A Comparison of Phonological Theories Generatory I Zwierciadła – Porównanie Teorii Fonologicznych

Facta Simonidis, 2010 nr 1 (3)

Krzysztof Jaskuła KUL Zamość – PWSZ Lublin [email protected]

From generators to mirrors – a comparison of phonological theories Generatory i zwierciadła – porównanie teorii fonologicznych

Streszczenie: W niniejszym artykule porównane są dwa główne podejścia teorii fonologicznych dwudziestego wieku do zagadnienia, czym powinna zajmować się fonologia i jakie w tym celu wykorzystać mechanizmy. Te podejścia formalne dzielą się na teorie zasad (np. Fonologia Generatywna) i teorie reprezentacji (np. Fonologia Rzą- du). Ukazane są tu główne założenia i cele obu teorii, jak i mechanizmy formalne służące do osiągnięcia tych celów. Autor przedstawia przykłady konkretnych struk- tur sylabicznych i analiz dotyczących zjawisk fonologicznych w językach polskim i angielskim. Słowa kluczowe: fonologia, zasada, reprezentacja, nagłos, ośrodek sylaby, wy- głos (koda) pusta kategoria.

Summary: This article offers a comparison of the main twentieth century phonological ap- proaches to the idea of phonological goals and analytic methods. These formal ap- proaches can be divided into the theories of rules (e.g. Generative Phonology) and the theories of representations (e.g. Government Phonology). What is shown below is the chief assumptions and goals of both theoretical frameworks as well as the formal mechanisms which help to achieve these goals. This is accompanied with examples of syllabic structures and analyses of phonological phenomena in both Polish and English. Keywords: phonology, rule, representation, onset, nucleus, coda, empty category.

205 Krzysztof Jaskuła

1. Introduction The history of phonology shows that phonological science has always taken no fewer than two dissimilar ways: one was to concentrate on the representations of phonological utterances, while the other was to focus on how what is phonological (or abstract) should affect what is phonetic (or physical). From time immemorial phonol- ogists have argued about the things which should be subject to phonological analysis. The first modern phonologist, Ferdinand de Saussure, adopted the view that there was a clear distinction between what is perceived by the speakers of a given language as a phonologically distinctive pattern of speech sounds (langue) and what is actually used in speech (parole). This division may be said to correspond to the commonly accepted standpoint that what we feel about our language (our linguistic competence) may differ slightly or more considerably from what we really employ while using the language (our performance). De Saussure’s views found different types of feedback in subsequent phonological theories which were roughly dealing with the question of whether to concentrate on deriving the phonetic (real) things from the phonological (imaginary/abstract) material or to adopt the stance that the phonological representation is one, stable and not subject to derivation. In other words, the battle has been about the theories of rules and the theories of representations. Here we will concentrate on relatively recent models representing both types. The most prominent theory of rules is apparently Generative Phonology1. In this approach and in its numerous variations and continuations, including even a recent development called Optimality Theory2, it is assumed that there is an abstract level (phonological or underlying) of utterances, which, via rules (or constraints), is transformed into something more real(istic) – the phonetic level. As regards the other viewpoint – theories of representations, the framework of Government Phonology3 appears to be the most reasonable model of phonology dealing with phonological representations which are non-linear, multi-layered and unchangeable from the viewpoint of derivation. In this paper a brief account of Generative Phonology will be presented and followed by an introduction to the basic concepts of Government Phonology and its daughter frameworks.

1 N. Chomsky and M. Halle, Sound pattern of English, New York 1968; M. Kenstowicz and C. Kisse- berth, Generative phonology. Description and theory. New York 1979. 2 A. Prince and P. Smolensky, Optimality theory: constraint interaction in generative grammar. New Brunswick 1993. 3 J. Harris, English sound structure, Oxford 1994; J. Kaye, J. Lowenstamm and J.-R. Vergnaud, Con- stituent structure and government in phonology, “Phonology” 1990 No. 7.

206 From generators to mirrors – a comparison of phonological theories

2. Generative2. Generative Grammar Grammar and Phonology and Phonology As theAs namethe name suggests, suggests, Generative Generative Phonology Phonology is a theory is awhich theory generates which generatesthings. It does things. so via It doesrules. soIn viasyntax, rules. from In asyntax, limited fromnumber a limited of rules numbera vast and of infinite rules a number vast and of infinitesentences num can- be bergenerated. of sentences In this can field be generated. of grammar In thethis theory field of work grammars relatively the theory well, especially works relatively given that well,many especially attempts given have been that mademany to attempts reduce thehave number been omadef rules to and reduce make the the number theory moreof 4 rulesrestrictive. and make4 In phonologythe theory the more situation restrictive. is much Inmore phonology complex. the situation is much more complex.

2.1. Rules and levels of representation 2.1. Rules and levels of representation Generative Phonology is famous and notorious for the employment of cosmic numbers of Generative Phonology is famous and notorious for the employment of cosmic phonological rules. What they do is account for almost every process which takes place in a numbers of phonological rules. What they do is account for almost every process whichgiven takes language. place Hence, in a given it is language.always assumed Hence, that it isth alwaysere is something assumed basic that there(underlying) is some and- thingsomething basic (underlying) derived in every and language.something This derived basic in thi ngevery is alanguage. string of abstractThis basic sounds thing (the is phonologicala string of abstract form of soundsa word) (thewhich phonological is related to formthe phonetic of a word) representation which is via related rules. to For theexample, phonetic the representation word‑forms such via as rules. [los] Forlos –example, ‘fate’ and the [losu] word-forms losu – ‘fate‑gen.sg.’ such as [los] have los one – ‘fate’basic phonologicaland [losu] losu representation, – ‘fate-gen.sg.’ which have is /los/. one In basic the second phonological case, this representation, representation is which is /los/. In the second case, this representation is suffixed with the genitive suffixed with the genitive singular ending /u/ (by the suffixation rule), which yields the form singular ending /u/ (by the suffixation rule), which yields the form [losu]. At times, when[losu]. two At ortimes, more when rules two have or more to apply rules haveto a togiven apply string to a given of abstract string of sounds abstract so sounds as to so explainas to explain the phonetic the phonetic shape shapeof a word, of a word, there theremust m occurust occur the so-calledthe so‑called ordering ordering of ofrules, rules, i.e.i.e. they they have have to tobe beapplied applied in a in particular a particular order order to becometo become effective effective and and faithful faithful to tothe the linguisticlinguistic reality. reality. ConsiderConsider thethe followingfollowing derivati derivationsons of theof thePolish Polish words words [raci] [raci] raki –‘crab‑raki 5 –‘crab-nom.pl’nom.pl’ and [las andÈ] lasy [las –  ‘forest‑nom.pl’:] lasy – ‘forest-nom.pl’:5

(1) UNDERLYING /rak+ È/ /las+ È/ fronting rule i palatalization rule c

PHONETIC [raci] [lasÈ]

WhatWhat we wesee seein (1) in above (1) above is that, is that,in abstract in abstract terms, terms, the words the raki words and raki lasy and consist lasy of consistnominative of nominative singular stems singular such asstems /rak/ andsuch /las/, as /rak/which and are followed/las/, which by the are nominative followed pluralby theending nominative /È/. Phonetically, plural ending the words //. Phonetically,are [raci] and [lastheÈ ],words respectively. are [raci] In and this [las derivation], respec a few- things have to be assumed. Above all, there is one phonological shape of the plural ending

4 4A.A. Radford, Radford, TransformationalTransformational grammar grammar, Cambridge, Cambridge 1988. 1988. 5 5E. E. Gussmann, Gussmann, Introduction Introduction to tophonological phonological analysis analysis, Warszawa, Warszawa 1980, p.90.1980, p.90.

207 3 Krzysztof Jaskuła tively. In this derivation a few things have to be assumed. Above all, there is one phonological shape of the plural ending whose phonetic realizations (or allophones) are [i] and []. This variant (or phoneme) is // because it surfaces in a larger number of contexts, while [i] appears only after palatalized consonants or velar stops. Thus, as regards the word lasy, the operation is simple: the suffix is added to the stem. In the other case, the situation is more complicated. What comes first is the so-called fronting rule, which fronts the underlying // into [i]. This fronting must occur because the phonetic [i] has to follow a velar stop. The sequences of velar stops followed by [] are not tolerated in Polish. The next step is the palatalization of the abstract sound /k/ to the palato-velar allophone [c] by the front vowel [i]. It should be noted that the reverse order of rules would not yield the correct result: if we tried to apply the palatalization rule first, it would fail to work because the sound [] does not palatalize the preceding consonants. Unfortunately, in derivational analyses of this type the number of rules cannot possibly be diminished since every language requires many of these to account for various processes occurring in larger or smaller groups of sounds or even in single sounds in some languages. It should also be noted that the targets chosen for phonological analysis are so‑ metimes controversial. For example, the English pair such as [kl] clear vs. [klrt] clarity apparently displays an alternation between a diphthong and a short vowel. In such a situation, a rule is necessary to transform either the diphthong into the short vowel or vice versa. Such a rule would practically explain an alternation in only one word. For there is nothing systematic in English telling us that all the diphthongs [] employed in adjectives should become [] in nouns. Quite conversely, if we take a pair such as [sns] sincere vs. [snsert] sincerity, the alternation is between [] and [e], which calls for another rule. Therefore, rules need to be postulated for very small chunks of a given language.

2.2. Distinctive Features Finally, Generative Phonology makes use of distinctive features, which are the smallest properties out of which every speech sound is composed. They can be either positively (+) or negatively (–) valued. So, there are Major Class Features, e.g. consonant, syllabic, sonorant; Laryngeal Features, e.g. voice; Place Features, e.g. labial, coronal, velar, high, low; and Manner Features, e.g. continuant, nasal, etc. For example, the English labial stop [b] consists of the following features:

208 These features, whose number is uncertain, contribute to the theory in at least two ways. One is to provide the description of segments and to show how they differ from one another, e.g. the sound [p] differs from [b] presented in (2) by one feature, i.e. [p] is [– voice]. The other is to expressFrom generatorsgeneralization to mirrors in– a rules:comparison instead of phonological of sepa theoriesrately writing several rules which refer to,

(2) say, all voiced stops in a given tongue, i.e. which describe the same process, we use features [+consonant,such – as syllabic, [+consonant, + obstruent, – syllabic,– nasal, – continuant, + obstruent, + labial, – con – velar,tinuant, – coronal] +voice], and say that sounds possessing these features valued in this particular way are all subject to the process we deal These features, whose number is uncertain, contribute to the theory in at least two ways.with. One is to provide the description of segments and to show how they differ from one another, Regrettably, e.g. the again, sound there[p] differs are problems from [b] presented with distin in (2)ctive by featuresone feature, too. Above all, they are too i.e. [p] is [– voice]. The other is to express generalization in rules: instead of separa- tely writingnumerous several and rules no which one actuallyrefer to, say,knows all voicedhow many stops ofin athem given should tongue, be i.e. used in what situations. If which describewe look the again same at process, (2) above, we use we features see that such [b] asis [+consonant,[+ labial, –velar, – syllabic, –coronal], + etc. Is it not enough obstruent, – continuant, +voice], and say that sounds possessing these features valued to say it is [+labial]? In some analyses we can see that it is, while in others we can find that in this particular way are all subject to the process we deal with. Regrettably,every segment again, there should are beproblems fully with specified. distinctive Moreover, features too.from Above the all, formal viewpoint, features they aredescribe too numerous two and dissimilar no one actually bits of knows information: how many one of them is purely should phonetic, be used e.g. [labial] or [high], in what situations. If we look again at (2) above, we see that [b] is [+ labial, –velar, –coronal],while etc. theIs it other not enough is relational to say it oris [+labial]?structural, In e.g. some [syllabic]. analyses we Phonetically, can see that it is difficult to imagine it is, whileor in realize others we such can a find feature. that every Besides, segment two should sets be fully of fac specified.ts about More a - segment seem formally over, from the formal viewpoint, features describe two dissimilar bits of information: one is purelyunfortunate. phonetic, e.g. [labial] or [high], while the other is relational or structural, e.g. [syllabic]. Phonetically, it is difficult to imagine or realize such a feature. Besi- des, two sets of facts about a segment seem formally unfortunate. 2.3. Syllable Structure

2.3.As Syllable regards Structure the structure of syllables, Generative Phonology, as a theory of rules, not Asrepresentations, regards the structure is not of syllables, particularly Generative interested Phonology, in it. Nonetheless, as a theory of ifrules, need arises, every word can not representations, is not particularly interested in it. Nonetheless, if need arises, be graphically represented using the Greek character (σ) for the syllable as well as four other every word can be graphically represented using the Greek character (σ) for the syllable as wellsymbols as four for other the symbols syllabic for constituents: the syllabic constituents: (O) for onse (O)ts, for(N) onsets, for nuclei, (N) for (R) for rhymes/rimes and nuclei, (R)(C/Co) for rhymes/rimes for codas. Consider and (C/Co) the for following codas. Consider diagrams: the following diagrams:

(3) a. b. σ σ σ O R O R O R N C N N k r E t k r E t È

In (3a) we can see the syllabic209 structure of the Polish word [krEt] kret – ‘mole’. This word has one syllable, consisting of a branching onset [kr], a nucleus [E] and a coda [t], which make a branching rhyme. In (3b) we can see the nominative plural of this word, that is [krEtÈ] krety.

5 Krzysztof Jaskuła

In (3a) we can see the syllabic structure of the Polish word [krt] kret – ‘mole’. This word has one syllable, consisting of a branching onset [kr], a nucleus [] and a coda [t], which make a branching rhyme. In (3b) we can see the nominative plural of this word, that is [krt] krety. Here we have two syllables and what was a coda in (3a), that is [t], is now an onset. Such a change of syllabic status is known as resyl‑ labification. All constituents, that is onsets, rhymes, nuclei and codas can consist of more than one segment and no restrictions are imposed on the number of segments in a constituent, e.g. in [strp] strip we have a ternary onset. All in all, Generative Phonology offers an unlimited number of rules which can explain practically everything synchronically, even if the shape of some words is dia‑ chronically motivated. Also the features employed by the model seem to be too nume‑ rous. Finally, the syllabic structure appears to be unrestricted and commonsensical.

3. Government Phonology This framework is a theory of representations. What it seeks is providing a hi- ghly restrictive and universal model composed of a few principles and describing all phonological phenomena on one level of representation. Thus, no rules or derivations are needed. In particular, Government Phonology (from now onwards referred to as GP) regards phonological phenomena as reflecting a limited number of universal principles and language-specific parameters. The basic notion, that of government, is employed to show that governing relations are present in phonology. Government is viewed as an asymmetric relation between two skeletal slots, i.e. units of phonological timing. As regards the melody units, each segment is composed of one or more phonological primes or elements, each of which receives full phonetic interpretability. It is of utmost importance to note that the theory is extremely strict in choosing the phenomena which should be perceived as phonological. Specifically, all truly phonological processes must be caused by the contexts in which they take place. If no context for change can be detected, such a change cannot be treated as phonological.

3.1. Principles, Parameters and Magic As already mentioned, GP uses a very limited number of universal principles and language-specific parameters. The most important of these principles are as follows. The Binarity Theorem states that all constituents, that is onsets, nuclei and rhymes, are maximally binary. The Strict Locality Condition and the Strict Directionality Condition ensure that governing relations between segments are local and directional.

210 From generators to mirrors – a comparison of phonological theories

Some segments are perceived to govern, while others to be governed. These assumptions are represented below (governors are underlined):

(4) a. CONSTITUENT GOVERNMENT b. INTER‑CONSTITUENT GOVERNMENT (4) a. CONSTITUENT GOVERNMENT b. INTER‑CONSTITUENT GOVERNMENT

O N R R O syllabic tier

O N RN RN O syllabic tier x → x x → x Nx → x N x x ← x skeletal tier x → x x → x x → x x x ← x skeletal tier t r e I e n r t melodic tier t r e I e n r t melodic tier

WhatWhat we see we above see isabove a formal is agraphic formal representatio graphic nrepresentation of branching onsets of branching(represented onsetsby the (re‑ presentedWhatconsonant we seeby cluster abovethe [tr]),consonant is a nucleiformal (illustrated graphiccluster representatio [tr]), with tnucleihe diphthongn of (illustrated branching [eI], although onsets with (represented everythe diphthong long byvowel the [e], althoughconsonantis also aevery branchingcluster long [tr]), nucleus)vowel nuclei (illustratedis and also rhymes a branchingwith (exemplifie the diphthong nucleus)d by [e theI], and sequencealthough rhymes every [en]) (exemplified long as well vowel as by theisgoverning sequence also a branching relations [en]) obtainingas nucleus) well andbetweenas governing rhymes skeletal (exemplifie relations positions.d by Inobtaining the (4b) sequence the onsetbetween [en]) [t] governs asskeletal well the as posi‑ tions.governingrhymal In (4b) complement relations the onset obtaining (also [t] known governs between as coda)the skeletal rhymal [r]. posi Normall tions.complement y, In obstruents (4b) the (also onset are known assumed [t] governs as tocoda) the be [r]. Normally, obstruents are assumed to be governors, while sonorants are governees rhymalgovernors, complement while sonorants (also are known governees as coda) (see 3.2. [r]. below). Normall y, obstruents are assumed to be (see 3.2. below). governors,We also while see thatsonorants the phonological are governees representation (see 3.2. below). has three tiers: syllabic, skeletal, and WeWe also also see see that that the the phonological phonological representation representation has three has tiers: three syllabic, tiers: skeletal, syllabic, and skeletal,melodic. and Themelodic. syllabic The tier issyllabic reserved tier for syllabicis reserved constituents, for syllabic the skeletal constituents, layer shows the timing skeletal melodic. The syllabic tier is reserved for syllabic constituents, the skeletal layer shows timing layerunits shows (x’s), while timing the unitsmelodic (x’s), one displayswhile thesegment melodics. It goes one without displays saying segments. that constituents It goes wi- units (x’s), while the melodic one displays segments. It goes without saying that constituents thoutmay sayingdominate that only constituents one timing position. may dominate In such a ca onlyse no oneconstituent timing government position. is In present. such a case nomay constituentThe dominate next important onlygovernment one timing assumption isposition. present. is theIn such Licensing a case no Prin constituentciple, according government to which is present. every positionTheThe next innext the important important phonological assumption assumption representation is the is Licensing ofthe a woLicensingrd Prin mustciple, be Principle, licensed according by according to the which head of everyto the which everypositiondomain, position which in the isin phonological normally the phonological the representation stressed nucleus.representation of aThi wos rdnucleus must of distributesa be word licensed must its by licensing be the licensed head power of the toby the headdomain,the otherof the which nuclei domain, is innormally the which word the and stressedis these,normally nucleus. in turn, the Thi li censestresseds nucleus the precedingdistributesnucleus. onsets.itsThis licensing nucleus Coupled power withdistribu to - testhethese its other licensingis the nuclei Coda inpowerLicensing the word to Principle, the and other these, which nuclei in turn, states in li censethat the every word the precedingpost‑nuclear and these, onsets. rhymal in Coupledturn, position license with (or the precedingthesecoda) ismust the onsets. Codabe followed Licensing Coupled by an Principle, onset.with Thisthese which practicall isstates the y thatCoda means every Licensingthat post‑nuclear no word Principle, in rhymal any language position which ends (or states thatcoda)with every a must coda. post-nuclear be Consider followed these by rhymal an assumptions onset. position This represented practicall (or coda)y meansgraphically: must that nobe wordfollowed in any bylanguage an onset. ends This practicallywith a coda. means Consider that these no assumptions word in any represented language graphically: ends with a coda. Consider these assumptions(5) a. represented graphically: b. (5) a. b.R R

O1 N 1 O 2 N 2 O1 N 1 O 2 N 2 Ox 1 x N x 1 O x 2 N x 2 O x 1 N x 1 x Ox 2 N x 2 x k x r x a x t x a xk xo xr xt xP Licensing k r a t a k o r t P Licensing

211 7 7 Krzysztof Jaskuła

AboveAbove we observe we observe two Polish two words: Polish [krata] words: krata – [krata]‘grille’ andkrata [kort] – kort ‘grille’ – ‘tennis and court’. [kort] In kort

– (5a)‘tennis the nucleuscourt’. (N In1) (5a)provides the licensing nucleus to (N the1) governor provides of thelicensing precedi ngto onset,the governor that is to the of the precedingstop [k]. Theonset, nucleus that (Nis2 )to also the licensesstop [k]. the The preceding nucleus onset (N (O2)1 ).also In (5b)licenses the nucleus the preceding (N1) onsetlicenses (O 1).(O In1), (5b)while the(O2 )nucleus is licensed (N 1by) licensesthe empty (O nucleus1), while (N2 ).(O When2) is licenseda nucleus bylicenses the empty a nucleusposition (N of2 ).the When governor a nucleus which has licenses to take carea position of its governee, of the governorsuch a type which of licensing has to is take carefrequently of its governee, referred to assuch government‑licensing a type of licensing or a islicence frequently to govern. referred We can to also as noticegovernment that - -licensing or a licence to govern. We can also notice that in branching onsets sonority in branching onsets sonority rises towards the following nucleus, e.g. [kr] in (5a), while in rises towards the following nucleus, e.g. [kr] in (5a), while in coda-onset clusters it coda‑onset clusters it falls towards the end of the cluster, e.g. [rt] in (5b). falls towards the end of the cluster, e.g. [rt] in (5b). A few other things deserve some comment here. First, the word [kort] physically ends A few other things deserve some comment here. First, the word [kort] physi- callywith anends onset, with not an a coda.onset, Second, not a thiscoda. word Second, phonol thisogically word endsphonologically with an empty nucleus, ends with anwhich empty is anucleus, revolutionary which assumption is a revolutionary in phonology. assumption Such a viewpoint in phonology. results from Suchobserving a view - pointthe Projectionresults from Principle, observing due to whichthe Projection relations am Principle,ong segments due are to perceived which relations as stable, amongno segmentsmatter which are versionperceived of a assingle stable, word nowe matterdeal with. which Thus, version whether ofwe atake single [kort], word [kortu] we – deal with.gen.sg., Thus, [kort] whether – nom.pl. we or take any [kort], other paradigmatic [kortu] – gen.sg., case of kort [kort], the – liquid nom.pl. [r] will or alwaysany other paradigmaticbelong to the case rhyme, of while kort , [t] the will liquid always [r] be will an onalwaysset. The belong same goes to the for [krata],rhyme, whose while [t] willgen.pl. always is [krat] be kratan .onset. In both The cases same [t] is angoes onset. for Practically, [krata], whose this means gen.pl. that there is [krat] can be krat no . In bothresyllabification. cases [t] is an onset. Practically, this means that there can be no resyllabification. WhatWhat needs needs to beto mentioned be mentioned here as herewell isas one well lang isuage‑specific one language-specific parameter, namely parameter, that namelyconcerning that theconcerning ability of emptythe ability nuclei of to emptystand at nuclei the end to of stand the word at the and, end consequently, of the word to and, consequently,license the preceding to license onsets. the In preceding Polish, as onsets. we see in In (5b), Polish, an empty as we nucleus see in is(5b), capable an empty of nucleus is capable of licensing the onset [t] and any other onset. So, the parameter is licensing the onset [t] and any other onset. So, the parameter is ON. There are languages, ON. There are languages, however, in which this parameter is OFF (e.g. Italian and however, in which this parameter is OFF (e.g. Italian and Japanese). In such tongues every Japanese). In such tongues every word must end in a full vowel because only a melo- word must end in a full vowel because only a melodically filled word‑final nucleus is able to dically filled word-final nucleus is able to license the onset it follows. license Now the onsetlet us it turnfollows. to another form of government utilized by the theory, namely to Proper Now letGovernment. us turn to another This formtype ofof government relationship util isized closely by the connectedtheory, namely with to theProper Empty CategoryGovernment. Principle, This type which of states relationship that some is closely positions connected within with a word the Empty may remain Category silent if Principle,they are whichproperly states governed. that some This positions situation within normallya word may occurs remain in silent the case if they of are word - -medialproperly nuclei governed. which This aresituation phonologically normally occurs present in the butcase phonetically of word‑medial absent. nuclei whichConsider theare following phonologically examples: present but phonetically absent. Consider the following examples:

(6) a. b.

O1 N 1 O 2 N 2 O1 N 1 O 2 N 2 x x x x x x x x m E x P m P x u

212 From generators to mirrors – a comparison of phonological theories

Looking at the representations of the Polish word [mx] mech – ‘moss’ in (6a), as well as at its genitive singular [mxu] mchu in (6b), two things have to be made clear. Firstly, it is assumed that, since there is no resyllabification, both the nasal [m] and the velar fricative [x] are attached to onset positions. Second, in (6b) the apparent root vowel [] is not realized phonetically, so [] from (6a) alternates with zero from (6b). This vowel-zero alternation can be easily accounted for by assuming that Proper

Government is at work here. In particular, the filled nucleus (N2) in (6b) allows the preceding nucleus (N1) to remain mute. In (6a) there is no vowel under (N2), so the vowel has to surface. All this is possible under the assumption that the sound [ε] is not a phonological vowel in Polish but an underlying empty nucleus which has to be phonetically present if there is no following vowel to let it stay silent.6 Thus, an empty nuclear position may be licensed to keep quiet in two ways: either by Proper Government if it is word-medial, or by parameter if it is word-final. Another thing needs mentioning here as well. What we saw in (5a, b) above was that sequences of obstruents followed by sonorants, e.g. [kr] are viewed as branching onsets, while the same types of consonants in reverse order are assumed to be coda‑ -onset sequences. There are also other consonant clusters whose structure should be looked at. For example, in Polish words such as [tkat] tkać – ‘to weave’ or [ptak] ptak – ‘bird’, the word-initial clusters contain two stops which can be viewed neither as branching onsets nor as coda-onset sequences. Thus, they are considered to be two independent onsets separated by an empty nucleus and have a structure like that shown in (6b) above. Practically, all clusters of similar consonants are treated in this fashion unless there are language-specific (i.e. parametric) exceptions. Finally, let us concentrate on sequences of the sound [s] followed by voiceless stops in word-initial position. Such a configuration occurs in a variety of languages and can be exemplified by words such as [stp] stop, [spik] speak (English), [staf] staw – ‘pond’, [skok] skok – ‘jump’ (Polish), and many other items of this sort. Mo- reover, one encounters three-sound combinations in many tongues, e.g. [strp] strip (English), [sklp] sklep – ‘shop’ (Polish). Such sequences cannot be branching onsets for a few reasons. First, the sonority of cluster-members is not normal since [s] (a spirant) is more sonorous than [p, t, k] (stops), which rules out all these clusters as branching onsets. Second, there is a binarity requirement on the number of x’s in a constituent, which eliminates [spr, str], etc. What can be done, then? Above all, let us observe that clusters such as [sp, st, sk] occur not only word-initially, e.g. [wsk]

6 In fact, there is another sound [ε] in Polish, which does not alternate with zero and which is a full vowel, e.g. [sεr] ser – ‘cheese’ vs. [sεra] sera – ‘cheese-gen.sg.’

213 Krzysztof Jaskuła whisk, [lst] lust, [wsp] whisper (English), [most] most – ‘bridge’ [waska] łaska – ‘grace’‘grace’ (Polish). (Polish). ConsiderConsider the the representation representation of th ofe wordsthe words [wIsp ´[]wsp and [most]] and below[most] (the below (thegoverning governing onsets onsets are underlined): are underlined):

(7) a. b. R R

O1 N 1 O 2 N 2 O1 N 1 O 2 N 2 x x x x x x x x x x w I s p ´ m o s t P

In (7a)In (7a) we observewe observe the medial the medial cluster cluster [sp] syllabif [sp]ied syllabified as a coda‑onset as a coda-onset structure with structure [p] withgoverning [p] governing [s]. There is[s]. no Thereother logical is no possibilit other logicaly from the possibility viewpoint offrom both thethe theoryviewpoint and of common sense. Every speaker of English will say that [wIs] is one syllable, while [p´] is both the theory and common sense. Every speaker of English will say that [wΙ s] is È oneanother. syllable, In Polish while we [pwillƏ] alsois another. agree that In the Polish nominative we willplural also [most agreeÈ] mosty that is syllabifiedthe nominative as plural[mos] [ mostand [tÈ].] mostyWe know is assyllabified well that there as [mos] is no resyllabificati and [t]. Weon knowin GP, soas bothwell [most] that therein (7b) is no resyllabificationand [mostÈ] have thein sameGP, sostructure. both [most] in (7b) and [most] have the same structure. Then,Then, since since clusters clusters composed composed of [s]+stop of [s]+stop are coda‑onset are coda-onset sequences in sequences word‑medial in and word- medialfinal positions,and final then positions, it seems reasonablethen it seems to say reasonable that they have to say the samethat they structure have initially. the same structureWhat follows initially. [s] is eitherWhat a followssingle onset [s] in is groups either such a single as [st, sp,onset sk] orin a groups branching such onset, as e.g. [st, sp, sk][str, or spl].a branching This is illustrated onset, below:e.g. [str, spl]. This is illustrated below:

(8) a. b. R R

N1 O 2 N 2 O 3 N 3 N1 O 2 N 2 O 3 N 3 x x x x x x x x x x x x x P s k o k P P s t r I p P

The only problem is the licensing o the nucleus (N1) in both cases. What we remember is that The only problem is the licensing o the nucleus (N1) in both cases. What we rememberempty nuclei is that are licensedempty nuclei by parameter are licensed as word‑fina by parameterl or by Proper as Governmentword-final ifor medial.by Proper GovernmentHere neither ifsituation medial. is Hereillustrated. neither Thus, situation the concept is illustrated. of magic licensingThus, the is concept proposed of for mag - icsuch licensing occasions. is Thisproposed is an for exceptional such occasions. state since Thisno otheris an consonant exceptional than state [s] cross‑ since no 7 otherlinguistically consonant behaves than this [s] way. cross-linguistically behaves this way. 7

7 In fact, magic licensing refers to all s‑like sounds, i.e. those which are historically or contemporarily closely 7 connectedIn fact, magic with [s], licensing e.g. [z, S, refersÇ]. to all s-like sounds, i.e. those which are historically or contemporarily

10 214 From generators to mirrors – a comparison of phonological theories

3.2. Phonological Elements 3.2. InPhonological Government Elements Phonology every segment contains one or more phonological elementsIn Government or primes. Phonology These every are segment the smallest contains oneunits or moreof representation phonological elements which can or be 3.2. Phonological Elements realizedprimes. These phonetically are the smallest in isolation. units of Forrepresentat instance,ion which the elementcan be realized (A), phonetically when interpreted in In Government Phonology every segment contains one or more phonological elements or alone,isolation. more For or instance, less corresponds the element (A),to thewhen cardinal interpreted vowel alone, [a], more while or less (A) corresponds combined to with primes. These are the smallest units of representation which can be realized phonetically in (U)the represents cardinal vowel the [a]vowel, while [o]. (A) Combinations combined with (U)of elements represents arethe vowelparametric. [o]. Combinations First consider isolation. For instance, the element (A), when interpreted alone, more or less corresponds to theof followingelements are primes parametric. used First to considerrepresent the vowels: following primes used to represent vowels: the cardinal vowel [a], while (A) combined with (U) represents the vowel [o]. Combinations of elements are parametric. First consider the following primes used to represent vowels: (9) ELEMENTS A I U COMBINATIONS A, I A, U

VOWELS [a] [i] [u] [e] [o] (9) ELEMENTS A I U COMBINATIONS A, I A, U VOWELS [a] [i] [u] [e] [o] The elements from which vowels are made are also used to represent consonants, although The elements from which vowels are made are also used to represent conso- there they determine only the place of articulation. Other primes contribute different nants,The elementsalthough from there which they vowels determine are made only are the also place used ofto representarticulation. consonants, Other althoughprimes con- properties to the consonants. Although the number of elements used for consonants may differ tributethere different they determine properties only theto the place consonants. of articulation Although. Other the primes number contribute of elements different used forfrom consonants analysis to mayanalysis, differ we may from assume analysis the follow to analysis,ing collection: we may assume the following properties to the consonants. Although the number of elements used for consonants may differ collection: from analysis to analysis, we may assume the following collection: (10) U – labial A – coronal @ – velar I – palatal / – stopness h – noise N – nasal L – lack vocal cords (voiced) H – stiff vocal cords (voiceless) (10) U – labial A – coronal @ – velar I – palatal / – stopness h – noise N – nasal L – lack vocal cords (voiced) H – stiff vocal cords (voiceless) For instance, the Polish [b] will be represented by (U, /, h, L), which means that it is a labial (U) stop (/), which is also voiced (L) and characterized by noise (h). The voiceless For instance, the Polish [b] will be represented by (U, /, h, L), which means that it is a labial counterpartFor instance, [p] will the lack Polish the element [b] will (L) beand represented will have the by structure (u, /, ofh, (U,L), / which, h). means that it is (U) stop (/), which is also voiced (L) and characterized by noise (h). The voiceless a labial As (U)a rule, stop obstruents (/), which (stops is alsoand fricatives)voiced (L) conta andin characterized more elements by than noise sonorants (h). The (liquids, voiceless counterpart [p] will lack the element (L) and will have the structure of (U, /, h). counterpartnasals and glides)[p] will and lack this the fact element makes the (L) former and will better have candidates the str ucturefor governors of (U, in/, branchingh). As a rule, obstruents (stops and fricatives) contain more elements than sonorants (liquids, onsetsAs or a coda‑onsetrule, obstruents sequences, (stops as shown and fricatives)in (4) and (5) contain above. more elements than sonorants nasals and glides) and this fact makes the former better candidates for governors in branching (liquids, The statusnasals the and elements glides) enjoy and within this afact given makes segme ntthe may former be unalike. better Specifically, candidates some for go- onsets or coda‑onset sequences, as shown in (4) and (5) above. vernorselements in are branching viewed as onsetsheaded or – coda-onsetmore important sequences, for a given assegment shown than in the(4) other and primes.(5) above. The status the elements enjoy within a given segment may be unalike. Specifically, some HeadednessThe status may thealso elementsdenote tenseness enjoy in within vowels. a For given instance, segment the English may laxbe [I]unalike. is normally Specifi - cally,elements some are elements viewed as headedare viewed – more as important headed for – amore given importantsegment than for the a other given primes. segment perceived as headless (I), while the tense [i…] as headed (I). If more primes make a segment, thanHeadedness the other may primes. also denote Headedness tenseness mayin vowels. also Fordenote instance, tenseness the English in vowels. lax [I] is For normally instance, the asymmetry of headedness may mean differences in the phonetic quality, e.g. (A, I) = [e], theperceived English as lax headless [I] is normally(I), while the perceived tense [i…] as headedheadless (I). (I),If more while primes the tensemake a[ segment,] as headed while (A, I) = [E] or [œ], depending on the vocalic inventory of a given system. (I).the If asymmetry more primes of headedness make a maysegment, mean differences the asymmetry in the phonetic of headedness quality, e.g. may (A, meanI) = [e] diffe, - As already said, both single primes and the combinations of elements are chosen renceswhile in(A ,the I) = phonetic [E] or [œ] ,quality, depending e.g. on (A,the vocalic I) = [e] inventory, while (ofA a, givenI) = [ sys] ortem. [ ], depending on theparametrically, vocalic inventory depending of ona given the phonological system. system. So, the prime (A) may be realized as As already said, both single primes and the combinations of elements are chosen [œ] in English but as [a] in Polish. Combinations may differ as well, e.g. in Polish [p] equals parametrically, depending on the phonological system. So, the prime (A) may be realized as [œ]closely in English connected but withas [a] [s], in e.g.Polish. [z, ,Combinations ]. may differ as well, e.g. in Polish [p] equals 11 215 11 Krzysztof Jaskuła

As already said, both single primes and the combinations of elements are chosen parametrically, depending on the phonological system. So, the prime (A) may be realized as [] in English but as [a] in Polish. Combinations may differ as well, e.g. in (U,Polish /, h), [p] while equals in English (U, /, h), it is while (U, /, in h, English H). Whether it is headedness(U, /, h, H). of elementsWhether occurs headedness in ofconsonants elements atoccurs all has in to consonants be established at all as ahas result to be of theestablished phonological as a analysis result of athe given phono - logicallanguage. analysis of a given language.

3.3. 3.3.Non-branching Non-branching Government Government Phonology Phonology In moreIn more recent recent analyses, analyses,8 Government8 Government Phonology Phonology often employs often only employs two consti onlytuents two – con- stituentsOnset and – NucleusOnset and– both Nucleus being non‑branching. – both being Thus, non-branching. all segments are Thus,attached all to segmentseither one are attachedor two skeletal to either positions. one or Formally, two skeletal the following positions. structures Formally, of long theand followingshort segments structures can be of longdistinguished. and short segments can be distinguished.

(11) a. SHORT VOWEL b. LONG VOWEL c. SHORT CONSONANT d. LONG CONSONANT

N N O N O O N O x x x x x x x x (U,α / , h), while in English α it is (U, /, h, H). β Whether headedness ofβ elements occurs in consonants at all has to be established as a result of the phonological analysis of a given Shortlanguage. vowels (11a) and single consonants (11c) are associated with one skeletal slot. Long vowelsShort (11b) vowels are linked (11a) to andtwo singleconsecutive consonants nuclei, whereas (11c) aregeminates associated (11d) arewith attached one skeletal to slot.two Long3.3.successive Non-branching vowels onsets. (11b) Government are linked Phonology to two consecutive nuclei, whereas geminates (11d)AsIn are for more attacheddiphthongs, recent to analyses, these two aresuccessive8 Governmentsequences onsets. of Phonologytwo vowel s, often each employsattached to only one twonucleus, consti whiletuents – consonantAsOnset for andgroups diphthongs, Nucleus are linked – both these to beingtwo are consecutive non‑branching. sequences onse of ts.Thus, two This vowels,all is segmentsgraphically each are represented attached attached to tobelow: either one nucone - leus, whileor two skeletalconsonant positions. groups Formally, are linked the following to two consecutivestructures of long onsets. and short This segments is graphically can be represented(12)distinguished. a. DIPHTHONG below: b. CONSONANT CLUSTER N O N O N O

(11)x a. xSHORT xVOWEL b. LONG VOWELx x x c. SHORT CONSONANT d. LONG CONSONANT α β δ γ N N O N O O N O Now, since x there are no branching x x constituents, x con sonant x clusters are perceived x xas sequencesx of onsets whichα may enter into interonsetα governing relations. β Every relation of thisβ type must be government‑licensed by the nucleus which immediately follows it. In languages such as Polish,Short empty vowels nuclei (11a) can and government‑license single consonants only (11c) ce arertain associated types of consonant with one skeletalclusters, slot.while Long 8 E. Cyran, vowels Complexity (11b) are linked scales to and two licensing consecutive strength nuclei, in phonology, whereas geminates Lublin 2003; (11d) K. areJaskuła, attached Ancient to 8 E. Cyran, Complexity scales and licensing strength in phonology, Lublin 2003; K. Jaskuła, Ancient sound soundtwo changes successive and onsets.Old Irish phonology, Lublin 2006. changes and Old Irish phonology, Lublin 2006. As for diphthongs, these are sequences of two vowels, each attached to one nucleus, while 216 consonant groups are linked to two consecutive onsets. This is graphically represented below: 12

(12) a. DIPHTHONG b. CONSONANT CLUSTER N O N O N O x x x x x x α β δ γ

Now, since there are no branching constituents, consonant clusters are perceived as sequences of onsets which may enter into interonset governing relations. Every relation of this type must be government‑licensed by the nucleus which immediately follows it. In languages such as Polish, empty nuclei can government‑license only certain types of consonant clusters, while

8 E. Cyran, Complexity scales and licensing strength in phonology, Lublin 2003; K. Jaskuła, Ancient sound changes and Old Irish phonology, Lublin 2006.

12 From generators to mirrors – a comparison of phonological theories

Now, since there are no branching constituents, consonant clusters are perceived as sequences of onsets which may enter into interonset governing relations. Every relation of this type must be government-licensed by the nucleus which immediately follows it. In languages such as Polish, empty nuclei can government-license only certain types of consonant clusters, while full vowels are able to license a wider range of consonantal sequences. Generally, the licensing properties of nuclei are lan- guagefull vowels specific. are Using able to three license Polish a wider words, range [ of  co]nsonantal kret – ‘mole’, sequences. [kant] Generally, kant – the‘edge’ and mech – ‘moss’ (whose gen.sg. is mchu), we can represent the pos- licensing[mex] properties of nuclei are language specific.[mxu] Using three Polish words, [krEt] kret – sible governing relations as follows: ‘mole’, [kant] kant – ‘edge’ and [mex] mech – ‘moss’ (whose gen.sg. is [mxu] mchu), we can represent the possible governing relations as follows:

(13) a. b.

O1 O2 N2 O1 O2 N 2

N1 N1 x x x x x x x x k r E t k a n t

c. d. //

O1 N 1 O2 N 2 O1 N 1 O2 N 2 x x x x x x x x m x u m E x

Interonset (IO), Proper Government (PG) Government‑licensing // absence of relations

In (13a) and (13b) we can see two interonset governing relations, rightward and leftward, In (13a) and (13b) we can see two interonset governing relations, rightward and respectively. The word [krEt] in (13a) exemplifies a governing relation between the onset (O1) leftward, respectively. The word [krEt] in (13a) exemplifies a governing relation be- – the governor, and the governee (O2). This relation is licensed by the nucleus (N2), which tween the onset (O1) – the governor, and the governee (O2). This relation is licensed contains the vowel [E]. Note that the intervening nuclear position (N1) is empty and plays no by the nucleus (N2), which contains the vowel [E]. Note that the intervening nuclear part in phonology. The word [kant] in (13b) illustrates a reverse situation, where the governor position (N1) is empty and plays no part in phonology. The word [kant] in (13b) illu- (O2) follows the governee (O1). This relation is also licensed by (N2) which is empty but plays strates a reverse situation, where the governor (O2) follows the governee (O1). This a role in phonology by being a licenser for the whole relation. The intervening nucleus (N1) is relation is also licensed by (N2) which is empty but plays a role in phonology by being empty and irrelevant to the structure. Such nuclei are referred to as ‘buried’ or ‘locked’. In a licenser for the whole relation. The intervening nucleus (N1) is empty and irrelevant to(13c) the structure.we can see ProperSuch Governmentnuclei are referredbetween the to nuclas ‘buried’eus (N2), which or ‘locked’. includes theIn vowel(13c) [u]we, can seeand Proper the empty Government (N1). Since thebetween word [mxu] the nucleus alternates (N with2), which[mEx] (13d), includes it is assumedthe vowel that [u]the, and

underlyingly empty nucleus (N1) can stay silent if it is properly governed by the following vowel. 217 What needs to be added is that consonant clusters are said to participate in interonset relations not incidentally. In particular, when we deal with a cluster composed of an obstruent followed by a sonorant, the relation will be from left to right. On the other hand, when a

13 Krzysztof Jaskuła

the empty (N1). Since the word [mxu] alternates with [mEx] (13d), it is assumed that the underlyingly empty nucleus (N1) can stay silent if it is properly governed by the following vowel. What needs to be added is that consonant clusters are said to participate in interonset relations not incidentally. In particular, when we deal with a cluster composed of an obstruent followed by a sonorant, the relation will be from left to right. On the other hand, when a resonant precedes an obstruent, the relation will be from right to left. This is because obstruents are viewed to be typical governors, sonorants being classic governees. It may also be said that in this version of the model there is no need to resort to magic. All word-initial sequences such as [sp, st, spl, str] etc., are treated like structures presented in (13) above, e.g. [sp] is like (13b), while [str] is like a combination of (13b) and (13a). To sum up, the non-branching version of Government Phonology translates the governing relations occurring within or across syllabic constituents in the standard model into relations between constituents.

4. The Lateral Theory of Phonology and the Coda Mirror This framework, although it is based on many Government Phonology tenets, may be viewed as a full-fledged and relatively independent theory of representations developed by Scheer 9 from an idea by Lowenstamm.10 We should remember that the final version of the model is still to appear. As far as it stands at present, it is taken for granted that CVCV sequences are universal and, similarly to what we saw in the previous section, there are no branching constituents. The forces of Government and Licensing are at work too, but their functions are slightly different than in GP. The Lateral Theory of Phonology (henceforth LTP) assumes that segments enter into lateral relations with other segments. These relations are caused by nuclei, al‑ though the effects may show up in both consonants and vowels. Consider the follow‑ ing examples where the English words [] summer and [] winter are used:

9 T. Scheer, A lateral theory of phonology Vol. 1: What is CVCV, and why should it be? Berlin 2004. 10 J. Lowenstamm, CV as the only syllable type, In J. Durand and B. Laks (eds.) Current trends in phonology. Models and methods, Manchester 1996.

218 resonant precedes an obstruent, the relation will be from right to left. This is because obstruents are viewed to be typical governors, sonorants being classic governees. It may also be said that in this version of the model there is no need to resort to magic. All word‑initial sequences such as [sp, st, spl, str] etc., are treated like structures presented in (13) above, e.g. [sp] is like (13b), while [str] is like a combination of (13b) and (13a). To sum up, the non‑branching version of Government Phonology translates the governing relations occurring within or across syllabic constituents in the standard model into relations between constituents.

4. The Lateral Theory of Phonology and the Coda Mirror This framework, although it is based on many Government Phonology tenets, may be viewed as a full‑fledged and relatively independent theory of representations developed by Scheer 9 from an idea by Lowenstamm.10 We should remember that the final version of the model is still to appear. As far as it stands at present, it is taken for granted that CVCV sequences are universal and, similarly to what we saw in the previous section, there are no branching constituents. The forces of Government and Licensing are at work too, but their functions are slightly different than in GP. The Lateral Theory of Phonology (henceforth LTP) assumes that segments enter into lateral relations with other segments. These relations are caused by nuclei, although the effects may show up in both consonants and vowels. Consider the following examples where From generators to mirrors – a comparison of phonological theories the English words [søm´] summer and [wInt´] winter are used:

(14) a. b. Government

Licensing

What can be observed in (14a) is that the forces of both Government and Licen- What can be observed in (14a) is that the forces of both Government and Licensing operate sing9 operate from vowels to consonants. In LTP Government weakens the melody of fromT. Scheer, vowels A lateral to consonants. theory of phonology In LTP Vol. Government 1: What is CVCV, weaken and whys the should melody it be? ofBerlin a segment, 2004. while a segment,10 while Licensing supports its ‘health’. Every V is obligated to both govern Licensing J. Lowenstamm, supports CV itsas the‘health’. only syllable Every type V ,is In obligat J. Duranded andto both B. Laks govern (eds.) and Current license trends the in precedingphonology. and licenseModels and the methods preceding, Manchester C 1996. and this is what both V1 and V2 do in (14a). There is at leastC and one this exception is what bothto this V1 obligation, and V2 do in however, (14a). There and is this at leastis shown one exception in (14b). to In this parti - cular,obligation, what however,occurs betweenand this is Cshown and in C (14b). is an In emptyparticular, vocalic what occurs position, between which C2 and has C 3to be 2 3 11 14 governedis an empty by vocalicV .11 position, which has to be governed by and V3. this As consonantala result, V3 does position not is 3 As a result, V3 does not govern C3 onlygovern licensed, C3 and i.e.this itconsonantal is very a position‘healthy’ is only and licensed, strong segment.i.e. it is very a ‘healthy’ and strong segment.More generally, in the representations (14a, b) we can see that no onsets or nucleiMore are generally,necessary in for the LTP. representations What is sufficient (14a, b) we is can consonants see that no and onsets vowels. or nuclei Every are con- sonantnecessary is attached for LTP. toWhat C, iswhile sufficient every is consonantsvowel to V.and Long vowels. consonants Every consonant and vowels is attached simply straddleto C, while intervening every vowel empty to V. Longpositions, consonants similarly and vowels to what simply we straddle saw in intervening (11b, d) above.empty positions,LTP similarly introduces to what other we saw revolutionary in (11b, d) abo observationsve. to phonology. One of these is theLTP parametric introduces occurrence other revolutionary of an empty observations CV unit to phonology.word-initially, One ofanother these isis thethat all 12 relationsparametric are occurrence from right of to an left, empty while CV yet unit another word‑init isially, that another sonorants is that govern all relations obstruents. are Considerfrom right the to examples left, while below, yet another where is thatit is sonorassumedants governthat English obstruents. does12 Considerhave the the initial CV sequence: examples below, where it is assumed that English does have the initial CV sequence:

(15) a. b. c. // Government

Licensing

In (15a) both V1 and V2 license the preceding C’s; V2 also governs C2, so this consonant is

exposed to both forces. V1 has to (properly) govern V0, as a result of which the initial stop [t] 11 in This [tIl] situation till experiences resembles only Proper licensing, Government which makes illustrated it ‘strong in (6b).’. In (15b) [r] governs [t], which 12 is The indicated details byof thisthe arrowassumption (←). [r] are is too licensed complicated and governed to handle by inV 2a, shortwhich text is a like normal this situation,one.

while [t] is only licensed by V1, which makes it ‘healthy’ in the word [trIl] trill as well. What 219 must be added is that the governing relation between [r] and [t] licenses the nucleus V1, which is symbolized by☺, as different from other empty nuclei, which are not sanctioned by an inter‑consonantal governing relations and which have to be properly governed. ☺ is not

11 This situation resembles Proper Government illustrated in (6b). 12 The details of this assumption are too complicated to handle in a short text like this one.

15 Krzysztof Jaskuła

In (15a) both V1 and V2 license the preceding C’s; V2 also governs C2, so this consonant is exposed to both forces. V1 has to (properly) govern V0, as a result of which the initial stop [t] in [tIl] till experiences only licensing, which makes it ‘strong’. In (15b) [r] governs [t], which is indicated by the arrow (←). [r] is licensed and governed by V2, which is a normal situation, while [t] is only licensed by V1, which makes it ‘healthy’ in the word [trIl] trill as well. What must be added is that the governing relation between [r] and [t] licenses the nucleus V1, which is symbolized by ☺, as different from other empty nuclei, which are not sanctioned by an inter-consonantal governing relations and which have to be properly governed. ☺ is not governed, it licenses and governs by itself. Finally, there is the word *[rtIl], which is incorrect in English. The fact that it is an impossible structure is predicted by the theory. Namely, since all governing relations are directed leftwards and since sonorants govern obstruents, [r] followed by [t] cannot (//) contract a relation which would make V1 silent.

So, V2 has to properly govern it and, by doing so, V2 cannot properly govern V0. If a vocalic position is deprived of all the necessary forms of sanctioning, the whole structure is incorrect. Consequently, words such as *[rtIl] cannot occur in English. As regards Polish, no empty CV sequence is present in words, so words like [rtt] rtęć – ‘mercury’ or [rvat] rwać – ‘tear apart’ are well-formed. Specifically, in a case like (15c) there is no V0, so V2 can safely govern V1 and the whole structure is correct. Returning to the ‘health’ or ‘strength’ of segments, LTP is particularly interested establishing the positions in a word where segments are more or less likely to occur or undergo changes such as weakening.13 Specifically, consonants can occur in either relatively strong or weak positions within a word and these positions may determine the possibilities of the consonants’ weakening or remaining unchanged in languages where weakening takes place. To use the model-specific terminology, a consonant is relatively stronger if it occurs in the Coda Mirror, while it is comparatively weaker when it is in the Coda. Specifical- ly, a consonant is in the Coda Mirror when it is word-initial before a vowel and when it is post-consonantal. In CM terms, where an empty CV unit initiating any word is assumed to occur, i.e. a word/morpheme boundary # = empty CV, these two contexts are identical in that the Coda Mirror consonant surfaces after a governed empty nucleus. This is presented below:

13 The weakening or lenition of consonants does not normally occur in English or Polish, but it does in dozens of other languages such as Irish, Spanish, etc. Weakening normally means transforming a stop into a fricative or turning a voiced sound into its voiceless congener. Sometimes lenition is complete, i.e. the weakened sound disappears from pronunciation.

220 governed, it licenses and governs by itself. Finally, there is the word *[rtIl], which is incorrect in English. The fact that it is an impossible structure is predicted by the theory. Namely, since all governing relations are directed leftwards and since sonorants govern obstruents, [r]

followed by [t] cannot (//) contract a relation which would make V1 silent. So, V2 has to

properly govern it and, by doing so, V2 cannot properly govern V0. If a vocalic position is deprived of all the necessary forms of sanctioning, the whole structure is incorrect. Consequently, words such as *[rtIl] cannot occur in English. As regards Polish, no empty CV sequence is present in words, so words like [rtE≠tÇ] rtęć – ‘mercury’ or [rvatÇ] rwać – ‘tear

apart’ are well‑formed. Specifically, in a case like (15c) there is no V0, so V2 can safely

govern V1 and the whole structure is correct. Returning to the ‘health’ or ‘strength’ of segments, LTP is particularly interested establishing the positions in a word where segments are more or less likely to occur or undergo changes such as weakening.13 Specifically, consonants can occur in either relatively strong or weak positions within a word and these positions may determine the possibilities of the consonants’ weakening or remaining unchanged in languages where weakening takes place. To use the model‑specific terminology, a consonant is relatively stronger if it occurs in the Coda Mirror, while it is comparatively weaker when it is in the Coda. Specifically, a consonant is in the Coda Mirror when it is word‑initial before a vowel and when it is post‑consonantal. In CM terms, where an empty CV unit initiating any word is assumed to occur, i.e. a word/morpheme boundary # = empty CV, these two contexts are identical in that the Coda Mirror consonant surfaces after a governed emptyFrom nucleus. generators This is to presented mirrors – below: a comparison of phonological theories

(16) a. #_V P_ Coda Mirror – strong position b. VC._V

On the other hand, a consonant occupies a Coda position when it is preconsonantal or word‑ On the other hand, a consonant occupies a Coda position when it is preconso- final. According to CM, this consonant appears before a governed empty nucleus. This is nantal or word-final. According to CM, this consonant appears before a governed shown in (17a, b) below: empty nucleus. This is shown in (17a, b) below:

13 The weakening or lenition of consonants does not normally occur in English or Polish, but it does in dozens of other(17) languages a. V_.CV such as Irish, Spanish, etc. Weakening normally means transforming a stop into a fricative or (17)turning a. a V_.CV voiced sound into its voiceless congener. Sometimes lenition is complete, i.e. the weakened sound disappears from pronunciation. _P Coda – weak position b. V_# _P Coda – weak position b. V_# 16

c. V_V non‑Coda – intervocalic weak position c. V_V non‑Coda – intervocalic weak position

In addition, the position between two vowels, as in (17c), is also viewed by the model as a Inweak addition,In site addition, although the position the it has position betweennothing inbetweentwo common vowels, two with as vowels, inCo (17c),das. asis alsoin (17c), viewed is by also the modelviewed as bya the model as a weak site although it has nothing in common with Codas. weakAs site a although consequence it has ofnothing adopting in common these with theoretical Codas. assumptions, we can predict that As a consequence of adopting these theoretical assumptions, we can predict that weakeningAs a consequence should first of affect adopting a consonant these theoretical in either ofassu themptions, positions we shown can in predict (17a,b) that or weakening should first affect a consonant in either of the positions shown in (17a,b) weakeningintervocalically should (17c), first while affect it will a consonant far less like in ly either for a ofconsonant the positions to be lenited shown in in the (17a,b) contexts or orintervocalically intervocalically (17c), (17c), while whileit will farit willless like farly less for alikely consonant for toa consonantbe lenited in tothe be contexts lenited in theshown contexts in (16). shown in (16). shown in (16). ToTo illustrate illustrate how how the positionthe position may influencemay influence the shape the of shape consonants, of consonants, Scheer provides Scheer To illustrate how the position may influence the shape of consonants, Scheer provides providesexamples examples of Latin obstruents of Latin whichobstruents were left which unchan wereged orleft altered unchanged in Modern or altered French (thein Mo- examples of Latin obstruents which were left unchanged or altered in Modern French (the dernrelevant French consonants (the relevant are emboldened): consonants are emboldened): relevant consonants are emboldened):

(18) strong position (Coda Mirror) weak position (Coda) (18) strong position (Coda Mirror) weak position (Coda) LATIN → FRENCH LATIN → FRENCH LATIN → FRENCH LATIN → FRENCH a. a. porta → porte rupta → route porta → porte rupta → route dente → dent advenire → avenir dente → dent advenire → avenir fame → faim facta → faite fame → faim facta → faite b. b. talpa → talpe lup(u) → lu talpa → talpe lup(u) → lu ardore → ardeur nud(u) → nu ardore → ardeur nud(u) → nu

In the left‑hand column the Latin consonants find themselves in the Coda Mirror, they are In the left‑hand column the Latin consonants find themselves in the Coda Mirror, they are strong and, as they enter French, they remain 221intact, no matter whether they are word initial strong and, as they enter French, they remain intact, no matter whether they are word initial (18a) or occurring after another consonant (18b). In the right‑hand column we see that the (18a) or occurring after another consonant (18b). In the right‑hand column we see that the original Latin obstruents disappear altogether in French. This is because they are in the Coda original Latin obstruents disappear altogether in French. This is because they are in the Coda position, be they before a consonant (18a) or word‑final (18b).14 position, be they before a consonant (18a) or word‑final (18b).14

14 In fact, in words like lu p u , the obstruents were not final in Latin, but they became final after entering French. 14 In fact, in words like lupu, the obstruents were not final in Latin, but they became final after entering French. 17 17 Krzysztof Jaskuła

In the left-hand column the Latin consonants find themselves in the Coda Mir- ror, they are strong and, as they enter French, they remain intact, no matter whether they are word initial (18a) or occurring after another consonant (18b). In the right- -hand column we see that the original Latin obstruents disappear altogether in French. This is because they are in the Coda position, be they before a consonant (18a) or word-final (18b).14 Obviously, the developments shown above occurred in stages over hundreds of years but synchronic processes of this sort can also be found. For instance, if we consider the word-final devoicing of Polish obstruents, which is an example of segment weakening, we realize that they are weakened in the Coda position shown in (17b). On the contrary, we will not expect a Polish obstruent to undergo devoicing in either of the contexts shown in (16). As already said, languages do not have to make their segments weaker but, if they do, this weakening is going to take place in the Coda position, while the Coda Mirror position seems to guarantee the segments’ security.

5. Conclusion What has been presented in this paper is an extra-brief introduction to the basic concepts and mechanisms of Generative Phonology and Government Phonology as well as a sketch to the still incomplete Lateral Theory of Phonology. In all these theoretical models the aims are different and the appropriate tools are selected ac- cordingly. Generative Phonology is primarily interested in transforming the abstract (phonological) representations of words into the concrete (phonetic) level. Govern- ment Phonology aims at discovering universal principles of syllable structure and rendering a single and comprehensive level of phonological representation governed by uniform mechanisms of government. The Lateral Theory of Phonology offers a simplistic syllable structure and seeks to find ways of interpreting this configuration. All these theories have their advantages and disadvantages and it is the analyst’s role is to decide which model deserves greater plausibility.

14 In fact, in words like lupu, the obstruents were not final in Latin, but they became final after entering French.

222