesture ω-initial strengthening? yes no no
strictly in-phase CV coupling? yes yes no
/V#sV/ /VsV/ /Vs#V/ relative phonetic duration of /s/? > > (16a) (17a) (18b) Figure 6: Oral pressure build-up in onset fricatives (a), coda fricatives (b), and preconsonantal fricatives with increasing overlap gestural overlap (c,d). Table 3: Intervocalic /s/ duration in NCSP careful speech Vertical line denotes onset of audible turbulence (Solé 2010: 294).
(20) NEXT QUESTION: How does bidirectional coupling interact with coda segmental processes in other Spanish varieties? 2 ChnS “is the traditional dialect of Malpartida de Plasencia in the province of Cáceres, in Extremadura, Spain” (Hualde 1991: 57), where Old Spanish voiceless and voiced sibilants were interdentalized (21a). 3 Río Negro province is approximately 1000 kilometers to the southwest of Buenos Aires, Argentina. 11 12 (24) Assign a violation for every (29) ⟦lað⟧⟦alað⟧ ‘the wings’ *V⤏C V⤏C⟧ *V⤏S *h a. *V⤏S V coupled anti-phase with the nearest following C ☞ a. (⟦…a_⟧(⟦a…⟧)) a ð ― a specified for a critical tongue tip constriction gesture. * b. *h C specified for a wide glottal constriction gesture. b. a h ― a * *!
c. a ⤏ ð ― a (25) a. If a grammar has coda aspiration without bidirectional coupling, then *! * derived onset fricatives will pattern like canonical onsets. d. a ⤏ h ― a *! * b. If a grammar has both coda aspiration and bidirectional coupling, then I assume that unstressed function words form a recursive structure with the following derived onset fricatives will pattern like codas. prosodic word: (lað(alað)ωmin)ωmax (see Itô & Mester 2009a,b; cf. Hualde 2009).
(26) Predictions, formalized as OT markedness constraints: (30) In ChnS, strictly in-phase CV coupling protects both canonical and a. *V⤏C » V⤏C⟧ , *V⤏S » *h ChnS derived onset /ð/ from aspiration (29a), which thus applies b. V⤏C⟧ » *V⤏C , *V⤏S » *h RNAS transparently, only in anti-phase /V⤏ð/ sequences (28b).
c. *V⤏C » V⤏C⟧ , *h » *V⤏S (predicted) 4.3 Opaque aspiration in RNAS d. V⤏C⟧ » *V⤏C , *h » *V⤏S NCPS (18)
(31) ⟦djeses⟧ ‘tens’ V⤏C⟧ *V⤏C *V⤏S *h 4.2 Transparent aspiration in ChnS ☞ a. (⟦…e_e…⟧) e s ― e (27) ⟦koða⟧ ‘thing’ *V⤏C V⤏C⟧ *V⤏S *h b. e h ― e *! ☞ a. (⟦ko_a⟧) o ð ― a c. e ⤏ s ― e *! * b. o h ― a *! d. e ⤏ h ― e *! * c. o ⤏ ð ― a *! * d. o ⤏ h ― a *! * (32) ⟦disko⟧ ‘disc’ V⤏C⟧ *V⤏C *V⤏S *h a. (⟦…i_ko…⟧) i ⤏ s ⤏ k ― o * *! (28) ⟦eðta⟧ ‘this’ *V⤏C V⤏C⟧ *V⤏S *h ☞ b. i ⤏ h ⤏ k ― o * * a. (⟦e_ta⟧) e ⤏ ð ⤏ t ― a *!
☞ b. e ⤏ h ⤏ t ― a *
13 14
(33) ⟦dos⟧⟦alas⟧ ‘two wings’ V⤏C⟧ *V⤏C *V⤏S *h
ω ⟧ S C -C DJ a. (⟦…o_⟧)(⟦a…⟧) o s ― a C ⤏ *! ⤏ AX (39) ⟦esto⟧ ‘this’ ⤏ V *V *h M O-A b. o h ― a *! * *V a. (⟦e_sto⟧) e ⤏ s ⤏ t ― o *! * c. o ⤏ s ― a * *! ☞ b. e ⤏ h ⤏ t ― o * * ☞ d. o ⤏ h ― a * * c. e t ― o *! * (34) In RNAS, strictly in-phase CV coupling protects canonical onset /s/. Aspiration applies in anti-phase /V⤏s/ sequences (32b), which
ω ⟧ S C
includes bidirectionally coupled derived-onset /s/ (33d). -C DJ C ⤏ ⤏ AX (40) ⟦bes⟧ ‘time’ ⤏ V *V *h M O-A 4.4 Double opacity: aspiration and deletion in Chilean Spanish *V a. (⟦be_⟧) b ― e ⤏ s *! * (35) Chilean Spanish (ChlS; Broś 2018, 2019) has aspiration of coda /s/, which interacts opaquely with word-final /s/-deletion. b. b ― e ⤏ h *! *
☞ c. b ― e * (36) Word-internal and word-final /s/ in individual words ω a. canonical onset veces [be.se] ‘times’ O-ADJACENCYω restricts deletion to the -edge in (40c), cf. (39c).
b. medial coda esto [eh.to] ‘this, masc.’ c. final coda vez [be] ‘time’
ω ⟧ C S -C -C/_V DJ C ⤏ ⤏ AX (37) Word-final /s/ across a word boundary AX (41) ⟦una⟧⟦bes⟧⟦entɾe⟧ ‘once, I entered’ ⤏ M O-A *V a. medial coda una vez comí [u.na.βe.ko.mi] ‘once, I ate’ V *V *h M b. derived onset una vez entré [u.na.βe.hen.tɹ̥ e] ‘once, I entered’ a. (⟦…e_⟧)(⟦e…⟧) e s ― e *! b. e h ― e *! * (38) Assign a violation for every c. e ⤏ s ― e a. O-ADJω X and Y that are adjacent within a prosodic word in the *! * 4 output but not adjacent in the input. ☞ d. e ⤏ h ― e * * b. MAX-C/_V prevocalic consonant in the input that has no output correspondent. e. e e *! * c. MAX-C consonant in the input that has no output correspondent. MAX-C/_V prevents prevocalic deletion at the ω-edge in (41e), cf. (40c).
4 X and Y denote sets of gestures that correspond to vowels and/or consonants (cf. Broś 2018: 63‒64, who uses segmental CONTIGUITY, also relativized to the prosodic word domain). 15 16 5. Theoretical comparison
ω ⟧ C S -C -C/_V (45) For ChnS, Hualde (1991) orders phrasal resyllabification before coda DJ C ⤏ ⤏ AX AX aspiration, which thus applies transparently to [θ] (< ð < /d/), in (42) ⟦una⟧⟦bes⟧⟦komi⟧ ‘once, I ate’ ⤏ M O-A *V V *V *h M surface rhymes but not in derived onsets: a. (⟦…e_⟧)(⟦ko…⟧) e ⤏ s ⤏ k ― o *! * a. /koda/ b. /edta/ c. /lad#kodad/ d./lad#alad/ UR b. e ⤏ h ⤏ k ― o *! * LEXICAL STRATUM ☞ c. e k ― o * ko.da ed.ta lad.ko.dad lad.a.lad syllabification Deletion emerges in (42c) when MAX-C/_V and O-ADJACENCYω are silent. PHRASAL STRATUM — — — .d resyllabification
ω
⟧ .ð ð. ð. .ð ð .ð ð spirantization C S -C -C/_V DJ C ⤏ ⤏ AX AX
⤏ — θ. θ. θ θ devoicing (43) ⟦des+eʧo⟧ ‘undone’ M O-A *V V *V *h M — h. h. h — h aspiration ☞ a. (⟦…e_(e…⟧)) e s ― e [ko.ða] [eh.ta] [lah.ko.ðah] [la.ða.lah] SR
b. e h ― e *! ‘thing’ ‘this’ ‘the things’ ‘the wings’ c. e ⤏ s ― e *! * (46) For RNAS, Harris & Kaisse (1999) and Kaisse (1999) order d. e ⤏ h ― e *! * aspiration to apply lexically, when word-final /s/ is still in the rhyme. Phrasal resyllabification then moves [h] into derived onset position, e. e o *(!) *(!) * in which coda aspiration can be said to have applied opaquely: V⤏C⟧ is silent on prefix-final consonants because prefixes are not MWds. a. /djeses/ b./disko/ c. /dos#palas/ d. /dos#alas/ UR LEXICAL STRATUM
ω
⟧ dje.ses dis.ko dos.pa.las dos.a.las syllabification S C -C/_V -C DJ C ⤏ ⤏ AX AX ⤏ h h. h. h h. h aspiration (44) ⟦des+kalsaɾ⟧ ‘to unshoe’ M O-A V *V *h M *V PHRASAL STRATUM a. (⟦…e_(ka…⟧)) e ⤏ s ⤏ k ― a *! * — — — .h h resyllabification ☞ b. e ⤏ h ⤏ k ― a * * [dje.seh] [dih.ko] [doh.pa.lah] [do.ha.lah] SR
c. e k ― a *! * ‘tens’ ‘disc’ ‘two shovels’ ‘two wings’
[e] and [k] in (44c) are adjacent within the maximal ω: (de(kalsaɾ)ωmin)ωmax. 17 18 (47) For ChlS, Broś (2018: 41–45) sketches and critiques a plausible rule- 6. Conclusion based account in which phrasal resyllabification is sandwiched between lexical aspiration and postlexical deletion: (48) “Accumulating evidence from different languages suggests that complete resyllabification may be a lot less common than previously assumed” (SK16: 18). a. /beses/ b. /una bes entɾe/ c. /una bes komi/ UR LEXICAL STRATUM (49) Bidirectional coupling be.ses u.na.bes.en.tɾe u.na.bes.ko.mi syllabification a. helps to model the gradient variation uncovered by recent experimental studies of non-aspirating NCPS h. h. h. aspiration b. resolves the phonological opacity of derived-onset PHRASAL STRATUM [h] in RNAS and ChlS using just one stratum of OT constraints, — .h — resyllabification without ordered levels or rules, ambisyllabicity, output-output correspondence, or multiple GEN-EVAL loops Ø. — Ø. deletion β tɹ̥ β (other rules) (50) Open questions [be.se] [u.na.βe.hen.tɹ̥ e] [u.na.βe.ko.mi] SR a. How to generalize the bidirectional coupling analysis to other
‘times’ ‘once, I entered’ ‘once, I ate’ segmental processes (e.g. /s/-voicing, /n/-velarization)? b. Can NCPS listeners perceive the durational differences among intervocalic /s/ across prosodic contexts? Do such subphonemic Studies Theoretical approaches differences in /s/ duration facilitate lexical processing? Baković (1998), monostratal Optimality Theory, output-output c. Is there phonetic evidence for incomplete resyllabification in other Colina (1997, 2002, 2006, 2009) correspondence constraints Spanish varieties? Wiltshire (2002, 2006) monostratal Optimality Theory, markedness d. How is the notion of bidirectional coupling formally similar to and constraints relativized to syllable and prosodic different from that of ambisyllabicity? word
Lipski (1999) monostratal Optimality Theory, ambisyllabicity via References alignment constraints Baković, Eric. 1998. Spanish Codas and Overapplication. Romance Torres-Tamarit (2014) Harmonic Serialism, multiple passes through the Linguistics: Theoretical perspectives ed. by Armin Schwegler, Bernard GEN-EVAL loop Tranel, & Miriam Uribe-Etxebarria, 13–23. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Broś (2018, 2019), Kaisse & Stratal Optimality Theory, multiple constraint Bradley, Travis G. 2020. Spanish rhotics and the phonetics-phonology McMahon (2011) hierarchies interface. The Routledge Handbook of Spanish Phonology ed. by Colina S, Fernando Martínez-Gil & Sonia Colina, 237–58. London/New York: Table 4: Overview of some previous constraint-based formal accounts of Routledge. phonologically opaque aspiration in Spanish Broś, Karolina. 2018. Contiguity in prosodic words: evidence from Spanish. Poznań Studies in Contemporary Linguistics 54(1):37–82. 19 20 Broś, Karolina. 2019. Domain modelling in Optimality Theory: Itô, Junko, & Armin Mester. 2009a. The extended prosodic word. morphophonological cyclicity vs. stepwise prosodic parsing. Journal of Phonological Domains. Universals and Deviations ed. by Baris Kabak & Linguistics 56(1):3–43. Janet Grijzenhout, 135–94. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Browman, Catherine P. & Louis Goldstein. 1989. Articulatory Gestures as Itô, Junko, & Armin Mester. 2009b. The onset of the prosodic word. Phonological Units. Phonology 6:201–51. Phonological Argumentation. Essays on Evidence and Motivation ed. by Browman, Catherine, Louis Goldstein, Hosung Nam, Philip Rubin, Michael Steve Parker, 227–60. London: Equinox. Proctor, & Elliot Saltzman. 2006. TaDA (Task Dynamics Application) Kaisse, Ellen M. 1999. Resyllabification precedes all segmental rules. Manual. New Haven, Connecticut: Haskins Laboratories, Inc. Formal Perspectives on Romance Linguistics: selected papers from the Colina, Sonia. 1997. Identity constraints and Spanish resyllabification. 28th Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages ed by. J.-M. Authier, Lingua 103:1–23. Barbara Bullock, & Lisa A. Reed, 197–210. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Colina, Sonia. 2002. Interdialectal variation in Spanish /s/ aspiration: the role John Benjamins of prosodic structure and output-to-output constraints. Structure, Meaning, Kaisse, Ellen M., & April McMahon. 2011. Lexical phonology and the and Acquisition in Spanish: Papers from the 4th Hispanic Linguistics lexical syndrome. The Blackwell Companion to Phonology ed. by M. van Symposium (HLS 4) ed. by James F. Lee, Kimberly L. Geeslin, & J. Oostendorp, C. Ewen, E. Hume, & K. Rice, 2236–57. Clancy Clements, 230–43. Somervilla, Mass.: Cascadilla Press. Keating, Patricia, Cho, Taehong, Cécile Fougeron, & Chai-Shune Hsu. 2003. Colina, Sonia. 2006. Optimality-theoretic advances in our understanding of Domain-initial articulatory strengthening in four languages. Papers in Spanish syllable structure. Optimality-theoretic Studies in Spanish Laboratory Phonology VI ed. by J. Local, R. Ogden, & R. Temple, 145– Phonology ed. by Fernando Martínez-Gil & Sonia Colina, 172–204. 63. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Lipski, John M. 1999. The many faces of Spanish /s/-weakening: Colina, Sonia. 2009. Spanish Phonology: A syllabic perspective. Washington, (Re)alignment and ambisyllabicity. Advances in Hispanic Linguistics ed. D.C.: Georgetown University Press. by Javier Gutiérrez-Rexach & Fernando Martínez-Gil, 198–213. Gafos, Adamantios. 2002. A grammar of gestural coordination. Natural Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press. Language and Linguistic Theory 20:269–337. McCarthy, John, & Alan Prince. 1993. Prosodic morphology I: Constraint Goldstein, Louis, Dani Byrd, & Elliot Saltzman. 2006. The role of vocal tract interaction and satisfaction. Ms., Rutgers University Center for Cognitive gestural action units in understanding the evolution of phonology. From Science. Action to Language: The Mirror Neuron System ed. by Michael Arbib, Nam, Hosung. 2007. Syllable-level intergestural timing model: Split-gesture 215–49. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. dynamics focusing on positional asymmetry and moraic structure. Harris, James W., & Ellen M. Kaisse. 1999. Palatal vowels, glides and Laboratory Phonology 9 ed. by Jennifer Cole & José Ignacio Hualde, obstruents in Argentinian Spanish. Phonology 19.117–90. 483–506. Berlin & New York: Walter de Gruyter. Hualde, José Ignacio. 1991. On Spanish syllabification. Current Studies in Nam Hosung, Goldstein Louis, & Saltzman Elliot. 2009. Self-organization of Spanish Linguistics ed. by Héctor Campos & Fernando Martínez-Gil, syllable structure: a coupled oscillator model. Approaches to Phonological 475–93. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press. Complexity ed. by F. Pellegrino, E. Marsico, & I. Chitoran, 299–328. Hualde, José Ignacio. 2009. Unstressed words in Spanish. Language Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Sciences 31.199–212. Prince, Alan & Paul Smolensky. 1993. Optimality Theory: constraint Hualde, José Ignacio, & Pilar Prieto. 2014. Lenition of sibilants in Catalan interaction in generative grammar. Ms., New Brunswick and Boulder: and Spanish. Phonetica 71.109–27. http://dx.doi.org/10.1159/000368197 Rutgers University and University of Colorado. 21 Prince, Alan & Paul Smolensky. 2004. Optimality Theory: constraint interaction in generative grammar. Malden, MA: Blackwell. Smith, Caitlin. 2018. Harmony in gestural phonology. Doctoral dissertation, University of Southern California. Solé, Maria-Josep. 2002. Assimilatory processes and aerodynamic factors. Papers in Laboratory Phonology 7 ed. by Carlos Gussenhoven & Natasha Warner, 351–86. New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Solé, Maria-Josep. 2010. Effects of syllable position on sound change: an aerodynamic study of final fricative weakening. Journal of Phonetics 38:289–305. Strycharczuk, Patrycja, & Martin Kohlberger. 2016. Resyllabification reconsidered: on the durational properties of word-final /s/ in Spanish. Laboratory Phonology: Journal of the Association for Laboratory Phonology 7(1).3. http://doi.org/10.5334/labphon.5 Torreira, Francisco, & Ernestus, Mirjam. 2011. Realization of voiceless stops and vowels in conversational French and Spanish. Laboratory Phonology, 2:331–353. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/labphon.2011.012 Torres-Tamarit, Francesc. 2014. Phonology-morphology opacity in harmonic serialism: the case of /s/ aspiration in Spanish. Variation within and across Romance languages: Selected papers from the 41st Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages (LSRL) ed. by M.-H. Côté & E. Mathieu, 39–62. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Walker, Rachel, Michael Proctor. 2019. The organisation and structure of rhotics in American English rhymes. Phonology 36:457–95. Wiltshire, Caroline. 2002. Variation in Spanish and prosodic boundary constraints. Current Issues in Linguistic Theory: Selected Papers from the XXIXth Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages (LSRL) ed by D. Cresti, T. Satterfield, & C. Tortora, 362–76. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Wiltshire, Caroline. 2006. Prefix boundaries in Spanish varieties: a non- derivational OT account. Optimality-theoretic Studies in Spanish Phonology ed. by Fernando Martínez-Gil & Sonia Colina, 358–77. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Zsiga, Elizabeth. 2000. Phonetic alignment constraints: consonant overlap and palatalization in English and Russian. Journal of Phonetics 28.69–102. Zsiga, Elizabeth. 2011. External sandhi in a second language: the phonetics and phonology of obstruent nasalization in Korean-accented English. Language 87.289–345.