Introduction

codas, and vice versa.” Similarly, Clements (1990, 303), who de!nes

sonority pro!le of the !rst part of the syllable [i.e. the beginning of the syllable to the vocalic peak] is independent of the sonority pro!le

"is chapter takes issue with this view in one very particular way. "is

ture. "is chapter presents such a theory, the split margin approach to

margin approach to the syllable can o#er new insight and explanation into a variety of typological and language speci!c phenomena. Speci!-

are no languages having CCV syllables but lacking CVC syllables). "e

development of onset clusters and codas. "e !rst case concerns dia-

!"#$%&'()*+,&*()-.&/012344555!"!"#$%&'()*+,&*()-.&/012344555!" $6"!678"85559:";:885<-$6"!678"85559:";:885<-

margin approach to the syllable o#ers a deeper explanation for the

netic explanations have been o#ered for Dorsey’s Law epenthesis in

The Split Margin Approach to the Syllable

(be it a singleton onset or the !rst member of an onset cluster). What

ters and the status of a word-!nal coda consonant, which, in some languages, has freer

!"#$%&'()*+,&*()-.&/012344555!7!"#$%&'()*+,&*()-.&/012344555!7 $6"!678"85559:";:8"5<-$6"!678"85559:";:8"5<-

Onset Rhyme

Nucleus (Co a)

M1 (M2) P

!

M2

"e split margin approach to the syllable expands on Prince and

(2) "e

- +

!"#$%&'()*+,&*()-.&/012344555!=!"#$%&'()*+,&*()-.&/012344555!= $6"!678"85559:";:8"5<-$6"!678"85559:";:8"5<-

"e M

(3) "e

+-

"is theoretical approach a#ords us a number of advantages. "e M

segments more sonorous than rhotics are banned; Baertsch 2002). "e

is o$en in its release into a following vowel. On the other hand, the preference for

and (3) in parentheses. "is chapter only focuses on true consonants. "e pattern-

!"#$%&'()*+,&*()-.&/012344555!0!"#$%&'()*+,&*()-.&/012344555!0 $6"!678"85559:";:8"5<-$6"!678"85559:";:8"5<-

Jarmo, a child acquiring Dutch as his !rst language. At around 24

From one perspective such a pattern is di%cult to grasp as speci!-

"e phonotactic evidence for a connection between onset clusters

English, Dutch, and German that disallows sequences like *plil, *&ilf,

nants from &anking both sides of a vowel only if there is a (marked) onset cluster. As Cairns (1988, 231) speci!cally notes, “this would sug-

place features with a following onset (Itô 1988). While we do not discuss these di#er-

!"#$%&'()*+,&*()-.&/012344555!9!"#$%&'()*+,&*()-.&/012344555!9 $6"!678"85559:";:8"5<-$6"!678"85559:";:8"5<-

klull”. "e split margin approach

phonotactic restrictions then can be understood as re&ecting an OCP

"e following section develops the split margin approach to the syl-

On the Implicational Universal that Complex Onsets Imply the Presence of Codas

out. "is is contrary to Blevins’s (1995, 2006) typological survey of

vey of syllable types across di#erent languages, but on the formal prop-erty of syllable markedness. Speci!cally, they note that syllable rimes

ponent of the syllable. "ey assume that there is a formal constraint

complex onset) then it must allow for a marked (branching) rime. "at

!"#$%&'()*+,&*()-.&/012344555!;!"#$%&'()*+,&*()-.&/012344555!; $6"!678"85559:";:8"5<-$6"!678"85559:";:8"5<-

"is section shows that this typological tendency has

We will then brie&y discuss whether there are true counterexamples.

(5) "e

(6) "e

"e conjoined constraints are intrinsically ranked with respect to each other (re&ecting the ranking of the component M

from other syllable-initial clusters and are o$en best analyzed with the sibilant (or

!"#$%&'()*+,&*()-.&/012344555!!!"#$%&'()*+,&*()-.&/012344555!! $6"!678"85559:";:875<-$6"!678"85559:";:875<-

favored onset cluster. "is is because *M

Exempli!cation from Spanish

"e patterning of (7) re&ects the constraint ranking in (8) with the

/l. "e Spanish analysis in (8)–(10) demonstrates how the

!"#$%&'()*+,&*()-.&/012344555!%!"#$%&'()*+,&*()-.&/012344555!% $6"!678"85559:";:875<-$6"!678"85559:";:875<-

"is approach to the analysis of complex onsets provides a natural

single conjuncts. "is is shown in (11).

Faith

*M1/Obs&*M2/r

*M1/Obs *M2/r

"e consequence of this ranking is that if a language allows for an

we then consider syllable typology, we would expect to !nd languages

!"#$%&'()*+,&*()-.&/012344555!$!"#$%&'()*+,&*()-.&/012344555!$ $6"!678"85559:";:875<-$6"!678"85559:";:875<-

"e main problem with (13) is that a potential candidate with a sur-

S'( (ranked above F)*+,). "e violation of *M

/S'(. "us, under the split margin approach

of the nucleus. "us, this chapter does not consider such languages. "ird, a number of languages cited as having a maximal CCV syllable

!"#$%&'()*+,&*()-.&/012344555%8!"#$%&'()*+,&*()-.&/012344555%8 $6"!678"85559:";:875<-$6"!678"85559:";:875<-

syllable all take on a coda consonant under certain types of su%xation.

Haitian Creole, which some researchers consider to re&ect the gram-

maintains coda consonants. "is is somewhat mysterious given the

having the ranking shown in (12c). "eir lack of coda consonants has

language contact, these are not repaired. "is is a matter for future

The Parallel Development of Onset Clusters and Coda

onset clusters, speci!cally languages with the ranking shown in (12b).

Ndayiragije, and Nikiema (2008) speci!cally note the oddity of a language like Fongbe

"eir solution, working in the framework of government phonology, is to posit an

!"#$%&'()*+,&*()-.&/012344555%"!"#$%&'()*+,&*()-.&/012344555%" $6"!678"85559:";:875<-$6"!678"85559:";:875<-

ond member of an onset in a parallel way re&ecting a link between

Campidanian Sardinian

sonorant. "is means that the relevant conjoined constraints are also

eliminate its coda. "is is because given the ranking for CCVC languages as in (12c),

!"#$%&'()*+,&*()-.&/012344555%7!"#$%&'()*+,&*()-.&/012344555%7 $6"!678"85559:";:875<-$6"!678"85559:";:875<-

rhotic re&exes in CS as exempli!ed in (16) where Latin forms are indi-cated in capital letters. ("e lateral can occur syllable-initially in CS, a

or vice-versa. "e relevant tableau is shown in (18) where we assume

!!>"#$"%&$#%

!"#$%&'()*+,&*()-.&/012344555%=!"#$%&'()*+,&*()-.&/012344555%= $6"!678"85559:";:875<-$6"!678"85559:";:875<-

‘!rst’

"e change follows naturally from the ranking in (17) under the split

/l. "us, it is expected that if Latin /l/ has

in (24). "us, our analysis under the split margin approach formally

!"#$%&'()*+,&*()-.&/012344555%0!"#$%&'()*+,&*()-.&/012344555%0 $6"!678"85559:";:8=5<-$6"!678"85559:";:8=5<-

/primu/ [primu] ‘!rst’

triggers the change in a potential lateral coda as in (18). "ere are

Nonetheless, as re&ected in our

positions. "e parallel nature of the restriction is neatly captured

Bamana

ond members of onsets in a parallel way, re&ecting the M

Latin. Speci!cally, with the exception of a singleton coda [r], as in arbaCS obeys the Coda Condition. "is means that CS codas may include an obstruent only if it is the !rst part of a geminate (ignoring certain problems regarding the syl-labi!cation of s-clusters) or if it is homorganic to a following onset. While we do not

constraints. CS thus o#ers an interesting interplay of coda (M

!"#$%&'()*+,&*()-.&/012344555%9!"#$%&'()*+,&*()-.&/012344555%9 $6"!678"85559:";:8=5<-$6"!678"85559:";:8=5<-

with Colloquial Bamana in (25). "rough vowel syncope, Colloquial Bamana has developed onset clusters and codas. ("e data and dis-

deletes a non-!nal high vowel, though a non-high vowel can be deleted if there are no target high vowels. "e e#ect of this is to make syllable

ana, which is basically a CV language. "rough syncope, Colloquial

!"#$%&'()*+,&*()-.&/012344555%;!"#$%&'()*+,&*()-.&/012344555%; $6"!678"85559:";:8=5<-$6"!678"85559:";:8=5<-

"e examples in (26) make clear that the result of syncope does not

di#erence between Standard and Colloquial Bamana by a di#erence in

"e winning candidate in (28a) violates Syncope in that it does not undergo syncope. "e losing candidate in (28b) respects Syncope, but

since it has [r] in coda position. "e winning candidate has no codas

constraint below Syncope. "e ranking for Colloquial Bamana is given

!"#$%&'()*+,&*()-.&/012344555%!!"#$%&'()*+,&*()-.&/012344555%! $6"!678"85559:";:8=5<-$6"!678"85559:";:8=5<-

"e winning candidate in (30b) has a sonorant in its coda. "e demo-

/S'(. "us, just as possible forms with a coda

form with a complex onset. "is is shown by the tableau in (32).

!"#$%&'()*+,&*()-.&/012344555%%!"#$%&'()*+,&*()-.&/012344555%% $6"!678"85559:";:8=5<-$6"!678"85559:";:8=5<-

"is accounts for the output with a complex onset as seen by the tab-

intrinsic ranking.) Our detailed analysis of the di#erent varieties of

"ere are restrictions on Bamana syncope that are not discussed here but are

tions are disfavored in a single word. "at is, typically, only one deletion can occur

!"#$%&'()*+,&*()-.&/012344555%$!"#$%&'()*+,&*()-.&/012344555%$ $6"!678"85559:";:8=5<-$6"!678"85559:";:8=5<-

On Dorsey’s Law in Winnebago

"is section considers the application of the split margin approach

Our contention is that the split margin approach to the syllable o#ers

onset, as we see in (35). "e inserted vowel has the same quality of the vowel that immediately follows the sonorant consonant. ("e Win-

‘!ne’

sequences do not surface morpheme-internally or over a pre!x bound-ary (the /k/ in (35f) is a re&exive pre!x), Winnebago does allow a

over a su%xal boundary as in (35e) where /-ra/ is a su%x (or enclitic) marking de!niteness.

before the sonorant is misperceived as a vowel. "e vowel is perceived

!"#$%&'()*+,&*()-.&/012344555$8!"#$%&'()*+,&*()-.&/012344555$8 $6"!678"85559:";:805<-$6"!678"85559:";:805<-

with stress.) "e di%culty we see with this phonetic explanation is

ing sequences occur as onset clusters with no vowel epenthesis. "us

contact (i.e. rising sonority over a syllable boundary). "e di%culty

has no re&ex diachronically).

obstruent-sonorant sequences not to surface. "e salient observation

) is dominated by Faith. "us, CVC reduplication as in (36) results

!"#$%&'()*+,&*()-.&/012344555$"!"#$%&'()*+,&*()-.&/012344555$" $6"!678"85559:";:805<-$6"!678"85559:";:805<-

"is analysis thus far provides a principled account of the epenthe-

no overt evidence. However, the analysis of stem-!nal consonants in

Law does not apply over a !nal stem boundary and the obstruent-

Lack of Dorsey’s Law over a stem-!nal boundary

We suggest that stem-!nal codas that are not word !nal may, in fact,

straint requiring a stem-!nal element to be syllable !nal, i.e. AlignR

right edge of the syllable. "e /b/ in (38) is in stem-!nal position. "is

!"#$%&'()*+,&*()-.&/012344555$7!"#$%&'()*+,&*()-.&/012344555$7 $6"!678"85559:";:805<-$6"!678"85559:";:805<-

and Fleischhacker (2002), rather it o#ers a deeper explanation for why obstruent-sonorant sequences are targeted to be broken up in the !rst place. "ere is internal systemic pressure from within the phonology

Conclusion

"is chapter has o#ered a detailed exploration of the relationship

Fleischhacker (2002) and Flemming (2008) o#er perceptual accounts of Dorsey’s Law epenthesis. "ey note that epenthesis is more likely to occur to split up an under-

cess (e.g., the process in Winnebago does not apply over a su%x boundary; also, the

!"#$%&'()*+,&*()-.&/012344555$=!"#$%&'()*+,&*()-.&/012344555$= $6"!678"85559:";:805<-$6"!678"85559:";:805<-

been made, previous researchers have not o#ered a formal account

of the relationship between the coda and onset clusters. "is chapter,

2003, Davis and Baertsch 2005), !lls this gap by detailing the split mar-

under the split margin approach to the syllable) allowed us to o#er

Sections 3–5 show how the split margin approach to the syllable o#ers

are claimed to be covert CCVC languages. "is is a provocative claim that requires further research. Section 4 shows speci!c cases of parallel development a#ecting codas and onset clusters. Especially in the case

mately connected. "is also lays the groundwork for future research.

margin approach to the syllable speci!cally predict? Section 5 o#ers a

Law epenthesis in Winnebago. "e major criticism of phonetic discus-

!"#$%&'()*+,&*()-.&/012344555$0!"#$%&'()*+,&*()-.&/012344555$0 $6"!678"85559:";:805<-$6"!678"85559:";:805<-

the syllable developed here o#ers a novel perspective and understand-

!"#$%&'()*+,&*()-.&/012344555$9!"#$%&'()*+,&*()-.&/012344555$9 $6"!678"85559:";:805<-$6"!678"85559:";:805<-

References

Alber, Birgit. 2001. Maximizing !rst positions. Linguistics in Potsdam

University of Massachu-setts Occasional Papers

Baertsch, Karen. 2002. An optimality theoretic approach to syllable structure: "e

Baertsch, Karen and Stuart Davis. 2003. "e split margin approach to syllable struc-ZAS Papers in Linguistics

Blevins, Juliette. 1995. "e syllable in phonological theory. In !e handbook of phono-logical theory

Evolutionary phonology: !e emergence of sound patterns

Encyclopedia of language and linguistics

!e Phonology of Campidanian Sardinian: A Unitary Account of a Self-Organizing Structure

Phonology

Clements, George. N. 1990. "e role of the sonority cycle in core syllabi!cation. In Papers in laboratory phonology 1: Between the grammar and physics of speech

CV phonology: A generative theory of the syllable

Topics in syllable geometry—. 1990. "e onset as a constituent of the syllable: Evidence from Italian. Chicago Linguistic Society

Handbook of phonological theory

Davis, Stuart and Karen Baertsch. 2005. "e diachronic link between onset clusters Berkeley Linguistics Society

Diakite, Boubacar. 2006. "e synchronic link between onset clusters and codas in

On the acquisition of prosodic structure. "e Hague: Holland

LinguisticsUCLA

Working Papers in Linguistics 7, Papers in Phonology 5

!"#$%&'()*+,&*()-.&/012344555$;!"#$%&'()*+,&*()-.&/012344555$; $6"!678"85559:";:805<-$6"!678"85559:";:805<-

Gouskova, Maria. 2004 Relational hierarchies in optimality theory: "e case of syllable Phonology

Journal of West African Languages

IUWPL8: Afri-can linguistics across the discipline

!e syl-lable in optimality theory

Current Trends in Linguistics

International Journal of American Linguistics An essay on stress

Syllable theory in prosodic phonology

theory: "eory of markedness in generative grammar. In Proceedings of the 1979 GLOW Conference

Creole genesis and the acquisition of grammar: !e case of Hai-tian Creole

A grammar of Fongbe

International Journal of American Linguistics—. 1992. Winnebago accent: "e rest of the data. In Indiana University Linguistics Club 25th anniversary volume

Kansas Work-ing Papers in Linguistics

"e emergence and development of Sango.!e Linguistic Review

Optimality theory: Constraint interaction in generative grammar

Selkirk, Elisabeth. 1982. "e syllable. In !e structure of phonological representations

Strycharczuk, Patrycja. 2009. "e interaction of Dorsey’s Law and stress: A non-foot

Phoneti-cally based phonology

Phonology—. 2007. "e syllable. In !e Cambridge handbook of phonology

!"#$%&'()*+,&*()-.&/012344555$!!"#$%&'()*+,&*()-.&/012344555$! $6"!678"85559:";:805<-$6"!678"85559:";:805<-

!"#$%&'()*+,&*()-.&/012344555$%!"#$%&'()*+,&*()-.&/012344555$% $6"!678"85559:";:805<-$6"!678"85559:";:805<-