CHAPTER SIX
GEMINATES: HEAVY OR LONG?
Catherine O. Ringen and Robert M. Vago
1
Introduction
Two separate views have been advocated for the representation of
underlying monomorphemic (“true”) geminate consonants. Under
the syllabic weight analysis of what might be called classical moraic
theory (Hyman 1985, McCarthy and Prince 2001, Hock 1986, Hayes
1989, Morén 2001, among others) geminates are inherently heavy:
they are represented with a single segmental node which is associated
with a mora unit. Within the context of phonological representations,
the geminate property is a function of double prosodic association.
Length, then, is encoded in terms of weight. Under the segmental
length analysis, suggested in most detail by Selkirk (1990), geminates
are inherently long: they have double nodes on what we will refer to
as the timing tier, without inherent moraic affiliation. On this view,
phonological length is interpreted directly off the timing tier, in terms
of two nodes sharing one segmental specification.1
The contrasting representations of underlying geminates and geminates occurring in intervocalic syllabified positions are shown in (1):2
1
When we refer to the length of geminates, we are primarily interested in phonological representation rather than phonetic implementation. For some discussion on
the relationship between the two domains, see Broselow et al. (1997), Ham (2001),
Gordon (2002, 2004, 2005, 2006), and Shaw (2006), among others.
2
Representational models that have been proposed in the literature may refer to
a skeletal tier and/or a root tier, exclude an explicit weight (mora) tier, or include
more specific syllabic constituent units (such as onset, nucleus, coda). These issues
are beyond the scope of our discussion; see in particular Tranel (1991), Pulleyblank
(1994), Broselow (1995), Curtis (2003), and Gordon (2004) for detailed overviews.
Also excluded from the domain of our focus are cases of moraic inconsistency or
mismatches (cf. Crowhurst 1991, Steriade 1991, Hyman 1992, Broselow 1995, Hayes
1995, and Gordon 2004, 2006, among others) and phonetically motivated syllable
weight (see, among others, Zec 1994, Broselow, et al. 1997, Gordon 2002, 2004, 2006,
Kraehenmann 2001, 2003, and Kavitskaya 2002).
Catherine O. Ringen and Robert M. Vago - 9789004190085
Downloaded from Brill.com09/02/2019 03:47:33PM
via University College London
156
catherine o. ringen & robert m. vago
(1) a. The syllabic weight analysis of geminates
Underlying
Intervocalic
σ
σ
Syllable tier
μ
μ
μ
μ
Mora tier
C
V
C
V
Timing tier
b. The segmental length analysis of geminates
Underlying
C
Intervocalic
C
α
σ
σ
Syllable tier
μ
μ
Mora tier
V
Timing tier
V
C
C
α
Melody tier(s)
Throughout this work, the timing tier symbols C, CC, V, and VV represent single consonants, consonant clusters, short vowels, and long vowels, respectively. We will also use the symbol G to refer to geminates.
Subsequent to the initial proposals of the two opposing views of
the representation of length, discussions have focused on individual
language studies, the majority of which adopt the syllabic weight treatment (with variations in representational detail; see fn. 2). Our purpose here is to bring together arguments against the inherent weight
analysis and motivate the double slot representation as the only universal property of underived geminates.3 It is not our goal to present an
exhaustive list of geminate behavior in support of our claims; rather,
the evidence adduced below is meant to be representative.
The syllabic weight analysis of geminates involves two crucial representational claims: (a) geminates are inherently heavy, and (b) geminates
have single specification on the timing tier. The evidence reported in this
chapter suggests that both claims are false: not all geminates are mora
bearing and geminates have bipositional specification.4 The arguments
3
Derived geminates, which do not necessarily have the same properties as basic,
underlying geminates, will not be treated here.
4
Research advocating the bipositional representation of geminates is split on the
issue of inherent weight: see for instance Curtis (2003) pro, Hume, et al. (1997) and
Baker (2008) con.
Catherine O. Ringen and Robert M. Vago - 9789004190085
Downloaded from Brill.com09/02/2019 03:47:33PM
via University College London
geminates: heavy or long?
157
below indicate that underlying geminate structure contains double units
on the timing tier and no inherent prosodic properties. Geminates can
become heavy in this view, in case consonants in the coda, or less frequently, in the onset, in general are heavy in a particular language.5
In section 2 we bring forth problematical cases for the syllabic weight
position from the point of view of the patterning of geminates in terms
of weight. In section 2.1 we look at weightless (light) geminates in
coda position, in section 2.2 in onset position. In section 3 we examine
the patterning of geminates from the point of view of length. In section 3.1 we motivate bipositional, doubly linked geminate structure,
and in section 3.2 we discuss cases where geminates pattern together
with consonant clusters. In section 4 we summarize our findings and
our position on the representation of geminates.
2
2.1
Weightless Geminates
Light Geminates in Coda Position
If geminates have inherent weight, then syllables closed by the first half of
a geminate should count as heavy, or bimoraic, since the vocalic nucleus
and the geminate coda each contribute to syllable weight. However, this
does not appear to be always the case, as claimed for a variety of languages by Lahiri and Koreman (1988), Selkirk (1990), Tranel (1991),
Blevins (1991), and Baker (2008). We will take up two cases here.
2.1.1 Selkup Stress
Consider the facts in Selkup, a West Siberian language, where stress
falls on the rightmost heavy syllable (or else on the initial syllable).
Halle and Clements (1983) cite the following examples:
(2) Selkup Stress
a. Stress rightmost heavy syllable:
b. Medial CVC syllables are light:
c. Medial CVG syllables are light:
[qumo:qlɪlɪ:]́ ‘your two friends’
[ámɨrna] ‘eats’
[ú:cɨkkak] ‘I am working’
The token in (2a) contains two long vowels (heavy syllables); as seen, it
is the rightmost heavy syllable that bears stress. (2b) shows that CVC
5
The phonological weight of consonants, including that of geminates, can sometimes be traced to historical developments; see Blevins (2004).
Catherine O. Ringen and Robert M. Vago - 9789004190085
Downloaded from Brill.com09/02/2019 03:47:33PM
via University College London
158
catherine o. ringen & robert m. vago
syllables count as light: they are not stressed. Now if geminates are
inherently mora bearing, then a syllable closed by the first half of a
geminate will be heavy and should therefore attract stress. But this
prediction is not borne out, as seen in (2c), where the rightmost heavy
syllable is the initial one containing the long vowel, and not the penultimate one, containing the geminate (G).
Ever since the original data presented in Halle and Clements (1983),
the weight analysis of CVG syllables in Selkup has remained controversial
(for discussion, see Tranel 1991, Davis 2003, and Curtis 2003). The problem is that the data contain only one example where a syllable closed by a
geminate (CVG) is not followed by a long vowel (VV). This form is given
in (2c); as seen, CVG is preceded by a long vowel. It is further observed
that the initial VV syllable attracts stress over the medial CVG syllable.
The facts leave room for the weight analysis of geminates, whereby both
VV and CVG syllables are heavy, augmented by the hypothesis that stress
targets (rightmost) VV heavy syllables preferentially over CVG heavy syllables (see Davis 2003). The length analysis of geminates, on the other
hand, explains the facts by claiming that CVG syllables are light and that
stress falls on (rightmost) heavy (VV) syllables.6
Words of the shape CVCVGV(C), i.e. those containing a CVG
medial syllable flanked by short vowels, provide the critical empirical testing ground for the claims of the two opposing theories. On
the uncontroversial assumption that stress targets heavy syllables over
light ones, the weight analysis predicts stress to fall on the putatively
heavy CVG syllable, while the length analysis predicts default stress on
the initial light syllable (in the absence of heavy syllables).
The Taz dialect of Selkup, among other dialects, provides the missing
information. In Taz Selkup (Helimski 1998) stress falls on the initial
syllable, unless, as expected from the discussion above, a long vowel
occurs in a non-initial syllable (or a morphologically defined heavy
suffix is added). Consider the following examples (Helimski, p.c.):
(3) Taz Selkup Stress
a. Stress rightmost heavy syllable: [ɛssɪ:́qo] ‘to happen (already)’
[če:ló:qün] ‘in the day’
b. Medial CVC syllables are light: [qápürümpütül] ‘which became fat’
6
Under both views, CVC syllables are uncontroversially light and stress defaults to
the initial vowel in words that do not contain a long vowel.
Catherine O. Ringen and Robert M. Vago - 9789004190085
Downloaded from Brill.com09/02/2019 03:47:33PM
via University College London
geminates: heavy or long?
159
c. Medial CVG syllables are light: [páčütta] ‘he cuts down (a tree)’
[έsükka] ‘(it) happens (occasionally)’
(3b) establishes that the medial CVC syllable is light, as shown by the
fact that it does not attract stress. (3c) leads to the same conclusion
about medial CVG syllables.7 Light CVG syllables falsify the prediction
of the weight analysis of geminates: on this account, CVG is bimoraic
(due to the inherent mora of G) and hence should attract stress.8
2.1.2 Ngalakgan Stress
A particularly revealing instantiation of coda geminates that have light
weight is found in the Northern Australian language of Ngalakgan,
as described by Baker (2008).9 The general stress pattern of trisyllabic
roots is as follows: stress falls on the medial syllable if it is heavy (closed
by the first member of a heterorganic consonant cluster), otherwise,
i.e. if the medial syllable is light, on the initial syllable. Contrast (4a)
with (4b) and (4c):
(4) Ngalakgan trisyllabic stress
a. Heavy CVC medial syllables: medial stress
[luŋʊ́rwa] ‘vine sp.’
[moɳɔ́cpɔr] ‘mud cod’
[burɔ́ʈci] ‘water python’
b. Light CV medial syllables: initial stress
[mʊ́naŋa] ‘European’
[wálama] ‘face’
[wáɖiya] ‘multiparous woman’
c. Light CVG medial syllables: initial stress
[jábatta] ‘freshwater tortoise sp.’
[gámakkʊn] ‘properly’
[mɔ́ɭɔppɔɭ] ‘shovelhead catfish’
If geminates are inherently heavy, then CVG medial syllables (those
closed by the first half of a geminate) are expected to attract stress. As
seen in (4c), that is not the case, however.
7
The geminates in (3c) are suffix internal (Helimski, p.c.), hence monomorphemic
(underived).
8
See our comment in section 4 on possible modifications to the syllabic weight
theory of geminates to accommodate light geminates.
9
See also Hayes (1995) for several cases of light geminates with respect to stress.
Catherine O. Ringen and Robert M. Vago - 9789004190085
Downloaded from Brill.com09/02/2019 03:47:33PM
via University College London
160
2.2
catherine o. ringen & robert m. vago
Light Geminates in Onset Position
It has been acknowledged, starting with early studies of moraic phenomena, notably Hyman (1985), that syllable initial consonants do
not, in general, contribute to phonological weight. In this light, how
do we interpret the claim of the weight analysis of geminates that they
are inherently mora-bearing? Clearly, it is not possible to maintain the
position that initial geminates are disallowed on theoretical grounds,
that is, to claim that initial geminates are illicit because geminates are
moraic but initial consonants are not. The fact is, geminates do occur
in onset position (see in particular Muller 2001 and Curtis 2003),10
and in some cases initial geminates can clearly be shown to be moraic
(Davis 1999, Topintzi 2008).11 But in other cases initial geminates have
been argued to lack weight. These would seem to falsify the basic claim
of the theory that assigns inherent weight to geminates. We now turn
to a brief discussion of two such cases.
2.2.1 Leti Initial Geminates
In the Austronesian language of Leti, as argued by Hume et al. (1997),
words must be minimally bimoraic. If onset geminates are mora bearing, one way to satisfy the word minimality constraint is to have words
consisting of an initial geminate followed by a short vowel. But in
point of fact, no such words are countenanced.
Stress assignment is another case in point. Word initial heavy syllables attract stress, as do penultimate syllables: contrast for example
má:nworyóri ‘crow,’ where the initial long vowel is stressed, with matrúna
‘master of the house,’ where the initial short vowel is not. Crucially,
initial geminates do not combine with short vowels to create heavy syllables, as the weight analysis would have it. Thus, in ppunárta, ‘nest’s
egg,’ the initial syllable lacks stress. The conclusion reached by Hume et
al. (1997) is that initial geminates in Leti are not mora bearing.12
10
Singleton onsets can also be mora bearing; see McCarthy and Prince (1990),
Bagemihl (1991), Lin (1997), and Muller (2001), among others.
11
Davis (1999) adopts Hayes’s (1989) suggestion that the mora of the initial geminate should be treated in extrasyllabic terms, while Topintzi (2008) proposes fully
syllabified moraic onsets.
12
See however Curtis (2003), according to whom the evidence for or against the
moraic affiliation of Leti initial geminates is inconclusive.
Catherine O. Ringen and Robert M. Vago - 9789004190085
Downloaded from Brill.com09/02/2019 03:47:33PM
via University College London
geminates: heavy or long?
161
2.2.2 Thurgovian Swiss Initial Geminates
Thurgovian Swiss is another language in which initial geminates
behave as non-moraic. Consider the data in (5) (Muller 2001; Kraehenmann 2003).
(5) Thurgovian Swiss roots
a.
b.
c.
d.
Root shape
CVC
CVCC
CVG
GVC
Base
/has/ ‘hare’
/purk/ ‘castle’
/aff/ ‘monkey’
/ttak/ ‘day’
Plural
has-e
purk-e
aff-e
ttak-e
Singular
ha:s
purk
aff
tta:k
Kraehenmann’s (2003) analysis is as follows. Thurgovian Swiss words
are subject to a bimoraic word minimality constraint, weight-by-position, and word final extrametricality. The underlying representation
of a root is suggested by non-final contexts, such as the plural in (5).
The root base undergoes modifications in the singular, where it occurs
in word final position. In (5a) the root final C is extrametrical, bringing the root in violation of the bimoraic word minimality constraint;
lengthening the root vowel resolves the issue.13 In (5b), where the root
ends in a consonant cluster, root vowel lengthening is obviated by the
moraic (via weight-by-position) post-vocalic C. Final geminates are
also moraic, as seen in (5c) by the fact that the root vowel does not
undergo lengthening.14 Interestingly, initial geminates are not moraic,
as seen clearly in (5d). Here, the final root C is extrametrical, as in
(5a). The fact that the root vowel lengthens is explained on the view
that initial geminates do not contribute to weight. If they did, root
vowel lengthening would be curious.
13
Polysyllabic roots do not undergo vowel lengthening: e.g. Boke ‘arch,’ Pomfrit
‘French fries’ (Kraehenmann 2001: 122). This underscores the position that long vowels in monosyllabic roots of the shape in (5a) are due to word minimality, rather than,
say, final lengthening (ignoring word final extrametrical C).
14
Note, in passim, that extrametricality on a word final geminate analyzed in terms
of a single root node would violate word minimality, predicting, incorrectly, vowel
lengthening.
Catherine O. Ringen and Robert M. Vago - 9789004190085
Downloaded from Brill.com09/02/2019 03:47:33PM
via University College London
162
catherine o. ringen & robert m. vago
3
Long Geminates
In section 2 we have considered issues for the underlying analysis of
geminates from the perspective of weight sensitive processes. In this
section we turn to issues of a segmental nature. We provide evidence
that geminates have bipositional linked structures (section 3.1) and
that they pattern together with consonant clusters, further strengthening the claim for double slot representations (section 3.2).
3.1
Double Linked Geminates
The Ngalakgan stress data presented in section 2.1.2 above can be
accounted for in a straightforward manner if codas closed by geminates
are assumed to be light. Then trisyllabic words have penultimate (medial)
stress on heavy syllables, i.e. CVC, antepenultimate (initial) stress if the
penultimate syllable is light, i.e. either CV or CG. In point of fact, medial
syllables of the shape CVN, where N is a nasal which is homorganic to
a following stop, are also light, as evidenced by the fact that they do not
attract stress either. Note the following examples (Baker (2008):
(6) Ngalakgan Light CVN medial syllables
[ŋɔ́lɔŋgɔ] ‘eucalyptus sp.’
[jáganda] ‘female plains kangaroo’
[ŋʊ́rʊɳɖʊc] ‘emu’
In sum, there are three types of possible CVC medial syllables in
Ngalakgan trisyllabic words, and they pattern as follows: (a) syllables
closed by a consonant which is followed by a heterorganic consonant
are heavy (4a); (b) syllables closed by a geminate (4c) are light; (c) syllables closed by a nasal which is followed by a homorganic consonant
(6) are light. The common behavior of geminates and homorganic
nasals as opposed to heterorganic consonant clusters follows if geminates and homorganic nasals have linked place nodes:15
(7) a. Heterorganic CC (heavy)
C
│
[place]
C
│
[place]
15
On Baker’s (2008) view, bigestural clusters are heavy, monogestural clusters are
light with respect to stress placement in trisyllabic words.
Catherine O. Ringen and Robert M. Vago - 9789004190085
Downloaded from Brill.com09/02/2019 03:47:33PM
via University College London
geminates: heavy or long?
b. G (light)
C
╲ ╱
C
163
Homorganic NC (light)
N
C
╲ ╱
[place]
[place]
As far as representation is concerned, the affinity between geminates
and homorganic NC clusters can be expressed nicely on the double
CC, but not the single C analysis of geminates.
3.2
The Cluster Patterning of Geminates
Segmental processes provide a critical domain for the proper representation of geminates. To see this, consider the respective claims of the
two theories of geminate representation as laid out in (8).
(8) Timing tier representations
C
CC
G
│
Weight analysis:
C
C
C
C
Length analysis:
C
C
│
C
│
C
α
β
μ
╲╱
C
α
Under the weight analysis, geminates are expected to be grouped
together with single consonants, since both single and geminate
consonants have a single unit representation on the timing tier, as
opposed to consonant clusters, which have two (or more) units. On
the other hand, the segmental length analysis makes geminates natural candidates to pattern together with consonant clusters, as Selkirk
(1990) first pointed out: both have bipositional representations on the
timing tier.
Phonological processes that look to the timing tier for applicability
are appropriate testing tools to evaluate the opposing predictions of
the two theories of geminates. The conclusion in this regard is one
sided: the empirical evidence overwhelmingly supports the claims of
the segmental length theory. We will look at a few cases next.
3.2.1 Leti Geminate Patterning
Leti, as analyzed by Hume et al. (1997), provides a battery of support
for the bipositional nature of geminates, as illustrated in (9).
Catherine O. Ringen and Robert M. Vago - 9789004190085
Downloaded from Brill.com09/02/2019 03:47:33PM
via University College London
164
catherine o. ringen & robert m. vago
(9) Leti G and CC patterns
a. Underlying G and CC occur only word initially:
ppuna ‘nest’
pninu ‘fool’
mmanan ‘food
mninivu ‘soft’
b. Word final VC metathesis:
• applies before CC: /kunis/ ‘key’ + /vnutan/ ‘iron’ → [kunsivnutan]
‘iron key’
• applies before G: /ukar/ ‘finger’ + /ppalu/ ‘bachelor’ → [ukrappalu]
‘index finger’
• blocked before single C: /mεsar/ ‘teacher’ + /lavan/ ‘big’ →
[mεsarlavan] (*[mεsralavan]) ‘professor’
c. Word final /a/ deletion:
• applies before single C: /samεla/ ‘mouse’ + /nura/ ‘coconut tree’ →
[samεlnura] ‘tricolored squirrel’
• blocked before G: /samεla/ ‘mouse’ + /ttεnan/ ‘spine’ →
[samεlattεnan] (*[samεlttεnan]) ‘mouse’s spine’
• blocked before CC: /samεla/ ‘mouse’ + /tpunan/ ‘throat’ →
[samεlatpunan] (*[samεltpunan]) ‘mouse’s throat’
d. Secondary articulation induced by word final /i/:
• realized on initial single C: /kkani/ ‘plate’ + /tani/ ‘soil’ → [kkantyani]
‘earthenware plate’
• blocked on initial G: /sivi/ ‘chicken’ + /ttεi/ ‘female’ → [sivittεi]
(*[sivttyεi]) ‘hen’
• blocked on initial CC: /ai/ ‘wood’ + /vlakar/ ‘crossed’ → [aivlakar]
(*[avylakar]) ‘cross’
The first piece of evidence that Leti geminates pattern with consonant
clusters is obtained from distributional data: underlying geminates
and consonant clusters both occur only in word initial position; cf.
(9a). Second, when words are combined to form phrases, word final
VC sequences are metathesized if the next word begins with either a
consonant cluster or a geminate, but not if the next word begins with
a single consonant; cf. (9b). Third, as seen in (9c), a word final low
vowel is deleted if the next word begins with a single consonant, but is
retained if the next word begins with either a geminate or a consonant
cluster. And fourth, a word final front high vowel induces palatalization on the initial single consonant of the next word, but secondary
articulation is blocked if the next word begins either with a geminate
of a consonant cluster, as evident in the examples cited in (9d).
Catherine O. Ringen and Robert M. Vago - 9789004190085
Downloaded from Brill.com09/02/2019 03:47:33PM
via University College London
geminates: heavy or long?
165
3.2.2 Hungarian Epenthesis
In Hungarian, as analyzed by Vago (1992; 2007; 2008), a *CC[+coronal]
constraint motivates the insertion of a low vowel after verbal stems,
as seen in (10).16
(10) Hungarian epenthesis before suffix initial coronals
a. No epenthesis after C- or V-final stems:
‘3sg’
‘2sg’
‘Infin.’
[kɒp-s]
[kɒp-ni]
‘receive’
[kɒp]
‘grow’
[nö:]
[nö:-s]
[nö:-ni]
b. Epenthesis after CC-final stems:
‘3sg’
‘2sg’
‘Infin.’
‘bless’
[a:ld]
[a:ld-ɒs] [a:ld-ɒni]
‘pour’
[önt]
[önt-εs]
[önt-ɛni]
c. Epenthesis after G-final stems:
‘3sg’
‘2sg’
‘Infin.’
‘hear’
[hɒll]
[hɒll-ɒs] [hɒll-ɒni]
‘depend’ [függ]
[függ-ɛs] [függ-ɛni]
The forms in (10a) establish that epenthesis does not apply following
verbal stems that end in either a single consonant or a vowel; (10b)
shows that stem final clusters trigger epenthesis.17 Taken together, the
following generalization suggests itself: epenthesis is triggered by two
stem final C slots on the timing tier. The two theories of geminate representation make different predictions with respect to epenthesis after
verbal stems ending in a geminate. If geminates have a single C node,
they are not expected to trigger epenthesis; on the other hand, if geminates have double CC nodes, they are expected to behave like consonant
clusters and induce epenthesis. In point of fact, it is the claim of the
segmental length theory that is substantiated, as shown in (10c).
An alternative interpretation of the facts is that the “epenthesizing”
suffixes have two allomorphs (one with an initial V and one without)
and verbs are subcategorized as to which allomorphs they select (cf.
Siptár and Törkenczy 2000; Curtis 2003). However, this analysis based
on allomorphy misses the generalization that the choice of allomorphs
is entirely correlated with the final segment(s) of the verbal stems. It
16
Some stems allow vowel epenthesis optionally, others not at all. See Vago (1980,
1992, 2007, 2008) for discussion.
17
The inserted vowel shows the effects of the well-known palatal vowel harmony
process of Hungarian.
Catherine O. Ringen and Robert M. Vago - 9789004190085
Downloaded from Brill.com09/02/2019 03:47:33PM
via University College London
166
catherine o. ringen & robert m. vago
also renders fortuitous the fact that only those suffixes have allomorphic variants that begin with a coronal consonant.
There are other possible ways to account for the Hungarian facts
in (10), but that is irrelevant to the main point: under any analysis,
suffixes like those in (10) are vowel initial if and only if the preceding
verbal stem ends in either CC or G. Crucially, this patterning is consistent with the claims of the segmental length analysis of geminates
(CC), but not with the claims of the syllabic weight analysis (C).
3.2.3 Cypriot Greek Nasal Deletion
In Cypriot Greek the definite articles ton (masculine) and tin (feminine) lose their final nasal consonant if the next word begins either
with a consonant cluster or geminate, motivated by a *CCC constraint.18 The facts are as in (11) (Muller 2001).
(11) Cypriot Greek definite article allomorphy
a. Final nasal stays before V or C
ton ápparon ‘the horse’
ton tíxon ‘the wall’
b. Final nasal deletes before CC
ti psačín ‘the poison’
to flókkon ‘the mop’
c. Final nasal deletes before G
to pparán ‘the money’
to ttaván ‘the stew’
As seen, the final nasal of the article is kept before a vowel or a single
consonant (11a), but is deleted before consonant clusters (11b) and
geminates (11c). If geminates have single C node representations, their
patterning with consonant clusters rather than single consonants is
not explained. In contrast, the double CC analysis of geminates predicts the facts correctly.
4
Conclusion
We postulate an invariant, universal structure for geminates, one that contains double units on the timing tier and no inherent prosodic properties:
18
CCC clusters where the second C is a stop and the third C is a liquid are permitted; see Muller (2001).
Catherine O. Ringen and Robert M. Vago - 9789004190085
Downloaded from Brill.com09/02/2019 03:47:33PM
via University College London
geminates: heavy or long?
167
(12) The segmental length analysis: universal representation of G
C
╲ ╱
C
α
Geminates are free to occur in all positions, and are free to exhibit the
full extent of possibilities with respect to prosodic patterning, more specifically, weight. Indeed, either one or both parts of geminates are found
syllable initially as well as syllable finally, in both weight-bearing and
weightless flavors. Weightless geminates, which we will call light geminates, are found in onset position in languages such as Leti (section 2.2.1)
and Thurgovian Swiss (section 2.2.2), and in coda position in languages
such as Selkup (section 2.1.1) and Ngalakgan (section 2.1.2). Geminates
that are weight bearing, which we will call heavy geminates, occur in onset
position in languages such as Trukese (Davis 1999), Pattani Malay, and
Marshallese (Topintzi 2008), and in coda position in a host of languages
(Kenstowicz 1994). We assume that heavy geminates in coda position
come about as a result of Weight by Position (Hayes 1989) and that this
analysis is extended to heavy geminates in onset position.
Proponents of the syllabic weight theory of geminates have, of
course, been aware of the fact that geminates are not weight bearing
in some languages. The typical move has been to claim that weightless
geminates are not real geminates, but rather “fake” geminates (doubled
consonants). On this view, “true” geminates are represented in terms
of a single mora bearing C slot, while “fake” geminates are represented
in terms of weightless double C slots, which either have two sets of
feature specifications corresponding to each C slot (Davis 2003) or
share the same features (Topintzi 2008). These approaches constitute
a serious theoretical weakening in that they forgo a single, universal
representation of morpheme internal long, i.e. geminate consonants.
With respect to quantity sensitive processes, all descriptions of single C geminates known to us are reanalyzable into CC representations;
we are not aware of any compelling argument to the effect that some
geminate structure must contain a single C node and not a double CC
node; some facts are not compatible with the single C node hypothesis
(see section 3). Therefore the full range of evidence supports the strong
position that geminates are uniformly long.19
19
This chapter is not claiming that geminates and consonant clusters necessarily
pattern together with respect to phonological processes or phonotactic restrictions.→
Catherine O. Ringen and Robert M. Vago - 9789004190085
Downloaded from Brill.com09/02/2019 03:47:33PM
via University College London
168
catherine o. ringen & robert m. vago
References
Bagemihl, Bruce. 1991. Syllable structure in Bella Coola. Linguistic Inquiry 22: 589–
646.
Baker, Brett J. 2008. Word structure in Ngalakgan. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University
Center for the Study of Language and Information.
Blevins, Juliette. 1991. Evidence for the independent representation of length and
weight. Unpublished Ms., Stanford University.
——. 2004. Evolutionary phonology: The emergence of sound patterns. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Broselow, Ellen. 1995. Skeletal positions and moras. In The handbook of phonological
theory, edited by John Goldsmith, 175–205. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.
Broselow, Ellen, Su-I Chen and Marie Huffman. 1997. Syllable weight: Convergence
of phonology and phonetics. Phonology 14: 47–82.
Crowhurst, Megan. 1991. Demorification in Tübatulabal: Evidence from initial reduplication and stress. Proceedings of the North East Linguistic Society 21: 49–63.
Curtis, Emily Kathryn Jean. 2003. Geminate weight: Case studies and formal models.
PhD diss., University of Washington.
Davis, Stuart. 1999. On the representation of initial geminates. Phonology 16:
93–104.
——. 2003. The controversy over geminates and syllable weight. In The syllable in
optimality theory, edited by Caroline Féry and Ruben van de Vijver, 77–98. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Gordon, Matthew. 2002. A phonetically-driven account of syllable weight. Language
78: 51–80.
——. 2004. Syllable weight. In Phonetically based phonology, edited by Bruce Hayes,
Robert Kirchner, and Donca Steriade, 277–312. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
——. 2005. A perceptually-driven account of onset-sensitive stress. Natural Language
and Linguistic Theory 23: 595–653.
——. 2006. Syllable weight: Phonetics, phonology, and typology. New York and London:
Routledge.
Halle, Morris and George N. Clements. 1983. Problem book in phonology. Cambridge,
MA: MIT Press.
Ham, William. 2001. Phonetic and phonological aspects of geminate timing. New York
and London: Routledge.
Hayes, Bruce. 1989. Compensatory lengthening in moraic phonology. Linguistic Inquiry
20: 253–306.
——. 1995. Metrical stress theory: Principles and case studies. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
Helimski, Eugene. 1998. Selkup. In The Uralic Languages, edited by Daniel Abondolo,
548–579. London and New York: Routledge.
Hock, Hans. 1986. Compensatory lengthening: In defense of the concept ‘mora.’ Folia
Linguistica 20: 431–460.
Hume, Elizabeth, Jennifer Muller and Aone van Engelenhoven. 1997. Non-moraic
geminates in Leti. Phonology 14: 371–402.
Hyman, Larry M. 1985. A theory of phonological weight. Dordrecht: Foris.
The approach reported here allows for variation: geminates and clusters are distinguishable from each other in structural terms (branching vs. non-branching feature
organization at some level of the hierarchy). The point is that when the patterning is
similar, the single C representation of geminates is wanting.
Catherine O. Ringen and Robert M. Vago - 9789004190085
Downloaded from Brill.com09/02/2019 03:47:33PM
via University College London
geminates: heavy or long?
169
——. 1992. Moraic mismatches in Bantu. Phonology 9: 255–266.
Kavitskaya, Darya. 2002. Compensatory lengthening: Phonetics, phonology, diachrony.
London: Routledge.
Kenstowicz, Michael. 1994. Phonology in Generative Grammar. Oxford: Blackwell.
Kraehenmann, Astrid. 2001. Swiss German stops: Geminates all over the world. Phonology 18: 109–145.
——. 2003. Quantity and prosodic asymmetries in Alemannic: Synchronic and diachronic
perspectives. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Lahiri, Aditi and Jacques Koreman. 1988. Syllable weight and quantity in Dutch.
Proceedings of the West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics 7: 217–228.
Lin, Yen-Hwei. 1997. Syllabic and moraic structures in Piro. Phonology 14: 403–436.
McCarthy, John and Alan Prince. 1990. Foot and word in prosodic morphology: The
Arabic broken plural. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 8: 209–283.
——. 2001. Prosodic Morphology: Constraint interaction and satisfaction. [Rutgers
Optimality Archive #482, http://roa.rutgers.edu]
Morén, Bruce. 2001. Distinctiveness, coercion and sonority: A unified theory of weight.
New York and London: Routledge.
Muller, Jennifer S. 2001. The phonology and phonetics of word-initial geminates. PhD
diss., Ohio State University.
Pulleyblank, Douglas. 1994. Underlying mora structure. Linguistic Inquiry 25: 344–
353.
Selkirk, Elisabeth. 1990. A two root theory of length. University of Massachusetts Occasional Papers in Linguistics 14: 123–171.
Shaw, Jason. 2006. Deriving initial geminate moraicity from temporal coordination.
Unpublished Ms., New York University.
Siptár, Péter and Miklós Törkenczy. 2000. The phonology of Hungarian. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Steriade, Donca. 1991. Moras and other slots. Proceedings of the Formal Linguistics
Society of Midamerica 1: 254–280.
Topintzi, Nina. 2008. On the existence of moraic onset geminates. Natural Language
and Linguistic Theory 26: 147–184.
Tranel, Bernard. 1991. CVC light syllables, geminates and moraic theory. Phonology
8: 291–302.
Vago, Robert M. 1980. The Sound Pattern of Hungarian. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
——. 1992. The root analysis of geminates in the moraic phonology of Hungarian.
In Approaches to Hungarian, vol. 4: The Structure of Hungarian, edited by István
Kenesei and Csaba Pléh, 177–194. Szeged: JATE.
——. 2007. On the analysis of lowering in Hungarian. Presentation at the 8th International Conference on the Structure of Hungarian, CUNY Graduate Center and
New York University.
——. 2008. On the phonology of Hungarian inflections. Presented at the Research
Institute for Linguistics of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences, Budapest, Hungary.
Zec, Draga. 1994. Sonority constraints on prosodic structure. New York: Garland.
Catherine O. Ringen and Robert M. Vago - 9789004190085
Downloaded from Brill.com09/02/2019 03:47:33PM
via University College London