Nat Lang Linguist Theory (2014) 32:499–536
DOI 10.1007/s11049-013-9208-6
On the role of margin phonotactics in Colloquial
Bamana complex syllables
Christopher R. Green · Stuart Davis ·
Boubacar Diakite · Karen Baertsch
Received: 28 June 2010 / Accepted: 7 May 2012 / Published online: 26 October 2013
© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013
Abstract Data from two closely related varieties of Bamana (Bambara), a Mande
language spoken in West Africa, reveal that these varieties differ significantly from
one another in terms of the syllable shapes they permit in their inventories. A comparison of normative ‘standard’ Bamana and that spoken by a young cohort of individuals in the Malian capital, Bamako, reveals that the latter colloquial variety has
synchronically developed complex CCV and CVC syllable shapes, while the normative variety permits only maximal CV syllables. We posit that this development of
complex syllable shapes in Colloquial Bamana is a result of an overall drive towards
word minimization in the language and that the language’s chosen trajectory of minimization is predicted and best analyzed in reference to the Split Margin Approach
to the syllable (e.g., Baertsch 2002). This paper formalizes Colloquial Bamana in an
optimality-theoretic framework and details preferential vowel and consonant deletion
patterns that create complex syllable shapes, the role of syllable margin phonotactics
in driving these patterns, and other important phonological characteristics of the language that interact with and/or prevent minimization from occurring.
B
C.R. Green ( )
Center for Advanced Study of Language, University of Maryland, 7005 52nd Avenue, College Park,
MD 20742, USA
e-mail: [email protected]
S. Davis · B. Diakite
Indiana University, 1021 E. Third Street, Memorial Hall 322, Bloomington, IN 47405, USA
S. Davis
e-mail: [email protected]
B. Diakite
e-mail: [email protected]
K. Baertsch
Department of Linguistics, Southern Illinois University at Carbondale, Carbondale, IL 62901, USA
e-mail: [email protected]
500
C.R. Green et al.
Keywords Syncope · Syllable structure · Split Margin Approach · Optimality
Theory
1 Introduction
The emergence of complex syllables in Colloquial Bamana has been discussed in recent work (e.g., Diakite 2006; Green and Diakite 2008; Green et al. 2012) in which
patterns of deletion and minimization, as well as implications for syllable theory and
syllable typology have been preliminarily explored.1 These works have not yet provided a complete look at complex syllable emergence in Colloquial Bamana words
of the gamut of shapes and sizes, the systematicities of processes contributing to the
emergence of such syllables, or instances in which complex syllables fail to be formed
as otherwise predicted. These earlier works have, however, posited that a phonologically more complex variety of Bamana, described thus far as Colloquial Bamana
(henceforth CB), has emerged (or perhaps diverged) from a more phonologically conservative and historically normative variety of the language, e.g., Standard Bamana
(henceforth SB). These studies introduce data concerning the synchronic addition of
two complex syllable types to the CB inventory, namely (1) CCV syllables containing
complex onsets of rising sonority in which the first consonant of the onset is typically
an obstruent and the second is a sonorant and (2) CVC syllables with singleton sonorant codas.2 We illustrate below that complex syllables arise in CB primarily through
vowel syncope and, more specifically, via the preferential syncope of [+hi] vowels.
Because SB generally permits only maximal CV syllables, the introduction of CVC
and CCV complex syllables into the CB syllable inventory represents a significant
change to the phonology of the language.3 In this study, we motivate and formalize
the development of complex syllables in CB in an optimality theoretic framework and
illustrate that syncope is driven largely by the interaction of markedness constraints
on preferred syllable peaks (i.e., *P EAK[+hi] and *P EAK[-hi]) alongside a family of
individual and conjoined margin constraints belonging to two complementary margin
hierarchies, namely the M1 and M2 margin hierarchies, proposed in Baertsch (2002).
We begin by adopting classic Optimality Theory (Prince and Smolensky 1993/2004)
1 Portions of the data and analysis reported in this paper have been presented by the authors at various
conferences held in 2009 and 2010. Data were collected from elicitation sessions with two native speakers
of Bamana in Bamako, Mali, in July–August 2010, and from the third author, who is also a native speaker
of the language, in 2009–2010.
2 CCV syllables with nasal + liquid clusters have also been attested in some CB words.
3 The exception to this is a small number of words with NC unit segments (i.e., pre-nasalized stops) in
word-initial position, vowel-initial borrowings, and emergent nasal codas arising upon the juxtaposition
of phonemic nasal vowels and plosives resulting in NC sequences across a syllable boundary. To be clear,
word-initial NC sequences are considered unit segments, rather than a sequence of a nasal + obstruent
occupying a complex onset (Bird 1977; Creissels 1989; Konatè and Vydrine 1989). These pre-nasalized
stops contrast with plain stops in word-initial position and are not found in other word positions. Based
upon these observations, in word-internal positions, we assume that a nasal + consonant sequence derived
by vowel deletion is separated by a syllable boundary. This follows from language internal evidence, as
well as general principles of sonority sequencing.
Margin phonotactics in Colloquial Bamana
501
as the basis of our analysis and indicate instances in which additional machinery is
necessary to address attested forms that are not well-captured by this instantiation of
the framework.
By appealing to Baertsch’s M1 and M2 margin hierarchies and her Split Margin Approach (SMA) to the syllable, we illustrate that the language-specific ranking of constraints contained in these margin hierarchies is responsible for yielding
the consonant-consonant sequences permitted in syllable margins and in the syllable
contact sequences that result in CB. Furthermore, we show that the synchronic emergence of CCV and CVC syllables in CB is a development predicted by this model.
In addition to showing the ability of these constraints (via their ranking relative to
FAITH) to permit or prohibit certain sequences of consonants from co-occurring, we
illustrate how the margin constraints at play in CB interact with constraints on syllable markedness and segmental faithfulness in the constraint hierarchy that have the
net result of either facilitating minimization or preventing syncope from occurring
altogether.
The paper is organized as follows. Section 2 provides additional background on
the emergence of complex syllables in CB, an explanation of earlier work on the subject, and the goal of the current paper to expand upon this earlier work. The section
also introduces the treatment of syncope in a standard optimality-theoretic framework
driven by the competition between constraints militating against peak markedness
and those aiming to preserve segmental faithfulness. Section 3 discusses the SMA
(Baertsch 2002), its predictions, and the role that the constraints in its dual hierarchies play in driving the emergence of complex syllables of specific shapes and types
in CB. Section 4 proposes a role for metrical structure in explaining instances where
complex syllables do not emerge as otherwise expected in the language. Section 5
offers discussion of syncope patterns that implicate the presence of prosodic structure above the level of the syllable in this language. A brief conclusion follows in
Sect. 6.
2 Resolving S YNCOPE
The impetus driving the exploration into a formal mechanism to account for the synchronic emergence of complex syllables in CB arose in part from provocative data
first reported in earlier descriptive work (e.g., Diakite 2006; Green and Diakite 2008).
These earlier papers introduce and offer evidence supporting the derivation of CB
from more phonologically conservative varieties of Bamana, for example Standard
Bamako Bamana or perhaps Ségou Bamana. While these studies only preliminarily
explore vowel syncope, they discuss the importance of constraints on syllable phonotactics in the application of the syncope process. It is this line of research that we
expand upon here. The aim of the current paper is to tease apart the mechanism underlying the cover constraints M INIMIZE -S YLLABLE and S YNCOPE that were proposed in Diakite (2006) and Baertsch and Davis (2009), respectively, and to offer
a formalization of this process in further detail. To begin our presentation of data,
we first adopt a standard constituent-based model of the Bamana syllable and later
502
C.R. Green et al.
develop a detailed characterization of Bamana syllables in reference to Baertsch’s
(2002) SMA in Sect. 3. Throughout the remainder of this paper, CB data are provided alongside corresponding data reported from its presumed input, namely Standard Urban Bamana (SB), in order to facilitate comparison between the two language
varieties.
2.1 Basic syncope patterning
A comparison between SB and CB data reveals that the two language varieties differ
most markedly from one another in that SB retains a maximal CV syllable template
(taking into consideration the exceptions noted in footnote 3), while CB permits complex syllables of several types in its inventory. These differing syllable inventories
yield, for example, a word of the shape CV.CV.CV in SB, while its CB correspondent
might be CCV.CV, CVC.CV, CV.CCV, or CV.CV.CV with no change. We assume that
the non-syncopated form of a Bamana word is its lexical form and that SB serves as
the input to CB. We draw evidence for this assumption in that the non-reduced form
of a word will surface in relevant constructions (e.g., compounds and other derivatives) when syncope cannot be accommodated for reasons of metrical structure (for
examples, see Green 2010). Also, the tonal patterns witnessed on syncopated CB
forms are clearly derived from the non-syncopated SB input forms. While we do not
elaborate on this, the tonal patterns of both SB and CB forms are indicated throughout
the paper.4
For expository purposes, and positing syncope as a characteristic of CB, the
data in (1) from CB are representative of similarly constructed words in the language and demonstrate the language’s general preference to syncopate [+hi] vowels (i.e., [i] and [u]) from a given word. This preference is clearly illustrated in
words containing vowels of multiple heights where [+hi] vowels are preferred for
deletion when their removal does not violate the phonotactics of the language. We
discuss details of Bamana phonotactics in Sect. 3. That this preference for [+hi]
vowel deletion is not just a tendency is illustrated in words where it would otherwise appear phonotactically possible to delete either a [+hi] or [-hi] vowel (e.g.,
(1c–h)). Overall, a [-hi] vowel will never be chosen for deletion if an acceptable
[+hi] vowel deletion target is available. We return to this point in later discussion.
4 Given Richness of the Base (Prince and Smolensky 1993/2004), one might assume that the reduced (i.e.,
syncopated) form of the word is its lexical representation. The problem with such an assumption is that
the non-reduced form of the word can surface in compounds. For example, the CB word for ‘prayer’, [sel]
corresponds to SB [seli]. However, when this word is part of a compound in CB, a full form surfaces, as
in [seli+saa] ‘sacrificial sheep’. Further, CB words that display variation between two syncopated output
forms, as shown later in (30), can best be explained with a non-reduced input. Moreover, the tones on the
moras of CB reduced forms reflect their tonal quality on the corresponding moras of the SB forms; such
would just be a coincidence if the reduced forms were assumed to be the lexical representation. Thus,
while input forms with complex onsets should be considered, there is strong evidence that existing CB
lexical items have non-reduced SB forms as their underlying input.
Margin phonotactics in Colloquial Bamana
(1)
503
High Vowel Deletion5
Standard (SB) Colloquial (CB)
a. [ká.bí.lá]
[ká.blá]
b. [sà.fí.nÉ]
[sà.fnÉ]
*kbi.la
*sfa.nE
Gloss
‘tribute’
‘soap’
c.
d.
[sì.là.mÉ]
[dù.lÓ.kí]
[slà.mÉ]
[dlÓ.kí]
*sil.mE
*dul.ki
‘Muslim’
‘shirt’
e.
f.
g.
h.
[dè.lì.kó]
[fá.r´ı̃.m´ã]
[sá.nú.m´ã]
[bá.lí.kú]
[dèl.kó]
[fár.m´ã]
[sán.m´ã]
[bál.kú]
*dli.ko
*fri.mã
*snu.mã
*bli.ku
‘habit’
‘brave’
‘holy’
‘adult’
Important here is that one cannot presume that this trend towards minimization via
syncope is a simple manifestation of unstressed [+hi] vowel deletion. In (2), a [-hi]
vowel is readily chosen for deletion in the absence of a [+hi] vowel deletion target,
provided that its deletion can be phonotactically accommodated.
(2)
[-hi] Vowel Deletion
Standard (SB)
a. [cá.pá.ló]6
b. [nà.mà.sá]
c. [ká.má.l´ẽ]
Colloquial (CB)
[cá.pló]
[nàm.sá]
[ká.ml´ẽ]
Gloss
‘millet beer’
‘banana’
‘boyfriend’
Additional Bamana data show that vowels of any type can be syncopated, and
moreover, that vowels can be removed from any word position in the appropriate
circumstances. These facts taken together support the proposition that stress (or
lack thereof) does not drive the selection of a particular type of vowel for deletion, nor is its presence or absence active in targeting vowels found in a particular
word position for deletion. Indeed, Bamana has not been reported thus far in the
literature to exhibit stress. We find no evidence motivating the presence of stress
or any role that it might have in the syncope process. Importantly, the markednessbased approach to syncope motivated in this paper is noticeably different from theories of syncope that necessarily refer to metrical structure manifested as stress, e.g.,
5 Syllable boundaries are indicated by a ‘.’. Syllabification of word-internal complex onsets has been de-
termined based both upon the judgment of the third author who is, himself, a native Bamana speaker, and
upon other language-internal evidence. We argue that word-internal obstruent + sonorant sequences are
syllabified as complex onsets with rising sonority. If one were to argue that these sequences are syllabified
such that the obstruent occupies the coda position of a preceding syllable and that the sonorant occupies
the onset of the following syllable, this would lead to a sonority rise across a syllable boundary. Such a
state of affairs would therefore imply the presence of less marked, level sonority obstruent + obstruent
sequences across a syllable boundary in the language, which, as the data in this paper and in Green (2010)
illustrate, are not attested (e.g., sàbàtí ‘stable’ in SB surfaces faithfully in CB as sàbàtí, rather than *sba.ti
or *sab.ti.). Moreover, as mentioned above, obstruent + sonorant sequences occur in word initial position.
Tones are indicated on all vowels in the SB and CB data and are drawn in large part from Bailleul (2007)
for the former variety and the first author’s fieldwork for the latter variety. We refer the interested reader to
an overview of a number of controversies in Bamana tonology discussed in Creissels (1992). Importantly,
tone plays no limiting role in the syncope process.
6 In Bamana orthography, ‘c’ denotes the voiceless affricate [Ù], ‘j’ is the voiced affricated [dZ], and [j] is
denoted by ‘y’.
504
C.R. Green et al.
Gouskova (2003) and McCarthy (2008). These well-known theories of syncope, generally speaking, attribute syncope processes to being conditioned by metrical factors
such that metrically-weak (i.e., unstressed) positions are poor licensers of prominent
(i.e., unreduced) vowels. Thus, unreduced vowels in metrically-weak positions are
marked relative to reduced vowels in these positions and are preferentially reduced
or, in some instances, deleted altogether. While both approaches appeal to vocalic
markedness as a factor in syncope, the process in Bamana cannot be attributed to
metrical structure manifested as stress, as systematic correlates of stress are absent
from the language. This is not to say that metrical structure is absent altogether from
Bamana. As explored later in this paper (and in detailed discussion in Green 2010),
metrical structure is proposed to play a role in Bamana phonology. More specifically,
disyllabic foot structure is important in defining the domain for vowel and consonant
deletion in CB; further, deletion is prevented when the outcome would be an iambic
sequence (i.e., a light syllable followed by a heavy one). Reference to such metrical
structures is not indicative of stress in Bamana, where it has been argued that prominence is manifested as phonological weight and secondarily by length. Prosodic feet
have also been reported in Bamana to play a role in tonal melody assignment (e.g.,
Leben 2002, 2003; Weidman and Rose 2006; Green 2010).
Under the view that SB words serve as inputs to CB, the data in (1) reveal two key
characteristics of CB: (1) vowel deletion is preferred to the preservation of segmental faithfulness, and (2) deletion of a [+hi] vowel is preferred to deletion of a [-hi]
vowel. From the first of these characteristics, there is motivation to posit a critical
ranking between a constraint militating against segmental deletion and one (or more)
driving syncope. Drawing from the second characteristic, there is also motivation to
propose a critical ranking between constraints militating against particular syllable
peaks. The first of these is formalized in the competition between M AX -IO and the
cover constraint S YNCOPE, as in (5). This ranking drives vowel syncope. A reverse
ranking of these two constraints would result in the selection of the non-syncopated
output candidate, namely the outcome found in SB.
(3)
M AX -IO (henceforth M AX)—segments in the input must have an output correspondent
(4)
S YNCOPE—minimize the number of syllables in a word7
(5)
S YNCOPE M AX -IO
(6)
/bálíkú/ → [bál.kú] ‘adult’
7 It is possible to equate the S YNCOPE cover constraint discussed here with Zoll’s (1996) *S TRUC(σ )
constraint. However, while the two constraints, as they are defined, have a similar net effect, *S TRUC(σ )
is intended to militate against vowel epenthesis as a repair strategy, rather than to compel vowel syncope.
S YNCOPE, here, is a cover constraint comprised of constituent constraints that do, indeed, compel vowel
syncope. The replacement of this cover constraint with constraints better defining its mechanism is a key
motivation in our analysis.
Margin phonotactics in Colloquial Bamana
505
Having established that syncope is active as a process, we now begin to tease
apart the role of the S YNCOPE cover constraint by replacing it with two universallymotivated constraints whose combined effects better formalize the mechanism of the
syncope process itself. The two constraints employed are drawn from Prince and
Smolensky’s (1993/2004) Peak Hierarchy (i.e., *P/t *P/d · · · *P/i *P/a).
The Peak Hierarchy formalizes the universal preference for syllable peaks to be of
high sonority. For our purposes, we have extracted the relevant *P EAK[+hi] (i.e.,
*P/i) and *P EAK[-hi] (i.e., *P/a) constraints from the hierarchy. Rather than utilizing
an overly powerful S YNCOPE cover constraint that would force minimization via
vowel loss to occur, replacing this cover constraint with two universally motivated
constraints on peak markedness better formalizes both their competition with one
another (i.e., choosing preferred syncope targets) and with other relevant constraints
in the constraint hierarchy.8
Tableau (8) shows that while CB permits syllables with [+hi] and [-hi] peaks, it
prefers to retain [-hi] peaks, as evidenced by the consistent deletion of [+hi] vowels
where possible. The non-syncopated candidate (8a), containing an additional [+hi]
vowel, is eliminated by the higher-ranking *P EAK[+hi] constraint in favor of the
syncopated winner.
(7)
*P EAK [+hi]—incur a violation for each high vowel syllable peak
*P EAK [+hi] M AX
(8)
/bálíkú/ → [bál.kú] ‘adult’
Although the removal of a [+hi] vowel is preferred in CB, [-hi] vowel deletion is
possible in instances where a [+hi] target is not available, provided that the phonotactics of the languages are not compromised. (Further phonotactic details follow in
Sect. 3.) Additional data support the observation that CB is, indeed, driving towards
minimization. Display (11) illustrates [-hi] vowel syncope.9
(9)
*P EAK [-hi]—incur a violation for each non-high vowel syllable peak
(10)
*P EAK [-hi] M AX
8 To be clear, for expository purposes, we have chosen to employ *P EAK [+hi] and *P EAK[-hi] to represent
the general competition between the removal of high vowels and non-high vowels. As discussed in Green
(2010), however, in relevant instances, there is a preference to delete a mid vowel (i.e., [e,E,o,O]) rather
than the low vowel [a]. This, too, follows from the universals inherent in the Peak Hierarchy and does not
detract from the generalizations discussed here.
9 In (11), we do not show the candidate [ca.pal], which would have iambic structure. As discussed in
Sect. 4.2, CB tends to avoid syncopated output forms with iambic structure. It is proposed in Green (2010)
that word-final CVC syllables are heavy in CB. We typically will not show such candidates in our evaluation tableaux.
506
(11)
C.R. Green et al.
/cápáló/ → [cá.pló] ‘millet beer’
Having motivated the relationship between the *P EAK constraints and M AX,
tableau (13) motivates the critical ranking between these two constraints relative to
one another. In sum, the critically-ranked *P EAK constraints effectively replace the
S YNCOPE cover constraint.
(12)
*P EAK [+hi] *P EAK [-hi] M AX
(13)
/bálíkú/ → [bál.kú] ‘adult’
Similarly, words containing all [+hi] vowels, obeying phonotactics, also illustrate
the drive towards minimization, with the non-syncopated candidate losing to the syncopated winner by accumulating multiple *P EAK[+hi] violations. The word [mì.sí.rí]
‘mosque’, for example, is [mì.srí] in CB.
Thus far, we have established the preference for various instantiations of syncope
in CB but have not yet considered the finer details of the language’s phonotactics,
and more specifically, the role played by syllable margin phonotactics in selecting
patterns of deletion in words of other shapes. For example, in instances where syncope would result in phonotactically impermissible sequences, minimization fails to
occur. The following section introduces the Split Margin Approach (SMA) to the syllable (Baertsch 2002) and discusses its application and implications for the observed
synchronic development of complex syllable shapes in CB.
3 The Split Margin Approach to the syllable
In this section, we discuss the SMA developed by Baertsch (2002). We illustrate that
this model is a suitable and useful theoretical means by which to formalize the phonotactics driving syncope patterning and ultimately the emergence of complex syllable
shapes in CB. This model encodes a direct structural relationship between syllable
constituents, namely those located in different margin positions (i.e., the consonants
found in syllable onsets and codas). Baertsch’s model frames the parallel relationship
between consonants found in “M1 ” and “M2 ” positions in reference to the ranking
of constraints in two parallel margin hierarchies that are reminiscent of Prince and
Smolensky’s (1993/2004) Margin Hierarchy, shown in (14). In a SMA syllable, seen
in (17), consonants located in M1 syllable positions include a singleton onset, the first
member of a branching onset, or the second member of a branching coda. Consonants
found in M2 syllable positions include a singleton coda and the second member of
Margin phonotactics in Colloquial Bamana
507
a branching onset. The types of consonants permitted in M2 syllable positions are
important to our discussion of CB complex syllables.
The SMA draws on the seemingly universal tendency for languages to prefer syllables containing consonants of certain sonority values in specific syllable margin
positions. The nucleus is, barring exceptional cases, the sonority peak of a syllable,
and the sonority of elements moving away from the nucleus tends to decrease such
that higher sonority consonants are located in positions closer to the nucleus, while
the lowest sonority elements are located at the syllable edges. While this and related
universalities of margin sonority have been noted and discussed widely in the literature (e.g., Clements 1990; Green 2003; Gouskova 2004; among others), the SMA
formalizes these sonority relationships via the incorporation of an extension to Prince
and Smolensky’s (1993/2004) Margin Hierarchy, shown in (14).
(14)
Margin Hierarchy (Prince and Smolensky 1993/2004)
*M/a *M/i *M/l *M/n *M/d *M/t
This Margin Hierarchy gives preference to low sonority constituents in all syllable margin positions. In order to capture the fact that certain syllable positions
do not, in fact, favor low sonority constituents, Baertsch (2002) proposed a second
mirror-image hierarchy within which certain syllable positions favor high sonority
constituents. Baertsch captured these preferences by splitting Prince and Smolensky’s Margin Hierarchy into two separate but complementary Margin Hierarchies.
The first of the two hierarchies, the M1 Hierarchy, follows Prince and Smolensky’s
original proposal and shows the preference for low sonority consonants in M1 syllable
margin positions (e.g., a singleton onset). The second hierarchy, the M2 Hierarchy,
captures the preference for high sonority consonants in M2 positions (i.e., a singleton
coda or the second member of a branching onset). The M1 and M2 margin hierarchies
are given in (15) and (16), respectively.10
(15)
M1 Hierarchy:
(*M1 /[-hi] *M1 /[+hi]) *M1 /r *M1 /l *M1 /Nas *M1 /Obs
(16)
M2 Hierarchy:
*M2 /Obs *M2 /Nas *M2 /l *M2 /r (*M2 /[+hi] *M2 /[-hi])
The M1 and M2 margin hierarchies, taken together, represent a ranked series of
constraints on the presence of particular consonants (and vowels) in one of two types
of syllable margin positions. The M1 hierarchy shows that low sonority constituents,
e.g., obstruents, are the best singleton onsets, while higher sonority elements are less
preferred. The M2 hierarchy illustrates just the opposite tendency for a singleton
coda or the second member of a branching onset. This M2 hierarchy shows that high
sonority elements, e.g., liquids, are the preferred constituents to fill these positions,
while lower sonority elements are less preferred. A Split Margin syllable is shown
10 The parenthesized elements in (15) and (16) are those that would be drawn into the syllable peak and,
for the most part, are not relevant to our discussion of syllable margins in this paper. Consequently, when
we refer to the M1 hierarchy in this article, we are referring only to true consonants and not to glides or
vowels. We note, however, that there are glide-initial words in Bamana.
508
C.R. Green et al.
in (17). A syllable initial consonant is found in an M1 position while an M2 position
would include elements such as the second member of a branching onset (if present)
and the first member of the coda. The second member of a branching coda, if allowed,
would be an M1 position. Because CB does not allow branching codas, this structure
will not be discussed further in this paper.
(17)
Split-Margin syllable (adapted from Baertsch 2002)
A growing body of work drawing on the SMA has emerged detailing the intricacies and implications of this model of the syllable (e.g., Baertsch and Davis 2003,
2009; Davis and Baertsch 2005, 2008, 2011). Beginning with phonotactic restrictions, these earlier works have argued that, via the introduction of both individual
and conjoined margin constraints into a language’s constraint hierarchy, their ranking relative to FAITH effectively formalizes the presence and/or absence of specific
consonant-consonant sequences within a syllable (i.e., within a complex onset) and
within a word (i.e., in a syllable contact sequence). Margin constraints ranked above
FAITH militate against the presence of particular segments or sequences of segments
in syllable margins, while margin constraints ranked below FAITH indicate sounds or
sequences of sounds that are readily accommodated in syllable margins.11
Let us consider, for example, a language like SB that is more phonologically conservative in terms of the syllable shapes that it permits. By phonologically conservative, we mean that SB has a maximal CV syllable shape, generally speaking, and
therefore does not permit complex syllable shapes like CCV and CVC. Drawing on
principles of the SMA (Baertsch 2002), we will assume that because SB does not permit complex syllables, its entire M2 hierarchy (i.e., that associated with the second
member of a branching onset or a singleton coda) is ranked above FAITH, thereby
preventing consonants from occupying these syllable positions. Because any consonant or glide can occupy a singleton onset in SB, corresponding *M1 constraints are
11 The analysis below follows from the theoretical proposal underlying the SMA that FAITH outranks
margin constraints that permit particular consonants to occupy M2 positions. We point out, however, that in
CB, the faithfulness constraint, M AX, interacts with the low-ranking *M2 margin constraints in such a way
that, in order for a violation of a relevant *M2 constraint to occur, M AX will also necessarily be violated.
Thus, the true interaction (and therefore ranking) between M AX and these lower-ranked constraints is
obscured. Following from this assumption, we employ a ranking of M AX *M2 /Son in the discussion
and tableaux below (e.g., in (21)) although we assert that, analytically, one could otherwise employ an
indeterminate ranking between these candidates with no effect on the optimal outputs predicted. The key
mechanism for syncope in CB, as shown in Sect. 2, concerns the crucial relationship between the *P EAK
constraints and M AX.
Margin phonotactics in Colloquial Bamana
509
located below FAITH. This ranking for SB is schematized in (18), where ‘X’ represents any consonant.
(18)
Standard Bamana singleton margin constraint ranking12
*M2 /X FAITH *M1 /X
This SB ranking differs from what one finds in CB, as the latter variety permits
consonants to occupy M2 positions. For CB, while the M1 hierarchy remains below
FAITH, so too would some constraints of the M2 hierarchy be ranked below FAITH,
with the exception of *M2 /Obstruent. This state of affairs arises given the observation
that in no instance is an obstruent consonant permitted to occupy an M2 position in
CB. That is, obstruents are never found as the second member of a branching onset
or occupying a singleton coda position. This ranking for CB is schematized in (19).
(19)
Colloquial Bamana singleton margin constraint ranking
*M2 /Obstruent FAITH *M2 /Sonorant, *M1 /X
The demotion of the M2 markedness constraints below FAITH arguably permits
the emergence of complex syllable shapes in CB. We next explore in more detail the
role of particular types of margin constraints in this emergent language variety.
3.1 Role of *M2 constraints
The SMA asserts that a language-specific ranking of constraints on margin constituents relative to those preserving faithfulness and barring against other types of
markedness effectively drives the permissibility of different syllable shapes in a language. In CB, we see that a constraint barring obstruents from syllable codas and
from the second position in a branching onset (*M2 /Obs) is active in selecting outputs with complex onsets of rising sonority, as it is undominated in the CB ranking.
As a result, obstruents in M2 positions cannot be accommodated. On the other hand,
a related constraint barring sonorants from M2 positions (*M2 /Son) would be ranked
low in the hierarchy, as complex onsets with second member sonorant consonants and
12 An anonymous reviewer asks what prevents the ranking *M /X FAITH *M /X, which would re1
2
sult in a language with codas but no onsets. First, it should be remembered that *M1 /X is a cover for all
the specific constraints given in (15). In this regard, we note there are languages such as Yakut (Baertsch
2002) and Korean (Smith 2003) that disallow single onsets of high sonority. In such languages, constraints
militating against high sonority consonants in M1 positions would be ranked above FAITH, while constraints against low sonority onsets would be ranked below FAITH. Further, it has been claimed by Breen
and Pensalfini (1999) that a dialect of the Australian language Arrernte lacks onsets altogether. While the
argument for this is not solid since the language does have words beginning with single consonants, if
their claim is correct, then Arrernte could be a language with the ranking *M1 /X FAITH *M2 /X.
The question then is why onsetless languages are extremely rare or perhaps non-existent. Others have discussed this matter. We can follow Breen and Pensalfini (1999) and references cited therein in suggesting
that the rarity of such languages has to do with perceptual factors that identify the right edge of the consonant (i.e., its release) as being more perceptually salient than the transition from the vowel to the following
consonant. Concerning this, it is interesting to observe that Arrernte has pre-stopped nasal consonants and
retroflex consonants, both of which have a left edge cue of saliency that is of importance in their identification. See, in particular, Steriade (2001) and Hamann (2003) on retroflex consonants. Since we view this
explanation for the rarity or non-existence of onsetless languages as being external to the phonology, an
optimality-theoretic grammar does not have to encode it.
510
C.R. Green et al.
singleton sonorant codas occur in the language.13 Display (20) shows the ranking of
these margin constraints relative to other relevant markedness and faithfulness constraints discussed above. Tableau (21) evaluates potential outputs containing complex
syllables in CB.
(20)
CB M2 Ranking: *M2 /O BS *P EAK[+hi] *P EAK[-hi] M AX *M2 /S ON
(21)
These tableaux show that both (21b) and (21d) fail to be optimal, having obstruents in an M2 syllable margin position. The fully-faithful candidate, (21a),
fails by retaining a [+hi] vowel. The winning candidate (21c) avoids these violations by removing a [+hi] peak to create an obstruent-sonorant complex onset.
Similarly, candidates (21e) and (21f) violate *P EAK[+hi], rendering them nonoptimal compared to the winning candidate (21g) that is reduced via the deletion of a [+hi] vowel. Candidates (21i) and (21j) are ruled out by *M2 /Obs,
while the remaining two candidates are evaluated by *P EAK[+hi]. The optimal
candidate (21k) is selected owing to its fewer violations of this constraint. The
outcome in (22) shows that the constraints (as they are ranked) also correctly
predict outputs containing a CVC complex syllable in relevant instances. This
form results, once again, from the deletion of an offending [+hi] vowel. In this
case, the [+hi] vowel is in a position different from the vowels deleted above
in (21).
13 A reviewer asks if this means that the SMA predicts that the second position of complex onsets should
always pattern together with sonorant codas. The answer is no. In Sect. 3.2, we detail how complex onsets
are analyzed by the conjunction of *M1 and *M2 constraints. If, for example, the conjoined margin constraints are undominated in a language while *M2 constraints are all ranked below FAITH, the resultant
language would have a maximal syllable of CVC, allowing for codas but not onset clusters. See Davis and
Baertsch (2011) for discussion on how the SMA accounts for syllable typology.
Margin phonotactics in Colloquial Bamana
511
(22)
As a means of comparison, one can entertain the predicted outcomes for these
same words in SB by implementing the constraint ranking in (18) (and repeated below in (23)). The ranking of the entire M2 hierarchy above FAITH in SB precludes
complex onsets or codas from emerging. The outputs in this variety are fully faithful to the underlying form, i.e., they are unreduced. These unreduced outcomes are
shown in (24).14
(23)
SB *M2 Ranking: *M2 /O BS *M2 /S ON P EAK[+hi] *P EAK[-hi] M AX
(24)
The ranking of constraints in the M2 hierarchy also accurately predicts instances
of failed minimization in CB for words whose SB inputs contain only obstruent consonants, as in (25). Minimization cannot occur in these words, as the deletion of any
vowel would yield an impermissible consonant in an M2 position. In such instances,
a fully-faithful, non-reduced output is optimal in CB.
14 The ranking of the *P EAK constraints over M AX, here, follows from arguments made above concerning
the syncope process in CB. We assume, following the SMA, that the ranking of margin constraints relative to FAITH (i.e., M AX) is responsible for the difference of syllable types allowed in the two language
varieties.
512
(25)
C.R. Green et al.
Failed minimization in CB: /sàbàtí/ → [sà.bà.tí] ‘stable’
Thus far, our discussion of *M2 constraints in CB syncope has captured both
the avoidance of obstruents and the presence of sonorants in M2 margin positions.
We have not yet explored, however, the finer details of the language’s phonotactics,
i.e., which consonant-consonant combinations are preferred vs. actively avoided in
complex onsets and in consonant contact sequences across a syllable boundary. Although sonorant consonants are generally permitted in M2 positions, there are certain
obstruent-sonorant sequences that are disallowed in the language. These too are predicted by the SMA via its conjoined *M1 &*M2 constraints.
3.2 Conjoining margin hierarchies
General principles of sonority sequencing (e.g., Steriade 1982; Clements 1990;
Zec 1995; Parker 2002) suggest that an ideal branching onset is one in which a low
sonority consonant is followed by a high sonority consonant to create a sequence of
steeply rising sonority toward the syllable peak or nucleus. This sonority preference
can be expressed, in terms of the SMA M1 and M2 hierarchies, via the conjunction
of the lowest ranked margin constraints from each of the two hierarchies. The partial
conjoined margin hierarchy in (26) shows preferred M2 constituents when the M1 is
an obstruent. This creates a sequence of conjoined *M1 &*M2 constraints grounded
in sonority. The ranking in (26) is fixed, reflecting the M2 hierarchy in (16). The
conjoined margin hierarchy in (26) indicates that the local domain of the conjoined
constraints is the syllable. This is necessary when the consonants in sequence are
members of a complex onset; i.e., they are adjacent within a syllable. Conjoined
constraints whose local domain is the word can also be employed in reference to
consonants in syllable contact sequences, i.e., they are adjacent to one another but in
different syllables.
(26)
Conjoined Margin Hierarchy (partial)
σ [*M1 /Obs&*M2 /Nas σ [*M1 /Obs&*M2 /[l]
σ [*M1 /Obs&*M2 /[r]
σ [*M1 /Obs&*M2 /Obs
Following the mechanics of Local Constraint Conjunction (e.g., Smolensky 1995;
Downing 1998; Moreton and Smolensky 2002; Ito and Mester 2003) discussed in
reference to the SMA (Baertsch and Davis 2003, 2009), this conjoined margin hierarchy (and its extensions) captures the preference for complex onsets with low-sonority
M1 s alongside high-sonority M2 s and a general avoidance of complex onsets like
σ [*M1 /Obs&*M2 /Obs whose elements are both of low sonority. Via these conjoined
margin constraints, we can better illustrate the phonotactics of consonant-consonant
sequences in CB, including a complete picture of the types of sequences that are
Margin phonotactics in Colloquial Bamana
513
possible in complex onsets versus syllable contact sequences. The conjoined margin
constraints proposed in Baertsch’s model could obviate the need for cover constraints
like *C OMPLEX that militate against complex syllable margins. While both the conjoined margin constraints and *C OMPLEX effectively limit the types and number of
complex syllable margins allowed, the former have the added ability to formalize the
relationship between consonants in specific syllable margin positions that are either
permitted or not permitted, instead of banning all constituents outright. The schematic
diagram in (27) indicates permissible versus impermissible M1 -M2 co-occurrences in
CB where the conjoined constraints show intrinsic ranking based on the position of
the individual margin constraints in the M1 and M2 hierarchies displayed in (15) and
(16), respectively. Recall that these co-occurrences generally apply to consonants either adjacent in the syllable (where the M1 consonant precedes the M2 consonant) or
in a syllable contact sequence (where the M2 consonant precedes the M1 consonant),
depending on the local domain of conjunction. The solid line passing through the
center of the diagram in (27) represents FAITH. Consonant sequences falling below
the FAITH line are those permitted in CB, while those above the FAITH line are disallowed in the language. As an example, the low ranked conjoined constraint *T1 /R2
permits the occurrence of obstruent + rhotic as a complex onset and a rhotic + obstruent in syllable contact (across a syllable boundary). On the other hand, the very
high ranked *R1 /T2 constraint disallows a rhotic + obstruent onset cluster and an
obstruent + rhotic sequence across the syllable boundary.
(27)
Bamana M1 -M2 co-occurrence15
This diagram shows permissible consonant contact in Bamana and illustrates some
of the more intricate features of the language’s syllable phonotactics. It shows the
important role of sonority sequencing when formalizing the phonotactic restrictions
active in the language via constraints on conjoined syllable margins. This diagram
captures additional details, such as the differing behavior between voiced obstruent15 The abbreviations used in this schematic are as follows: R—[r], L—[l], N—nasal consonants, D—voiced
obstruents, T—voiceless obstruents. M2 obstruents do not include affricates for independent reasons. Note
that while D1 /N2 sequences are not found in onsets, they can appear in syllable contact sequences as the
result of the phonetic emergence of a nasal consonant between a nasal vowel and an adjacent voiced stop.
Our data, however, do not contain any instances in which a N.D sequence has arisen via syncope. Thus,
such sequences are not included below FAITH in (27).
514
C.R. Green et al.
nasal sequences which are disallowed (e.g., SB /kábánó/ → CB [ká.bá.nó] ‘asylum’)
and voiceless obstruent-nasal sequences which are permitted (e.g., SB /sàfínÉ/ →
CB [sà.fnÉ] ‘soap’). This is also apparent in such instances as [tÈnÉ] ‘taboo’ which
surfaces as [tnĚ] in CB, while words such as [bàná] ‘to become sick’ surface in
their fully-faithful form.16 Another intricacy of Bamana phonotactics is captured
in (27) by the dark bold-line conjunctions. These conjunctions are found in syllable contact sequences but not in complex onsets. N1 /N2 and L1 /L2 sequences are
found in CB as the result of vowel syncope, e.g., /sánúm´ã/ → [sán.m´ã] ‘holy’,
/sàkàkìlìla/ → sàà.kìl.lá ‘near the sheep’s testicle’.17 L1 /R2 sequences, although
permitted in theory, are often obscured by the propensity for a rhotic consonant
to assimilate to a lateral in a lateral environment, yielding L1 /L2 on the surface.
Such differences between permitted sequences in complex onsets versus those found
across syllable boundaries are predicted (Baertsch and Davis 2009). As discussed
below, it is also a prediction of the SMA that the consonant-consonant sequences
permitted in complex onsets will be a subset of those permitted across a syllable boundary. The reason for this prediction lies in the fact that a consonant sequence across a syllable boundary violates only a conjoined margin constraint that
has the word as its local domain. On the other hand, a complex onset violates both
the conjoined margin constraint with the word as its local domain and an analogous conjoined margin constraint that syllable as its local domain.18 Thus, a complex onset violates two conjoined margin constraints, while a syllable contact sequence violates only one of these constraints. It follows, therefore, that structures
violating more constraints (i.e., complex onsets) will be more restricted in their
inventory of possible consonant-consonant sequences. This is what we observe in
CB.
Having discussed the formation and motivation behind the conjoined *M1 &*M2
constraints, we illustrate their importance in the constraint hierarchy in (28) by considering the permissibility of T1 /N2 versus the impermissibility of D1 /N2 complex
16 Most commonly, the second member of voiceless obstruent-nasal complex onsets is the alveolar nasal,
although velar obstruent-bilabial nasal complex onsets are acceptable for some speakers (e.g., /lÓkÓm´ã/ →
[lÓÓ.m´ã]/[lÓ.km´ã] ‘handful’, /tákámá/ → [táá.má]/[tá.kmá] ‘journey’), however never word-initially (e.g.,
/kámál´ẽ/] → [ká.ml´ẽ] ‘boyfriend’, *kma.lẽ). Baertsch and Davis (2009) point out that segments at the same
sonority level may not pattern exactly the same way and thus may account for the inconsistent behavior
of such sequences. Such cases are proposed to be due to language-specific markedness constraints. In this
way, the approach taken by Baertsch and Davis differs from that taken in Gouskova (2004), who proposes
that segments at the same sonority level should behave identically. Moreover, Gouskova’s approach does
not capture the formal relationship between “M2 ” consonants, which is an important component and advantage of Baertsch’s SMA. See also Pons-Moll (2011) for a comparison between Baertsch and Davis
(2009) and Gouskova (2004), though we do not comment on this here.
17 In certain more complex constructions, e.g., nominal and verbal compounds and other polymorphemic
derivatives, more than a single instance of segmental deletion is possible. Details about reduction in these
constructions are in Green (2010).
18 This interpretation of local domains in constraint conjunction is consistent with the thorough discussion
on this matter in Ito and Mester (2003).
Margin phonotactics in Colloquial Bamana
515
onsets in CB. Tableau (29) shows how these constraints interact with other markedness and faithfulness constraints and reveals that a high-ranking conjoined constraint
has the ability to drive the selection of a fully-faithful output candidate (29d) and
therefore to prevent minimization. It is important to keep in mind that, following
from the inherent logic of local constraint conjunction, any conjoined constraint, in
order to be active in a language, must dominate (or at least be equally ranked with)
both of its component constraints.
(28)
*M2 /Obs, σ [*M1 /VdObs & *M2 /Nas *P EAK[+hi] *P EAK[-hi] M AX σ [*M1 /VlObs & *M2 /Nas
(29)
/sàfínÉ/ → [sà.fnÉ] ‘soap’, /kábánó/ → [ká.bá.nó] ‘asylum’
Conjoined margin constraints are also potentially at play in explaining other characteristics of Bamana. Take, for example, like-vowel words with more than two
syllables shown in (30).19 Like-vowel words in these Bamana data refer to words
containing identical vowels, at least in the first two syllables of a word. These data
(30a–i) show variation between CB outputs with complex onsets (CCV syllables)
and those with singleton sonorant codas (CVC syllables) where one or the other of
the two like-vowels is deleted when phonotactics are favorable. Variation between
grammatical outputs in these instances is only found when both vowel deletion targets are identical. Words that do not achieve this requirement have only a single
grammatical output. As a point of comparison, consider words like (30j–l) illustrating instances in which the phonotactics of the language permit only a single output.
19 Bamana has a 7-vowel system with an oral series (i, e, E, u, o, O, a) and a phonemic nasal vowel series
where all vowels have a nasal counterpart. Thus far in this paper, a distinction has been drawn between
the behavior of [+hi] vowels (e.g., i,u) and [-hi] vowels (e.g., e, E, o, O, a) for the sake of simplicity.
While this generalization captures the data presented in this paper, Green (2010) discusses cases where it
is necessary to introduce a further distinction between mid vowels (e.g., e, E, o, O) and low vowels (i.e., a)
into the language’s phonology, given that mid vowels are preferable syncope targets to low vowels when
the choice to delete one or the other vowel presents itself, e.g., /dàmàtÉmÉ/ → [dàmàtmÉ], *dam.tE.mE, ‘to
exaggerate’, but such examples are not common.
516
(30)
C.R. Green et al.
Variation in Syncope20
Standard (SB) Colloquial (CB)
a. [mÈ.lÈ.kÉ]
[mÈl.kÉ]/[mlÈ.kÉ]
b. [kè.lè.kú]
[kèl.kú]/[klè.kú]
c. [gà.là.má]
[gàl.má]/[glà.má]
d. [kÒ.lÒ.sí]
[kÒl.sí]/[klÒ.sí]
e. [bÒ.rÒ.tÓ]
[bÒr.tÓ]/[brÒ.tÓ]
f. [sá.rá.tí]
[sár.tí]/[srá.tí]
g. [sú.rú.kú]
[súr.kú]/[srú.kú]
h. [bù.lù.kú]
[bùl.kú]/[blù.kú]
i. [kù.lù.sí]
[kùl.sí]/[klù.sí]
j. [cá.pá.ló]
[cá.pló]/*[cpa.lo]
k. [ká.má.l´ẽ]
[ká.ml´ẽ]/*[kma.lẽ]
l. [jà.là.kí]
[jàl.kí]/*[jla.ki]
Gloss
‘angel’
‘to stumble’
‘spoon’
‘carefulness’
‘to tear apart’
‘condition’
‘hyena’
‘to plow’
‘pants’
‘millet beer’
‘boyfriend’
‘blame’
Competing strategies have been proposed in the literature to address variation
in optimality-theoretic terms. One method of evaluation (e.g., Zubritskaya 1997;
Anttila and Cho 1998; Davis and Torretta 1998; Auger 2001; Davis 2005) appeals
to the non-crucial ranking of adjacent constraints. These studies argue that indeterminacy between adjacent constraints in the grammar permits the alternative selection
of either output. Employing only the constraints stated thus far, this approach raises
an undesirable outcome in CB. Consider the possible ranking and tableau in (31) and
(32).
(31)
Possible ‘indeterminacy’ ranking for variation in output candidates
*P EAK[+hi] *P EAK[-hi] M AX σ [*M1 /Obs&*M2 /Son,
Wd [*M1 /Obs&*M2 /Son *M2 /Son
(32)
/sárátí/ → [sár.tí]/[srá.tí] ‘condition’, /bùlùkú/ → [bùl.kú]/[blù.kú] ‘to plow’
This tableau shows that variants differ only in their violations of low-ranking
conjoined margin constraints with different local domains (either the syllable or
the word). An output candidate satisfying σ [*M1 /Obs&*M2 /Son but violating
Wd [*M1 /Obs&*M2 /Son would be the CVC variant, whereas one in which both of
20 Further restrictions on minimization due to the rhythmic structure of the language are discussed in
Sect. 4.2.
Margin phonotactics in Colloquial Bamana
517
these constraints are violated would be the CCV variant. Given these constraints
alone, the CCV variant that can surface appears to be harmonically bounded, a state
of affairs that is otherwise deemed an analytical impossibility (e.g., McCarthy 2002).
To address this clearly attested state of affairs, it is necessary to introduce an additional low-ranked constraint into the hierarchy that would have the effect of favoring
candidates like (32c) and (32f) over their CVC counterparts, namely (32b) and (32e).
One alternative is a constraint like N O C ODA that bars against codas of all types
in all instances. A second alternative is a variation of Alber’s (2001) C OINCIDE-σ ,
which captures the preference that many languages have for a strong left edge. That
is, syllable complexity is preferred at the left edge of the word. (See also TamaritTorres et al. 2010, for one implementation of this idea.) In the case of CB, this constraint would penalize CVC syllables in favor of CCV syllables in order to achieve
the strongest, most complex left syllable edge. An indeterminate ranking between
σ [*M1 /Obs&*M2 /Son and N O C ODA (or the alternative C OINCIDE -σ ), for example,
would permit a similar analysis to those in the above cited literature. This is demonstrated in (33) with the introduction of N O C ODA. This state of affairs highlights that
the choice between the two attested variants is left to constraints that are low-ranking
in the hierarchy. Indeed, both variants satisfy the highest ranking relevant markedness
constraints and tie in their violations of *P EAK constraints and the antagonistic M AX
constraint, thus leaving them subject to the lower level constraints for evaluation.21
(33)
*P EAK[+hi] *P EAK[-hi] M AX σ [*M1 /Obs&*M2 /Son, N O C ODA,
Wd [*M1 /Obs&*M2 /Son
Thus far, the CB data have shown disyllabic reduced outcomes for words derived
from trisyllabic SB words. These data illustrate general syncope preferences and patterning in CB, as well as the importance of margin phonotactics in selecting either
21 This is reminiscent of an alternative approach to variation, discussed in Coetzee (2006), which may be
a promising method of evaluation for Bamana. In Coetzee’s analysis, output forms that equally satisfy
a specified set of high-ranking constraints are considered to be ‘well-formed enough’ in comparison to
other potential output candidates and are therefore permitted to surface as grammatical variants. Coetzee
suggests that there exists in a grammar (i.e., a constraint hierarchy) a point at which output candidates
are well-formed, and thus constraint violations incurred below this point are not detrimental to the overall
grammatical well-formedness of the candidate. Candidates would differ only in their harmonicity. In the
two evaluations in (33), candidates that violate constraints to the right of (below) M AX, where there is a
bold line that separates M AX from other constraints, can indeed surface just as long as they are tied on the
constraints to the left of the bold line. The details of this alternative must be left for future research.
518
C.R. Green et al.
a single output candidate or variation (in certain instances) between two candidates.
More detail is uncovered by next turning to monosyllabic CB words derived from
disyllabic SB inputs. We show in Sect. 3.3 that syncope still actively applies in these
words but can be blocked by higher-ranking constraints on both syllable and word
phonotactics.
3.3 Syncope in shorter words
Shorter words are more restricted in their possible reductions than words with a larger
number of syllables due to the fact that they contain fewer potential syncope targets.
Their outcomes demonstrate that CB strives to satisfy its overall drive towards minimization while still obeying more stringent restrictions. Of importance in these words
are restrictions on word-final syllable codas. More specially, certain word-final codas
are permitted in CB, but the sonorant consonants permitted to occupy this M2 position are restricted in comparison to those allowed in word-internal M2 positions.
It was noted above for longer words that an optimal syncopated output is always a
word containing either a complex onset or singleton coda in a word-internal position.
It is shown in this section that this is not always the rule for shorter words. Thus
far, we have expounded upon the preference to syncopate [+hi] vowels, however we
have not yet discussed the behavior of input SB words containing a [+hi] vowel in
final position and the general failure to delete this final vowel. This failed deletion is
predicted in instances where the onset of the ultimate syllable is an obstruent, as it
would generate an impermissible M2 obstruent coda. This avoidance is attributed to
the high-ranking of the *M2 /Obs constraint. Final [+hi] vowel syncope is permitted,
however, when an [l] results in word-final position. Let us consider the representative
examples of CB monosyllables in (34).
(34)
Two-Syllable Standard Bamana Words
Standard (SB) Colloquial (CB)
a. [sí.r´ã]
[sr´ã]
b. [fì.nÉ]
[fnĚ]
c. [bò.lí]
[bòĺ]
d. [sé.lí]
[sél]
e. [fò.lí]
[fòĺ]
f. [sò.lí]
[sòĺ]
g. [bú.rú]
[brú]
h. [fì.n´ı̃]
[fnˇı̃]
i. [tÈ.nÉ]
[tnĚ]
j. [bí.lí]
[blí]/[bíl]
k. [kí.lí]
[klí]/[kíl]
l. [fì.lí]
[flı̌]/[fìĺ]
*sir
*fin
*bli
*sli
*fli
*sli
*bur
*fin
*tEn
Gloss
‘to scar’
‘caste name’
‘to run’
‘prayer’
‘greeting’
‘to wake early’
‘bread’
‘caste name’
‘taboo’
‘roof’
‘egg’
‘to err’
(34a–b) show syncope via deletion of a [+hi] vowel to yield CCV CB words with
an obstruent M1 and sonorant M2 . (34c–f), however, are different in that SB words of
the shape CV[-hi] [l]V[+hi] (where C is an obstruent) result in reduced CV[l] outputs.
A CCV syllable is not the preferred output in these instances. These words, once
Margin phonotactics in Colloquial Bamana
519
again, illustrate the preference to remove a [+hi] vowel (and the preferred creation
of a CVC syllable, if possible), however this particular outcome is restricted by other
factors. Notice, for example, in (34g–i), where there is no deletion of the final [+hi]
vowel, that the input second syllable consonant is either [r] or [n], but in (34c–f), the
corresponding sonorant is [l]. Earlier work by Green and Diakite (2008) suggested
that the sonority scale for Bamana may be such that [l] is more sonorous than rhotics
and nasals. Thus, in the limited instances where a coda consonant is permitted wordfinally, only the most sonorous of the three consonants types, i.e., laterals, would
be accommodated. This stance, although not unreasonable, raises the question of
modifying what is meant to be a universal sonority hierarchy, with rhotics being more
sonorous than laterals (see Clements 1990). Work by Jany et al. (2007) suggests that
the sonority of liquids can depend on word position and is language-specific.22 With
this in mind, we assume that because CB permits only the most sonorous consonants
to occupy a word-final position, the rhotic is unable to be as sonorous in this context
and thus cannot occur in such instances of syncope. Analytically, this would call for
positional constraints on M2 sonorants, such that *M2 /[r]final , for example, would be
high-ranked in the hierarchy, while *M2 /[l]final would be low-ranked to permit the
observed word-final laterals.23 This state of affairs is shown in (35) and (36).24
(35)
*M2 /[r]final *P K[+hi] *P K[-hi] M AX *M2 /[l]final , *M2 /S ON
(36)
/búrú/ → [brú] ‘bread’, /bòlí/ → [bòĺ] ‘to run’
22 We thank an anonymous reviewer for bringing this to our attention.
23 We assert that this ranking relative to other relevant constraints is justified if one also considers that
*[far] is an illicit output for the input [fàrí] (see (37)). We discuss in Sect. 4.2, however, that additional
factors are at play such that an alternative reduction, e.g., *[fri], is also non-optimal. The optimal form for
such words is unreduced and fully faithful to the input.
24 We also point out other potential alternatives that could explain the distribution and behavior of word-
final sonorants in CB, one of which being that [l] and [r] have opposite specifications for the feature [continuant]. This is a cross-linguistically well-motivated possibility (e.g., Kenstowicz 2005; Abramson 1962;
Traill 1985) and would suggest that [-continuant] liquids (i.e., rhotics) are banned from word-final position.
This however leaves open the status of [continuant] for nasals, which must be taken up separately. Mielke
(2005) reports that it is not unheard of for nasals to pattern with other sonorants, either [+continuant]
or [-continuant], thus providing some evidence in support of rhotics and nasals patterning together. For
the present time, we will assume that the motivating factor behind the distribution of these sounds is
sonority. Further, because nasals are clearly less sonorous than liquids, it is reasonable to assume that a
*M2 /Nasalfinal would also be undominated in the constraint hierarchy.
520
C.R. Green et al.
For data like (34j–l) which contain two identical [+hi] vowels that are eligible
targets for deletion, such words behave in a manner similar to those shown in (30)
in that they exhibit free variation between two permitted syncopated outcomes when
permitted by the language’s phonotactics.25 This variation can be attributed to the
indeterminate ranking between low-level conjoined margin constraints favoring CVC
syllables and a constraint like N O C ODA favoring CCV syllables, as was shown in
(33).26
3.4 Blocking Syncope
Thus far, we have shown that singleton and conjoined M1 and M2 margin constraints,
alongside other constraints on markedness and faithfulness, drive the choice of syncope targets in CB. In addition to their role in selecting types of reduced outcomes,
margin constraints also play a role in determining those instances where syncope is
blocked. In such instances, no reduced outcome with favorable phonotactics can be
generated, and thus, syncope fails to apply altogether. The data in (37) show input SB
words where syncope is blocked by unfavorable phonotactics.
(37)
Syncope Blocked in CB
Standard
Colloquial
a.
[sà.bá]
[sà.bá]
b.
[dì.bí]
[dì.bí]
c.
[kí.tí]
[kí.tí]
d. [fá.sá.dá]
[fá.sá.dá]
e.
[sà.bà.tí]
[sà.bà.tí]
f.
[mù.sà.ká]
[mù.sà.ká]
g. [dù.sù.ká.sí] [dù.sù.ká.sí]
h. [bà.ná]
[bà.ná]
i.
[ká.bá.nó]
[ká.bá.nó]
j.
[kì.bà.rú]
[kì.bà.rú]
k. [dú.kÉ.nÉ]
[dú.kÉ.nÉ]
l.
[té.rí]
[té.rí]
m. [sá.ní]
[sá.ní]
n. [fà.rí]
[fà.rí]
*sba
*dbi
*kti
*fsa.da/*fas.da
*sba.ti/*sab.ti
*mu.ska
*dus.ka.si
*bna/*ban
*ka.bno/*kba.no
*kib.ru/*ki.bru
*du.knE/*dkE.nE
*ter/*tri
*san/*sni
*far/*fri
Gloss
‘three’
‘darkness’
‘trial’
‘to praise’
‘stable’
‘expense’
‘heartbreak’
‘to get sick’
‘asylum’
‘news’
‘courtyard’
‘friend’
‘clean’
‘body’
In many of these data, syncope is blocked when its application would place an
obstruent into an M2 position; either as the second member of a branching onset or a
25 An unusual case in CB is found in words like /dÒlÓ/ → [dlǑ] ‘beer’ where speakers almost unanimously
choose a CCV outcome to an otherwise favored CVC, e.g., *[dOl]. This outcome is exceptional and may
reflect the fact that this Colloquial variety of Bamana is in a state of flux such that syncope preferences for
words of particular shapes and containing particular vowels are not yet fixed. It may also be possible that
the lexical form of such words is, in fact, CCV. As Green (2010) discusses at length, the choice of CCV in
these instances may also be related to the fact that CB, overall, prefers complexity at the left edge of words
resulting from a constraint like C OINCIDE-σ . For other examples of a drive toward left edge complexity
see Frigeni (2009) on Sardinian and Tamarit-Torres et al. (2010) on Algherese Catalan.
26 As a reviewer correctly points out, this indeterminate ranking would occur higher in the constraint
hierarchy than *M2 /[l]final , *M2 /S ON. Thus, *M2 /[r]final *P EAK[+hi] *P EAK[-hi] M AX σ [*M1 /Obs&*M2 /Son, N O C ODA, Wd [*M1 /Obs&*M2 /Son *M2 /[l]final , *M2 /S ON.
Margin phonotactics in Colloquial Bamana
521
singleton coda (37a–g). Recall that *M2 /Obs (and, in theory, *M1 /Obs&*M2 /Obs) is
undominated in CB, barring obstruents from M2 positions. Because such constraints
are ranked above those driving the syncope machinery of the language, syncopated
candidates are ruled out in favor of the fully-faithful SB form, even though a fullyfaithful output candidate accrues multiple violations of the lower ranking *P EAK
constraint(s). Words like (37h–i) surface faithfully for an analogous reason. Recall the
detailed conjoined margin schematic in (27) where sequences of M1 /VoiObs-M2 /Nas
adjacent in a syllable are not permitted in CB due to a high-ranked σ [*M1 /D&*M2 /N
constraint. This fact, taken alongside the restrictions on segments permitted to occupy word-final codas, predicts the selection of the fully-faithful candidate in such
words. Words like (37j–n) require additional explanation. The descriptive generalization that these data offer is that the syncope process fails to remove a [-hi] vowel
when a [+hi] vowel target found within a defined domain cannot be deleted. To be
clear, for a SB word like [kìbàrú], although it would otherwise appear phonotactically possible to generate a CB output like *[ki.bru], such an output is systematically avoided in favor of a fully-faithful representation, i.e., [kì.bà.rú]. A standard
optimality-theoretic analysis utilizing margin constraints fails to predict this outcome.
Additional machinery is necessary to derive these forms, as discussed in Sects. 4
and 5.
3.5 Other predictions
Our CB data, thus far, reveal a parallel relationship between consonants in different syllable margin positions, as predicted by the SMA. More specifically, we have
illustrated that the language has synchronically developed complex CCV and CVC
syllables wherein the consonants permitted in M2 positions are identical, taking into
consideration inherent differences between consonant-consonant sequences adjacent
in a syllable versus those in contact across a syllable boundary. These positions are
parallel to one another in a Split Margin syllable (see (17)), and thus it follows that
CCV and CVC syllable types containing M2 margin consonants should be expected
to emerge in parallel in the language’s phonology. This is precisely what we observe
in CB.
These synchronic changes in CB also lend support to the predictions of the SMA
with regards to diachronic changes in sound and syllable structure. For example, it
was discussed in earlier work (e.g., Baertsch and Davis 2009) that the SMA can
be applied to explain sound changes such as those observed historically in the development of unassimilated coda consonants in Campidanian Sardinian from Latin
(e.g., Bolognesi 1998; Frigeni 2009). As Campidanian Sardinian emerged from Latin,
the types of consonants permitted in a single syllable coda became more restricted
(i.e., Latin permitted rhotics and laterals, e.g., [al.ba] ‘white’, however Sardinian
permitted only rhotics, e.g., [ar.ba] ‘white’). Furthermore, in the second position
of Sardinian complex onsets, a rhotic is found in correspondence to a lateral in
Latin (e.g., /plus/ → [prus] ‘more’). Baertsch and Davis (2009) attribute the parallel loss of laterals as the second member of a branching onset and the subsequent permissibility of rhotics in Campidanian Sardinian as evidence implicating
a relationship between the M2 positions in these languages. Other work by these
522
C.R. Green et al.
authors highlights the parallel between (dis)allowed onset clusters and coda consonants in the development of Pali from Sanskrit. While these earlier works discuss
implications that the model has for the tightening of restrictions on permitted syllable structures, we find in CB that this prediction is equally applicable to the loosening of such restrictions, thereby resulting in more complexity in syllable shapes
and the parallel emergence of both complex onsets and singleton codas in this language.
Having considered the process of S YNCOPE in detail, as well as the role of constraints on syllable margin phonotactics in driving its outcomes in CB, we next turn
to additional details that outline an overall trend of minimization or syllabic reduction
in the language. In Sect. 4, we introduce a second process of reduction, namely Velar
Consonant Deletion and consider its application and, conversely, its failed application
in certain instances in relation to other constraints and processes at play in CB.
4 Rhythmic structure
This study offers some support to the proposal that the minimization processes underway in CB provide evidence for prosodic structure above the level of the syllable
in the language. The presence of such structure has not been previously discussed in
specific reference to the segmental phonology of languages in the branch of Mande
where Bamana is found. Other Mandeist linguists suggest that rhythmic structures
may be responsible for phonological processes in certain South-Eastern Mande languages (e.g., Vydrine 2003; Kuznetsova 2007). Leben (2002, 2003) and Weidman
and Rose (2006) have analogously proposed tonal feet to account for the surface
tonal patterns found in other varieties of Bamana. The relationship between these
earlier analyses and the current proposal of metrical structure is explored further below with specific reference to CB. While it is not the intent of this paper to discuss the
finer details of rhythmic structure, we provide evidence implicating it in driving specific types of vocalic syncope in CB and in the deletion of velar consonants between
identical vowels in both SB and CB.
4.1 Velar consonant deletion
The deletion of velar consonants between identical vowels in CB (and often even
in SB) is not a typologically uncommon process. In Bamana, words of the shape
C1 V1 C2 V1 , where C2 is a velar stop, manifest the endpoint of a more general diachronic progression of lenition (i.e., k → g →G → h → Ø) that yields total segmental loss of the velar consonant and subsequent derivation of a long vowel. Similar
schemes of velar consonant deletion (VCD) have been noted cross-linguistically, for
example in Turkish (Sezer 1981), Kranichfeld German (Glover 2009), Kwasio (Duke
and Martin 2009) and in other Mande languages (e.g., Konatè and Vydrine 1989;
Dumestre and Hosaka 2000; Vydrine 2008). Both SB and CB appear to have an
overall ban on diphthongs (presumably due to an undominated N O D IPHTHONG con-
Margin phonotactics in Colloquial Bamana
523
straint). The proposed ban on diphthongs is motivated by the fact that VCD (in both
language varieties) is permitted only in those instances when the velar consonant targeted by the process is located between identical vowels, as in (38). If this structural
condition is not met, VCD does not occur. Depending on the structure of a given
word, minimization may be avoided altogether (e.g., /tìkÉ/ → [tì.kÉ] ‘to cut’). We
propose that the restrictions on this process are best explained by the fact that VCD
only occurs within a defined domain of application. (38a–i) illustrate that VCD occurs
between identical oral vowels of any type in CB. Minimization by vowel syncope to
create a word-initial CCV syllable in such words is not permitted, as it would place
an obstruent into an M2 position.
(38)
Velar Consonant Deletion (VCD)
Standard
Colloquial Gloss
a. [sì.gí]
[sìí]
‘to sit’
b. [mÒ.kÓ]
[mÒÓ]
‘person’
c. [tÓ.gÓ]
[tÓÓ]
‘name’
d. [sà.gá]
[sàá]
‘sheep’
e. [dù.gú]
[dùú]
‘village’
f. [có.gó]
[cóó]
‘manner’
g. [fà.gá]
[fàá]
‘to kill’
h. [sÒ.kÒ.lí]
[sÒÒ.lí]
‘infection’
i. [sÒ.kÒ.má] [sÒÒ.má]
‘morning’
We argue that, upon VCD, resyllabification occurs such that the vowel of the second syllable is adopted into the nucleus of the first syllable. This generates a CVV
syllable containing a single long vowel peak. By this mechanism, VCD is a second
means by which CB phonology removes peaks (and therefore syllables) from the
language. Whether by the removal of a vowel in vowel syncope or by the removal
of a velar consonant by VCD, the drive toward minimization is achieved. In VCD,
high-ranked *P EAK constraints still act as the impetus to remove syllable peaks. The
preference to remove a velar consonant, rather than a vowel (with few exceptions), is
captured by the critical ranking of low-ranked faithfulness constraints, namely M AX VOWEL (henceforth M AX -V) and M AX -V ELAR (henceforth M AX -K). The relationship and ranking between these constraints captures what has become known in the
literature as a conspiracy (Kisseberth 1970). Generally speaking, a phonological conspiracy occurs when two (or more) rules or processes act together (i.e., conspire)
to achieve the same purpose. The ranking schema for a conspiracy is described, for
example, by McCarthy (2002) as MARKEDNESS 1 , M ARKEDNESS 2 FAITHFUL NESS 1 FAITHFULNESS 2 . In this schema, the two high-ranked markedness constraints need not be critically ranked; however, they must be crucially ranked above
two faithfulness constraints which are, themselves, critically ranked. This relationship and ranking is illustrated in (39) for Bamana with an accompanying tableau
in (40).
(39)
*M2 /Obs *P EAK[+hi] *P EAK[-hi] M AX -V M AX -K
524
(40)
C.R. Green et al.
/fàgá/ → [fàá] ‘to kill’, /sÒkÒlí/ → [sÒÒlí] ‘injection’
Candidates (40b–c) and (40g) are omitted by the high-ranking margin constraint,
*M2 /Obs. The fully-faithful candidates are omitted due to their multiple violations
of *P EAK constraints. For /sOkOli/, in particular, the choice remains between the
vowel deletion and velar deletion candidates. The critical ranking between the two
M AX constraints dictates that the latter is the optimal choice. As discussed in Sect. 5,
the optimality-theoretic evaluation of VCD involving [+hi] versus [-hi] vowels has
slightly different outcomes that necessitate the division of M AX -V into constraints
that can evaluate specific types of vowels.
While the data in (38) showed the transparent application of VCD, the data in
(41) show more complex Bamana words where other restrictions effectively block
the application of the process. Morpheme boundaries are indicated by ‘#’.
(41)
Blocking Velar Consonant Deletion
Standard
Colloquial
a. [ñà.mà.ká.lá]
[ñà.mà.ká.lá]
b. [mÈ.lÈ.kÉ]
[mlÈ.kÉ]/[mÈl.kÉ]
c. [sú.rú.kú]
[srú.kú]/[súr.kú]
d. [bù.lù.kú]
[blù.kú]/[bùl.kú]
e. [bó.ló#kǒ]
[bló.kó]/[ból.kó]
f. [kó.ló#kó.wó] [kló.kó.wó]/
[kól.kó.wó]
g. [lá#kà.lí#tá]
[lá.kàl.tá]
*ña.maa.la
*mE.lEE
*su.ruu
*bu.luu
*bo.loo
*ko.loo.wo
Gloss
‘caste’
‘angel’
‘hyena’
‘to plow’
‘to circumcise’
‘window’
*laa.li.ta
‘news’
Following Green and Diakite (2008), we note that VCD does not apply in two
distinct instances. First, in words like (41a–d), VCD fails when the deletion target
is located underlyingly at what will be the onset of the third syllable of a word. In
words like (41e–f), VCD fails when the velar target is the onset of the third syllable
and also a word-internal morpheme boundary. In (41g), VCD is blocked at a morpheme boundary between the first and second syllable. These data show that VCD
is a process affected by boundaries, but not explicitly so. For words containing no
internal morpheme boundary, clearly some other factor is at play that blocks VCD.
Green and Diakite (2008) broached that the failed application of VCD in words
like those in (41) suggests that Bamana is a language in which prosodic structure
above the level of the syllable is active in driving the outcome of certain phonological processes. In terms of VCD itself, data in (38) and (41) point toward VCD being a
Margin phonotactics in Colloquial Bamana
525
process bounded in its application by the presence of binary trochaic prosodic feet. By
proposing that binary feet are assigned left-to-right in Bamana, we find that in each
instance, VCD occurs when its target and flanking vowels are located within a foot
domain. Conversely, VCD fails to apply (in relevant instances) when a velar consonant and its flanking vowels are located across or otherwise split by a foot boundary.
While additional details of Bamana morphology are not key to our discussion in this
paper, the relationship between phonological processes and the language’s morphology reveals interesting complexities in the language than have not been discussed in
the literature. For more on this, see Green (2010).
An alternative possibility is that VCD avoids creating iambic (i.e., light + heavy)
sequences of syllables. By positing that each of the two vowels flanking the velar
target is associated with its own mora, the resulting derived long vowel that emerges
via VCD is bimoraic and therefore phonologically heavy. Comparing words in (38)
and (41) alongside the examples in (42), it appears that trochaic (i.e., heavy + light)
sequences are accommodated by CB, while iambic sequences are avoided.
(42)
a.
b.
c.
/dàràká/
/bùlùkú/
/ñásáká/
→
→
→
[dàr.ká]/[drà.ká]
[bùl.kú]/[blù.kú]
[ñá.sá.ká]
*da.raa
*bu.luu
*ña.saa
‘breakfast’
‘to plow’
‘twig’
(42) shows that when VCD would generate an iambic sequence, an alternative is
chosen, i.e., vowel syncope or no reduction. With favorable phonotactics in place,
variation is possible between CVC and CCV outcomes, as in (42a–b). When barred
by phonotactics, an unreduced outcome is possible, as in (42c). This outcome, generally speaking, is formalized by positing an undominated constraint, e.g., *I AMB,
that disallows iambic sequence of syllables in the language. This cover constraint is
a simplification of a more detailed expression of footing constraints but nonetheless
captures the observed phenomenon. Consider the tableau incorporating the *I AMB
constraint in (44).
(43)
*I AMB, *M2 /O BS *P K[-hi] M AX -V M AX -K *M2 /S ON
(44)
/sÒkÒmá/ → [sÒÒ.má] ‘morning’, /ñásáká/ → [ñásáká] ‘twig’
The tableau in (44) shows that, for both inputs, costly violations of undominated
constraints are avoided, yielding alternative outcomes. While an unreduced form is
optimal in (44e), when iambic structure is not at issue (44c), the preferred VCD
process occurs as otherwise expected. Whether in reference to a domain of applica-
526
C.R. Green et al.
tion or the avoidance of particular sequences of syllable types, both outcomes make
reference to prosodic structure above the level of the syllable. We take such outcomes as promising evidence for the presence of higher prosodic structure in Bamana. Others have implicated ‘foot’-like units to be responsible for surface tonal
patterns resulting from compacité tonale, or tonal compactness, in Standard Bamana compounds (e.g., Courtenay 1974; Dezeeuw 1979; Rialland and Badjimé 1989;
Creissels 1992). Work by Leben (2002, 2003) and Weidman and Rose (2006), discuss
tonal feet in Bamana but make no explicit reference to a role played by the language’s
segmental phonology in defining and/or influencing their construction.
4.2 S YNCOPE and rhythmic structure
There is additional support for the presence of higher prosodic structure in Bamana
in the CB S YNCOPE process. In Sect. 1, we introduced basic syncope patterns whose
outcomes are attributed to the competition between *P EAK constraints. We illustrated
a mechanism by which these constraints drive the preferred syncope of [+hi] vowels.
In the absence of [+hi] vowels, however, [-hi] vowels may also be deleted in some
words. Whether or not certain [+hi] vowels are available for syncope stems from
constraints on preferred versus dispreferred segments in M1 and M2 margin positions, as well as other phonotactic constraints. The ranking of constraints relative to
the *P EAK complex has allowed us, thus far, to motivate the selection of optimal output candidates in CB, as well as to explain (in nearly every instance) the failed application of syncope. The proposed constraints, in their current instantiations, however,
fail to predict a small number of attested but exceptional opaque outputs. We refer
to opaque outputs here as those attested surface forms that would not otherwise be
expected to be optimal based upon the language’s constraint hierarchy, as motivated.
The presence and systematicity of such opaque outputs draws further attention to the
importance of rhythmic structure in the language. These opaque outcomes are of two
types. First are instances of failed syncope via [-hi] vowel deletion in the face of
seemingly favorable phonotactics. These occur when a [-hi] vowel target is located
within the same disyllabic domain as a [+hi] vowel that cannot be deleted for any
number of reasons. Consider the representative data in (45), seen earlier in (37).
(45)
a.
b.
c.
Standard
[fà.rí]
[kì.bà.rú]
[dù.kÉ.nÉ]
Colloquial
[fà.rí]
[kì.bà.rú]
[dù.kÉ.nÉ]
*fri/*far
*ki.bru/*ki.bar
*dkE.nE/*du.knE
Gloss
‘body’
‘news’
‘courtyard’
For a SB word like [fà.rí] ‘body’ (45a), rather than observing a syncopated output
in CB (e.g., [fàrí] → *[fri]), the form is fully faithful. It is predicted, based upon the
discussion of word-final codas above, that a syncopated candidate where the [+hi]
vowel has been removed (e.g., *[far]) is not optimal. What is yet unexplained is why
an output containing an obstruent-sonorant complex onset is not optimal. Given the
drive towards minimization and the acceptability elsewhere of onset sequences like
σ [fr, it is surprising that *[fri] is unattested. The situation is similar in (45b) where
two [+hi] targets are present. In this case, *[kibar] is avoided based on the language’s
word-final coda condition, and *[kba.ru] is ruled out due to constraints on margin
Margin phonotactics in Colloquial Bamana
527
phonotactics. An output like *[ki.bru], however, would otherwise appear possible but
is not found in CB. The case of (45c), too, is similar. The generalization here is that
S YNCOPE must act preferentially on a [+hi] vowel, if one is available, or not at all.
The question that stands is why.
It appears that these restrictions are directly related to the language’s higher
prosodic structure. When a [+hi] vowel and a [-hi] vowel are located within a given
disyllabic domain (i.e., a foot), and the [+hi] vowel is not available for deletion,
the [-hi] vowel cannot be removed, even though it might appear phonotactically favorable to do so. In optimality-theoretic terms, this would mean that the combined
violation of *P EAK[+hi] and *P EAK[-hi] resulting from a fully-faithful mapping of
SB to CB is less costly, phonologically speaking, than the combined violation of
*P EAK[+hi] and M AX-V[-hi] (along with the other margin constraint violations that
would accompany them) within a single domain. As a result, the less costly of these
two options is chosen, thus yielding the systematic emergence of the fully-faithful
candidate in this and other instances. While these additive effects are not sufficiently
accommodated in a standard optimality-theoretic framework (Prince and Smolensky
1993/2004)), they are addressed and provided for in extensions of standard Optimality Theory, for example Local Constraint Conjunction (e.g., Smolensky 1995;
Łubowicz 2005. A conjoined constraint penalizing a combination of *P EAK[+hi] and
M AX-V[-hi] with a local domain of the foot is effective in disallowing an otherwise
commonplace instance of syncope, in favor of retaining a fully-faithful candidate.27
Evaluation by this constraint is shown in (47).
(46)
& M AX-V[-hi], *M2 /O BS *P K[+hi] *P K[-hi] M AX -V[-hi] M AX -V[+hi]
FT [*P EAK [+hi]
(47)
A second type of opacity is found in words like /sábálí/ → [sá.blí] ‘calm’, where
complex onsets are created when a [+hi] vowel is not within a disyllabic domain with
the syncope deletion target. Minimization proceeds as expected; however we must
address the fact that a [+hi] vowel (which we have learned is the preferred deletion
target in the language) is not selected for deletion when it would generate a seemingly
permitted word-final [l] coda. We know that a form like *[sba.li] would not emerge
27 Another possible way to tackle this issue is in Harmonic Grammar (e.g., Smolensky and Legendre 2006;
Farris-Trimble 2008). Within this framework, however, it has been argued that certain combinations of
constraints are more costly than the simple summation of their constituent parts, thus leading scholars to
appeal to proposals of superlinear constraint conjunction (Legendre et al. 2006), split additivity (Albright
et al. 2008), and constraint weight exacerbation (Khanjian et al. 2010). An exploration into these effects is
beyond the scope of the current paper; however the reader is referred to discussion of these phenomena as
they apply to CB in Green (2010).
528
C.R. Green et al.
given the overall ban on conjoined obstruent-obstruent onsets in the language, or
simply by the high-ranking position of the *M2 /Obs constraint. Let us consider the
remaining candidates in (48) where the attested winner is marked by ‘’, and the
incorrectly predicted winner is marked by ‘’.
(48)
/sábálí/ → [sá.blí], *[sa.bal] ‘to calm’
Candidate (48d) shows the attested winner, where the vowel targeted for syncope
is found within the first two syllables of the word. Candidate (48b), in which a [+hi]
vowel has been removed, is predicted, however, by these constraints. We propose
that this outcome, once again, is in support of the fact that higher prosodic structure
is at play in the choice of this seemingly opaque case of syncope. The opacity in
these instances rests in the fact that syllable weight is active in the selection of an
appropriate output candidate. Recall from the discussion of VCD in Sect. 4.1 that the
process was blocked where iambic structure would be created. This was proposed
as being due to an undominated *I AMB constraint. Here, too, in the case of ‘sabali’type words, *I AMB selects against an output like *[sabal]. By appealing to contextual
weight (e.g., Rosenthall and van der Hulst 1999; Morén 2000), we propose that wordfinal closed syllables in Bamana are heavy and are therefore avoided in the language
when they would create an iamb. A CVC monosyllabic word in CB would not be
problematic given that these syllables constitute a single unary foot. Hence, words
like those in (38) (and (34c–f)) are found in CB. Trisyllabic CB words containing a
final CVC syllable are also attested based upon similar argumentation, e.g., /kũ´kófálí/
→ [kũ´.kó.fál] ‘wild donkey’. The removal of a word-final [+hi] vowel is permitted
to yield an [l] coda, once again resulting in a heavy unary foot. By considering the
output candidates in (49) with the addition of *I AMB, the attested output is correctly
selected.
(49)
/sábálí/ → [sá.blí], *[sa.bal] ‘to calm’28
28 An additional potential output candidate, *[sabal], in which the word-final sonorant consonant is not
moraic would be ruled out owing to an undominated constraint in the language requiring words to end
Margin phonotactics in Colloquial Bamana
529
In this section, we have characterized the patterns and details of vowel syncope
in Colloquial Bamana in light of a second, complementary process of minimization,
namely VCD. We have also implicated and provided preliminary evidence for the
presence of prosodic structure above the level of the syllable in this language. We
have proposed that the characteristics of this structure, namely the disyllabic structure
of the prosodic foot domain and its ban against iambic sequences, are responsible for
certain attested departures from canonical patterns of reduction in the language. We
next turn to discussion and some implications of our findings.
5 Discussion and implications
This paper has showed that complementary processes are underway in CB driving
syllable minimization or reduction in the language and that the types of complex syllables emerging in parallel in CB, as well as that the sounds permitted to occupy the
margin positions of these complex syllables, provide support for the SMA (Baertsch
2002). We have illustrated that the distribution of consonants occupying M1 and M2
positions is accurately predicted by the SMA and that the ranking of singleton and
conjoined margin hierarchies alongside other constraints on markedness and faithfulness drives the types of consonants found CB syllable margins. These findings are
in line with the predictions spelled out elsewhere for this model of the syllable (e.g.,
Baertsch and Davis 2003, 2009; Davis and Baertsch 2005, 2011). One characteristic
that we explored concerned the demotion of *M2 constraints in CB below FAITH,
resulting in the subsequent emergence of complex syllables with sonorant consonants occupying M2 positions. We have shown that deviations between the types
of consonants permitted in syllable contact sequences and those found in complex
onsets are predicted by the SMA based on differing local domains of constraint conjunction such that consonant-consonant sequences in complex onsets are somewhat
more restricted in comparison to those in syllable contact sequences. Higher-ranking
markedness constraints, too, place restrictions on other types of reductions that can
or cannot occur.
By employing the SMA, we can effectively explain the types and emergence of
complex syllables in CB. It should be clear in CB that the overall generalization is
that the processes of syncope and VCD conspire to achieve minimization via the
loss of segmental material. Whether via the loss of a vowel or the loss of a velar
consonant, both processes aim to satisfy this drive within their means by the loss
of a single segment. Overlying this aim are language-specific preferences for its implementation driven by the ranking of the language’s constraints. By omitting the
S YNCOPE cover constraint, we have argued that vowel deletion is driven by a sequence of *P EAK constraints that favor [-hi] vowel syllable peaks to [+hi] vowel
syllable peaks. This follows from the fact that [-hi] vowels are of higher sonority than
[+hi] vowels, and thus, they are ‘better’ peaks to preserve. This is tied directly to
sonority, just as we have shown for the Margin Hierarchies. The role of the *P EAK
with a moraic element. This is a reflex of contextual weight such that word-final closed syllables are
heavy, given that their coda consonants must be moraic.
530
C.R. Green et al.
constraints is counterbalanced by a complementary set of M AX -V constraints ranked
below them. Because the respective M AX -V constraints are ranked below the *P EAK
constraints, vowel syncope is compelled but controlled. The ranking of *P EAK[+hi]
*P EAK[-hi] follows from the Peak Hierarchy, while a proposed ranking of M AX V[-hi] M AX -V[+hi] also follow intuitively from this observation, i.e., preferred
peaks are those that the language penalizes most for removing. A third faithfulness
constraint, M AX -K, ranked below both M AX -V constraints, effectively explains why,
in most instances, VCD is a preferred means by which to achieve minimization (e.g.,
‘sacrificial sheep’, /sélí#sàgá/ → [sé.lí.sáá], *sel.sa.ga). We discuss these three M AX
constraints in more detail below.
We further point out that the CB data would be difficult to analyze insightfully
without reference to the SMA. One could, for example, cite constraints that prefer
high sonority codas, along the lines of Orgun (2001) and constraints that prefer onset
clusters with a certain sonority distance (Green 2003), but this would miss the parallel and simultaneous emergence of onset clusters and codas in the complexification
of CB syllable structure. Even if one were to incorporate the sophisticated syllable
contact theory of Gouskova (2004) that could account for the emergence of codas in
syllable contact, a set of unrelated constraints would be needed to account for onset
clusters. Thus, CB provides strong evidence for the SMA.29
On the interaction between the three M AX constraints (i.e., M AX -V[+hi], MAXV[-hi], and M AX -K) mentioned above, consider the data in (50) where Syncope and
VCD are permutable variations on minimization for some word types but in direct
competition with one another elsewhere.
(50)
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
Standard
[sÒ.kÒ.lí]
[sÒ.kÒ.má]
[sì.kì.l´ã]
[sú.kú.ná]
[dù.kù.má]
[sù.gù.rí]
Colloquial
[sÒÒ.lí]
[sÒÒ.má]
[sìì.l´ã]/[sì.kl´ã]
[súú.ná]/[sú.kná]
[dùù.má]/[dù.kmá]
[sùù.rí]/[sù.grí]
*sO.kli
*sO.kma
*ski.lã
*sku.na
*dku.ma
*sgu.ri
Gloss
‘infection’
‘morning’
‘chair’
‘urine’
‘on the ground’
‘pre-fasting meal’
29 Another reasonable alternative for the attested CB data, as suggested by a reviewer, would be that
the language is acting to satisfy some extension of the Obligatory Contour Principle (e.g., Leben 1973;
Goldsmith 1976) such that sequences of identical vowels are dispreferred in the language. Such an analysis would employ a prosodically-conditioned OCP constraint on identical vowels that would compel the
omission of a fully faithful candidate containing adjacent identical vowels in favor of other reduced candidates. The remaining candidates would then be evaluated by lower-ranked constraints, leaving little role (if
any) for the *P EAK constraints in evaluation. This alternative could readily account for the more problematic CB data. That is, it would attribute the unexpected failure of words like /kìbàrú/ → [kì.bà.rú], *[ki.bru]
to be reduced due to the fact that these words do not contain a sequence of identical vowels. The observed
reduction of words like /kábílá/ → [ká.blá], *[ka.bi.la], which do not violate the OCP and which create
identical vowel sequences, would seem counterintuitive if, in fact, satisfaction of the OCP is the motivating factor behind minimization. Thus, the *P EAK constraints (and the margin constraints) would still be
necessary in addition to an OCP constraint. While we recognize that an OCP-style analysis is an attractive
alternative to invoking locally-conjoined constraints, we believe that such an approach fails to capture the
generalization inherent in the two processes of VCD and vowel syncope, as they relate to sonority and the
trade-offs between competing constraints on peak markedness and segmental faithfulness.
Margin phonotactics in Colloquial Bamana
531
The CB outcomes in (50) are clearly split into two categories. (50a–b) show that
when a choice of a deletion target is between a velar consonant and a [-hi] vowel,
minimization is always via VCD. On the other hand, when the choice of a deletion
target is between a velar consonant and a [+hi] vowel, either outcome is grammatical,
and variation between the two outcomes is attested (e.g., 50c–f).
It was shown in (44) for words like (50a–b) that a high-ranked *M2 /Obs constraint
and *P EAK[-hi] are responsible for removing the least optimal potential output candidates. With the choice left between a VCD output and a Vowel Syncope output, the
higher-ranked M AX -V constraint penalizes the Vowel Syncope candidate, rendering
the VCD candidate optimal. This evaluation is repeated in (51) where the generic
M AX -V constraint has been more appropriately named M AX -V[-hi] to match its
*P EAK[-hi] counterpart.
(51)
The outcome and evaluation of these [-hi] vowel words differs somewhat from
what occurs for [+hi] vowel words. By incorporating a M AX -V[+hi] constraint, we
can more transparently motivate the two types of outcomes noted in (50). Where
a clear winner was found in (50a–b), we attribute the variation between VCD and
Vowel Syncope in (50c–f) to the critical ranking M AX -V[-hi] M AX -V[+hi] on
the one hand, and the indeterminate ranking of M AX -V[+hi], M AX -K on the other.
These ranking relationships capture the strict versus variable choice between the two
outcomes based upon vowel type. Tableau (52) illustrates this evaluation.
(52)
The enhanced detail offered by expanding M AX into constituent constraints that
provide an exact counterpart to the *P EAK constraints (i.e., a classic conflict between markedness constraints and their antagonistic faithfulness constraints) provides a principled explanation for the observed but seemingly unusual outcome in
these words.
It is clear that the SMA has been successful in predicting the synchronic emergence of both CCV and CVC complex syllables in CB in a unified way. Consider, for
example, the claim of Kaye and Lowenstamm (1981) that languages with a maximal
532
C.R. Green et al.
syllable shape of CCV (i.e., onset clusters are allowed but codas are not permitted)
are theoretically predicted not to occur.30 That is, an implicational relationship exists
such that languages with CCV syllables are predicted to have CVC syllables, however the reverse does not hold. Baertsch’s SMA also makes the same implication, that
the presence of an onset cluster implies the presence of a coda in that language. As
Baertsch and Davis (2003) discuss, for a given σ [*M1 &*M2 conjunction, in order
for a complex onset to be permitted, the conjoined constraint must be ranked below FAITH. Local conjunction is such that for a conjoined constraint to be active, it
is ranked higher than its conjuncts, i.e., an *M2 constraint is ranked below its corresponding *M1 &*M2 counterpart. Thus, a singleton coda containing an M2 consonant
would also be readily permitted. The mechanism of local conjunction therefore precludes CCV without CVC. It follows under the SMA that CCV syllables imply the
presence of CVC. It should be noted that data from a number of other West African
languages appear to challenge this prediction (e.g., Fon-Gbe, Eße, and Lelemi), but
comprehensive studies on the processes in these languages that lead to onset clusters
(and possibly other complex syllables) have not been thoroughly undertaken. The
theoretical complications posed by such languages become clear from the body of
work that has emerged in which scholars minimize all syllable structure to a maximal CV (see Lowenstamm 1996, 2003; Nikièma 2003, and references therein). We
leave the discussion of possible counterexamples for future research (but see Davis
and Baertsch 2011 on this issue).31
Concerning variation, a number of scholars attribute observed variation in the
world’s languages to the presence of indeterminate rankings between constraints
and/or the gradual diachronic loss in stringency between two previously criticallyranked constraints. This brings us to consider the current situation and what the eventual outcome stemming from variation might be in CB. On the one hand, it is possible
that the constraints that we have proposed are now indeterminately ranked. Ranked in
this manner, they permit variation in outputs and may perhaps remain so ranked and
continue to permit variation in the language as it continues to develop. On the other
hand, however, it may be the case that one or the other constraint in each pair will ultimately win out in comparison to the other. In such an instance, a critical ranking relationship would be born resulting in the demotion of one constraint below one other
and, subsequently, the emergence of a single grammatical output for a given type of
words. The resolution to variation will be especially telling in the case of CVC/CCV
30 By CCV, we specifically mean languages with obstruent-sonorant onset clusters. We leave aside in this
paper the issue of the analysis of strident + obstruent clusters, which can be syllable- or word-initial in
some languages, such as English and Italian, but are not permitted in CB. We point out here that often
language-internal evidence suggests that strident + obstruent clusters behave like adjunct clusters rather
than true onset clusters (see, for example, Davis 1990 on Italian). One possible way of analyzing adjunct
clusters in the SMA is to view such clusters as involving a sequence of M1 positions. We leave this matter
for future research.
31 In a similar way, Baertsch’s split margin approach to the syllable also predicts that in first language
acquisition, CVC syllable should emerge before (or simultaneous with) CCV syllables. Although discussion of the acquisition literature is beyond the scope of the present paper, it should be noted that Levelt
et al. (2000), who discuss parallel and predicted trajectories of complex syllable emergence in acquisition,
observe that in developmental paths of syllable complexity, CVC syllables emerge before CCV syllables
in both of their paths of development of syllable complexity.
Margin phonotactics in Colloquial Bamana
533
variation discussed above. In this instance of variation, a potential resolution to the
noted variation (whether in favor of a CVC or CCV syllable) could have much to say
about the typological predictions of both Baertsch’s and Kaye and Lowenstamm’s
models of the syllable, given the implicational relationship that exists between CVC
and CCV syllables in both approaches. It follows from both approaches that CVC
is predicted to be a preferred syllable shape, and thus it may prove to be the more
favored outcome in future stages of CB, all else being equal.
There remain a great number of promising expansions to the current study, included among them an exploration into the machinery used to select deletion targets
at higher levels of the language’s morphology, e.g., nominal and verbal compounds
and other polymorphemic derivatives. These and other issues are considered in some
detail in Green (2010).
6 Conclusion
In this study, we have presented a theoretically driven analysis of processes in Colloquial Bamana that collectively apply and interact with one another in aiming to
satisfy an overall drive towards word minimization in the language. We have shown
that the Split Margin Approach to syllable structure provides an ideal formalization
of attested outputs resulting from vocalic syncope and velar consonant deletion in
Colloquial Bamana. These processes are influenced and bounded by the ranking of
singleton and conjoined constraints on syllable margins alongside other markedness
and faithfulness constraints at play in the language. Taken together, these constraints
compel the emergence of new syllable complexity in a language whose phonologically conservative predecessor generally permits only simple CV syllables. We have
shown that both the emergence of complex syllable shapes in Colloquial Bamana and
many characteristics of the resultant syllables are correctly predicted to arise according to the principles and implications of the Split Margin Approach. We have seen
that this model of syllable structure predicts the parallel emergence of CCV and CVC
complex syllables in Colloquial Bamana—a phenomenon that would be difficult to
express in other theories. Furthermore, we have provided preliminary evidence for the
proposal of metrical structure in this language by illustrating that, in instances where
the transparent application of processes fails to occur in the language, it is consistently due to restrictions on a domain of application that resembles a disyllabic foot.
In sum, margin phonotactics, alongside other constraints on the language’s prosodic
structure play a key role in driving the attested outcomes of minimization in Colloquial Bamana.
Acknowledgements This paper has benefitted greatly from challenging comments and suggestions from
Dan Dinnsen, Laura Downing, Sharon Rose, Lee Bickmore, Tracy Alan Hall, two anonymous reviewers,
as well as from discussion at various conference presentations over the past two years. Any remaining
errors or shortcomings are our responsibility. The work of the first two authors was supported in part by a
grant to Indiana University from the National Science Foundation under Grant No. #1023781.
534
C.R. Green et al.
References
Abramson, Arthur S. 1962. The vowels and tones of Standard Thai: Acoustical measurements and experiments. International Journal of American Linguistics 28(2): 1–146.
Alber, Birgit. 2001. Maximizing first positions. In Proceedings of HILP5, eds. Caroline Féry, Anthony D.
Green, and Ruben van de Vivjer, 1–19. Potsdam: University of Potsdam.
Albright, Adam, Giorgio Magri, and Jennifer Michaels. 2008. Modeling doubly marked lags with a Split
Additive Model. In Proceedings of the 32nd Boston university conference on language development,
eds. Harvey Chan, Heather Jacob, and Enkeleida Kapia, 36–47.
Anttila, Arto, and Young-mee Cho. 1998. Variation and change in Optimality Theory. Lingua 104: 31–56.
Auger, Julie. 2001. Phonological variation and Optimality Theory: Evidence from word-initial vowel
epenthesis in Vimeu Picard. Language Variation and Change 13: 253–303.
Baertsch, Karen. 2002. An optimality theoretic approach to syllable structure: The split margin hierarchy.
Ph.D. dissertation, Indiana University, Bloomington.
Baertsch, Karen, and Stuart Davis. 2003. The Split Margin Approach to syllable structure. ZAS Working
Papers in Linguistics 32: 1–14.
Baertsch, Karen, and Stuart Davis. 2009. Strength relations between consonants: A syllable-based OT
approach. In Strength relations in phonology, eds. Kuniya Nasukawa and Phillip Backley, 293–324.
New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Bailleul, Charles. 2007. Dictionnaire Bambara-Français, 3rd edn. Bamako: Editions Donniya.
Bird, Charles. 1977. An ka bamanankan kalan: Beginning Bambara. Bloomington: IULC Publications.
Bolognesi, Robert. 1998. The phonology of Campidanian Sardinian: A unitary account of a self-organizing
structure. PhD dissertation, University of Amsterdam.
Breen, Gavan, and Rob Pensalfini. 1999. Arrernte: A language with no syllable onsets. Linguistic Inquiry
30: 1–26.
Clements, George N. 1990. The role of the sonority cycle in core syllabification. In Papers in laboratory
phonology I: Between the grammar and physics of speech, eds. J. Kingston and M. Beckman, 283–
333. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Coetzee, Andries W. 2006. Variation as accessing ‘non-optimal’ candidates. Phonology 23: 337–385.
Courtenay, Karen. 1974. On the nature of the Bambara tone system. Studies in African Linguistics 5:
303–323.
Creissels, Denis. 1989. La nasalité en Bambara du Beledugu (parler de Daban). Mandenkan 17: 41–68.
Creissels, Denis. 1992. Tonologie du Bambara: Bilan et perspectives. Mandenkan 24: 1–45.
Davis, Stuart. 1990. Italian onset structure and the distribution of “il” and “lo”. Linguistics 28: 43–55.
Davis, Stuart. 2005. Basic analysis: Compensatory lengthening and geminate throwback in Trukese. Ms.,
Indiana University.
Davis, Stuart, and Karen Baertsch. 2005. The diachronic link between onset clusters and codas. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society 31: 397–408.
Davis, Stuart, and Karen Baertsch. 2008. Implications of the Split Margin Approach to the syllable: The
relationships between onset clusters and syllable contact sequences. Paper presented at the CIL 18,
Seoul, July 2008.
Davis, Stuart, and Karen Baertsch. 2011. On the relationship between codas and onset clusters. In Handbook of the syllable, eds. Charles E. Cairns and Eric Raimy, 71–95. Leiden: Brill.
Davis, Stuart, and Gina Torretta. 1998. An optimality-theoretic account of compensatory lengthening and
geminate throwback in Trukese. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the North Eastern Linguistic
Society 28: 111–125.
Dezeeuw, Peter H. 1979. Western Mande compound tone rules. MA thesis, Michigan State University,
East Lansing.
Diakite, Boubacar. 2006. The synchronic link between onset clusters and codas in Bambara. Unpublished
manuscript, Indiana University, Bloomington.
Downing, Laura. 1998. On the prosodic misalignment of onsetless syllables. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 16(1): 1–52.
Duke, Daniel, and Marieke Martin. 2009. Pharyngealized vowels in Kwasio (Bantu A80): A case of devoicing? Paper presented at the 6th world congress on African linguistics, August 2009.
Dumestre, Gérard, and Michiyo Hosaka. 2000. Observations sur le Bambara de Kolona (sud Mali). Mandenkan 36: 85–107.
Farris-Trimble, Ashley W. 2008. Cumulative faithfulness effects in phonology. PhD dissertation, Indiana
University, Bloomington.
Margin phonotactics in Colloquial Bamana
535
Frigeni, Chiara. 2009. Sonorant relationships in two varieties of Sardinian. PhD dissertation, University of
Toronto.
Glover, Justin. 2009. An OT account of dorsal consonant alternation in Kranichfeld German. Paper presented at the 15th mid-continental workshop on phonology, Indiana University, October 2009.
Goldsmith, John. 1976. Autosegmental phonology. Bloomington: IULC Publications.
Gouskova, Maria. 2003. Deriving economy: Syncope in Optimality Theory. PhD dissertation, University
of Massachusetts, Amherst.
Gouskova, Maria. 2004. Relational hierarchies in Optimality Theory: The case of syllable contact. Phonology 21(2): 201–250.
Green, Tonio. 2003. Extrasyllabic consonants and onset well-formedness. In The syllable in Optimality
Theory, eds. Caroline Féry and Ruben van de Vijver, 238–253. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Green, Christopher R. 2010. Prosodic phonology in Bamana (Bambara): Syllable complexity, metrical
structure, and tone. PhD dissertation, Indiana University, Bloomington.
Green, Christopher R., and Boubacar Diakite. 2008. Emergent syllable complexity in Colloquial Bambara.
Journal of West African Languages 35(1–2): 45–56.
Green, Christopher R., Stuart Davis, Boubacar Diakite, and Karen Baertsch. 2012. Domain-restricted reduction: A proposal for segmental feet in Bamana. In Proceedings of the 41st annual conference on
African linguistics, eds. Bruce Connell and Nicholas Rolle, 1–9.
Hamann, Silke. 2003. The phonetics and phonology of retroflexes. PhD dissertation, Utrecht University.
Ito, Junko, and Armin Mester. 2003. Japanese morphophonemics: Markedness and word structure. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Jany, Carmen, Matthew Gordon, Carlos M. Nash, and Nobutaka Takara. 2007. How universal is the sonority hierarchy? A cross-linguistics study. In 16th international congress of phonetic sciences, 1401–
1404.
Kaye, Jonathan D., and Jean Lowenstamm. 1981. Syllable structure and markedness theory. In Theory
of markedness in generative grammar: Proceedings of the 1979 GLOW conference, eds. Adriana
Belletti, Luciana Brandi, and Luigi Rizzi, 287–316. Pisa: Scuola Normale Superiore di Pisa.
Kenstowicz, Michael. 2005. The phonetics and phonology of Korean loanword adaptation. Paper presented
at the first European conference on Korean linguistics, Leiden University, February 2005.
Khanjian, Hryar, Yasutada Sudo, and Guillaume Thomas. 2010. Modeling doubly marked lags with exacerbation. Paper presented at the 18th Manchester phonology meeting, May 2010
Kisseberth, Charles W. 1970. On the functional unity of phonological rules. Linguistic Inquiry 1: 291–306.
Konatè, Adama F., and Valentin Vydrine. 1989. Le système phonologique du dialecte bamana du Bèlèdugu
(Village de Diyòn). Mandenkan 17: 1–40.
Kuznetsova, Natalia. 2007. Le status fonctionnel du pied phonologique en gouro. Mandenkan 43: 13–45.
Leben, William R. 1973. Suprasegmental phonology. Bloomington: IULC Publications.
Leben, William R. 2002. Tonal feet. In Proceedings, typology of African prosodic systems, Vol. 1, eds.
Ulrike Gut and Dafydd Gibbon, 27–40. Bielefeld: Bielefeld Occasional Papers in Typology.
Leben, William R. 2003. Tonal feet as tonal domains. In Trends in African linguistics 5: Linguistic typology
and representation of African languages, ed. John Mugane, 129–138. Trenton: Africa World Press.
Legendre, Géraldine, Antonella Sorace, and Paul Smolensky. 2006. The Optimality Theory—harmonic
grammar connection. In The harmonic mind: From neural computation to optimality-theoretic grammar, eds. Paul Smolensky and Géraldine Legendre, 339–402. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Levelt, Clara, Niels O. Schiller, and William J. M. Levelt. 2000. The acquisition of syllabic types. Language Acquisition 8: 237–264.
Lowenstamm, Jean. 1996. CV as the only syllable type. In Current trends in phonology, models, and methods, eds. Jacques Durand and Bernard Laks, 419–443. Salford: European Studies Research Institute.
Lowenstamm, Jean. 2003. Remarks on mutae cum liquida and branching onsets. In Living on the edge: 28
papers in honor of Jonathan Kaye, ed. Stefan Ploch, 339–363. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Łubowicz, Ania. 2005. Locality of conjunction. In Proceedings of the 24th west coast conference on formal linguistics, eds. John Alderete, Alexei Kochetov, and Chung-hye Han, 254–262. Somerville:
Cascadilla Press.
McCarthy, John J. 2002. A thematic guide to Optimality Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
McCarthy, John J. 2008. The serial interaction of stress and syncope. Natural Language & Linguistic
Theory 26: 499–546.
Mielke, Jeff. 2005. Ambivalence and ambiguity in laterals and nasals. Phonology 22: 169–203.
Morén, Bruce. 2000. The puzzle of Kashmiri stress: Implications for weight theory. Phonology 17(3):
365–396.
536
C.R. Green et al.
Moreton, Elliot, and Paul Smolensky. 2002. Typological consequences of local constraint conjunction. In
Proceedings of the west coast conference on formal linguistics, eds. Line Mikkelsen and Christopher
Potts, 306–319. Somerville: Cascadilla Press.
Nikièma, Emmanuel. 2003. Defective syllables: The other story of Italian sC(C)-sequences. In Living
on the edge: 28 papers in honor of Jonathan Kaye, ed. Stefan Ploch, 365–384. Berlin: Mouton de
Gruyter.
Orgun, Cemil O. 2001. English r-insertion in Optimality Theory. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory
19: 737–749.
Parker, Steven G. 2002. Quantifying the sonority hierarchy. PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts,
Amherst.
Pons-Moll, Claudia. 2011. It is all downhill from here: A typological study of the role of syllable contact
in Romance languages. Probus 23: 105–173.
Prince, Alan, and Paul Smolensky. 1993/2004. Optimality Theory: Constraint interaction in generative
grammar. Malden: Blackwell.
Rialland, Annie, and Mamadou Badjimé. 1989. Réanalyse des tons du Bambara: des tons du nom à
l’organisation général du système. Studies in African Linguistics 20: 1–28.
Rosenthall, Samuel, and Harry van der Hulst. 1999. Weight-by-position by position. Natural Language &
Linguistic Theory 17(3): 499–540.
Sezer, Egin. 1981. The k/ØAlternation in Turkish. In Harvard studies in phonology, Vol. 2, ed. George N.
Clements. Bloomington: IULC Publications.
Smith, Jennifer. 2003. Onset sonority constraints and subsyllabic structure. Rutgers Optimality Archive,
ROA-608.
Smolensky, Paul. 1995. On the structure of the constraint component CON of UG. Rutgers Optimality
Archive, ROA-86.
Smolensky, Paul, and Géraldine Legendre. 2006. The harmonic mind: From neural computation to
optimality-theoretic grammar. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Steriade, Donca. 1982. Greek prosodies and the nature of syllabification. PhD dissertation, Massachusetts
Institute of Technology, Cambridge.
Steriade, Donca. 2001. Directional asymmetries in place assimilation: A perceptual account. In The role
of speech perception in phonology, eds. Elizabeth Hume and Keith Johnson, 219–250. San Diego:
Academic Press.
Tamarit-Torres, Francesc, Claudia Pons-Moll, and Maria Cabrera-Callis. 2010. Rhotic metathesis in Algherese Catalan: A harmonic serialism account. Poster presented at the Hispanic linguistics symposium, Indiana University.
Traill, Anthony. 1985. Phonetic and phonological studies of !Xóõ Bushman. Hamburg: Helmut Buske
Verlag.
Vydrine, Valentin. 2003. La phonologie gouro: deux décennies après Le Saout. Mandenkan 38: 89–113.
Vydrine, Valentin. 2008. Lélé: présentation d’une langue. Paper presented at the 2e colloque international
sur les langues et la linguistique mandé.
Weidman, Scott, and Sharon Rose. 2006. A foot-based reanalysis of edge-in tonal phenomena in Bambara.
In Proceedings of the 25th west coast conference on formal linguistics, eds. Donald Baumer, David
Montero, and Michael Scanlon, 426–434. Somerville: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.
Zec, Draga. 1995. Sonority constraints on syllable structure. Phonology 12(1): 85–129.
Zoll, Cheryl. 1996. Parsing below the segment in a constraint based framework. PhD dissertation, University of California, Berkeley.
Zubritskaya, Katya. 1997. Mechanism of sound change in Optimality Theory. Language Variation and
Change 9: 121–148.