THE INTERACTION OF VOWEL DELETION AND SYLLABLE STRUCTURE CONSTRAINTS Moira Taylor B.A. (Honors), Simon Fraser University, 1985 THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY in the Department 0 f LINGUISTICS O Moira Taylor 1994 SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY May 1994 All rights reserved. This work may not be reproduced in whole or in part, by photocopy or other means, without permission of the author. Approval Name: Moira Taylor Degree: Doctor of Philosophy (Linguistics) Title of Thesis: The Interaction of Vowel Deletion and Syllable Structure Constraints Examining Committee: Chair: Dr. R DeArmond ------- Dr. Paul McPetrHge Senior Supervisor Assistant Professor of Linguistics - - Dr. Thomas Perry Associate Professor of Linguistics Dr. Ross Saunders Professor of Linguistics ---- ------ -- Dr. Zita McRobbie Internal External Examiner Assistant ,Professor of Linguistics ----------- Dr. William S.4. Wang External Examiner Professor of Linguistics University of California (Berkeley) Date Approved: A+!!- PARTIAL COPYRIGHT LICENSE I hereby grant to Simon Fraser University the right to lend my thesis, project or extended essay (the title of which is shown below) to users of the Simon Fraser University Library, and to make partial or single copies only for such users or in response to a request from the library of any other university, or other educational institution, on its own behalf or for one of its users. I further agree that permission for multiple copying of this work for scholarly purposes may be granted by me or the Dean of Graduate Studies. It is understood that copying or publication of this work for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission. Author: - (signature) Abstract Foley [I9771 established a model of phonology whose goal was to determine the finite set of universal rules and the conditions on their application, thereby accounting for facts in a wide range of languages. Whithin this model, syncope and apocope have been analyzed as distinct rules whose conditions were parameterized and therefore adjustable in individual languages; however, the same conditions needed to be stated for distinct rules, providing an argument for reference to a higher level of organization. The relevant domain is the syllable. The conditions on vowel deletion rules can be reanalyzed as properties of syllable structure. Vowel deletion must be constrained in some way so that it generates a set of syllable structures which can be licensed legally. The formal mechanism which accounts for the blocking effect of vowel deletion when illegal syl\able structure is generated is attributed to a set of syllable structure constraints and their. associated repair strategies, as outlined in the Theory of Constraints and Repair Strategies. Vowel deletion is analyzed as delinking between the segmental and timing tiers, followed by deletion of an unlicensed vowel. The set of pertinent syllable structure contraints and repairs intervenes between delinking and unlicensed segment deletion, and the vowel thus remains available for repairs to be implemented. Chapter 2 reinterprets vowel deletion as delinking, and examines constraints on delinked structure pertaining to accent and vowel quality. Chapter 3 examines facts concerning sonorants, and chapter 4 facts about consonant clusters, demonstrating that their role in vowel deletion relates to the licensing of sonorants and of single consonants in new syllable structures. Chapter 5 provides support for repairs by examining several different repair strategies. iii Dedication For my husband Allan McNeill, and for my parents Hugh and Leila Taylor. Acknowledgements I thank Simon Fraser University and the Linguistics Department for the scholarships which were awarded to me. I wish to acknowledge the work of James Foley, which has influenced my own. Many thanks go to family, friends, and all those who were supportive during the completion of my degree. I am indebted to Professor Paul McFetridge for taking over as senior supervisor late in my program, and for his conscientious and professional supervision of the thesis. Last but not least, I am especially grateful to my husband Allan McNeill for his unwavering love and support throughout the work on my doctorate. Table of Contents Approval ........................................................................................................................ ii ... Abstract ........................................................................................................................111 Dedication.................................................................................................................... iv Acknowledgements ..................................................................:. ............................... v Table of Contents...................................................................................................... vi 1 . Introduction ...........................................................................................................1 2 . An Autosegmental Interpretation of Vowel Deletion ......................... 4 2.1 . Introduction ...........................................................................................4 2.2. Interpretation of Vowel Deletion................................................. 5 2.3. Syncope, Apocope and Apheresis as Distinct Processes........................................................................................................ -8 2.4. Accentuation and Quality of the Eliding Vowel ..................... 12 2.4.1. Accentuation ..........................................................................13 2.4.2. Vowel Quality ........................................................................ 17 2.4.2.1 . Data ............................................................................ 17 2.4.2.2. HW Positional Constraints ............................... 22 2.4.2.3. Pre-tonic and Post-tonic Syncope ................ 29 2.5. Evidence for Relinking...................................................................... 3 2 2.6. Conclusion............................................................................................... 34 3 . Resyllabification of Sonorants versus Nonsonorants ..............: .......... 35 3.1 . Introduction ...........................................................................................35 3.2. Data......................................................................................................... 6 3.2.1 . Vowel Deletion Following a Sonorant .........................36 3.2.2. Vowel Deletion Preceding a Sonorant .........................40 3.2.3. Failure of Vowel Deletion ................................................ 44 3.2.4. Summary ..................................................................................45 3.3. Syllable Structure Constraints and Repairs ........................... 46 3.3.1 . Universal Principles of Syllable Structure .............. 46 3.3.2. Syllable Constraints and Repair of Extraprosodicity ...............................................................................51 3.3.3. The Branching Onset Constraint ....................................53 3.3.3.1 . Roussillonnais .......................................................54 3.3.3.2. Rumansch .................................................................59 3.3.4. The Coda Constraint............................................................ 63 3.3.4.1 . Portuguese............................................................... 64 3.3.4.2. Romanian ..................................................................68 3.3.4.3. Latin ...........................................................................69 3.4. Order of Operations ............................................................................ 70 3.5. Conclusion................................................................................................ 71 4 . Consonant Clusters............................................................................................. 72 4.1 . Introduction ........................................................................................... 72 4.2. Data.......................................................................................................... 7 3 4.3. Syllable Structure Constraints and Repairs............................ 79 4.3.1 . Nonbranching Constraints ................................................ 81 4.3.1 .1 . Yawelmani ...............................................................82 4.3.1.2. Tonkawa.................................................................... 86 4.3.1.3. Iraqi............................................................................ 87 4.3.1.4. Portuguese............................................................... 89 4.3.2. Branching Constraints .......................................................92 4.3.2.1 . Sent ............................................................................92 4.3.2.2. Chi-Mwiini Onsets ........................................94 4.3.2.3. Muta cum Liquida Clusters ...............................99 4.3.2.4. Latin ...........................................................................104 4.4. Order of Operations ............................................................................105 4.5. Conclusion ............................................................................................. 1 06 5 . Evidence for Repairs ..........................................................................................108