An alignment-based account of coda effects in a Caribbean Spanish dialect* Carlos-Eduardo Piñeros University of Iowa
A phonological trait that is common to all Caribbean Spanish dialects is their
tendency to restrict the types of consonant that can appear in syllable-final position. It is well
documented that in this family of Spanish dialects, syllable-final consonants undergo a
variety of processes including debuccalization, partial or total assimilation, nasal
velarization, nasal absorption, vocalization, and deletion. As many previous studies have
pointed out, all of these processes are geared towards changing closed syllables into open
ones. Although the preference for open syllables is quite strong in Caribbean Spanish, it
would seem that none of these dialects has reached the state in which all syllables are open.
This is evident in the case of those dialects where syllable-final obstruents are regularly deleted while sonorant consonants are faithfully preserved (e.g. [do.to] < /dokto/ ‘doctor’).
But the situation is not as clear in the case of a peculiar dialect spoken in the northern and
central regions of the Dominican Republic, where both obstruent and sonorant consonants
are avoided syllable finally (e.g. [do.toi ] < /dokto/ ‘doctor’). What makes it hard to aver
that all syllables are open in this dialect is that besides the glide [i ], syllable-final consonants
can turn into segments such as [h], [], and nasals that are homorganic with a following
stop/affricate.
In this paper, I use an alignment-based approach to account for the processes that
affect syllable-final consonants in this particular variety of Dominican Spanish. This
proposal reveals that the segments [h] and [] are not consonants but glides on a par with [i ].
All of these glides are parsed by the syllable nucleus, where they function as the offglides of 2 the diphthongs [Vh], [V ], and [Vi ]. Furthermore, because those nasals that surface sharing place features with a following stop/affricate are not the first member of an NC cluster, but the nasal component of a prenasalized consonant parsed by the syllable onset, it is indeed possible to conclude that in this Caribbean Spanish dialect all syllables are open. Central to this analysis is a family of alignment constraints that regulates the distribution of consonants within the syllable (Itô and Mester 1994, 1999, Piñeros 2001), as well as a family of correspondence constraints that regulate the identiy between input and output forms
(McCarthy and Prince 1995). Coda effects are shown to follow from the interaction of these two constraint families under the supervision of markedness constraints, which are capable of blocking the application of phonological processes when their outcome is a highly marked structure.
1. Coda effects in Northern Rustic Dominican Spanish
The term Northern Rustic Dominican Spanish (NRDS) will be used here to refer to a variety of Spanish spoken by illiterate people in the central and northern regions of the
Dominican Republic. Although better known as ‘Cibaeño’, I adopt the term Northern Rustic
Dominican Spanish because this dialect is spoken beyond the borders of El Cibao, and also because it is not the speech of all people in the area, but only of those who belong to the lower cultural levels, especially peasants (Jiménez Sabater 1975, Golibart 1976).1
The most salient phonological property of NRDS is its strong tendency to simplify consonants in syllable-final position (Henríquez Ureña 1940, Navarro Tomás 1956, Jiménez
Sabater 1975). Stops, fricatives, nasals, and liquids are all avoided syllable finally, and although not all consonants that are assigned to the syllable coda are lost, the inventory of 3
syllable-final segments is drastically reduced as a consequence of subjecting coda consonants to processes such as vocalization, assimilation, coalescence, debuccalization, and deletion.
The data in (1-4) show how the different consonant classes are affected by these processes.
Liquid consonants in the syllable coda are avoided through vocalization, the most
studied aspect of the phonology of NRDS (Golibart 1976, Alba 1979, Guitart 1981, Rojas
1982, Harris 1983, Nuñez-Cedeño 1997). As the examples in (1) show, when assigned to
syllable-final position, both lateral and rhotic liquids surface as [i ], a palatal offglide, which
forms a falling diphthong with the preceding vowel: [Vi ]. The productivity of this process is
reflected by the fact that it takes place whether the liquid consonant belongs to a word-
internal or a word-final syllable, and regardless if that syllable is stressed or unstressed.2
(1) Liquids
/sebesa/ Æ [sei ésa] ‘beer’
/kome/ Æ [koméi ] ‘to eat’
/kota/ Æ [koi tái ] ‘to cut’
/palmita/ Æ [pai míta] ‘small palm tree’
/kulpa/ Æ [kúi pa] ‘blame’
When assigned to the syllable coda, nasals either adopt the place features of an adjacent segment (assimilation) or coalesce with it (absorption). The data in (2a) show that a nasal consonant takes on the place of articulation of a following stop/affricate. By contrast, if followed by any other type of consonant, the nasal either becomes velar, causing the obligatory nasalization of the preceding vowel, or it coalesces with that vowel, (2b). These are also the two possible realizations of nasal consonants in word-final position, (2c). 4
(2) Nasals a. /kanpo/ Æ [kampo] ‘field’
/ondo/ Æ [ondo] ‘deep’
/sinko/ Æ [siko] ‘five’
/anco/ Æ [anco] ‘wide’
b. /konfiansa/ Æ [kofja sa] ~ [kofjasa] ‘trust’
/sanha/ Æ [sa ha] ~ [saha] ‘ditch’
/enlase/ Æ [e lase] ~ [elase] ‘link’
/onra/ Æ [o ra] ~ [ora] ‘honor’
c. /raton/ Æ [rato ] ~ [rato] ‘mouse’
/seun/ Æ [seu ] ~ [seu] ‘according to’
Following Bakovic (2000), I take the velar nasals in (2b,c) to be the phonetic realization of the nasal glide known as the anusvara (Trigo 1988). This is supported by the phonetic description of these velar nasals, which are often articulated without full contact between the tongue dorsum and the velum, and although their nasality is clearly perceptible, as it is enhanced by its extension to the preceding segment, their place of articulation is not because there is minimal or no movement of the articulatory organs from the position that they adopt for the preceding vowel (D’Introno and Sosa 1984). Because the lowering of the velum takes place while the tongue is still in the position for the preceding vowel, the velar constriction of these nasals is the cooperative effect of two articulatory gestures that belong to different segments: the tongue-body raising of the vowel and the velum lowering of the nasal. These phonetic observations support the view defended by Paradis and Prunet (1990,
1993) that the velar quality of such nasals is a consequence of their sharing the Dorsal 5
articulator of the vowel that precedes them. According to this, the velar nasals in (2b,c) arise
through progressive place assimilation. Therefore, what all the nasals in (2) have in common
is that they surface without place features of their own.
Moving on to obstruent consonants, it should be noted that /s/ is by far the most
frequent sound of the set of Spanish fricatives that Latin American Spanish dialects accept
syllable finally (e.g. /f, s, x/).3 Words containing syllable-final /f/ or /x/ are rather scarce in
the language, and it turns out that /x/ never emerges in NRDS because this dialect uses /h/
instead (e.g. [hwan] instead of [xwan] ‘Juan’).4 The data in (3) show that in NRDS syllable-
final fricatives may be completely lost, or merely debuccalized. The outcome of
debuccalization is a glottal approximant, [h], which has also been described as a voiceless
vowel because its articulation does not involve a constriction anywhere in the vocal tract, but
only a flow of air that passes through the glottis as the tongue remains in the same position
for the preceding vowel (Goodgall de Pruna 1970). Hence, because Spanish has five
different vowels that can precede it, there are actually five different phonetic varieties of [h].
What this means for the representation of [h] is that this segment does not bear place features
of its own but shares those of the preceding vowel. Another property of [h] that phoneticians
have remarked is that this sound cannot be considered a fricative consonant because no
audible noise is produced as the breath stream passes through the glottis (Heffner 1950,
Ladefoged 1982, Ladefoged and Maddieson 1996).
(3) Fricatives a. /pasto/ Æ [pato] ~ [pahto] ‘grass’ /isla/ Æ [ila] ~ [ihla] ‘island’ /aros/ Æ [aro] ~ [aroh] ‘rice’ 6
b. /difteia/ Æ [diteja] ~ [dihteja] ‘diphtheria’
/aftosa/ Æ [atosa] ~ [ahtosa] ‘foot-and-mouth desease’
Consider next the case of stops. A stop consonant that is assigned to the syllable coda
may either delete, or vocalize, (4). When vocalization takes place, the outcome is always a
palatal offglide, which gives rise to the same falling diphthong created by liquid vocalization,
[Vi ]. In this regard, NRDS is unlike other Spanish dialects where stop vocalization also
occurs. In Rustic Chilean Spanish, for example, the labial and dorsal stops may turn into
either a labio-dorsal offglide, [u], or a palatal offglide, whereas only the coronal stops
vocalize invariably to the palatal offglide (Oroz 1966, Martínez-Gil 1996, 1997, Piñeros
2001).5 That is to say that in contrast to the stop vocalization process that occurs in Rustic
Chilean Spanish, where the place specification of the underlying stop may be preserved ([i ] preserves the coronality of /t/ and /d/, while [u] preserves the labiality of /p/ and /b/, and the dorsality of /k/ and //), the vocalization of syllable-final stops in NRDS always favors the emergence of the universally unmarked place of articulation: Coronal. This is in line with the view adopted here that vocoids are doubly articulated segments in which the tongue body
(e.g. Dorsal) acts with another articulator (e.g. Labial in the case of round vowels, Coronal in the case of front vowels) to create the different shapes of the vocal tract that yield vocalic resonances. According to this, [i ] is a corono-dorsal segment, whereas [u] is a labio-dorsal one (Clements 1993, Paradis and Prunet 1990, 1993, Clements and Hume 1995).
7
(4) Stops
a. /absoluto/ Æ [asoluto] ~ [ai soluto] ‘absolute’
/konsepto/ Æ [koseto] ~ [kosei to] ‘concept’
b. /admia/ Æ [amia] ~ [ai mia] ‘(s)he admires’
/etniko/ Æ [eniko] ~ [ei niko] ‘ethnic’
c. /manifiko/ Æ [manifiko] ~ [mai nifiko] ‘magnificent’
/ta ksi/ Æ [tasi] ~ [tai si] ‘taxi’
Also important to point out is the fact that whereas both syllable-final liquids and stops vocalize to [i ], only the latter of these two consonant classes undergoes deletion regularly. As a matter of fact, this asymmetric behavior among consonant classes with respect to deletion is true at a more general level. While deletion is a regular option for fricatives and stops, it is not for nasals and liquids. This indicates that there is a split between obstruents, on the one hand, and sonorant consonants, on the other hand. Sonorant consonants normally only undergo changes in feature specifications (featural unfaithfulness), whereas obstruents may either alter their feature specifications, or delete (segmental unfaithfulness).
In sum, the sound patterns illustrated by the data in (1-4) confirm that NRDS has a strong tendency to avoid consonants in syllable-final position. It is my claim that the whole range of coda effects exhibited by NRDS falls under a single generalization: segments bearing the feature [+consonantal] are prohibited syllable finally. The analysis developed below demonstrates that this generalization is true despite the fact that some of the consonants that are assigned to the syllable coda are preserved through segments such as [h], 8
[], and homorganic nasals, which appear to be consonants sitting at the right edge of the syllable. Instead of coda consonants, I argue that some of these segments are [−consonantal], while the others are syllable initial. In particular, I contend that the laryngeal approximant,
[h], and the velar nasal, [], both of which share place features with a preceding vowel, are not coda consonants but glides, which are parsed by the syllable nucleus. With regards to those nasals that are homorganic with a following stop/affricate, I contend that they do not form part of an NC cluster, but are actually the nasal component of a prenasalized stop/affricate, which is fully parsed as a syllable onset. In addition to the feature
[consonantal], the sonority of segments also plays a central role in the analysis proposed below because an essential aspect of the tendency of NRDS to avoid syllable codas is that consonants of low sonority (fricatives and stops) are more severely undermined than those of higher sonority (nasals and liquids).
2. Consonant alignment
Previous studies have revealed that languages often place stronger restrictions on consonants when they appear on the right, as opposed to the left edge of the syllable
(Steriade 1982, Itô 1986, 1989, Itô and Mester 1993, 1994, 1999, Beckman 1999, Lombardi
2001, among many others). This tendency is reflected by the fact that although in some languages consonants exhibit a rich number of contrasts both in the syllable onset and in the coda, there are languages in which consonant contrasts are drastically impoverished in the coda. Two properties of consonants that are often restricted syllable finally are sonority and place of articulation. There are, for instance, languages in which sonorant consonants are free to appear in the syllable coda, but obstruent consonants are severely limited or 9
prohibited in this context (e.g. Italian, Spanish, Japanese). Similarly, there are languages in
which place contrasts among dorsal, labial, and coronal obstruents are lost syllable-finally, and only laryngeals can appear in this position (e.g. Malay, Slave, Burmese).6
Building on work by McCarthy and Prince (1993), Itô and Mester (1994, 1999)
propose to explain the proclivity of consonant contrasts to be reduced in the syllable coda as
an effect of consonant alignment. This proposal is based on the constraint ALIGN-LEFT(C,σ),
which regulates the distribution of consonants within the syllable.
(5) ALIGN-LEFT(C,σ): For every consonant C, there is a syllable σ such that the
left edge of C coincides with the left edge of σ.
Because any consonant in the syllable coda would inevitably violate this constraint, it is crucial that the element that is required to align with the left edge of the syllable be a property of the segment, not the whole consonant. Otherwise, this constraint would be unable to distinguish among different types of coda consonant, and it would have the same effect as the constraint *CODA (Prince and Smolensky 1993, 2002). For this reason, Itô and
Mester (1999:192) allow that the consonantal element be more narrowly circumscribed to
CPlace, marked CPlace, or major segment types. For instance, by circumscribing “C” to the
major consonant sonority classes (e.g. stop, fricative, nasal, and liquid), ALIGN-LEFT(C,σ)
may be broken down into four elementary constraints: ALIGN-LEFT(stop,σ), ALIGN-
LEFT(fricative,σ), ALIGN-LEFT(nasal,σ), and ALIGN-LEFT(liquid,σ). These constraints give rise to a consonant-alignment hierarchy, which obeys a fixed ranking based on the universal sonority scale (Itô and Mester 1994, Piñeros 2001). 10
(6) Consonant-alignment hierarchy (Itô and Mester 1994, Piñeros 2001)
ALIGN-LEFT(stop,σ) >> ALIGN-LEFT(fricative,σ) >> ALIGN-LEFT(nasal,σ) >> ALIGN-
LEFT(liquid,σ)
Stops sit at the top of this hierarchy because, being the consonants of lowest sonority,
they make the best syllable onsets. Or put in a different way, because their minimal sonority
also makes stops the worse syllable codas, the constraint that penalizes their presence at the
right edge of the syllable must be top ranking. Conversely, liquids sit at the bottom of the
hierarchy because, being the consonants of highest sonority, they make the worst syllable
onsets. That is equivalent to saying that because the high sonority of liquids also makes them
the best syllable codas, the constraint that penalizes their presence at the right edge of the
syllable must be the lowest ranking. The constraints that prohibit the presence of nasals and
liquids at the right syllable edge lie in between these two poles according to their sonority.
An aspect of consonant-alignment constraints that merits some discussion is their
fixed directionality. Justification for why consonant-alignment constraints are always set to
align a consonantal element with the left edge of the syllable is provided by the phonetic
nature of consonants. Phonetic studies have revealed that various cues that are important to
signal distinctive contrasts among consonants (e.g. place, manner, and laryngeal state) occur
during the release phase of the segment (Kingston 1985, 1990, Kirchner 1996). As a consequence of this, unreleased consonants are perceptibly weaker because they are deprived of such cues. Given that the left edge of the syllable (plosive position) guarantees that the constriction of the consonant will be released, this structural position is the most suitable for consonants. In other words, consonants have a natural tendency to associate with the left 11
syllable edge because this is the structural position that is most conducive to enhancing their
perceptibility. Therefore, although Generalized Alignment Theory (McCarthy and Prince
1993) allows both the left and right edges of a constituent to participate in alignment constraints, it would be unnatural for a consonantal element to orient itself towards the right syllable edge because, rather than enhancing consonant prominence, that syllabic position is detrimental to it.
Piñeros (2001) demonstrates that the consonant-alignment hierarchy provides a
principled explanation for the stop vocalization process that occurs in Rustic Chilean
Spanish. For instance, the fact that stops are the only syllable-final consonants that undergo vocalization in this dialect may be captured through the interaction of the consonant- alignment hierarchy with IDENT(consonantal), the feature-faithfulness constraint that objects
against vocalization (McCarthy and Prince 1995).
(7) IDENT(consonantal): Correspondent segments must agree in their
specifications for the feature [consonantal].
Because in Rustic Chilean Spanish the constraint ALIGN-LEFT(stop,σ) takes precedence over IDENT(consonantal), it is possible to prevent the emergence of a stop
consonant at the right edge of the syllable by turning it into a glide, (8b). However,
consonants of lower sonority than stops may not undergo vocalization, (8c), because all other
7 members of the consonant-alignment hierarchy are subordinated to IDENT(consonantal).
12
(8) Stop vocalization in Rustic Chilean Spanish8
ALIGN-L IDENT ALIGN-L ALIGN-L ALIGN-L Inducto: /akto / ‘actor’ (stop,σ) (conson) (fric,σ) (nas,σ) (liq,σ) a. [ak.to] *! * ) b. [au.to] * * c. [au.toi ] **!
The fact that the consonant alignment hierarchy can capture this kind of sensitivity to
consonant sonority, which is a recurrent pattern across those languages that exhibit coda effects, suggests that this approach is on the right track. Hence, it is the approach I will adopt to account for coda effects in NRDS.
3. Changes in place and consonantality
Despite its aversion against syllable codas, NRDS still allows consonants that are
assigned to that syllabic position to be preserved through a non-identical output
correspondent, (1-4). This means that consonant-alignment constraints take precedence over
feature faithfulness constraints. In the case of liquid vocalization, for example, the
consonant-alignment constraint ALIGN-LEFT(liquid,σ) must dominate the feature-faithfulness
constraints IDENT(consonantal) and IDENT(place). This follows from the fact that liquid
consonants are kept from surfacing at the right edge of the syllable by turning them into a
palatal offglide, which is unfaithful to the liquid not only in consonantality but also in place
specifications. The effect of this ranking is illustrated in tableau (11). IDENT(consonantal)
and IDENT(place) are defined below according to the original formulation of IDENT constraints by McCarthy and Prince (1995). 13
(9) IDENT(consonantal): Correspondent segments must agree in their
specifications for the feature [consonantal].
(10) IDENT(place): Correspondent segments must agree in their
specifications for place features.
(11) ALIGN-LEFT(liquid,σ) >> IDENT(consonantal), IDENT(place)
IDENT IDENT Input: /pa ke/ ‘park’ ALIGN-L(liq,σ) (consonantal) (place) a. [pa.ke] *! ) b. [pai .ke] * * Input: /kulpa/ ‘guilt’ c. [kul.pa] *! ) d. [kui .pa] * *
Candidates (11a) and (11c) are discarded by ALIGN-LEFT(liquid,σ) because they include a liquid consonant that sits at the right edge of a syllable. To remedy this situation, candidates (11b) and (11d) opt to assign a non-consonantal segment as the correspondent of the liquid consonant. This is an effective solution because, not being a consonant, the segment [i ] is not subject to ALIGN-LEFT(liquid,σ), or any other member of this constraint
family. Nonetheless, this strategy to escape the consonant-alignment constraints entails
9 falling in violation of both IDENT(consonantal) and IDENT(place). The violation of the first
of these feature-faithfulness constraints is clear, but the violation of IDENT(place) is worth
some comment. The Spanish liquids /l/ and // disagree in place specifications with the
palatal offglide [i ] because the former are exclusively coronal, whereas the latter is corono-
dorsal (Keating 1988). Furthermore, although the articulation of all of these segments
involves the Coronal articulator, the liquids are [+anterior] whereas [i ] is [−anterior]. 14
The analysis of liquid vocalization presented above makes an important prediction.
Because the constraints that form the consonant-alignment hierarchy are intrinsically ranked, any constraint that is dominated by the lowest consonant-alignment constraint must, by transitivity, also be dominated by all of the other members of the consonant-alignment hierarchy. That is to say that if IDENT(consonantal) and IDENT(place) are outranked by
ALIGN-LEFT(liquid,σ), they must also be outranked by ALIGN-LEFT(nasal,σ), ALIGN-
LEFT(fricative,σ) and ALIGN-LEFT(stop,σ). Hence, if the appearance of liquid consonants in
the syllable coda may be prevented by altering their specifications for place and
consonantality, the appearance of syllable-final nasals, fricatives, and stops must also be
preventable that way. I argue that this is precisely what happens in NRDS.
Tableau (12) shows how the processes of vocalization, (12b,h), debuccalization,
(12d), and nasal velarization, (12f), allow output forms to comply with the consonant-
alignment hierarchy. All of these processes are successful strategies to prevent violations of
the consonant-alignment constraints because they give rise to non-consonantal segments (e.g.
[i ], [h], and []). The grouping of the segments [h] and [] with [i ] dovetails with the view
that laryngeals (e.g. [h] and []) and the anusvara (e.g. []) are not consonants but glides
(Chomsky and Halle 1968, Trigo 1988, Keyser and Stevens 1994, Halle 1995, among
others). As Halle (1995) points out, the sounds [h], [], and [] do not qualify as consonants
because they lack the articulatory and acoustic correlates of the feature [consonantal], which
are the presence of a cavity effectively closed at both ends, and a lowering of the first
formant. Laryngeals and the anusvara are deprived of these phonetic properties because
whereas the lips, tongue body, and tongue tip (the so-called Place articulators) can form a
constriction that effectively blocks the vocal tract, the glottis and the soft palate cannot. It is 15
true that the Place articulators are not completely at rest during the articulation of [h], [], or
[], but the position in which they are found at the time that the glottis or the velum are engaged is the same position as that for an adjacent vowel (Heffner 1950, Ladefoged 1982,
Goodgall de Pruna 1970, D’Introno and Sosa 1984). This means that these segments surface bearing vocalic, not consonantal place features (Clements 1985, 1993, Piggott 1987,
Clements and Hume 1995). According to these observations, the most appropriate classification for [h], [], and [] is as glides, which is the only segmental class that shares with vowels the property of being [−consonantal]. Therefore, none of these segments is subject to the consonant-alignment constraints.
With this understanding, let us review the violations recorded in tableau (12).
Candidate (12b) avoids the appearance of a stop consonant in syllable-final position by
turning it into a palatal offglide. This change results in violations of IDENT(consonantal) and
IDENT(place) because whereas /k/ is a dorsal consonant, [i ] is a corono-dorsal glide. To
prevent the emergence of a fricative consonant in the syllable coda, candidate (12d) does
away with all of its supralaryngeal features to turn it into [h]. This runs afoul of
IDENT(consonantal) and IDENT(place) because whereas /s/ is an alveolar fricative [h] is a
glide that shares place features with the preceding vowel. Candidate (12f) prevents the
emergence of a nasal consonant at the right syllable edge by assimilating it to the preceding
vowel. As a consequence of sharing place features with a vowel, the nasal consonant
becomes a nasal glide, which fails to remain faithful in both place and consonantality.
Lastly, liquid consonants may be kept from surfacing in the syllable coda by vocalizing them,
(12h). As explained above, both IDENT(consonantal) and IDENT(place) are violated in the 16
liquid vocalization process because [i ] is a corono-dorsal glide whereas the liquids are
anterior coronal consonants.
(12) AL-L(obstr,σ) >> AL-L(fric,σ) >> AL-L(nas,σ) >> AL-L(liq,σ) >> ID(cons), ID(pl)
ALIGN-L ALIGN-L ALIGN-L ALIGN-L ID ID Input: /rekto/ ‘straight’ (stop,σ) (fric,σ) (nasal,σ) (liq,σ) (cons) (pl) a. [rek.to] *! ) b. [rei .to] * * Input: /moska/ ‘fly’ c. [mos.ka] *! ) d. [moh.ka] * * Input: /onse/ ‘eleven’ e. [on.se] *! ) f. [o .se] * * Input: /koto/ ‘short’ g. [ko.to] *! ) h. [koi .to] * *
I further propose that when the segments [h] and [] of NRDS surface sharing place
features with the preceding vowel, the syllabic position they occupy is not the syllable coda but the nucleus, where they function as the offglides of the diphthongs [Vh] and [V ]. From this standpoint, the optimal candidates in tableau (12) have identical syllable structure:
[CVG.CV], where G stands for a glide. The representative forms [rei .to], [moh.ka], and
[o .se] all have a diphthong in their first syllable, the only difference being the type of offglide that these diphthongs use. Whereas [Vi ] uses an oral offglide, the diphthongs [Vh] 17
and [V ] employ laryngeal and nasal offglides, respectively. The fact that [Vh] and [V] can function as diphthongs parallel to those where the offglide is a high vocoid (e.g. [Vi ]) was noted by Heffner (1950:170), who mentions that they occur regularly in languages such as
Dutch and Danish. Furthermore, Paradis and Prunet (1990, 1993) also propose to analyze the sequence [V ] as a diphthong because it displays diphthongal properties in languages such as
Southern French, Atampaya and Yadhaykenu.
Besides IDENT(consonantal) and IDENT(place), the change of syllable-final
consonants into diphthongal offglides also runs counter to *COMPLEX(Nucleus), the
markedness constraint that prohibits the parsing of more than one segment under the syllable
nucleus (Prince and Smolensky 1993, 2002). Tableau (14) shows that the subordination of
this constraint to the consonant-alignment hierarchy makes it possible to avoid any type of
consonant in the syllable coda by shifting it into the syllable nucleus, (14c,f). To facilitate
their identification, in tableau (14), the two members of a diphthong are written in bold.
(13) *COMPLEX(Nucleus): Complex syllable nuclei are prohibited.
(14) AL-L(obstr,σ) >> AL-L(fric,σ) >> AL-L(nas,σ) >> AL-L(liq,σ) >> *COMPLEX(Nuc)
ALIGN-L ALIGN-L ALIGN-L ALIGN-L *COMPLEX Input: /konsepto/ ‘concept’ (stop,σ) (fric,σ) (nasal,σ) (liq,σ) (Nucleus) a. [kon.sep.to] *! *! b. [kon.sei .to] *! * ) c. [ko .sei .to] ** Input: /respeta/ ‘to respect’ d. [res.pe.ta] *! * e. [reh.pe.ta] *! * ) f. [reh.pe.tai ] ** 18
A positive result of analizing the sequences [Vi ], [Vh], and [V ] as diphthongs is that it unveils an important connection between the processes of vocalization, debuccalization, and nasal velarization that no previous analysis has captured. These sound changes are instances of a more general pattern by which syllable-final consonants become offglides:
/CVC/ → [CVG]. This makes it possible to generalize that in NRDS all syllables are deprived of codas, and that all consonant classes may be kept from surfacing in that syllabic position through the same basic transformation: consonant gliding.
4. Selection of optimal glides
In order to account for the fact that depending on the type of consonant that is assigned to syllable-final position, the segment that results from consonant gliding may be a laryngeal, nasal, or oral offglide, two additional feature-faithfulness constraints must be taken into account. These are the constraints IDENT(glottal) and IDENT(nasal), which in NRDS must outrank the entire consonant-alignment hierarchy because whenever syllable-final consonants are preserved, they are assigned an output correspondent that bears identical glottal and nasal feature values, (1-4).
(15) IDENT(glottal): Correspondent segments must agree in their specifications
for glottal features (e.g. [spread glottis, constricted glottis].
(16) IDENT(nasal): Correspondent segments must agree in their specifications
for the feature [nasal].
19
(17) IDENT(glottal), IDENT(nasal) >> ALIGN-L(stop,σ) >> IDENT(cons), IDENT(place)
IDENT IDENT ALIGN-L IDENT IDENT Input: /elekto/ ‘elected’ (glottal) (nasal) (stop,σ) (cons) (place) a. [e.lek.to] *! b. [e.le.to] *! * * c. [e.leh.to] *! * * d. [e.le .to] *! * * ) e. [e.lei .to] * *
Tableau (17) illustrates how IDENT(glottal) and IDENT(nasal) restrain the power of one particular consonant-alignment constraint; but as tableaux (18-20) show, they have the same effect on all of the consonant-alignment constraints. In (17), a stop consonant that is assigned to the syllable coda cannot be faithfully preserved because it would cause a
violation of ALIGN-LEFT(stop,σ), (17a). This consonant-alignment constraint is able to force the offending consonant to take an unfaithful output correspondent because it dominates both
IDENT(consonantal) and IDENT(place). To evade ALIGN-LEFT(stop,σ), the stop consonant must turn into a non-consonantal segment. Nevertheless, not any segment bearing the feature
[−consonantal] is acceptable because IDENT(glottal) and IDENT(nasal) require such segment
to remain faithful in glottal and nasal specifications.
Because the stops of NRDS do not contrast in glottal or nasal features (e.g. aspirated,
ejective, and nasalized stops are not part of the phonemic inventory of NRDS), they bear no positive glottal or nasal specifications that could match those of a laryngeal or nasal glide.
That is to say that the pairing of a plain voiced or voiceless stop with a laryngeal or nasal glide would inevitably give rise to a violation of either IDENT(glottal) or IDENT(nasal). If the stop were paired up with a laryngeal glide, the two segments would disagree with respect to 20
either [constricted glottis] or [spread glottis], (17b,c). If a nasal glide were assigned as the
output correspondent of the underlying stop, then they would disagree with respect to the
feature [nasal], (17d). Consequently, despite the ability of laryngeal and nasal glides to
prevent a violation of ALIGN-LEFT(stop,σ) they are unsuitable output correspondents for an
underlying plain stop, (17b-d). By contrast, an oral glide bears no positive specifications for
either glottal or nasal features, and is therefore, identical to the underlying stop in this aspect of their featural composition. The ability of candidate (17e) to satisfy ALIGN-LEFT(stop,σ) without running afoul of the dominant feature-faithfulness constraints makes it optimal.
In the case of syllable-final fricatives the process of consonant gliding takes a
different turn because Spanish voiceless fricatives do bear a positive specification for a
glottal feature: they are [+spread glottis]. This characterization of voiceless fricatives is in
accord with the observation that a wide glottal aperture is a crucial gesture in the production
of voiceless fricatives because there must be sufficient pressure behind the constriction in
order to yield frication (Kingston 1990, Stevens 1991). Spreading the glottis helps meet this
aerodynamic requirement because it guarantees enough airflow to build up the oral pressure.
That is not to say, however, that voiced fricatives are also [+spread glottis] because despite
the fact that they also require high oral pressure, the glottal opening tends to be narrowed in
their articulation (Catford 1977). After examining various languages in which glottal
features are phonologically active, Vaux (1998) concludes that in the unmarked case
voiceless fricatives are [+spread glottis] (e.g. aspirated) whereas their voiced counterparts are
[−spread glottis] (e.g. unaspirated). It is a marked state for a language to have unaspirated voiceless fricatives, but this does happen in some languages, where they can contrast with aspirated voiceless fricatives (e.g. Burmese). In the case of Spanish, which has only one 21
series of fricative consonants, voiceless fricatives adhere to the unmarked pattern: they are
aspirated. That Spanish voiceless fricatives are [+spread glottis] is confirmed by their ability
to induce the aspiration of an adjacent segment. This phenomenon has been observed in a
variety of Spanish spoken in Seville, Spain, where syllable-final fricatives are subject to
debuccalization as in NRDS, but with the peculiarity that if the voiceless fricative is followed
by a voiceless stop, the latter becomes aspirated (e.g. [loh phaeh] < /los pades/ ‘the parents’). As Vaux stresses, the most natural explanation for the appearance of aspiration on the voiceless stop is that the feature [+spread glottis] is transmitted from the preceding voiceless fricative as it debuccalizes. The above-mentioned phonetic and phonological facts point to the conclusion that Spanish voiceless fricatives are [+spread glottis].
Tableau (18) illustrates how the proposed ranking selects [h] as the optimal
correspondent for an underlying voiceless fricative. Turning a voiceless fricative into either
[], [], or [i ] has the negative effect of losing its [+spread glottis] specification. Candidate
(18b) not only fails to preserve the [+spread glottis] value of the voiceless fricative but also
gains a [+constricted glottis] specification; hence, it incurs two violations of IDENT(glottal).
Besides losing the positive specification for the feature [spread glottis], candidate (18d) gains a positive value for the feature [nasal]. This means that it runs afoul of both IDENT(glottal) and IDENT(nasal). Although candidate (18e) only incurs one violation of IDENT(glottal), due
to the mismatch in [spread glottis] values between the correspondents /s/ and [i ], it poses no
challenge to candidate (18c), which satisfies ALIGN-LEFT(fricative,σ) at the expense of violating only the bottom-ranking feature-faithfulness constraints. In brief, it is the affinity in glottal values that exists between [h] and voiceless fricatives that makes this laryngeal glide optimal in this case. 22
(18) IDENT(glottal), IDENT(nasal) >> ALIGN-L(fric,σ) >> IDENT(cons), IDENT(place)
IDENT IDENT ALIGN-L IDENT IDENT Input: /pasto/ ‘grass’ (glottal) (nasal) (fric,σ) (cons) (place) a. [pas.to] *! b. [pa.to] *!* * * ) c. [pah.to] * * d. [pa .to] *! * * * e. [pai .to] *! * *
In the case of syllable-final nasals, the outcome of consonant gliding is [] because this is the only glide that is able to retain the glottal and nasal specifications of a nasal consonant: [−spread glottis, −constricted glottis, +nasal], (19d). As tableau (19) shows, laryngeal and oral glides are unsuitable output correspondents for a nasal consonant because they give rise to violations of either IDENT(glottal) or IDENT(nasal). The laryngeal glides [h] and [] not only fail to preserve the [+nasal] feature of a nasal consonant, but also introduce a
[+spread glottis] or a [+constricted glottis] specification, (19b,c). An oral glide does not clash with nasal consonants in glottal specifications, but it does disagree with them in nasal values, (19e).
(19) IDENT(glottal), IDENT(nasal) >> ALIGN-L(nas,σ) >> IDENT(cons), IDENT(place)
IDENT IDENT ALIGN-L IDENT IDENT Input: /konfuso/ ‘confusing’ (glottal) (nasal) (nas,σ) (cons) (place) a. [kon.fu.so] *! b. [ko.fu.so] *! * * * c. [koh.fu.so] *! * * * ) d. [ko .fu.so] * * e. [koi .fu.so] *! * * 23
Consider next the case of liquids, which like plain stops bear no positive specifications for any glottal or nasal features. The evaluation in (20) shows that laryngeal and nasal glides are unbecoming output correspondents for a syllable-final liquid because they give rise to violations of either IDENT(glottal) or IDENT(nasal) due to their positive specification for at least one glottal or nasal feature, (18b-d). By contrast, an oral glide does not run afoul of these feature-faithfulness constraints because it shares with liquid consonants the property of being negatively specified for all glottal and nasal features, (20e).
(20) IDENT(glottal), IDENT(nasal) >> ALIGN-L(nas,σ) >> IDENT(cons), IDENT(place)
IDENT IDENT ALIGN-L IDENT IDENT Input: /ku so/ ‘course’ (glottal) (nasal) (nas,σ) (cons) (place) a. [ku.so] *! b. [ku.so] *! * * c. [kuh.so] *! * * d. [ku .so] *! * * ) e. [kui .so] * *
In sum, the reason why the outcome of consonant gliding in NRDS is the same in the case of both liquids and stops is because they are identical in all of their glottal and nasal specifications: [−spread glottis, −constricted glottis, −nasal]. The fact that their values for these features are negative is also the reason why these consonant classes are better matched by an oral glide (e.g. [i ]), the only glide type that is negatively specified for all glottal and nasal features. Fricatives and nasals, on the other hand, give rise to two different types of glide because these two consonant classes are not identical in their specifications for glottal and nasal features, despite the fact that they do bear a positive value for at least one such 24
feature. For instance, being specified as [+spread glottis], voiceless fricatives are most
compatible with the laryngeal glide [h] because it is the only glide that retains this feature
along with all the other glottal and nasal specifications of voiceless fricatives. The [+nasal]
specification of nasals, on the other hand, drives them to pair up with [], the only glide that
is [+nasal] and bears the same glottal features as nasals.
This analysis reveals that in NRDS glottal and nasal features are the only components
of the structure of a consonant that can be preserved when that consonant is assigned to the
syllable coda. This has been captured through the rank of IDENT(glottal) and IDENT(nasal) over the consonant-alignment hierarchy. But why should IDENT(glottal) and IDENT(nasal) be
the only feature-faithfulness constraints that do not succumb to any of the consonant-
alignment constraints? I suggest that this is due to the fact that although the glottis and the
velum are unable to produce stricture features, they are able to function independently of
those articulators that can: lips, tongue body, and tongue tip (Keyser and Stevens 1994,
Halle 1995). These attributes shared by the glottis and the soft palate set glottal and nasal
features apart from all those features that depend on the action of the Place articulators: place
and manner features.10 With respect to consonant alignment, the fact that the glottis and the soft palate cannot contribute to define a segment as a consonant means that the presence of glottal and/or nasal features does not run afoul of any of the consonant-alignment constraints.
Furthermore, because the glottis and the soft palate can function independently of the Place
articulators, glottal and nasal features are able to persist after the Place-dependent features of
a consonant are lost. That is to say that the inability of the glottis and the soft palate to
produce stricture features, which are the ones that distinguish consonants from vowels, turns
out to be an advantage for glottal and nasal features in that they are able to join in both 25
consonantal and non-consonantal articulations. In NRDS, this is reflected by the behavior of
syllable-final consonants, which are forced to lose all of their Place-dependent features; yet,
they are able to leave behind their glottal and nasal features in the form of a non-consonantal
segment.
A final issue concerning the outcome of consonant gliding is why the oral glide that
results when this process applies to liquids and stops is always corono-dorsal. Note that
although the faithfulness constraints IDENT(glottal) and IDENT(nasal) only allow an oral glide
to serve as the output correspondent of a liquid or plain stop consonant, they do not favor any
particular place of articulation for that glide. The predilection of NRDS for the corono-
dorsal glide follows from the rank of the consonant-alignment hierarchy over *Dorsal,
*Labial, and *Coronal, the members of the place hierarchy (Prince and Smolensky 1993,
2002), according to which Coronal is the universally unmarked place of articulation.
(21) Place hierarchy (Prince and Smolensky 1993, 2002)
*PLACE = *Dorsal, *Labial >> *Coronal
Tableau (22) shows that the change of a liquid or stop consonant into an oral glide
works to the detriment of the place hierarchy, regardless if this glide is labio-dorsal or
corono-dorsal. To avoid clogging the tableau, the only violations of the *PLACE constraints
that are counted are those incurred by the correspondents of the consonants that are at stake.
Furthermore, only candidates that satisfy the top-ranking constraints IDENT(glottal) and
IDENT(nasal) are considered hereafter.
26
(22) AL-L(stop,σ) >> AL-L(fric,σ) >> AL-L(nas,σ) >> AL-L(liq,σ) >> *PLACE
ALIGN-L ALIGN-L ALIGN-L ALIGN-L *PLACE Input: /dokto / ‘doctor’ (stop,σ) (fric,σ) (nasσ) (liq,σ) *D *L *C a. [dok.to] *! * * * b. [do i .to] *! * ** ) c. [doi .toi ] ** ** d. [do u.toi ] ** *! * e. [dou.tou] ** *!*
The faithful candidate, (22a), is in violation of *Dorsal and *Coronal because the
consonants [k] and [] involve the Dorsal and Coronal articulators, respectively. However,
the problem with these segments is not that they bear such place features, but that they are
consonants occupying the syllable coda, which translates into fatal violations of ALIGN-
LEFT(stop,σ) and ALIGN-LEFT(liquid,σ). To avoid the misalignment of these consonants, the
remaining candidates opt to turn them into oral glides. By changing the syllable-final stop
into a corono-dorsal glide, candidate (22b) prevents a violation of ALIGN-LEFT(stop,σ) at the
cost of incuring a second violation of *Coronal. This, however, is still unsatisfactory
according to ALIGN-LEFT(liquid,σ) because a liquid consonant remains in syllable-final
position. To overcome this problem, candidate (22c) turns both syllable-final consonants
into corono-dorsal glides at the expense of violating *Dorsal and *Coronal twice each.
Although changing the syllable-final consonants into labio-dorsal glides is also an effective
way to prevent the violations of ALIGN-LEFT(stop,σ) and ALIGN-LEFT(liquid,σ), this option
is rejected because it involves violating a higher-ranking member of the place hierarchy,
(22d,e). While every labio-dorsal or corono-dorsal glide incurs a violation of *Dorsal, the second violation of *PLACE that these oral glides give rise to is more costly in the case of the 27
labio-dorsal glide because *Labial outranks *Coronal. Therefore, a significant finding of this analysis is that since glides are doubly articulated segments, vocalization always results in an
increase in place specifications from input to output forms, (22c).
With regards to the height of the oral glide, I suggest that the predilection for a high
glide may be due to two factors. One is the unmarked status of high vocoids, and the other
one is the tendency for bimoraic diphthongs to have a SONORITY FALL (Rosenthall 1994).
Because a negative specification is the marked value of the feature [high], there must be a
markedness constraint *[−high], which penalizes [−high] segments, but there is no
markedness constraint penalizing [+high] segments (De Lacy 2002). Consequently, if a
specification for the feature [high] must be added, a positive specification is less costly than a
negative one. Furthermore, because the sonority of vocoids decreases proportionally to their
height, high vocoids are the most suitable to function as the offglide of a diphthong because
they are the vocoids of lowest sonority. Note that whereas a non-high glide (e.g. [e]) acting as the offglide of a diphthong would create a sonority rise if the preceding vowel happened to be of greater height (e.g. [ie] or [ue]), a high glide in the same role guarantees that there will be a sonority fall regardless of the height of the preceding vowel since no vowel could be less sonorous than a high glide.
5. Obstruents vs. sonorants
A remarkable property of coda effects in NRDS is an asymmetry that holds between
stops and fricatives, on the one hand, and liquids and nasals, on the other hand. Whereas the
former may delete regularly, the latter are normally preserved. This behavior is a clear
indication that coda effects in NRDS are sensitive to the sonority of the consonant that is at 28
stake. In this section, I show that the interaction of the members of the consonant-alignment
hierarchy with MAX(seg), the faithfulness constraint that militates against segmental deletion
(McCarthy and Prince 1995), provides an elegant account of this asymmetry.
(23) MAX(seg): Every segment in the input must have a correspondent in the output.
The fact that stop and fricative consonants may be left without an output
correspondent when they are assigned to the syllable coda follows from the rank of ALIGN-
LEFT(stop,σ) and ALIGN-LEFT(fricative,σ) over MAX(seg). This is illustrated in tableau (24).
(24) ALIGN-L(stop,σ) >> ALIGN-L(fric,σ) >> MAX(seg)
ALIGN-L ALIGN-L MAX Input: /korupto/ ‘corrupt’ (stop,σ) (fric,σ) (seg) a. [ko.rup.to] *! ) b. [ko.ru.to] * Input: /isla/ ‘island’ c. [is.la] *! ) d. [i.la] *
Candidates (24b) and (24d) are ruled out by ALIGN-LEFT(stop,σ) and ALIGN-
LEFT(fricative,σ), respectively, because they contain a stop or fricative consonant that occupies the right edge of a syllable. This undesirable distribution for a consonant can be prevented by dispensing of the offending segment because the constraint MAX(seg) has lesser
priority than the proper alignment of stop and fricative consonants, (24b,d).
The preservation of syllable-final liquids and nasals, on the other hand, follows from
the ranking of MAX(seg) over ALIGN-LEFT(nasal,σ) and ALIGN-LEFT(liquid,σ). Tableau (25) 29 presents two representative examples. With MAX(seg) being more highly valued than the proper alignment of nasal and liquid consonants, the total loss of any such consonant is too high a price to prevent its appearance in syllable-final position, (25c,f). Yet, ALIGN-
LEFT(nasal,σ) and ALIGN-LEFT(liquid,σ) are still able to impinge on the syllable-final consonant because they take precedence over the feature-faithfulness constraints
IDENT(consonantal) and IDENT(place), as it was previously established. Therefore, a nasal or liquid consonant that is assigned to the syllable coda is guaranteed to have an output correspondent, despite the fact that this segment may not be consonantal, (25b,e).
(25) MAX(seg) >> ALIGN-L(nasal,σ) >> ALIGN-L(liquid,σ) >> IDENT(cons), IDENT(pl)
MAX ALIGN-L ALIGN-L IDENT IDENT Input: /pansa/ ‘belly’ (seg) (nasal,σ) (liquid,σ) (cons) (place) a. [pan.sa] *! ) b. [pa .sa] * * c. [pa.sa] *! Input: /alama/ ‘alarm’ d. [a.la.ma] *! ) e. [a.lai .ma] * * f. [a.la.ma] *!
Because MAX(seg) is crucially ranked in between ALIGN-LEFT(fricative,σ) and
ALIGN-LEFT(nasal,σ), segments of equal or lower sonority than fricatives may be forced to delete, (24b,d); however, segments of equal or higher sonority than nasals may be preserved,
(25b,e). This particular ranking of MAX(seg) with respect to the members of the consonant- alignment hierarchy indicates that NRDS splits consonant alignment in two basic fragments: i) ALIGN-LEFT(obstruent,σ), comprising ALIGN-LEFT(stop,σ) and ALIGN-LEFT(fricative,σ), 30
and ii) ALIGN-LEFT(sonorant,σ), consisting of ALIGN-LEFT(nasal,σ) and ALIGN-
LEFT(liquid,σ). This analysis is confirmed by the fact that NRDS abounds with words in which obstruent, but not sonorant consonants, are deleted in the syllable coda, (26).
(26) ALIGN-L(obstr,σ) >> MAX(seg) >> ALIGN-L(sonor,σ) IDENT(cons), IDENT(pl)
ALIGN-L MAX ALIGN-L IDENT IDENT Input: /insekto/ ‘insect’ (obstr,σ) (seg) (sonor,σ) (cons) (place) a. [in.sek.to] *! * b. [in.se.to] * *! ) c. [i .se.to] * * * d. [i.se.to] **! Input: /asfalto/ ‘alphalt’ e. [as.fal.to] *! f. [a.fal.to] * *! ) g. [a.fai .to] * * * h. [a.fa.to] **!
These examples confirm that deletion of the obstruent coda consonant is granted
because ALIGN-LEFT(obstruent,σ) takes precedence over MAX(seg); however, deletion of the
sonorant coda consonant is not conceded because MAX(seg) has priority over ALIGN-
LEFT(sonorant,σ), (26c,g). In other words, given the constraint system proposed here,
deletion of all coda consonants, regardless of their sonority, would be overkill, (26d,h).
6. Variability between deletion and obstruent gliding
The constraint system that has been built so far is able to derive the deletion of syllable-final obstruents, (24), as well as their non-identical preservation, (17,18). Although this is indeed what happens in NRDS, one must wonder how these two patterns can coexist 31
in the same grammar. In order to account for the variability that exists between deletion and
obstruent gliding, (3,4), another feature faithfulness constraint must be taken into account.
Because the vocalization of stops as well as the debuccalization of fricatives, the two forms
of consonant gliding that affect obstruent consonants, have the effect of turning syllable-final
obstruents into sonorants, the constraint IDENT(sonorant) must be another feature faithfulness
constraint that is outranked by ALIGN-LEFT(obstruent,σ).
(27) IDENT(sonorant): Correspondent segments must agree in their
specifications for the feature [sonorant].
With the addition of this constraint, it becomes clear that ALIGN-LEFT(obstruent,σ)
outranks the two faithfulness constraints that antagonize directly with it: IDENT(sonorant) and MAX(seg). Recall that the dominance of ALIGN-LEFT(obstruent,σ) over MAX(seg) is what allows the deletion of syllable-final obstruents, (26). However, no dominance relationship between IDENT(sonorant) and MAX(seg) may be established because compliance with one of these two faithfulness constraints does not entail violation of the other. I propose that the unspecified ranking between IDENT(sonorant) and MAX(seg) is the reason why in
NRDS syllable-final obstruents exhibit variability between deletion and consonant gliding.
Tableau (28) shows how the unspecified ranking between these two constraints allows the
selection of multiple winners, (28b,c, and 28e,f). For reasons of space, only candidates that
satisfy the top-ranking constraints IDENT(glottal) and IDENT(nasal) are considered. The
zigzag lines are used to highlight the constraints that induce variability.
32
(28) ALIGN-L(obstr,σ) >> ID(son), MAX(seg) >> ALIGN-L(obstr,σ) >> ID(cons), ID(pl)
ALIGN-L IDENT MAX ALIGN-L IDENT IDENT Input: /di ekto/ ‘direct’ (obstr,σ) (son) (seg) (son,σ) (cons) (place) a. [di.ek.to] *! ) b. [di.ei .to] * * * ) c. [di.e.to] * Input: /kanasta/ ‘baket’ d. [ka.nas.ta] *! ) e. [ka.nah.ta] * * * ) f. [ka.na.ta] *
The faithful candidates, (28a,d), are discarded by ALIGN-LEFT(obstruent,σ) because they contain either a stop or a fricative consonant sitting in syllable-final position. To remedy this situation, its contenders opt to become unfaithful to the input form. Candidates
(28b,e) turn the offending consonants into glides, [h] and [i ] respectively. Recall that these are the only non-consonantal segments that remain faithful to the glottal and nasal specifications of the obstruent consonants they stand for, (17,18). This strategy to get past
ALIGN-LEFT(obstruent,σ) comes at the cost of violating several lower-ranking feature-
faithfulness constraints: IDENT(sonorant), IDENT(consonantal), and IDENT(place). By
contrast, candidates (26c,f) place all the weight on a single faithfulness constraint. They opt
to dispose of the whole consonant at the cost of incurring one violation of MAX(seg).
The crucial point to observe in this evaluation is that although candidates (28c,f) incur fewer violations of faithfulness constraints than candidates (28b,f), this does not make them better. This is because the number of violations that are incurred is not what matters for the
selection of the optimal form, but the rank of the constraints that are violated. As a matter of 33
fact, because IDENT(consonantal) and IDENT(place) are bottom ranking, they do not get a
chance to influence the evaluation. The decision is made at the level of the higher-ranking
constraints IDENT(sonorant) and MAX(seg), which is where the critical violations occur. The fact that there is no strict dominance between these two faithfulness constraints means that they may be switched in the ranking. This gives rise to two possible outcomes, one in which candidates (28b,d) are selected as optimal because MAX(seg) takes the lead over
IDENT(sonorant), and another one in which candidates (28c,f) are optimal because it is
IDENT(sonorant) that takes precedence instead.
It is worth emphasizing that the multiple winners in (28) do not emerge as a consequence of a tie between two finalists. Clearly, not being identical, the two finalists necessarily differ with respect to some lower-ranking constraints (e.g. IDENT(consonantal)
and IDENT(place), for example). Rather, the view defended here is that the ability of the
grammar to generate more than one optimal output form is a result of the unspecified ranking between some of the constraints. According to this, grammars are not systems where all constraints are exhaustively ranked. The ranking among non-conflicting constraints may be
left unspecified, and this may give rise to variability (Anttila 1995, 2000).
7. Variability between coalescence and nasal gliding
In this section I address the fact that in NRDS, syllable-final nasals may undergo
coalescence in addition to consonant gliding, (2b,c). These processes are possible because
besides IDENT(consonantal) and IDENT(place), there is a third faithfulness constraint that is
subordinated to the entire consonant-alignment hierarchy. Because the nasal vowel that
results from the fusion of a nasal with a preceding vowel functions as the output 34
correspondent of two different input segments, (29), it must be that ALIGN-LEFT(sonorant,σ)
also dominates UNIFORMITY, the faithfulness constraint that prohibits multiple
correspondence in the input-to-output direction (McCarthy and Prince 1995). Tableau (31)
incorporates this constraint into the ranking.
(29) Multiple correspondence in coalescence
Input: / k1 o2 n3 f4 u5 s6 o7 /
Output: [ k1 o2,3 f4 u5 s6 o7 ]
(30) UNIFORMITY: No element in the output has multiple correspondents in the input.
(31) MAX(seg) >> ALIGN-LEFT(sonorant,σ) >> IDENT(cons), IDENT(place), UNIFORMITY
MAX ALIGN-L IDENT IDENT Input: /konfuso/ ‘confusing’ UNIFORM (seg) (sonorant,σ) (cons) (place) a. [kon.fu.so] *! ) b. [ko.fu.so] * * * c. [ko.fu.so] *!
In this evaluation, a nasal consonant is at odds with ALIGN-LEFT(sonorant,σ) because
it is assigned to syllable-final position, (31a). Although its deletion is prevented by higher-
ranking MAX(seg), (31c), the consonant-alignment constraint is still able to force the nasal consonant out of the syllable coda. To meet the demands of both MAX(seg) and ALIGN-
LEFT(sonorant,σ), candidate (31b) chooses to fuse the nasal consonant with the preceding
vowel into a single segment. This gives rise to a violation of UNIFORMITY, and additional 35
violations of IDENT(consonantal) and IDENT(place) because while [o] is a labio-dorsal vowel,
one of its input correspondents is the coronal consonant /n/.
It is apparent from tableau (31) that the rankings among IDENT(consonantal),
IDENT(place), and UNIFORMITY are unspecified. Like in the case of IDENT(sonorant) and
MAX(seg), no ranking among these three faithfulness constraints can be established because
their demands do not conflict. On the view that variability is caused by the lack of ranking
among some of the constraints of the grammar, this set of unranked faithfulness constraints is
a potential source of multiple output forms. The unspecified ranking among
IDENT(consonantal), IDENT(place), and UNIFORMITY is precisely the reason why either
consonant gliding or coalescence may be used to keep nasal consonants from surfacing in
syllable-final position. In both of these processes, a multiple correspondence relationship
among input and output elements is created, (cf. 30 and 32).
(32) Multiple correspondence in assimilation
Place2 Place3
Input: / k1 o2 n3 f4 u5 s6 o7 /
Output: [ r1 o2 3 f4 u5 s6 o7 ]
Place2,3
The representation in (32) shows that when a syllable-final nasal is turned into [], it gives rise to a multiple correspondence relationship between two sets of Place features in the 36
input (e.g. Place2 and Place3) and a single set of Place features in the output (e.g. Place2,3).
This is because the nasal consonant turns into a glide by sharing place features with the
preceding vowel (Paradis and Prunet 1990, 1993).11 That is to say that the constraint
UNIFORMITY may be violated at the segmental level, when two segments coalesce, or at the featural level, when a segment assimilates to another one (LaMontagne and Rice 1995).
Tableau (33) shows that IDENT(consonantal), IDENT(place), and UNIFORMITY are all violated whether the strategy chosen to keep a nasal consonant out of the syllable coda is to assimilate it to the preceding vowel, (33b), or to fuse it completely with that vowel, (33c).
Here again, the reason why the grammar selects multiple winners is not because there is a tie between two finalists. Note, for instance, that candidates (33b) and (33c) differ with respect to the lower-ranking constraint *COMPLEX(Nucleus). Rather than a tie, the reason why
consonant gliding and coalescence are both optimal strategies to avoid a syllable-final nasal
is because the rankings among the faithfulness constraints IDENT(consonantal), IDENT(place), and UNIFORMITY are unspecified.
(33) MAX(seg) >> ALIGN-LEFT(sonorant,σ) >> IDENT(cons), IDENT(place), UNIFORMITY
MAX ALIGN-L IDENT IDENT Input: /konfuso/ ‘confusing’ UNIFORM (seg) (sonorant,σ) (cons) (place) a. [kon.fu.so] *! ) b. [ko .fu.so] * * * ) c. [ko.fu.so] * * * d. [ko.fu.so] *!
The intrinsic ranking among the members of the consonant-alignment hierarchy
predicts that if ALIGN-LEFT(sonorant,σ) outranks UNIFORMITY, then ALIGN- 37
LEFT(obstruent,σ) must dominate it as well. This prediction is indeed borne out because
UNIFORMITY is also violated in order to prevent the emergence of a fricative consonant in
syllable-final position.
(34) Multiple correspondence in assimilation
Place2 Place3
Input: / r1 e2 s3 k4 a5 t6 e7 /
Output: [ r1 e2 h 3 k4 a5 t6 e7 ]
Place2,3
The representation in (34) shows that the same kind of multiple correspondence that is created when a nasal consonant assimilates to the preceding vowel arises when a fricative consonant turns into a glottal glide because this involves giving up all of the Place-dependent features of that segment and adopting those of the preceding vowel (Goodgall de Pruna
1970). With the incorporation of UNIFORMITY to the ranking, it is worth reviewing the
selection of the optimal output correspondent for a syllable-final fricative.
(35) AL-L(obstr,σ) >> ID(son), MAX(seg) >> AL-L(son,σ) >> ID(cons), ID(pl), UNIFORM
ALIGN-L ID MAX ALIGN-L ID ID Input: /reskate/ ‘rescue’ UNIF (obstr,σ) (son) (seg) (son,σ) (cons) (pl) a. [reskate] *! ) b. [rehkate] * * * * ) c. [rekate] *
38
When a fricative consonant is prevented from surfacing in the syllable coda by
turning it into [h], a total of four faithfulnes constraints are violated: IDENT(sonorant),
IDENT(consonantal), IDENT(place), and UNIFORMITY, (35b). Nevertheless, not all of these
violations are of weight in the selection of the optimal output form because of their different
ranks. Being low ranking, IDENT(consonantal), IDENT(place), and UNIFORMITY have no saying in the decision between the two finalists, (35b) and (35c). Since each one of these candidates incurs a violation of either IDENT(sonorant) or MAX(seg), they are both selected as optimal because neither of these faithfulness constraints dominates the other one.
Another issue pertaining to UNIFORMITY is that despite its low rank, coalescence only
occurs when the consonant that is at stake is nasal, (33c). This is unexpected considering that
the entire consonant-alignment hierarchy outranks UNIFORMITY. Under this ranking, one
would expect coalescence to be possible for all consonant classes; but the data show that
syllable-final stops, fricatives, and liquids never coalesce with the preceding vowel, (4, 3, 1).
I suggest that this also has to do with the different glottal and nasal values of the major
consonant classes. Given that liquids and stops are the two Spanish consonant classes that
lack positive specifications for all glottal and nasal features, the glottal and nasal values left
after the loss of the Place-dependent features of a syllable-final liquid or stop cannot signal
the preservation of that consonant if they were realized on the preceding vowel. Note that
the [−spread glottis, −constricted glottis, −nasal] specifications of liquids and stops would be
indistinguishable from the [−spread glottis, −constricted glottis, −nasal] specifications of a
vowel. That is to say that the absorption of a syllable-final liquid or stop by the vowel that
precedes it would be indistinct from the deletion of that consonant. 39
This argument, however, cannot be extended to voiceless fricatives because they do bear a positive specification for a glottal feature. More specifically, given that both the
[+nasal] feature of a nasal and the [+spread glottis] feature of a voiceless fricative can signal the incorporation of these segments into the structure of the preceding vowel, one would expect coalescence to be possible for both syllable-final nasals and fricatives, as the rank of the consonant-alignment hierarchy over UNIFORMITY predicts. It must be pointed out, however, that the incorporation of the [+spread glottis] specification of the voiceless fricative into the structure of the preceding vowel would cause that vowel to become voiceless, which is a highly marked laryngeal state for a vowel. This observation suggests that markedness is the factor that keeps fricatives from coalescing with the preceding vowel. The analysis I propose along these lines is presented in tableau (36).
(36) *V >> ALIGN-L(obstr,σ) >> ALIGN-L(sononrant,σ) >> ID(cons), ID(pl), UNIFOR, *V
ALIGN-L ALIGN-L IDENT IDENT Input: /kosta/ ‘coast’ *V UNIF (obstr,σ) (son,σ) (cons) (place) *V a. [kosta] *! ) b. [kohta] * * * c. [kota] *! * * * Input: /manso/ ‘tame’ d. [manso] *! ) e. [ma so] * * * * ) f. [maso] * * * *
Since the voiceless vowel that would result from the absorption of a syllable-final fricative is not permitted, the markedness constraint that prohibits voiceless vowels (e.g. *V) 40
must outrank the consonant-alignment hierarchy. By contrast, the markedness constraint that
prohibits nasal vowels (e.g. *V) must be dominated by the consonant-alignment hierarchy
given that it is indeed possible to create a nasal vowel in order to avoid a syllable-final nasal
consonant. Therefore, although both fricatives and nasals bear glottal or nasal values that
could signal the preservation of those segments if they were absorbed by the preceding vowel, coalescence is optimal only for nasals, (36f), because the markedness constraint *V
precludes it in the case fricatives, (36c).
8. The creation of prenasalized stops
Of the three processes that nasal consonants undergo in NRDS when they are
assigned to the syllable coda two have been accounted for so far, (2b,c). The case that
remains is the assimilation of the nasal to a following stop/affricate within the same word,
(2a). In this regard, it is important to note that the homorganic nasals that result from this
assimilation are in complementary distribution with the non-consonantal allophones that are
created through consonant gliding and coalescence (e.g. [] and [V]). While homorganic
nasals always appear before a stop/affricate consonant within the same word, everywhere
else, nasals surface as either [] or [V]. The assimilatory effect that the presence of a
stop/affricate has on a preceding nasal is expected under the analysis proposed here because
this constraint system predicts that the emergence of a consonant in syllable-final position
should be preventable through its coalescence with either the preceding vowel, (37), or the
following consonant, (38). This follows from the fact that the constraint UNIFORMITY, which is outranked by the entire consonant-alignment hierarchy, does not distinguish between the 41
type of multiple correspondence in which an input segment shares an output correspondent
with the preceding segment, and the type where an input segment shares an output
correspondent with the following segment. As the representations in (37) and (38) show,
UNIFORMITY is violated in both cases.
(37) Progressive nasal absorption
Input: / p1 a2 n3 s4 a5 /
Output: [ p1 a2,3 s4 a5 ]
(38) Regressive nasal absorption
Input: / k1 a2 n3 p4 o5 /
m Output: [ k1 a2 p3,4 o5 ]
Following Piñeros (2003a), I propose to analyze those nasals that in NRDS surface
sharing place features with a following stop/affricate, (2a), as instances of the type of
multiple correspondence illustrated in (38). On this view, such nasals are not the first
member of an NC cluster, but actually the nasal portion of a prenasalized stop/affricate. This
proposal is in line with the finding that prenasalized stops/affricates are phonetically
indistinct from consonant clusters consisting of a nasal plus a stop/affricate because they
exhibit the same timing pattern for velar activity (Henton et al. 1992, Ohala and Ohala 1993).
In both prenasalized stops/affricates and NC clusters, the velum descends and stays down for
the majority of the closure, then it raises shortly before the closure is released. As a 42
consequence of having identical timing for velar activity, nasal airflow does not last longer in
NC sequences than it does in prenasalized stops/affricates. From a phonetic perspective then,
the homorganic nasals in (2a) could be part of either an NC cluster or a prenasalized
stop/affricate.
Despite their phonetic equivalence, NC clusters and prenasalized stops/affricates are
clearly distinct in the phonology. Being heterosyllabic, the first member of an NC sequence is parsed as a syllable coda (e.g. [VN.CV]), whereas the nasal portion of a prenasalized stop/affricate is parsed in onset position along with the oral phase of this contour segment
(e.g. [V.NCV]). Of these two structures, only the latter has a place in the phonology of
NRDS, where all consonant classes are prohibited in syllable-final position, as it was
demonstrated above. The reason why a nasal consonant followed by a stop/affricate is best
preserved as the nasal component of a prenasalized stop/affricate is unveiled by the
evaluation in tableau (39) below.
(39) AL-L(obstr,σ) >> ID(son), MAX(seg) >> AL-L(son,σ) >> ID(cons), ID(pl), UNIFOR
ALIGN-L IDENT MAX ALIGN-L IDENT IDENT Input: /kanpo/ ‘field’ UNIF (obstr,σ) (son) (seg) (son,σ) (cons) (pl) a. [kanpo] *! b. [kampo] *! * * c. [ka po] *! * * d. [kapo] *! * * ) e. [kampo] * * f. [kapo] *!
Both candidates (39a) and (39b) fall in violation of ALIGN-LEFT(sonorant,σ) because
they contain a nasal consonant that sits at the right edge of a syllable. It is irrelevant whether 43 the offending consonant bears its own place features, (39a), or if it shares place features with another consonant, (39b). What matters to ALIGN-LEFT(sonorant,σ) is that this segment is a sonorant consonant occupying the syllable coda. To avoid this marked positioning for a consonant, two main paths may be taken. The offending segment could be deleted, (39f), or its featural composition could be adjusted to reconcile it with the demands of ALIGN-
LEFT(sonorant,σ), (39c-e). The first of these paths is blocked by MAX(seg), which has been proven to take precedence over ALIGN-LEFT(sonorant,σ), (25). By contrast, adjusting the featural composition of the nasal consonant by sharing structure with an adjacent segment,
(39c-e), is a viable strategy because the faithfulness constraints IDENT(consonantal),
IDENT(place), and UNIFORMITY are ouranked by the consonant-alignment hierarchy. Of the three candidates that take this route, two choose the absorption of the nasal by an adjacent segment, (39d,e), while one of them keeps it as a separate segment (36c). Merging the nasal with the preceding vowel, (39d), or changing it into a nasal glide, (39c) are worse than merging it with the following stop consonant because, although these three solutions give rise to violations of IDENT(place) and UNIFORMITY, the coalescence of a consonant with another consonant guarantees that neither of these segments will have an output correspondence that is not consonantal. Hence, the reason why absorption of the nasal by a following stop/affricate is optimal is because it spares a violation of IDENT(consonantal), (39e).
But if absorption of the nasal by the following consonant has the advantage of preserving its [+consonantal] value, why do nasals only coalesce with a following consonant when this consonant is a stop/affricate? I propose that it is the markedness constraint
*NASCONTC that prevents consonants other than stops/affricates from absorbing nasals.
44
(40) *NASCONTC: Nasalized continuant consonants are prohibited.
*[+consonantal, +continuant, +nasal]
Aerodynamic conditions governing the production of speech sounds provide phonetic grounding for this constraint. As Ohala (1983:205-06) points out, for air under pressure to be able to escape through one of the vocal tract valves, all other valves through which that air could be vented must be closed. ‘If another valve is open, then a noisy audible flow of air through the intended valve will be lessened or eliminated.’ This is precisely the effect of lowering the velum during the articulation of a consonant that involves continuous oral airflow. Venting through the nasal valve will inevitably undermine any noisy flow of air created by the incomplete oral closure of a continuant consonant. By contrast, stops/affricates can afford to have oral venting because they are the only segments whose articulation involves both a closure and an aperture phase (Steriade 1993), which allows them to synchronize the opening of the nasal valve with the closure of the oral valve. Since the oral valve is tightly sealed during the closure phase of the stop/affricate, the nasal valve may be open during that period to produce audible nasal noise; and because the velum is raised shortly before the aperture phase of the stop/affricate, the oral valve may then be opened to produce audible oral noise. Such synchronization is not possible for continuant consonants because their articulation consists of only an aperture phase during which the oral valve is, obviously, not sealed. The lack of a closure phase in continuant consonants is the reason why the feature [+nasal] is reluctant to combine with them. As Padgett (1994) notes, nasalized continuant consonants are extremely rare, and whereas nasal assimilation to stops/affricates is a pervasive process across languages, assimilation of nasals to continuants is highly disfavored. 45
In NRDS, the rank of *NASCONTC over ALIGN-LEFT(sonorant,σ) makes it impossible
to prevent the emergence of a misaligned nasal consonant at the expense of creating a
nasalized continuant consonant. This is illustrated in tableau (41), which contrasts the case of a nasal followed by a stop consonant with two cases of nasals followed by continuant consonants.
(41) *NASCONTC >> ALIGN-LEFT(sonorant,σ) >> ID(cons), ID(pl), UNIFOR
Input: /konpite/ ‘s/he *NAS ALIGN-L IDENT IDENT UNIFORM competes’ CONTC (son,σ) (cons) (place) a. [kompite] *! * * b. [ko pite] *! * * c. [kopite] *! * * ) d. [kompite] * * Input: /konfite/ ‘candy’ e. [kofite] *! * * ) f. [ko pite] * * * ) g. [kopite] * * * h. [kofite] *! * * Input: /enrike/ ‘Henry’ i. [enrike] *! * * ) j. [e rike] * * * ) k. [erike] * * * l. [enrike] *! * *
The violation of IDENT(consonantal) that is spared through the absorption of a
syllable-final nasal by the following consonant is significant when that consonant is a
stop/affricate because the nasalized consonant that results does not run afoul of *NASCONTC, 46
(41d). This one violation less is the reason why before a stop/affricate, nasals fail to undergo
consonant gliding or coalescence with the preceding vowel, (41b,c). By contrast, it is
worthless to spare a violation of IDENT(consonantal) when the segment that results from this
runs counter to the higher-ranking constraint *NASCONTC, (41h,l). With the option of
merging with the following consonant precluded, nasal consonants that are followed by a
continuant consonant have no other option but to turn into a non-consonantal segment, either through consonant gliding or through coalescence with the preceding vowel, so that they can comply with ALIGN-LEFT(sonorant,σ), (41f,g).
10. Word-final consonants
It is a well-known fact among Spanish linguists that the final consonant of a Spanish word is not always parsed as a syllable coda (Harris 1983, Hualde 1989, Colina 1995, among others). When a word that ends with a consonant is followed by a word that begins with a vowel, it is possible to parse the final consonant of the first word as the onset of the first syllable of the second word (e.g. [so.na.si] < /son asi/ ‘they are like that’). In NRDS, where the consonant-alignment hierarchy threatens the preservation of coda consonants, the possibility of syllabifying a consonant across a word boundary could be an effective way for word-final consonants to evade the consonant-alignment constraints. Notwithstanding, word-final consonants fail to take advantage of this possibility (e.g. [so .a.si] ~ [so.a.si] <
/son asi/), unless the word ending with a consonant is a clitic (e.g. [u.no.so] < /un oso/ ‘a bear’). Furthermore, although the markedness constraint *NASCONTC would not object
against the absorption of a word-final nasal by the initial stop/affricate of a following word, this option is not exploited either (e.g. [da .pe.na] ~ [da.pe.na] < /dan pena/ ‘they give pity’). 47
I propose to account for the inability of NRDS to syllabify word-final consonants
across a word boundary through the constraint ALIGN-R(PWd,σ), whose concern is the
matching of the right edge of the prosodic word with a syllable boundary, (42). Because the
emergence of a consonant in syllable-final position cannot be prevented at the cost of trapping the right edge of the prosodic word inside a syllable, ALIGN-R(PWd,σ) must take
precedence over the consonant-alignment hierarchy. Hereafter I use the symbol | to indicate the right edge of the prosodic word.
(42) ALIGN-R(PWd,σ): The right edge of the prosodic word must be aligned with
the right edge of a syllable.
Tableau (43) shows that the transfer of a word-final consonant to the first syllable of
the following word gives rise to a fatal violation of ALIGN-R(PWd,σ), (43b,f,j). This
alignment constraint makes it irrelevant whether the following word begins with a vowel or
with a consonant, (43b vs. 43f), or whether the initial consonant of the following word is a
stop/affricate or continuant, (43f vs. 43j). In any case, to prevent a violation of ALIGN-
R(PWd,σ), the word-final nasal cannot be syllabified as a syllable onset. Consequently, the complementary distribution in which homorganic nasals and the non-consonantal allophones
[] and [V] appear word internally, (41), vanishes in word-final position, where only non-
consonantal allophones are possible, (43c,d,g,h,k,l).
48
(43) AL-R(PWd,σ) >> AL-L(obstr,σ) >> AL-L(son,σ) >> ID(cons), ID(pl), UNIFOR
ALIGN-R ALIGN-L ALIGN-L IDENT IDENT Input: /son asi/ UNIF (PWd,σ) (obstr,σ) (son,σ) (cons) (pl) a. [son.|a.si]12 *! b. [so.n|a.si] *! ) c. [so .|a.si] * * * ) d. [so.|a.si] * * * Input: /dan pena/ e. [dan.|pe.na] *! f. [da.m|pe.na] *! * * ) g. [da .|pe.na] * * * ) h. [da.|pe.na] * * * Input: /dan fama/ i. [dan.|fa.ma] *! j. [da.|fa.ma]13 *! * * ) k. [da .|fa.ma] * * * ) l. [da.|fa.ma] * * *
This analysis of word-final consonants dovetails with the observation made by
Jiménez Sabater (1975) that in NRDS the nasal allophones [] and [V ] serve to signal the end of the word. This happens when there is a nasal sitting at one of the converging edges of two adjacent words, as in the examples in (44). Note that whereas in Academic Spanish each pair of phrases in (44) has identical pronunciation as a consequence of syllabifying the final consonant of the first word as the onset of the first syllable of the second word; in NRDS, the members of each pair have different pronunciation because a word-final nasal cannot be syllabified across a word boundary. Consequently, it can only surface as a non-consonantal segment, which serves to demarcate the end of the word because that is the only form a consonant can take in this context. 49
(44) Academic Spanish NRDS a. /pintaba nabes/ Æ [pin.ta.a.|na.es] [pi.nt a.a.|na.eh] ‘s/he painted ships’
n /pintaban abes/ Æ [pin.ta.a.n|a.es] [pi. t a.a .|a.eh] ‘they painted birds’
[pi.nt a.a.|a.eh] b. /olbida nonbres/ Æ [ol.i.a.|nom.bes] [ol.i.a.|no.mbeh] ‘s/he forgets names’
m /olbidan onbres/ Æ [ol.i.a.n|om.bes] [ol.i.a .|o. beh] ‘they forget men’
[ol.i.a.|o.mbeh]
Because ALIGN-R(PWd,σ) outranks not only ALIGN-LEFT(sonorant,σ) but also
ALIGN-LEFT(obstruent,σ), the impossibility for word-final consonants to surface as a consonantal segment is true not only for nasals but for all other consonant classes as well.
This is confirmed by the examples in (45), which illustrate the contrast in syllabification and pronunciation of word-final consonants in Academic Spanish and NRDS. Without the option of transferring to the onset position of the initial syllable of a following vowel-initial word, the only alternative word-final consonants have in NRDS to avoid running afoul of the consonant-alignment constraints is to turn into a non-consonantal segment or delete.
(45) Academic Spanish NRDS
/kome aros/ Æ [ko.me.|a.ros] [ko.mei.|a.roh] ‘to eat rice’
/papel asul/ Æ [pa.pe.l|a.sul] [pa.pei.|a.sui] ‘blue paper’
/asen eso/ Æ [a.se.n|e.so] [a.se .|e.so] ‘they do that’
/vos alta/ Æ [bo.s|al.ta] [bo.|ai.ta] ‘loud voice’
/klub atletiko/ Æ [klu |a.tle.ti.ko] [klu.|a.tle.ti.ko] ‘athletic club’
50
Finally, the possibility of parsing the final-consonant of a clitic as the onset of the
first syllable of the following word (e.g. [e.la.o] < /el ao] ‘the year’) is a direct consequence of the fact that only stressed words are prosodic words.14 Because unstressed
words such as articles (e.g. /el/ ‘the, masc. sg.’), prepositions (e.g. /po/ ‘for/by’), and other
prosodically weak grammatical categories are not prosodic words, they are not subject to the
constraint ALIGN-R(PWd,σ). This is illustrated in tableau (46) with the phrases /el oso/ ‘the
bear’ and /el poso/ ‘the well’. When a consonant-final clitic leans on a following vowel-
initial word, its final consonant can be syllabified as a syllable onset because, not being a
prosodic word, the syllabification of the last segment of the clitic is irrelevant to ALIGN-
R(PWd,σ), (46a). Notwithstanding, when the following word begins with a consonant, the
onset position of the first syllable of that word is not available. Consequently, although
ALIGN-R(PWd,σ) remains mute regarding the syllabification of the final consonant of the
clitic, this segment has no option but to undergo consonant gliding in order to prevent a
violation of one of the consonant-alignment constraints, (46d).
(46) AL-R(PWd,σ) >> AL-L(obstr,σ) >> AL-L(son,σ) >> ID(cons), ID(pl), UNIFOR
ALIGN-R ALIGN-L ALIGN-L IDENT IDENT Input: /el oso/ ‘the bear’ UNIF (PWd,σ) (obs,σ) (son,σ) (cons) (pl) ) a. [e.lo.so] b. [ei .o.so] *! * Input: /el poso/ ‘the well’ c. [el.po.so] *! ) d. [ei .po.so] * *
51
11. Considering positional faithfulness as an alternative approach
Instead of consonant-alignment constraints, one could argue that coda effects follow
from the existence of positional-faithfulness constraints, which require the faithful
preservation of those segments that are parsed in prominent linguistic positions such as the
syllable onset (Beckman 1999). Since the syllable coda is not a prominent position, there are
no positional-faithfulness constraints that require enhanced faithfulness to the segments
parsed therein. Therefore, lesser faithfulness to coda consonants is to be expected.
A positional-faithfulness approach to coda effects relies on two types of faithfulness
constraints. One is a context-free faithfulness constraint, (47), and the other one is a
positional-faithfulness constraint specific to onset segments, (48). Both of these faithfulness constraints interact with a context-free markedness constraint that prohibits place features:
*PLACE. For a recent analysis of coda effects along these lines, see Al-Ahmadi Al-Harbi
(2003), who analyzes coda effects in the Austronesian language Acehnese.
(47) IDENT: Correspondent segments must agree in their feature specifications
(48) IDENTONSET: Onset segments and their input correspondents must agree in their
feature specifications.
(49) *PLACE: Place features are prohibited. (*Dorsal, *Labial >> *Coronal)
Within this constraint system, the factor that is responsible for coda effects is the
markedness constraint *PLACE, which demands the loss of place specifications regardless of
their distribution in the output form. In a grammar where *PLACE is interleaved between the 52
positional faithfulness and the general faithfulness constraints, place specifications may be
preserved in the onset, but they must be lost in the coda. This is illustrated in tableau (50).
Bear in mind that the only violations of *PLACE that are recorded in the tableau are those
incurred by the output correspondents of the relevant segments.
(50) IDENTONSET >> *PLACE >> IDENT
Input: /moska/ ‘fly’ IDENTONSET *PLACE IDENT a. [mos.ka] *! ) b. [moh.ka] * Input: /masa/ ‘dough’ ) c. [ma.sa] * d. [ma.ha] *! *
This tableau shows that the positional-faithfulness approach successfully accounts for
the debuccalization of syllable-final fricatives. When a fricative consonant is assigned to the
syllable coda, *PLACE can force that segment to lose its Place-dependent features, (50b). By
contrast, when the same consonant is assigned to the syllable onset, IDENTONSET requires the
faithful preservation of that consonant even if this runs counter to *PLACE, (50c). Although
positional faithfulness yields the correct results in this case, there are several reasons why this approach should not be adopted to account for coda effects.
A first objection against using positional faithfulness for deriving coda effects is that
the re-ranking of the constraints that this approach assumes predicts the existence of a
grammar in which *PLACE dominates both IDENTONSET and IDENT. In such grammar, place
contrasts will be lost not only in codas but also in onsets. That is to say that no place 53
distinctions among consonants would exist. Because there is no such language, the
positional-faithfulness approach to coda effects overgenerates.15 This is illustrated in tableau
(11) with a hypothetical grammar where all consonant contrasts neutralize to []. The
symbol 0 signals the selection of an unattested output form.
(51) *PLACE >> IDENTONSET >> IDENT
Input: /Vp.tV/ *PLACE IDENTONSET IDENT a. [Vp.tV] **! b. [V.tV] *! * c. [Vp.V] *! * * 0 d. [V.V] * *
To avoid predicting such language, the positional-faithfulness approach would have
to stipulate that IDENTONSET always dominates *PLACE. But even if that were granted,
positional-faithfulness still has serious problems because it is unable to derive some of the
coda effects attested across languages. For instance, the vocalization of syllable-final liquids
and stops that occurs in Spanish dialects such as NRDS and Rustic Chilean Spanish is an
intractable problem for this approach due to the fact that it assigns the responsability of
triggering coda effects to the constraint *PLACE. This markedness constraint cannot be the principle that triggers vocalization because the change of a liquid or stop consonant into a corono-dorsal or a labio-dorsal glide results in an increase, rather than a reduction in place specifications, (22). The symbol / in tableau (50) indicates the failure of this approach to select the attested output forms.
54
(50) IDENTONSET >> *PLACE >> IDENT
Input: /rekto/ ‘straight’ IDENTONSET *PLACE IDENT a. [rek.to] * / b. [rei .to] **! * Input: /pake/ ‘park’ a. [pa.ke] * / b. [pai .ke] **! *
In addition to vocalization, epenthesis also escapes the constraint system on which
positional faithfulness is based. Lombardi (2001) has demonstrated that positional
faithfulness cannot explain why epenthesis is one of the strategies that languages use to
prevent the emergence of coda consonants (e.g. Ponapean). Although inserting a vowel to
the right of the offending consonant makes it possible to syllabify it as an onset, epenthesis
cannot be due to *PLACE because this constraint is equally violated whether that consonant is
syllabified in the onset or in the coda. Note, for instance, that the segment [p] in both
[Vp.tV] and [V.pV.tV] from the input /VptV/ violates *PLACE regardless of its different
syllabification.
Another empirical argument against a positional-faithfulness approach to coda effects is that it is not always true that the place features of onset consonants are favored over the place features of coda consonants. A process in which the place features of a coda consonant are preserved to the detriment of the place features of an onset consonant occurs in a variety of Spanish spoken by illiterate people in the South Eastern region of the Dominican Republic
(Jiménez Sabater 1975). In this dialect, all syllable-final consonants are avoided, as it occurs in NRDS; however, instead of vocalization, syllable-final liquids undergo assimilation to a following consonant, (51a). Notwithstanding, if the following consonant happens to be the 55
only sibilant fricative of the language (e.g. /s/), the liquid does not assimilate to it, but rather
causes it to become apical, (51b).
(51) a. /pela/ → [pela] ‘pearl’
/alma/ → [ama] ‘soul’
/olfo/ → [ofo] ‘gulf’
/polbo/ → [pobo] ‘dust’
/maca/ → [maca] ‘march’
b. /beso/ → [beso] ~ [beso] ‘verse’
/elsa/ → [elsa] ~ [esa] ‘proper name’
Taking into account that the Spanish liquids /l/ and // are [−distributed], Piñeros
(2003b) analyzes the apicalization of /s/ illustrated in (51b) as the incorporation of this
feature value of liquids into the structure of /s/. This sound change is triggered by the
constraint ALIGN-LEFT(Cplace,σ), which requires all consonant place features to be aligned
with the left edge of a syllable (Itô and Mester 1994, 1999). Although total assimilation effectively prevents the emergence of consonant place features in the syllable coda, this strategy is avoided when the consonant that follows the liquid is /s/ because it would create a geminate sibilant fricative, which is the most costly type of geminate consonant. The point that matters for the ongoing discussion is that the [−distributed] specification of the liquid consonant that is assigned to the syllable coda is favored over the [+distributed] specification
of the sibilant fricative that is assigned to the syllable onset. That is to say that faithfulness to
an onset consonant is sacrificed for the sake of preserving the place specifications of a coda
consonant, a phenomenon that positional faithfulness predicts not to exist. 56
11. Conclusion
This paper examined the various realizations that consonants can have in NRDS when
they are assigned to syllable-final position. It was found that this Spanish dialect prohibits all
consonants in the syllable coda. This effect was attributed to a family of alignment
constraints prohibiting consonants from appearing at the right edge of the syllable: ALIGN-
L(obstruent,σ) >> ALIGN-L(fricative,σ) >> ALIGN-L(nasal,σ) >> ALIGN-L(liquid,σ).
Because consonant-alignment constraints obey an intrinsic ranking based on the universal
sonority scale, they make important predictions regarding the phonology of syllable-final consonants. If low-sonority consonants are avoided in the syllable coda, this does not entail
that more sonorous consonants will also be avoided in that position. However, if high-
sonority consonants are avoided syllable finally, any consonants of lower sonority should be
avoided in that context as well. I have demonstrated that the coda effects exhibited by NRDS
are consistent with these predictions.
For instance, NRDS prevents the appearance of liquid consonants in the syllable coda
through vocalization. Since this process involves the violation of the feature-faithfulness constraints IDENT(consonantal) and IDENT(place), the consonant-alignment constraint ALIGN-
L(liquid,σ) must take precedence over them. By transitivity, this means that all other
members of the consonant-alignment hierarchy also outrank IDENT(consonantal) and
IDENT(place). Therefore, if syllable-final liquids are turned into glides, all other syllable-
final consonants should turn into glides as well. I showed that this is exactly what happens in
NRDS. When assigned to the syllable coda, stops, fricatives, and nasals also become the
offglide of a falling diphthong: [Vi ], [Vh], and [V ], respectively. Hence vocalization,
debuccalization, and nasal velarization are instances of a single transformation, which 57
consists of turning syllable-final consonants into glides. According to this analysis, the
reason why the segments [h] and [] pattern with [i ] in NRDS is because they are all
[−consonantal], as proposed by Chomsky and Halle (1968), Trigo (1988), Halle (1995),
among others.
The selection of the optimal glide for each consonant class is determined by the
constraints IDENT(glottal) and IDENT(nasal). These two-feature faithfulness constraints must
outrank the constraint ALIGN-L(obstruent,σ) because, when assigned to the syllable coda, the
plain stops of NRDS change into a glide that also has negative values for all glottal and nasal
features. By transitivity, this ranking entails that not only ALIGN-L(obstruent,σ), but the entire consonant-alignment hierarchy is subordinated to IDENT(glottal) and IDENT(nasal).
Therefore, all syllable-final consonants should turn into glides that remain faithful in glottal and nasal specifications to the consonants they stand for. This was also found to be true.
Syllable-final liquids and stops turn into an oral glide because this type of glide shares with these two consonant classes their negative values for all glottal and nasal features. Syllable- final fricatives turn into the laryngeal glide [h] because they agree in the features [+spread glottis, −constricted glottis, −nasal]. Similarly, syllable-final nasals turn into the nasal glide
[] because they share the specifications [−spread glottis, −constricted glottis, +nasal]. Their independence from stricture features is what allows glottal and nasal features to be the only feature classes that survive the attack against syllable-final consonants.
In addition to consonant gliding, fricative and stop consonants may also undergo
deletion when assigned to the syllable coda. By contrast, nasal and liquid consonants are
regularly preserved, although they are changed into a non-consonantal segment. This
asymmetry between obstruent and sonorant consonants with respect to deletion is consistent 58
with the prediction made by the consonant-alignment hierarchy that low-sonority coda
consonants will be eliminated before more sonorous coda consonants because the former are
more costly for running afoul of a higher-ranking consonant-alignment constraint. In NRDS,
syllable-final fricatives and stops may be deleted because ALIGN-L(obstruent,σ) dominates the faithfulness constraint MAX(seg). However, syllable-final liquids and nasals may not be
deleted because MAX(seg) outranks ALIGN-L(sonorant,σ). Furthermore, because
IDENT(sonorant) is also subordinated to ALIGN-L(obstruent,σ), both fricatives and stops have
the options of deleting or undergoing consonant gliding. It was shown that the variability
between these processes follows from the fact that the ranking between IDENT(sonorant) and
MAX(seg) is unspecified.
Nasals are special in that they are the only consonants that undergo coalescence in
addition to consonant gliding. This is unexpected because the rank of the consonant-
alignment hierarchy over UNIFORMITY predicts that it should be possible to avoid the
misalignment of both obstruent and sonorant consonants by creating a multiple correspondence relationship between two elements in the input and a single element in the output. In actuality, this does happen, despite the fact that sometimes the multiple correspondence relationship is between features rather than segments. It was shown that
UNIFORMITY is violated not only when a syllable-final nasal is absorbed by an adjacent
segment, but also in the place assimilation that takes place to create the laryngeal and nasal
glides, [h] and []. Because IDENT(consonantal), IDENT(place), and UNIFORMITY are all violated when a nasal consonant is changed into a nasal glide, the gliding of syllable-final nasals is as optimal as their absorption by the preceding vowel. It was suggested that the inability of syllable-final liquids and stops to coalesce with a preceding vowel is due to their 59
negative values for all glottal and nasal features, which causes the absorption of a liquid or
stop consonant by the preceding vowel to be indistinct from the deletion of that consonant.
On the other hand, the reason why fricatives are kept from coalescing with the preceding
vowel is to comply with a universal markedness constraint against voiceless vowels, *V.
Another important finding of this analysis was that in NRDS those nasals that surface
sharing place features with a following stop/affricate are not part of an NC cluster, but the
nasal component of a prenasalized stop/affricate, which emerges through coalescence.
Absorption of the nasal by a following consonant has the advantage of sparing one violation
of the constraint IDENT(consonantal). This is the reason why nasals fail to turn into glides or
to coalesce with the preceding vowel when the following consonant is a stop/affricate.
Nonetheless, coalescence with a following consonant is precluded by the markedness
constraint *NASCONTC when the consonant that follows the nasal is continuant.
Finally, the fact that word-final consonants cannot be syllabified across a word boundary was captured through the constraint ALIGN-R(PWd,σ). Compliance with this alignment constraint leaves word-final consonants with no other option but to turn into a non- consonantal segment to abide by the consonant-alignment hierarchy. As a consequence of this, the non-consonantal allophones that consonants take in syllable-final position serve to demarcate the end of the word.
60
References
Al-Ahmadi Al-Harbi, Awwad. 2003. Acehnese coda-condition: an optimality-theoretic
account. Rutgers Optimality Archive 594-0403. 28 pp.
Alba, Orlando. 1979. Análisis fonológico de /r/ y /l/ implosivas en un dialecto rural
dominicano. Boletín de la Academia Puertorriqueña de la Lengua Española 7, 1-18.
Anttila, Arto. 1995. Deriving variation from grammar: a study of finish genitives. Rutgers
Optimality Archive, 63-0000. 28 pp.
Anttila, Arto. 2000. Morphologically conditioned phonological alternations. Rutgers
Optimality Archive, 425-1000. 44 pp.
Bakovic, Eric. 2000. Nasal place neutralization in Spanish. Rutgers Optimality Archive
386-0300. 12 p.
Beckman, Jill N. 1999. Positional faithfulness. New York: Garland.
Catford, J. C. 1977. Fundamental problems in phonetics. Bloomingotn: Indiana University
Press.
Chomsky, Noam and Morris Halle. 1968. The Sound Pattern of English. New York:
Harper and Row.
Clements, G. Nick. 1985. The geometry of phonological features. The Phonology Yearbook
2, 225-252.
Clements, G. Nick. 1993. Lieu d’articulation des consonnes et des voyelles: une théorie
unifiée. In L’architecture des représentations phonologiques, Bernard Laks and Annie
Rialland (eds.) 101-145. Paris: CNRS Editions. Centre National de recherches
Scientifiques. 61
Clements, G.Nick and Elizabeth Hume. 1995. The internal organization of speech sounds.
In John Goldsmith (ed.), The Handbook of Phonological Theory. Oxford: Blackwell.
245-306.
Colina, Sonia. 1995. A constraint-based approach to syllabification in Spanish, Catalan, and
Galician. Doctoral dissertation. University of Illinois, Champaign-Urbana.
D’Introno, Francesco and Juan Manuel Sosa (1984). Elision de nasal o nasalisacio de vocal
en caraqueño. Ms. University of Massachusetts.
De Lacy, Paul. 2002. The formal expression of markedness. Doctoral dissertation.
University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
Golibart, Pablo. 1976. Cibaeño vocalization. Master Thesis. University of Kansas.
Goodgall de Pruna, Ruth. 1970. La pronunciación del idioma español en el centro de Cuba.
Islas 37, 155-160.
Guitart, Jorge. 1981. Some theoretical implications of liquid gliding in Cibaeño Dominican
Spanish. In H. Contreras and J. Klausenburger (eds.), Proceedings of the Tenth
Anniversary Symposium on Romance Linguistics, suplement II to Papers in Linguistics 3,
223-228. Washington: University of Washington.
Halle, Morris. 1995. Feature geometry and feature spreading. Linguistic Inquiry 26, 1-46.
Harris, James. 1983. Syllable structure and stress in Spanish: a non-linear analysis.
Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Heffner, R-M, S. 1950. General Phonetics. Madison: The University of Wisconsin Press.
Henríquez Ureña, Pedro. 1940. El español en Santo Domingo. Buenos Aires: Coni.
Henton, Caroline; Peter Ladefoged; and Ian Maddieson. 1992. Stops in the world’s
languages. Phonetica 49, 65-101. 62
Hualde, José Ignacio. 1989. Silabeo y estructura morfémica en español. Hispania 72, 821-
831.
Itô, Junko and Armin Mester. 1993. Licensed segments and safe paths. Canadian Journal
of Linguistics/Revue canadienne de linguistique 38, 197-213.
Itô, Junko and Armin Mester. 1999. Realignment. In René Kager, Harry van der Hulst, and
Wim Zonneveld (eds.), The Prosody Morphology Interface. 188-217. Cambridge:
United Kingdom.
Ito, Junko and Armin Mester. 1994. Reflections on CodaCond and Alignment. In Jason
Merchant, Jaye Padgett and Rachel Walker (eds.), Phonology at Santa Cruz III. 27-46.
Itô, Junko. 1986. Syllable theory in prosodic phonology. Doctoral dissertation, University
of Massachusetts, Amherst.
Itô, Junko. 1989. A prosodic theory of epenthesis. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory
7, 217-259.
Jiménez Sabater, Max. 1975. Más datos sobre el español de la República Dominicana.
Santo Domingo: Editora de la UASD.
Keating, Patricia. 1988. Palatals as complex segments: X-ray evidence. University of
California Working Papers in Phonetics 69, 77-91
Keyser, Samuel and Kenneth Stevens. 1994. Feature geometry and the vocal tract.
Phonology 11, 207-236.
Kingston, John. 1985. The phonetics and phonology of the timing of oral and glottal events.
Doctoral dissertation. University of California, Berkeley. 63
Kingston, John. 1990. Articulatory binding. In John Kingston and Mary Beckman (eds.),
Papers in Laboratory Phonology I: Between the Grammar and Physics of Speech. 406-
434. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kirchner, Robert. 1996. Cues or contexts in feature licensing constraints. Rutgers
Optimality Archive 162-1196. 10 p.
Ladefoged, Peter and Ian Maddieson. 1996. The Sounds of the World’s Languages.
Cambridge: Blackwell Publishers.
Ladefoged, Peter. 1982. A Course in Phonetics. New York : Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
Lamontagne, Greg and Keren Rice. 1995. A correspondence account of coalescence.
University of Massachusetts Occasional Papers, 18. 211-224.
Lombardi, Linda. 1999. Positional faithfulness and voicing asssimilation in Optimality
Theory. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 17, 267-302.
Lombardi, Linda. 2001. Why place and voice are different: constraint interactions and
featural faithfulness in Optimality Theory. In Linda Lombardi (ed.), Segmental
Phonology in Optimality Theory: constraints and representations. Cambridge University
Press.
Martínez-Gil, Fernando. 1996. El principio de la distancia mínima de sonoridad y el
problema de la vocalización consonántica en el español dialectal de Chile. Hispanic
Linguistics, 8:2. 201-246.
Martínez-Gil, Fernando. 1997. Obstruent vocalization in Chilean Spanish: a serial versus a
constraint-based approach. Probus, 9. 167-202.
McCarthy John and Alan Prince. 1993. Generalized alignment. Yearbook of Morphology,
79-153. 64
McCarthy, John and Alan Prince. 1995. Faithfulness and reduplicative identity. University
of Massachusetts Occasional Papers 18, 249-384.
Navarro Tomás, Tomás. 1956. Apuntes sobre el español dominicano. Revista
Iberoamericana 21, 417-429.
Nuñez-Cedeño, Rafael. 1997. Liquid gliding in Cibaeño and feature geometry theories.
Hispanic Linguistics 9:1, 143-164.
Ohala, John. 1983. The origin of sound patterns in vocal tract constraints. In Peter
MacNeilage (ed.), The Production of Speech. 189-216.
Ohala, Manjari and John Ohala. 1993. The phonetics of nasal phonology: theorems and
data. In Marie Huffman and Rena Krakow (eds.), Nasals, Nasalization and the Velum.
225-249. San Diego: Academic Press.
Oroz, Rodolfo. 1966. La lengua castellana en Chile. Santiago de Chile: Imprenta de la
Universidad de Chile.
Padgett, Jaye. 1994. Stricture and nasal place assimilation. Natural Language and
Linguistic Theory 12, 465-513.
Paradis, Carole and Jean-Francois Prunet. 1990. The coronal vs. velar placeless controversy.
McGill Working Papers in Linguistics 6(2), 192-228.
Paradis, Carole and Jean-Francois Prunet. 1993. A note on velar nasals: the case of Uradhi.
Canadian Journal of Linguistics/Revue canadienne de linguistique 38(4), 425-439.
Piggott, G. L. 1987. On the autonomy of the feature nasal. Proceedings of the Chicago
Linguistics Society 23, 223-238.
Piñeros, Carlos-Eduardo. 2001. Segment-to-syllable alignment and vocalization in Chilean
Spanish. Lingua 111, 3, 2001, 163-188. 65
Piñeros, Carlos-Eduardo. 2003a. Accounting for the instability of Palenquero voiced stops.
To appear in Lingua.
Piñeros, Carlo-Eduardo. 2003b. Explicación para el surgimiento de la s apical en un dialecto
de español del Caribe. To appear in Bulletin of Hispanic Studies.
Prince, Alan and Paul Smolensky. 1993. Optimality theory: constraint interaction in
generative grammar. Ms., Technical Report # 2 of the Rutgers Center for Cognitive
Science, Rutgers University.
Prince, Alan and Paul Smolensky. 2002 Optimality theory: constraint interaction in
generative grammar. Rutgers Optimality Archive, 537-0802. 262 pp.
Rojas, Nelson. 1982. Sobre la semivocalizacion de las líquidas en el español cibaeño. El
español del Caribe: ponencias del VI Simposio de Dialectología. Universidad Católica
Madre y Maestra. Santiago, República Dominciana.
Rosenthall, Samuel. 1994. Vowel/glide alternation in a theory of constraint interaction.
Doctoral dissertation. University of Massachusetts.
Steriade, Donca. 1982. Greek prosodies and the nature of syllabification. Doctoral
dissertation. Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Steriade, Donca. 1993. Positional neutralization. Paper presented at NELS 24.
Stevens, Kenneth. 1991. Acoustic phonetics. Ms. Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Trigo, Rosario Lorenza. 1988. On the phonological derivation and behavior of nasal
glides. Doctoral dissertation. Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Vaux, Bert. 1998. The laryngeal specifications of fricatives. Linguistic Inquiry 29, 497-511.
66
Notes
* Financial support for this research was provided by the Fullbright-Hayes Faculty Abroad Program through grant P019A010018 from the U.S. Department of Education. 1 Besides El Cibao, the central region, NRDS is spoken all along the northern coast of the Dominican Republic, from the westmost city of Montecrisiti, on the border with Haiti, to the west half of the Samaná Peninsula, located on the east side of the island. 2 There are two cases where deletion rather than vocalization takes place because the latter would give rise to an illicit prosodic structure. When the liquid consonant is assigned to the coda of a syllable whose nucleus is a high front vowel, (see a below), vocalization is blocked to avoid the creation of a long vowel, which would require the association of two moras with a single vowel. Also, when the liquid consonant is assigned to the coda of an unstressed word-final syllable, it does not vocalize to prevent the final syllable from becoming heavy, (b). A heavy final would preclude penultimate stress given that the trochee would be illformed. Because these special cases are entangled with phenomena of Spanish prosody that fall beyond the scope of this paper, I do not address them in my analysis of coda effects. See Alba (1979), Guitart (1981), Harris (1983), and Nuñez-Cedeño (1997) for discussion of these issues.
a. /silba/ Æ [sia] (c.f. *[sia]) ‘s/he whistles’
b. /dola/ Æ [dóla] (c.f. *[dólai ]) ‘dollar’
3 Castilian Spanish also accepts // in syllable-final position, but as in all Latin American Spanish dialects, this segment is absent from the sound inventory of NRDS. 4 The only regular Spanish word where /x/ occurs syllable finally is /relox/ ‘watch’, but even in those dialects where syllable-final consonants are not as restricted as they are in NRDS, the most common pronunciation of this word is [re.lo]. Hence, it appears that this word has been relexicalized to /relo/. 5 Some representative examples of stop vocalization in Rustic Chilean Spanish are provided below.
/kapsula/ Æ [kau.su.la] ~ [kai .su.la] ‘capsule’ /etniko/ Æ [ei.ni.ko] ‘ethnic’ /doma/ Æ [dou.ma] ~ [doi .ma] ‘dogma’
6 It is well known that laryngeal contrasts may also be neutralized syllable finally. However, unlike sonority and place of articulation, laryngeal contrasts may be suppressed not only in the syllable coda but also in the syllable onset, as evinced by the fact that there are languages that have no laryngeal constrasts even in onset position (e.g. Hawaiian). 7 This contrasts with the case of NRDS, where not only stops, but also liquids, fall prey of vocalization (e.g. [ai .toi ] < /akto/ ‘actor’). The analysis developed in Section 3 shows that this is because in NRDS,
IDENT(consonantal) is ranked lower with respect to the members of the consonant alignment hierarchy. 67
8 In this and all subsequent tableaux, the faithfulness constraints, which are the principles that oppose sound changes, are written in bold to make them stand out from the markedness constraints that trigger the changes. 9 Manner features (e.g. [lateral], [rhotic], [flap], etc.) are also lost in the process of changing a consonant into a glide because those features depend on the action of the same articulator that produces place features. Given that the loss of manner features follows from the loss of place features, I do no include a feature- faithfulness constraint that protects manner features separately (e.g. IDENT(manner)). 10 In the case of voicing, note that although this feature is produced by the vocal folds, it is, to a certain extent, dependent on the value of stricture features given that sonorants are inherently voiced whereas obstruents are inherently voiceless. 11 The fact that the nasal glide that results from assimilating the nasal consonant to the preceding vowel surfaces as velar, rather than as a doubly articulated segment, may be due to phonetic constraints. Because a velar closure has the effect of masking a stricture of lesser degree created at any point further front in the oral cavity, any Coronal or Labial features present in the vowel to which the nasal is assimilated may become unperceptible in the nasal. 12 This candidate also violates the constraint ONSET, which is the principle that in other Spanish dialects forces the syllabification of word-final consonants as the onset of the first syllable of a vowel-initial word. 13 This candidate also runs afoul of *NASCONTC because it contains a prenalized fricative consonant. 14 This follows from the fact that a prosodic word must have a foot as its head; however, for a foot to exist there must be a stressed syllable to act as the foot head. 15 This contrasts with a positional-faithfulness approach to laryngeal simplification (Beckman 1999, Lombardi 1999, 2001), in which case the constraints proposed to account for the loss of laryngeal contrasts in coda position (e.g. IDENTONSET > *LARYNGEAL >> IDENT) may be re-ranked without predicting an unattested language type. The ranking *LARYNGEAL >> IDENTONSET, IDENT is supported by the existence of languages that lack laryngeal contrasts both in onset and coda positions (e.g. Hawaiian).