Compensatory Lengthening versus Gemination in Ancient Greek* Dominique Rodier McGill University o. Introduction Some of the most recent studies in phonology have been concerned with the 'Principles and Parameters' approach to the study of the language faculty, as illustrated in work by Bouchard (1982), Kaye and Lowenstamm (1981, 1982, 1983), Piggott and Singh (1984), etc. Certain phonological processes are found in numerous languages. To describe them simply in terms of language-specific rules would suggest that very important generalizations are being missed. The alternative to describing those processes by means of phonological rules would be to appeal to the principles and parameters of Universal Grammar. As Singh (1980, 1981a,b,c) has argued, some phonological processes can be characterized as repair strategies triggered by well-formedness conditions on syllabic structure. Each of these strategies (e.g. Deletion, Epenthesis, etc.) would be the result of the setting of some parameter, an option that, in principle, is given to every grammar. Each grammar would have to decide which strategy would be used to repair syllables which are not well formed. The choice of a particular parameter may be linked to universal or language-specific constraints on syllable structure. The setting of one parameter may also be prompted by the prior setting of another parameter. Compensatory Lengthening is one of those phonological processes that are found in language after language. In this analysis, I will try to explain this particular process in terms of properties of syllable structure and argue that it can be seen as a repair strategy which is triggered by the need to preserve a certain kind of syllable structure. The determination of syllable structure assumed in this paper will be that of Piggott and Singh (1984). In fact, this conception of syllabification is 50 Compensatory Lengthening and Gemination 51 crucial to my analysis of Compensatory Lengthening. 1. The Framework Following Piggott and Singh (1984), I will assume that every syllable (~) has the two constituents: the onset (0) and the rime (R). In addition, the rime has an obligatory constituent, the nucleus (N) and it may also contain a second (optional) constituent, the coda (C). I will also assume that the terminal nodes of syllable trees are not segments themselves but a set of skeletal slots or points to which segments are linked. Hence the structures in (1) are allowed (the XIS represent skeletal point s) : la. ------r--- b. -------if --- ° R ° R I --------- N N C I I I X x X x x Of these, Cl a l is the mi n imal st ruc t ur e that a syllable can have. Each of the nodes labeled 0, Nand C may branch, allowing for syllable structures of greater complexity than those shown in (1). According to Piggott and Singh, there are obviously likely to be universal and language-specific constraints on what segment may be associated with the terminal elements of the onset or coda. There are also likely to be constraints on the complexity of structures with branching onsets, nuclei and codas. Kaye and Lowenstamm (1981), argue that the terminal elements of the nucleus must all be specified [+vocalic]. Since vowels, glides, liquids and nasals are all possible constituents of the nucleus, they are all specified as [+vocalic] segments by Kaye and Lowenstamm. Piggott and Singh (1984) take a more conventional approach and regard these segments as sonorants. However, they propose that the nucleus may dominate [+sonorant] consonants, at least in some languages, among them being English. The qualification of the last statement is intended to allow for the possibility that languages may vary in terms of what segments may be linked to the terminal elements of the nodes labeled 0, Nand C. Piggott and Singh (1984) further propose that nasals and liquids may appear as the second (i.e. the right-most) constituent of a nucleus. Thus, a branching nucleus may characterize either a long vowel, a diphthong or a sequence of a vowel followed by a nasal or liquid. They also propose that the fricative [s] may also appear as a constituent of the nucleus. Piggott and Singh argue that their analysis of Epenthesis depends crucially on their conception of syllabification, i.e. of the set of strategies by which all the segments in a string 52 Rodier are (exhaustively) assigned to well-formed syllables. Since my own analysis also depends on their conception of syllabification, let us look at their assumptions: first, there is a principle which applies relatively freely, constructing an initial set of syllable structures. This initial syllabification principle (ISP) is stated roughly in (2). The ISP is mediated by a set of principles which include those cited in (3) (Piggott and Singh, 1984; 91-92). 2. Every skeletal slot is assigned to a position in a syllable, maximizing onsets (ISP). 3a. Every node of syllable structure must dominate at least one skeletal slot. b. A vowel is associated with at least one nucleus. c. A segment must be associated with a slot in the nucleus if it is specified [+vocalic]. d. A slot which is linked to a segment unspecified for the feature [vocalic] must be associated with a nucleus unless it precedes a slot linked to a [+vocalic] segment in which case the former is assigned to the onset. e. A [-vocalic] segment cannot be assigned to the nucleus Resyllabification is conceived of as a set of strategies by which segments are reassigned to different positions if the ISP creates structures that violate some substantive constraint, either universal or language-specific. One example given by Piggott and Singh of resyllabification triggered by a language-specific constraint is that of the glide [y] in French. Principle (3d) will assign the glide to the nucleus. However, according to Kaye and Lowenstamm (1981), the glide in the final syllable of a word like 'travail' [travay] should be in the coda. The structure given by the ISP would then be as in (4a) and the structure after resyllabification would be as in (4b). Language-specific constraints or principles are regarded as marked options; thus the need for resyllabification. 4a. rr b. tJ 0 ----R 0 --- --R I ~--..... 6. N N c I /""--. /\ I I tra v a y tra v a y Compensatory Lengthening and Gemination 53 According to Piggott and Singh, the principles of syllabification presented in (2) and (3) do not initially permit sonorant consonants in the nucleus. It would seem that the appearance of such consonants in the nucleus is the manifestation of a marked option which is specifically permitted by a language-particular rule or condition. According to Piggott and Singh, sonorant consonants may be assigned to the nucleus through one or two devices. A given language may include among the set of resyllabification strategies a condition on syllabification such as the one cited here in (5) below (Piggott and Singh, 1984; 94). 5. A [-vocalic] segment is associated with the nucleus iff it is also [+sonorant]. Alternatively, a language may undergo the rule which moves a sonorant into the nucleus. Crucially, application of the rule Move Sonorant follows resyllabification. Both the condition in ~and the rule Move Sonorant are constrained by restrictions on which position in the nucleus sonorant consonants may occupy. It is assumed that in the unmarked case the sonorant appears as the righthand constituent of a nucleus. Also, the rule Move Sonorant and the condition cited in (5) are parametrically determined. 2. Compensatory Lengthening and Gemination Let us now look at the phonological process of Compensatory Lengthening, comparing it to another quite similar process, the formation of Gemination. In their paper on Compensatory Lengthening in Tiberian Hebrew, Kaye and Lowenstamm (1983) claim that the representation of Semitic morphology and phonology specifies the prosodic information involved in a particular structure, i.e. in most cases, the number and shape of syllables that characterize a particular morphological class. Along with this prosodic information, segmental information is incorporated in the form of a consonantal root and a vocalic melody. Kaye and Lowenstamm argue that Compensatory Lengthening and Gemination arise when there is a discrepancy between the number of Level 2 positions (i.e. the number of points available for mapping by the melodic tier) and the number of terminal nodes on ·Level 1 trees in some morphological classes, as shown in (6) where the rightmost branch of the medial syllable does not dominate a position at Level 2. This sort of configuration determines the presence of a null element (a). 54 Rodier 6. Levell Level 2 Level 3 hit / g, d, 1 / / a / The null element position has, then, to be filled. If the (ff) is a C, it will serve as the support for the spreading of £ in (6); if it is interpreted as a V, the position will be filled by a, thus generating either hitgaddeel or the ill-formed *hitgaadeel. What is necessary here is that the right branch of the rime of the unlabeled medial syllable of the representation be identified as a C, not a V. This amounts to saying that the derived label dominating the branching rime should be R, not N. This is what Kaye and Lowenstamm expect from their principle (10)<1> which restricts the distribution of null elements to non-branching constituents. In fact, in Tiberian Hebrew, Gemination is the normal case. Compensatory Lengthening appears only when in a configuration like (6) the medial consonant cannot geminate (i.e. in TH, the resonants / 7,8 , h, r, h / which never geminate in any context). From this analysis of the facts in Tiberian Hebrew, Kaye and Lowenstamm conclude that Gemination is the unmarked or 'default' way of resolving the problem of the identity of the null element and that one should expect that a language in which every consonant can geminate will never display Compensatory Lengthening (CL).