THE PHONOLOGY OF WORD
WORD-LEVEL SUFFIXES IN
GERMAN AND DUTCH
A dissertation submitted to The University of Manchester for the degree of
Master of Arts in the Faculty of Humanities
2009
HELEN M.
M. BUCKLER
School of Languages, Linguistics and Cultures
Contents
Index of Constraints
4
Abstract
5
Declaration
6
Copyright Statement
7
Acknowledgements
8
1. Introduction
9
2. German
11
2.1 Introduction
11
2.2 Dorsal Fricative Assimilation
11
2.2.1 Stratification of the grammar
14
2.2.2 Dorsal fricative assimilation in Lexical Phonology
15
2.2.3 Prosodic accounts of dorsal fricative assimilation
18
2.2.4 Dorsal fricative assimilation in Stratal OT
23
2.2.4.1 The stem level
23
2.2.4.2 The word level
27
2.3 Dorsal fricative assimilation and opacity
28
2.3.1 G-spirantization
29
2.3.2 Final obstruent devoicing
32
2.3.2.1 Final obstruent devoicing in Stratal OT
35
2.3.2.2 Final obstruent devoicing and the [ç]~[x] alternation
39
2.3.2.3 G-spirantization and final obstruent devoicing
40
2
2.3.3 Dorsal fricative assimilation, g-spirantization and
final obstruent devoicing
2.4 Conclusion
3. Dutch
45
47
49
3.1 Introduction
49
3.2 Stress
Stress in Dutch
52
3.3 Cohering and nonnon-cohering suffixes
54
3.4 Van Oostendorp’s
Oostendorp’s (2004) approach
57
3.5 Cyclic analysis
61
3.5.1 The stem level
63
3.5.2 The word level
67
3.6 Conclusion
70
4. Conclusion
71
Bibliography
72
Word Count: 13, 175
3
Index of constraints
*x
24
*ʝ
42
IDENT(back)
24
*ɣ
42
VEL
24
IDENT(cont)
44
*Cx
25
PR=LEX
57
*V[-back]x
25
SYLLABLECONTACT (SC)
57
*ç
25
KEEP-ə
57
*[x
25
MS-INTEGRITY
57
RALIGN[-voice]
35
LICENSE
60
IDENT(voice)
36
PROSODIC SYL INT (PSI)
60
IDENTONS(voice)
36
HDWD
60
VOP
36
PARSEƩ
63
ONSET
37
*ə́
63
ALIGN-MORPH-R
38
FTBIN
63
*ɪɡ
42
AFFIX≠ ω
64
*c
42
*LAPSE
64
*ɟ
42
IDENTHEAD(ω)
68
4
Abstract
On the basis of Dutch and German data, this dissertation argues that the complex
relationship between morphosyntax and phonology necessarily requires both a
representational and derivational approach, and demonstrates this through the use of
affix cycles. Within a Stratal Optimality Theory framework it is shown how stemlevel (Class-I, or cyclic) affixes pass through the stem level cycle conjoined with
their root form, and behave like a monomorphemic word. Word-level (Class-II,
postcyclic) suffixes on the other hand trigger their own stem-level cycle, before
being concatenated with a stem at the word level (Baker 2005). In this way, wordlevel suffixes behave structurally like miniature stems. This is exemplified through
the behaviour of the German diminutive suffix –chen and the frequently discussed
[x]~[ç] alternation. Furthermore, the analysis of German using stem-level affix
cycles has positive consequences for the wider theory of Stratal OT and opacity
paradoxes, and is able to provide a comprehensive analysis of g-spirantization, final
obstruent devoicing and the [x]~[ç] alternation.
Contrary to claims in the literature, the difference between ‘cohering’ and
‘noncohering’ affixes in Dutch is not predictable from phonological shape or
syntactic role. By being prosodified at the stem level, the analysis presented in this
dissertation illustrates how the cohering nature of a word-level (stress-neutral)
suffix is completely predictable.
5
Declaration
No portion of the work referred to in this dissertation has been submitted in
support of an application for another degree or qualification of this or any other
university or other institute of learning.
6
Copyright Statement
i.
Copyright in text of this dissertation rests with the author. Copies (by any
process) either in full, or of extracts, may be made only in accordance with
instructions given by the author. Details may be obtained from the appropriate
Graduate Office. This page must form part of any such copies made. Further copies
(by any process) of copies made in accordance with such instructions may not be
made without the permission (in writing) of the author.
ii.
The ownership of any intellectual property rights which may be described in
this dissertation is vested in the University of Manchester, subject to any prior
agreement to the contrary, and may not be made available for use by third parties
without the written permission of the University, which will prescribe the terms and
conditions of any such agreement.
iii.
Further information on the conditions under which disclosures and
exploitation may take place is available from the Head of the School of Languages,
Linguistics and Cultures.
7
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank my supervisor and tutor, Dr Ricardo Bermúdez-Otero, for his
untiring support and encouragement in writing this dissertation.
I am also grateful to Inge Alferink, Marijn te Braake and Dorothea Hoffmann for
providing examples and native-speaker judgements.
This work was supported by an award from the Research Preparation Master’s
Scheme of the Arts and Humanities Research Council.
8
1.
Introduction
Germanic languages are well known for having two sets of suffixes, one of which is
characterised by the fact that they violate the phonotactic structure of
monomorphemic forms. How the effects of morphosyntax on phonology should be
handled is a topic of much debate, within which there are two competitors;
representation and derivation. The representational approach makes use of prosodic
categories through, in an Optimality Theory (henceforth OT) framework, ALIGN
constraints, and the derivational view utilises cyclicity or OUTPUT-OUTPUT
correspondence (Scheer 2008 in Bermúdez-Otero 2009: 2). In this dissertation I
make use of stem-level affix cycles in Stratal OT to show that an exhaustive
analysis of German and Dutch is not possible using only representation or
derivation; both are necessary.
The idea of affix cycles is not a new one, indeed, it was adopted by
Mohannan (1986), but it is not a mainstream theory. More recently the idea has
been taken up by Baker (2005), and discussed in relation to prosodification and
stress assignment in the Australian language, Ngalakgan. Following Baker I my
analysis is based upon the assumption that stem level suffixes, which have
previously been labelled Class I, or cyclic affixes, attach to a base form and pass
through the stem level as a single unit with the structure illustrated in (1)a. Word
level affixes define their own stem-level domain, and will be concatenated with a
stem at the word level (1)b.
(1)
a. Stem-level affixation (Bermúdez-Otero in preparation: 2)
XSL
base
affix
9
b. Word-level affixation (after Baker 2005: 17)
XWL
base
affixSL
A particular advantage of this analysis is that it allows word-level affixes to
be prosodified alone, thereby allowing generalisations about the specific prosodic
behaviour of suffixes to be captured. This is exemplified in this dissertation through
Dutch, where word-level affixes either cohere with the phonological word of their
stem at the word level, or are non-cohering and head their own phonological word.
The stem-level cycle also predicts that word-level affixes will segmentally
act as miniature stems, as is the case for the German affix –chen. This retains the
insight of Borowsky (1993), that the word level affixes constitute a domain, but
removes the stipulation of Structure Preservation which prevented the [x]~[ç]
alternation from being assigned to the stem level. Structure Preservation is wrong,
and is not statable in Stratal OT (cf. Bermúdez-Otero in preparation). The analysis
presented here has the further advantage of leading to a number of correct
predictions for Stratal OT and opacity paradoxes. In this dissertation, an analysis of
German opacity phenomenon with regards to final obstruent devoicing, gspirantization, and the [x]~[ç] alternation is presented which involves minimally
unfaithful mappings, with only one change at each level, and no free rides. This
analysis of German is, to the best of my knowledge, more comprehensive than any
other in OT at this time.
10
2.
2.1
German
Introduction
This chapter will focus on data from Modern Standard German and argue that,
despite the ability of a prosodic analysis to account for the distribution of ich-Laut
and ach-Laut in some environments, no analysis exists as yet which is successfully
able to account for this variation as well as incorporating the related processes of
final obstruent devoicing and g-spirantization. As will be shown, the opaque
interaction between these processes is unproblematic for Stratal OT when it is
assumed that stem-level affixation creates a structure such as (2)a and word-level
affixation creates the structure of (2)b. Stem-level affixation triggers a stem-level
cycle together with the base, whereas a word-level affix creates a stem-level
domain by itself and the whole affixed form defines a word-level domain (Baker
2005).
(2)
a. Stem-level affixation
XSL
base
affix
b. Word-level affixation (after Baker 2005: 17)
XWL
base
2.2
affixSL
Dorsal Fricative Assimilation
The palatal fricative [ç] and the velar fricative [x] are in almost
complementary distribution in German: the velar fricative occurs after central and
11
back vowels and diphthongs, and the palatal fricative occurs elsewhere. The
common names for each of these fricatives, the ich-Laut and ach-Laut, arise due to
this distribution, where [ç] follows [ɪ] in ich [ɪç] and [x] follows [a] in ach [ax].
Examples of dorsal fricative assimilation are given in (3). For the purposes of
consistency
all
transcriptions
have
been
taken
from
the
Duden
Aussprachewörterbuch (Mangold et al. 1990). Duden is considered the authoritative
reference publication on the German language and the variety in this dictionary is
referred to as Standardlautung. This supraregional variety, which is free from
regional characteristics, is the variety heard in the national media and taught to
foreign learners. All transcriptions in this chapter are faithful to this dictionary
unless stated otherwise.
(3)
a. [x] after back vowels:
Buch
hoch
Loch
Dach
Bauch
[buːx]
‘book’
[hoːx]
‘high’
[lɔx]
‘hole’
[dax]
‘roof’
[baux]
‘stomach’
[ziːç]
‘infirm’
[byːçɐ]
‘books’
[zɪç]
‘oneself’
[høːçst]
‘highly’
[blɛç]
‘sheet metal’
[lœçɐ]
‘holes’
[raiç]
‘empire’
[fɔyçt]
‘damp’
b. [ç] after front vowels:
siech
Bücher
sich
höchst
Blech
Löcher
Reich
feucht
12
c. [ç] after consonants
manch
solch
Milch
Kirche
d. [ç] word initially
China
Chemie
[manç]
‘some’
[zɔlç]
‘such’
[mɪlç]
‘milk’
[kɪrçə]
‘church’
[çiːna]
‘China’
[çemiː]
‘chemistry’
Violations of this assimilatory pattern in the near minimal pairs of (4)a were
first identified by Bloomfield (1930). The examples in (4)b contain a palatal
fricative following a back vowel; however, this violation of the general pattern only
occurs when the two segments are in separate morphemes. Both forms in (4) are
derived from the stems Kuh and Pfau with the word-level diminutive suffix –chen.
(4)
a. [x] following a back vowel
Kuchen
Fauchen
[kuːxn̩]
‘cake’
[fauxn̩]
‘spitting’ (of cats)
b. [ç] following a back vowel
[kuːçən]
Kuhchen
Pfauchen
[pfauçən]
‘little cow’
‘little peacock’
This violation can be understood if we assume that (i) the canonical pattern
of the ich-Laut and ach-Laut distribution illustrated in (3) above holds at the stem
level, with markedness outranking faithfulness in the constraint hierarchy for that
level; (ii) that the word-level diminutive suffix –chen forms a stem level domain by
itself, and (iii) that faithfulness outranks markedness at the word level.
Further violations of the assimilatory pattern are discussed in Ito & Mester
(2001) who assume an opaque interaction between ʀ-vocalisation and dorsal
13
fricative assimilation. In the syllable coda [ʀ] will be realised as [ɐ̯] and followed
by the palatal fricative, not the velar variant as would be expected following a back
vowel. Their argument for this interaction as an example of opacity is based upon
the assumption that [ɐ̯] is a back vowel and should therefore behave as such. This,
however, is not necessarily the case. When [ʀ] becomes [ɐ̯], [ʀ] loses its
consonantal place feature, which does not necessarily imply it becomes a vowel. If
[ɐ̯] is analysed as a non-high glide (for which there is no IPA symbol more
appropriate), the examples in (5) are not violations of dorsal fricative assimilation.
(5)
‘R-vocalisation’ and dorsal fricative assimilation (Ito & Mester 2001: 270,
original transcriptions)
fürchten
Lerche
Pferch
Zwerchfell
Kirche
Storch
horchen
Lurch
durch
2.2.1
[fʏɐ̯çtən]
‘to fear’
[lɛɐ̯çə]
‘lark’
[pfɛɐ̯ç]
‘corral’
[tsvɛɐ̯çfɛl]
‘diaphragm’
[kɪɐ̯çə]
‘church’
[ʃtɔːç]
‘stork’
[hɔːçən]
‘to listen’
[lʊɐ̯ç]
‘lizard’
[dʊɐ̯ç]
‘through’
Stratification of the grammar
In order to test the hypothesised domain structure it is first necessary to
establish the relevant strata at which morphemes are affixed and phonological
processes are active. For the purposes of this analysis I follow Wiese’s (1996: 120,
128) stratification. My stem level corresponds to his Level 1 processes, and his
Level 2 and 3 processes have been collapsed into the word level. Similarly his
Class I and Class II affixes correspond to stem-level and word-level affixes
respectively.
14
(6)
a. Stem-level suffixes (Level 1, Wiese 1996: 128)
a.i. Noun-forming suffixes (Wiese 1996: 120)
-a, -age, -and, -ant, -anz, -ar, -at, -ei, -ent, -enz, -er, -eur, -ie, -ik,
-ion, -is, -ist, -ität, -ling, -nis, -o, -on, -or, -tum, -um, -ur, -us
a.ii. Adjective-forming suffixes (Wiese 1996: 120)
-abel, -al, är, -ant, -ell, -esk, -isch, -iv, -os/öv
a.iii. Verb-forming suffixes (Wiese 1996: 120)
-er, -ier, -(e)l
b. Word-level suffixes (Levels 2 and 3, Wiese 1996: 128)
b.i. Noun-forming suffixes (Wiese 1996: 121)
-er, -heit/keit, -sal, -schaften, -ung
b.ii. Adjective-forming suffixes (Wiese 1996: 121)
-bar, -haft, -ig, -lich, -los, -sam
b.iii. Verb-forming suffixes (Wiese 1996: 121)
-ig
b.iv. Noun-modifying suffixes (Wiese 1996: 122)
-in, -chen, -lein
b.v. Adjective-modifying suffixes (Wiese 1996: 122)
-er, -st
2.2.2
Dorsal fricative assimilation in Lexical Phonology
Dorsal fricative assimilation is here assumed to occur at the stem-level as it
is not enforced over morpheme or word boundaries1. In Lexical Phonology dorsal
fricative assimilation cannot be assigned to the stem level because it is nonstructure preserving when Structure Preservation is understood as stating:
‘A [stem-level] phonological rule may not apply to create some
segment which is nondistinctive – that is, not a phoneme of the
language. Nor may structures which violate structural templates,
1
At the word level the constraint that the ach-Laut should not occur after a front vowel remains
unviolated, as is shown later through its involvement with the g-spirantization alternation at the word
level, even though it does not trigger assimilation across morpheme boundaries.
15
such as syllable structure or stress patterns, be created [at the stem
level].’ (Borowsky 1989: 148)
Hall (1989) argues that Structure Preservation cannot hold for dorsal
fricative assimilation in German: adhering to Structure Preservation it must be
classified as a postlexical process. However, as discussed above, dorsal fricative
assimilation is reliant upon morphological information and therefore cannot be a
postlexical process, given that morphological information is no longer visible at the
postlexical level due to bracket erasure. In attempts to rescue Structure Preservation,
MacFarland & Pierrehumbert (1991) restricted its definition thereby removing
much of its empirical content. In contrast, Iverson & Salmons (1992) argued for the
existence of two –chen suffixes, one which is structure preserving and one which is
not. The principle of Structure Preservation has been further refuted by Harris
(1990) and Bermúdez-Otero (in preparation) amongst others, and is unstatable in
Stratal OT, thus allowing dorsal fricative assimilation to be assigned to the stem
level.
In a rule-based framework, to derive the effects of dorsal fricative
assimilation it must first be established whether they are allophones or separate
phonemes. If they are allophones, it must further be established which form is the
underlying phoneme. Based only on the data in (3) an argument can be made for
allophonic variation as the two variants appear to be in complementary distribution
with the dorsal fricative assimilating to the feature value [±back] of the preceding
vowel. Within the literature three approaches to this allophony have been proposed.
Issatschenko (1973), Dressler (1976) and Meinhold & Stock (1982) argue that /ç/ is
the underlying phoneme and the rule (7)a unexceptionally derives [x] following a
back vowel and [ç] elsewhere. The alternative view, that /x/ is the underlying
16
phoneme which is realised as [ç] in specific environments (7)b is taken by Moulton
(1947), Lüdtke (1959), Griffen (1977), Kloeke (1982) and Maddieson (1984). The
three-part disjunction of this rule renders it a less desirable analysis and furthermore
there is no reason why the rule should apply in these three environments only
(Wiese 1996: 211). In spite of these problems, this rule gains support from
typological markedness; the velar fricative is less typologically marked than the
palatal, for example [x] is attested in Allemannic and Dutch where [ç] is not
(Lüdtke 1959: 178). Furthermore SPE type rules are only allowed to stipulate the
presence of a morpheme boundary and not its absence (SPE: 67). The rule ‘/ç/
becomes [x] following a back vowel’ can only apply if there is no intervening
morpheme boundary, and therefore violates this requirement of SPE rule
formulation, whereas the rule stating ‘/x/ becomes [ç]’ is allowed to include the
presence of morpheme boundaries as part of the conditioning environment (Kloeke
1982: 208). Later analyses (Hall 1989, Wiese 1996) argue for a voiceless fricative
that is initially underspecified for the feature [back] which gains a [±back] value
when this feature spreads from the preceding vowel. This analysis also requires a
default rule (7)c.ii assigning [-back] to all remaining dorsal fricatives, for example
word-initially (Hall 1989: 3-4).
(7)
a. /ç/ as the underlying phoneme (Wiese 1996: 211)
/ç/ → [x] / [-cons, -back] ___
b. /x/ as the underlying phoneme (Wiese 1996: 211)
[-cons,+front]
/x/ → [ç] /
[+cons]
___
#
17
c.i. Underspecified [back] (Hall 1989: 3)
-son
+cont
-voice
[back]
[+high]
V
C
c.ii. Default rule (Hall 1989: 4)
- son
+cont
→ [-back]
+high
In Optimality Theory the Rich Base does not permit the stipulation of an
underlying representation of /x/ or /ç/, but the constraints chosen will be affected by
which segment is regarded as the ‘elsewhere’ option. In this paper I adopt the view
of Moulton (1947), Lüdtke (1959), Griffen (1977), Kloeke (1982) and Maddieson
(1984) and posit a context-free markedness constraint against [ç] and contextsensitive markedness constraints against [x] in certain environments.
2.2.3
Prosodic accounts of dorsal fricative assimilation
Iverson & Salmons (1992), Merchant (1996) and Wiese (1996) argue that
the domain of dorsal fricative assimilation is the prosodic word. Affixes in this
framework are not divided by the level at which they attach, but instead by whether
they cohere with the stem or not. Cohering suffixes (Booij & Rubach 1984) are
integrated into the prosodic word of the stem whereas non-cohering suffixes form
their own prosodic word. Thus, in a monomorphemic form or a form affixed with a
cohering suffix the dorsal fricative will display the expected variation (as in (3))
18
and the violations of (4) are attested because –chen is a non-cohering affix and
fricative assimilation will not occur over the prosodic word boundary. The structure
of Kuchen [kuːxn̩] ‘cake’ and Kuhchen [kuːçɛn] ‘little cow’ in this analysis are
illustrated in (8).
(8)
Structure of Kuchen and Kuhchen (based on Merchant 1996: 713-4)
a. Kuchen [kuːxn̩] ‘cake’
ω
∑
σ
k
σ
uː x ə n
b.Kuhchen [kuːçɛn] ‘little cow’
ωʹ
ω
ω
∑
∑ (?)
σ
σ
kuː
çən
In order for this analysis to be acceptable, the definition of what may
constitute a prosodic word needs to be clarified. Wiese (1996) uses ‘gapping’
phenomena as evidence for prosodic words: in conjoined expressions it is possible
to delete one part of the expression if it is to be interpreted as identical to the
corresponding element in the conjoined phrase. In the examples of (9) the bold
segment corresponds to the deleted segment. In these examples part of a compound
19
(a), a word-level suffix (b) or a prefix (c) can be deleted. Despite including a wordlevel suffix, (d) is prohibited because the remaining segment is not bisyllabic, and
(e) due to the syllabification of the base-final coda consonant into the onset of the
affix syllable (Wiese 1996: 69-70). This distribution is accounted for by the rule of
word deletion (10). Crucial to an analysis of dorsal fricative assimilation based
upon prosodic structure is the fact that –chen can be deleted, as in Brüder- oder
Schwesterchen
chen and therefore must constitute a prosodic word.
(9)
Prosodic word gapping (Wiese 1996: 70)
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
(10)
konsonant- oder schwafinal
final
mutter- und väterlich
lich
Brüder- oder Schwesterchen
chen
pro- und antiamerikanisch
amerikanisch
*winz- oder riesig
ig
*Verwal- und Bearbeit+ung
t+ung
‘consonantal-final or schwa-final’
‘motherly and fatherly’
‘brother (dim.) or sister (dim.)’
‘pro-American and anti-American’
‘tiny or huge'
‘administration and handling’
Word Deletion (Wiese 1996: 70)
Delete a phonological word,
if it occurs adjacent to a phrase boundary, and
if a phonlogically identical phonological word exists in an adjacent
sister phrase in the coordinative structure.
Wiese does not claim that all Class II affixes head their own prosodic word,
rather that all suffixes starting with one consonant followed by a vowel will do
(Wiese 1996: 67). This statement raises the question of the position of schwa in
German phonology and word minimality conditions on prosodic words. All
transcriptions of –chen
in the literature use the vowel [ə] unless it is to be
pronounced in isolation in which case a native speaker would use the full vowel [ɛ]
as [ə] is unstressable (Wiese 1986: 716). As schwa is unstressable, a syllable
20
headed by schwa cannot head a foot. Given that a prosodic word node must
dominate a foot, it follows that a schwa syllable cannot head a prosodic word
(Nespor & Vogel 1986). This is supported by Raffelsiefen (1999: 147-49), who
stipulates that a phonological word must be minimally bimoraic containing a full
vowel (i.e. not schwa). Wiese (1996: 57) acknowledges the prosodic hierarchy,
though it should be noted that throughout the whole book it is never stated which
vowel he assumes to be present in the form –chen. However, even if the assumed
vowel is [ɛ], the fact that the reduced form [ə] is attested (indeed, it is the only
variant listed in Duden) rules it out as a prosodic word, since Raffelsiefen states,
‘any syllable for which monomoraic variants are at least marginally acceptable does
not form a separate pword. This is because reduction is entirely unacceptable in
syllables which do not form a separate pword’ (1999: 149). Thus it appears that
-chen cannot constitute a prosodic word, undermining the argument for the prosodic
word being the domain of dorsal fricative assimilation.
It is conceivable to maintain that the domain of dorsal fricative assimilation
is the prosodic word without assuming that the suffix itself defines a prosodic word.
In diagram (11) the stem Kuh forms a prosodic word, and the affix –chen forms a
syllable which is Chomsky-adjoined to the prosodic word of the stem. This ensures
there is a prosodic word boundary between the stem and the affix, thereby
preventing dorsal fricative assimilation from taking place.
(11)
Alternative structure of Kuh-chen
ωʹʹ
ω
[[kuː]
çən]
21
A final comment must be made regarding Merchant’s (1996) discussion of
the forms such as Masochist and Eunuchismus (12)b, both of which are transcribed
with the palatal fricative [ç] following a back vowel and are therefore listed as
violations of dorsal fricative assimilation.
(12)
Root-attaching suffixes (Merchant 1996: 711, original transcriptions)
a.
b.
[ç]
Masoch+ist
Eunuch+ismus
eunuch+isieren
Paroch+ie
paroch+ial
[x]
Masoch
Eunuch
[maːzoːçɪst]
‘masochist’
[oɪnuːçɪsmus]
‘eunuchism’
[oɪnuːçɪziːrən]
‘make into a eunuch’
[paroːçiː]
‘parish’
[paroːçial]
‘parochial’
[maːzoːx]
(name)
[oɪnuːx]
‘eunuch’
The data in (12) contrast with forms such as rauchen [raʊxən] ‘to smoke
(inf)’ according to Merchant (1996) because rauch is a stem and masoch a root
which can be accounted for with the constraint ALIGNR (13). This constraint aligns
the right edge of the stem with the right edge of a syllable and does not have any
jurisdiction over the edge of the root. No morphological or phonological
justification is provided for the claim that the forms in (12)a are root-based rather
than stem-based, indeed masochist derives from the name of the Austrian writer,
Sacher-Masoch (Seebold 2002) though I assume mascohist as a single form has
now largely been lexicalised by speakers. Contrastively, I would predict that many
speakers are aware that eunuchismus or eunuchisieren derive from a common base,
the noun Eunuch, which is classified in the dictionary as being part of the extended
standard vocabulary (Seebold 2002).
22
(13)
ALIGNR
Align (Stem, R, σ, R)
It is not the analysis so much as the transcriptions that I wish to question,
the sources of which are given as Moltmann (1990) and Kenstowicz (1994).
According to Duden and native speakers I have spoken to, all of the words in (12)a
would contain [x] and not [ç] and are therefore unproblematic as they do not violate
dorsal fricative assimilation. As no further data or contextual information is
presented in either Merchant (1996) or Kenstowicz (1994)2 it is not possible to
establish why these forms vary from Standard German. One possibility would be
that this dialect extends the restriction on initial [x] to the foot-initial as well as
word-initial position but there is insufficient data upon which to test this further.
2.2.4
Dorsal Fricative Assimilation in Stratal Optimality Theory
2.2.4.1 The stem level
As mentioned previously, Richness of the Base in OT does not allow either
/ç/ or /x/ to form the underlying representation of the allomorph, but the constraint
hierarchy must be able to derive the correct output from the rich base which
contains both /ç/ and /x/. The choice of constraints must therefore be based upon
the relative markedness of the two segments.
Previous analyses (Merchant 1996, Ito & Mester 2001) employ the
constraint hierarchy
VEL
» *x » IDENT(back) where
VEL
is a context-sensitive
markedness constraint penalising [ç] following a back vowel and the context-free
constraint *x militates against the velar fricative in all environments. (15) is
2
Moltmann (1990) is not available
23
reproduced from Ito & Mester (2001: 270) and illustrates how this constraint
hierarchy can correctly generate the output form [buːx] from the rich base.
(14)
Constraints of Ito & Mester (2001)
VEL
*ç / [-cons, +back]____
*X
No voiceless velar fricative
IDENT(back)
back)
The value of the feature [back] of an input segment must be
preserved in its output correspondent. (Adapted from Kager 1999:
40)
(15)
Buch [buːx] ‘book’ (Ito & Mester 2001: 270)
a. /x/ as input from rich base
buːx
VEL
buːx
buːç
*X
IDENT(back)
*
*!
*
b. /ç/ as input from rich base
buːç
VEL
buːx
buːç
*x
IDENT(back)
*
*!
*
In this paper I take the alternative stance and argue that the context-free
markedness constraint should be *ç which is ranked below a series of contextsensitive constraints penalising [x] in specific environments, namely following a
front vowel, following a consonant, and word initially. At the stem level these
constraints are not crucially ranked with respect to one another. Figure (16)
specifies these constraints, and the tableaux (17)–(20) illustrate their ability to
derive the correct dorsal fricative in each environment of (3).
24
(16)
Stem Level dorsal fricative assimilation constraints
*V[-back]x
No sequence of front vowel followed by velar fricative
*[x
*[x
No [x] initially in the prosodic word
*Cx
*Cx
No [x] following a consonant
*ç
No voiceless palatal fricative
(17)
[x] following a back vowel: Buch [buːx] ‘book’
a. /ç/ as input from rich base
buːç
*V[-back]X
* [x
*Cx
buːç
*ç
IDENT(back)
*!
☞ buːx
*
b. /x/ as input from rich base
buːx
*V[-back]X
* [x
*Cx
buːç
*ç
IDENT(back)
*!
*
☞ buːx
(18)
[ç] following a front vowel: Blech [blɛç] ‘sheet metal’
a. /ç/ as input from rich base
blɛç
*V[-back]X
* [x
*Cx
☞ blɛç
blɛx
*ç
IDENT(back)
*
*!
*
b. /x/ as input from rich base
blɛx
*V[-back]X
☞ blɛç
blɛx
* [x
*Cx
*ç
IDENT(back)
*
*
*!
25
(19)
[ç] following a consonant: manch [manç] ‘some’
a. /ç/ as input from rich base
manç
*V[-back]X
* [x
*Cx
☞ manç
*ç
IDENT(back)
*
manx
*!
*
b. /x/ as input from rich base
manx
*V[-back]X
* [x
*Cx
☞ manç
manx
(20)
*ç
IDENT(back)
*
*
*ç
IDENT(back)
*!
[ç] initially: China [çiːna] ‘China’
a. /ç/ as input from rich base
çiːna
*V[-back]X
* [x
*Cx
☞ çiːna
*
xiːna
*!
*
b. /x/ as input from rich base
xiːna
*V[-back]X
* [x
☞ çiːna
xiːna
*Cx
*ç
IDENT(back)
*
*
*!
Despite appearing more complex by requiring five constraints instead of two,
this analysis is externally supported by typology, dialects of modern German and
restrictiveness.
As mentioned above /ç/ is typologically more marked than /x/. Maddieson
(1984) conducts a typologically balanced survey of world languages and concludes
that 75 of the 317 languages included (23.7%) have /x/ as a phoneme as opposed to
only 16, or 5.1% with /ç/ (1984: 43). On the assumption that constraints in OT are
universal, *ç is more desirable than *x.
26
A number of dialects also indicate the marked status of [ç]. Alemannic
dialects, spoken in Switzerland and southern Germany, do not exhibit any dorsal
fricative assimilation and have only [x] (Philipp & Bothorel-Witz 1990: 316). The
west-central dialect Hessian similarly does not contain [ç], and instead uses the
postalveolar fricative [ʃ] wherever Standard German would use [ç]. In this dialect
the distinction between minimal pairs such as Kirche ‘church’ and Kirsche
‘cherries’ is neutralised into the surface representation [kɪrʃə] (Durrell & Davies
1990: 228). In both of these dialects it can be assumed that the constraint *ç is
unviolated, whereas the distribution cannot be accounted for with only the
constraints VEL and *x.
In the context of a stratified grammar, the constraint *V[-back]x captures the
fact that, within word-level domains, violations of the phonotactic ban on [ç]
following a back vowel are attested, but violations of [x] following a front vowel
never occur. In this sense a grammar without *V[-back]x misses a true generalization
of word-level domains.
2.2.4.2 The word level
level
As has been shown, the stem level constraint hierarchy can successfully
account for dorsal fricative assimilation in monomorphemic forms and forms with
stem-level affixes that can be assumed to have the domain structure of (2). Forms
which appear to violate dorsal fricative assimilation consist of a base and a wordlevel affix: assimilation fails to apply because they have the domain structure of (2),
where both the base and affix trigger stem-level domains, and because faithfulness
constraints outrank markedness constraints at the word level.
Kuhchen is a complex form consisting of the noun Kuh [kuː] ‘cow’ and the
word-level diminutive suffix –chen. According to the domain structure presented in
27
(2), it is assumed that both Kuh and –chen define stem-level domains. Therefore, –
chen will have the stem-level output and word-level input form [çən], where the
palatal fricative is domain initial. At the word level [kuː] and [çən] will be
concatenated and pass through
GEN.
Despite the back vowel which now
immediately precedes the dorsal fricative, [ç] will not assimilate and become [x] as
the faithfulness constraint IDENT(back) outranks the constraint markedness
constraint *ç at this level. At this point the ranking of IDENT(back) with respect to
the three markedness constraints *V[-back]X, * [X and *Cx cannot be established as all
four constraints remain unviolated. Figure (21) shows the domain structure of
Kuhchen and (22) the tableaux of the stem and word levels.
(21)
Domain structure of Kuhchen [kuːçən] ‘little cow’ (after Baker 2005)
[kuːçən] WL
[kuː]base
(22)
[çən] SL
Kuhchen [kuːçən] ‘little cow’
a. Stem level
çən
*V[-back]X
* [X
*CX
*ç
☞ çən
IDENT(back)
*
xən
*!
*
b. Word Level
kuːçən IDENT(back)
*V[-back]X
☞ kuːçən
kuːxən
2.3
* [x
*Cx
*ç
*
*!
Dorsal fricative assimilation and opacity
The palatal fricative [ç] also surfaces in Standard German through the
spirantization of [ɡ] following the centralised close-mid lax vowel [ɪ]. G28
spirantization interacts opaquely with final obstruent devoicing and in this section I
shall show that the Stratal OT approach established for the [ç]~[x] alternation is
also compatible with g-spirantization and final devoicing in German.
2.3.1
G-spirantization
In the coda following [ɪ], /ɡ/ is spirantized and devoiced to [ç] (Ito & Mester
2003: 3) as illustrated in (23). This process applies to both monomorphemic stems
which are not synchronically complex (e.g. König), and word-level affixes such as
the adjectival suffix –ig when attached to either a bound root in niedr-ig or a stem
e.g. rauch-ig. When followed by a vowel-initial affix, the /ɡ/ will be syllabified into
the onset position and will not spirantize (23). Furthermore, when followed by
another affix with [ɪç] in the rhyme, the base /ɡ/ will not spirantize but will be
hardened to a voiceless [k] (23). This must be a dissimilatory effect triggered by [ɪç]
and not by the initial consonant of the affix, as the forms farbigkeit and
übrigbleiben (transcriptions taken from Brockhaus 1995: 17, 21) do not display this
hardening3. Wiese (1996: 208) also notes that many speakers of standard German
do not follow this normative rule and would generally pronounce Königlich as
[køːnɪçlɪç]. Forms of this type will not be discussed further in this paper.
3
Parallel examples with /ɪɡ/ followed by an /l/-initial suffix (e.g. könig+los ) are less frequent and
native speakers state that it sounds most natural to insert a linking-s: königslos.
29
(23)
[ç]~[ɡ]~[k] alternation
a. g-spiranitzation
König
wenig
Leipzig
ledig
niedr-ig
elend-ig
rauch-ig
Farbigkeit
übrigbleiben
b. Fricative hardening
König-e
König-in
wenig-er
Leipzig-er
rauch-ig-er
[køːnɪç]
‘King’
[veːnɪç]
‘little’
[laɪptsɪç]
‘Leipzig’
[leːdɪç]
‘single’
[niːdrɪç]
‘low’
[eːlɛndɪç]
‘miserable’
[rauxɪç]
‘smoky’
[faɐ̯bɪçkaɪt]
‘colourfulness’
[yːbrɪçblaɪbən]
‘to be left over’
[køːnɪɡə]
‘Kings’
[køːnɪɡɪn]
‘Queen’
[veːnɪɡɐ]
‘fewer’
[laɪptsɪɡɐ]
‘sb. from Leipzig’
[rauxɪɡɐ]
‘more smoky’
c. Fricative hardening when followed by [ɪç]
König-lich
[køːnɪklɪç]
‘regal’
ledig-lich
[leːdɪklɪç]
‘merely’
Why spirantization is restricted to the vowel [ɪ] and the obstruent [ɡ]
remains unclear and infrequently discussed in the literature. Ito & Mester (2003)
consider the process of g-spirantization in some detail though they restrict the
analysis to the form spoken across much of northern Germany. In this variety,
which they consider to be a regional colloquial standard (2003: 3), any /ɡ/ in the
coda will spirantize, regardless of the preceding segment. The examples in (24)
illustrate this with /ɡ/ surfacing as a fricative following vowels other than [ɪ],
30
diphthongs, and consonants4. Typologically [ɡ], the voiced velar plosive, is the most
marked plosive, and the coda position is the most marked position within the
syllable. Accordingly, it is unsurprising that it is this segment, in this position,
which is susceptible to spirantization in both Standard German and northern
colloquial German. A phonetic analysis of g-spirantization is also possible: when
the articulators transition from the front, high vowel to the back consonant
interference noise may be heard and misparsed as friction. However, if this is the
case, spirantization should also occur after [iː] or [yː] which are higher and more
fronted than [ɪ] (Hall 1992: 107).
G-spriantization in colloquial northern German (Ito & Mester 2003: 4,
original transcription)
(24)
trug
frag
Lügner
zog
Gegner
regnen
segnen
weg
Flug
Teig
Zweig
Bahnsteig
Sarg
Talg
4
[tʀuːx]
‘carried.1sg’
[fraːx]
‘asked.1sg.’
[lyːçnɐ]
‘liar’
[tsoːx]
‘pulled.1sg.’
[geːçnɐ]
‘adversary’
[ʀeːçnən]
‘to rain’
[zeːçnən]
‘to bless’
[veːç]
‘way’
[fluːx]
‘flight’
[taɪç]
‘dough’
[tsvaɪç]
‘branch’
[baːnʃtaɪç]
‘platform’
[saʀç]
‘coffin’
[talç]
‘wax’
Note also the dorsal fricative assimilation in forms with a back vowel.
31
2.3.2
Final obstruent devoicing
The voicing contrast of obstruents is neutralised in the syllable coda, giving
rise to the alternations in (25) where voiced obstruents are devoiced syllable finally
but remain voiced if syllabified in the onset (Wiese 1996: 200-1).
(25)
Final devoicing
Lob
Bund
bunt
Sarg
aktiv
Gras
[loːp]
‘praise' (n)
[bʊnt]
‘alliance’
[bʊnt]
‘colourful’
[zark]
‘coffin’
[aktiːf]
‘active’
[ɡraːs]
‘grass’
loben
Bünde
bunte
Särge
Aktivität
grasen
[loːbn̩]
‘to praise’
[bʏndə]
‘alliances’
[bʊntə]
‘colourful’
[zɛrɡə]
‘coffins’
[aktivitɛːt]
‘activity’
[ɡraːzn̩]
‘to graze’
Final devoicing occurs word-internally in compounds and before the
suffixes of (26) (Brockhaus 1995: 17-18). All examples in (26) are taken from
Brockhaus, but the transcriptions adapted to Duden (1990). It will be noticed that
all suffixes in this list are consonant initial and all Class II affixes from Wiese
(1996: 121) with the exception of –er, –ung, -ig and -in are included in it.
(26)
Suffixes triggering final obstruent devoicing
Nominal
Derivational
-ler
-heit
-keit
-ling
-nis
-sal
-sel
-schaft
-tum
-chen
-lein
-de
Häusler
Kindheit
Farbigkeit
Liebling
Ergebnis
Labsal
Geschreibsel
Liebschaft
Herzogtum
Hündchen
Äuglein
Gelübde
[hɔyslɐ]
‘cottager’
[kɪnthait]
‘childhood'
[farbɪçkait]
‘colourfulness’
[liːplɪŋ]
‘darling’
[ɛɐ̯ɡeːpnɪs]
‘result’
[laːpzaːl]
‘refreshment’
[ɡəʃraɪpsl ̩]
‘scribbling’
[liːpʃaft]
‘love affair’
[hɛrtsoːktuːm]
‘dukedom’
[hʏntçən]
‘little dog’
[ɔyklain]
‘little eye’
[ɡəlʏpdə]
‘vow’
32
-bold
-werk
-gut
Tugendbold
Laubwerk
Treibgut
[tuːɡn̩tbɔlt]
‘paragon of virtue’
[laupvɛrk]
‘foliage’
[traipɡuːt]
‘flotsam’
Urlaubs
[uːɐ̯laups]
‘holiday’ gen.sg
Inflectional
-s
Adjectival/Adverbial (derivational only)
-bar
-los
-haft
-lich
-sam
-kundig
-mäßig
-wert
-lustig
-fest
-wärts
-lings
lösbar
farblos
glaubhaft
kindlich
kleidsam
schreibkundig
bildmäßig
preiswert
schreiblustig
schlagfest
abwärts
blindlings
[løːsbaːɐ̯]
‘solvable’
[farploːs]
'colourless’
[ɡlauphaft]
‘believable’
[kɪntlɪç]
‘child-like’
[klaitzaːm]
‘becoming’
[ʃraipkʊndɪç]
‘literate’
[bɪltmɛːsɪç]
‘by means of a picture’
[praisveːɐ̯t]
‘good value for money’
[ʃraiplʊstɪç]
‘keen to write’
[ʃlaːkfɛst]
‘shock resistant’
[apvɛrts]
‘down’
[blɪntlɪŋs]
‘blindly’
[ʃraipt]
‘(he/she/it) writes’
[ʃraipst]
‘(you, sg.fam) write’
[liːptə]
‘(he/she/it) loved’
Verbal (inflectional only)
-t
-st
-te
schreibt
schreibst
liebte
Final obstruent devoicing has frequently been discussed in the literature,
including introductory textbooks on generative phonology and has three guises.
Vennemann (1968) argues that the environment of final devoicing is before a
morpheme boundary; [-sonorant] → [-voice] / ___#, Wiese (1996) and Hall (1992)
relates it to the syllable boundary; [-sonorant] → [-voice] / ___] σ and Rubach (1990)
applies final obstruent devoicing to obstruents in the syllable coda (see Brockhaus
1995: 37-85 and references therein for detailed discussion). Taking Wiese’s (1988)
analysis as an example (in Brockhaus 1995: 58) final obstruent devoicing is
33
assigned to the postlexical level occurring after all affixation and (re)syllabification
has occurred, as illustrated in (27) with the forms Kindlich [kɪntlɪç] ‘child-like’, a
level 2 affix which triggers final devoicing.
(27)
Kindlich (Brockhaus 1995: 58, based on Wiese 1988)
/kɪnd/
Underlying
(kɪnd)σ
Syllabification
(kɪnd)σ + lɪç
Affixation
(kɪnd)σ(lɪç)σ
(Re)syllabification
(kɪnt)σ(lɪç)σ
Final Devoicing
[kɪntlɪç]
Output
Cycle 1
Cycle 2
Postlexical
Final obstruent devoicing cannot be a postlexical process however, because
it is counterbled by phrase-level resyllabification before reduced clitics. If a vowelinitial personal pronoun clitic is attached to the verb form hab (the reduced form of
the 1st person singular habe), the final obstruent will be syllabified into the onset
and will be voiceless: hab ich [ha.pɪç] ‘have I’ (Wiese 1996: 205) and not *[ha.bɪç].
Iverson & Salmons (1992), Wiese (1996) and Hahn (1998) all propose a
prosodic analysis for the effects of final obstruent devoicing. As in the analysis of
dorsal fricative assimilation it is assumed that the consonant initial affixes which
trigger final devoicing form a prosodic word of their own and as the domain of
final obstruent devoicing is the prosodic word it is blocked from applying at these
junctures. This can be explained in OT with an alignment constraint (28) militating
against voiceless segments which are not aligned with the right edge of the prosodic
word.
34
(28)
Alignment constraint (Hahn 1998: 2)
RALIGN[-voice]: Align [-voice] to right edge of the prosodic word.
This analysis is able to account for many of the suffixes in (26) however, it
cannot hold for the suffixes –ler, -sel, -chen, -de, -s, -t, -st, and –te as none of these
contain a full vowel and thus violate prosodic word minimality (Raffelsiefen 1999:
147-9).
2.3.2.1 Final obstruent devoicing in Stratal Optimality Theory
2.3.2.1.1 Monomorphemic forms and stem-level affixation
In a Stratal OT analysis the voicing variation displayed by obstruents can be
derived without reference to prosodic structure. Final obstruent devoicing, I argue,
is a word-level process as it is fed by suffix-level affixation, but counterbled by
phrase-level resyllabification before clitics. At the stem level the faithfulness
constraint IDENT(voice) retains the voicing distinction present in the lexicon. At the
word level there are two possible manners in which voicing neutralisation can be
derived. The ‘neutralizing coda-based approach’ (Féry 1999: 3) militates against
voiced codas, and the ‘positional onset-based approach’ (Féry 1999: 2) requires that
faithfulness of onset segments to the feature [±voice] outranks a context-free
constraint banning voiced obstruents.
Féry (1999) discusses the merits and
limitations of both approaches and here, following Beckman (1998) and Lombardi
(1999), I have assumed the positional onset-based approach.
Because the feature [±voice] is lexically contrastive in German, the input to
the stem level from the rich base for a given obstruent contains only voiced or
voiceless segments. Together with faithfulness to the input value for [voice] at the
stem-level, non-alternating items at the word-level are already established at the
35
output of the stem level. As such, this analysis of the word level includes no freerides where an unfaithful mapping of a non-alternating item has to be stipulated
solely to account for alternating items (Giegerich 1992: 311).
(29)
Final obstruent devoicing constraints
IDENT(voice)
The specification for the feature [voice] of an input segment must be
preserved in its output correspondent. (Kager 1999: 14)
IDENTONS(voice)
Output segments in the onset position preserve values of [voice] for
input correspondents. (Kager 1999: 340)
VOP
(Voiced Obstruent Prohibition)
*[+voi, -son] Obstruents are voiceless.
(30)
(Kager 1999: 340)
Bund [bʊnt] ‘alliance’
a. Stem level: faithfulness to input voicing
bʊnd
IDENT(voice)
☞ bʊnd
bʊnt
*!
pʊnd
*!
pʊnt
**!
b. Word level: final obstruent devoicing
bʊnd
IDENTONS(voice)
bʊnd
VOP
IDENT(voice)
**!
☞ bʊnt
pʊnd
*!
pʊnt
*!
*
*
*
*
**
At the word level the constraint ONSET is highly ranked and ensures correct
syllabification of forms. This accounts for the [d] in Bünde [bʏndə] ‘alliances’
36
(31)(32) as it is syllabified into the onset position and therefore must remain
faithful to its input form.
(31)
ONSET (Kager 1999: 93)
Syllables must have onsets.
(32)
Bünde [bʏndə] ‘alliances’
a. Stem Level: faithfulness to input voicing
bʏndə
IDENT(voice)
☞ bʏn.də
bʏn.tə
*!
pʏn.də
*!
pʏn.tə
**!
b. Word level: faithfulness to onset voicing
bʏndə
IDENTONS(voice)
ONSET
☞ bʏn.də
VOP
IDENT(voice)
**
bʏn.tə
*!
*
*
pʏn.də
*!
*
*
pʏn.tə
*!
**
bʏnd.ə
*!
**
bʏnt.ə
*!
*
pʏnd.ə
*!
*
pʏnt.ə
*!
2.3.2.1.2 Word-level affixation
Consonant-initial suffixes which trigger final obstruent devoicing (26) can
be correctly derived by assuming the domain structure in (2) and both the base and
the suffix pass through the stem-level where voicing remains faithful to the input
form, and at the word level syllable final obstruents will be devoiced in the same
way as (31). The constraint ALIGN-MORPHEME-RIGHT states that the right edge of a
37
morpheme must align with the right edge of a syllable and must be ranked below
ONSET at the word level. These constraints together ensure that a morpheme final
obstruent will be resyllabified to fill the onset position of a vowel-initial affix, as
was the case for Bund~Bünde, whilst preventing the resyllabification of a base-final
consonant to form a complex onset of a consonant-initial suffix, even if the onset
would be structurally well-formed in German. For example farblos
[farploːs]
‘colourless’ is syllabified as farb.los despite [bl] being an acceptable onset attested
in words such as Blech [blɛç] ‘sheet metal’, blau [blau] ‘blue’ or Blitz [blɪts]
‘lightening’. It is this syllabification that ensures the stem-final obstruents remain
syllable-final and thus devoice at the word level, as exemplified in 0(36).
(33)
Domain structure of farblos (after Baker 2005)
[farploːs]WL
[farb]base
(34)
[loːs]SL
farblos [farploːs] ‘colourless’
a. Stem level
/farb/
IDENT
(voice)
☞ farb
farp
*!
/loːs/
IDENT
(voice)
☞ loːs
loːz
(35)
*!
ALIGN-MORPHEME-RIGHT
Align morpheme R, syllable R
38
(36)
b. Word level
farbloːs
IDENTONS
ONSET
(voice)
ALIGN-
VOP
MORPH-R
farb.loːs
*!
far.bloːs
*!
*
☞ farp.loːs
far.ploːs
IDENT(voice)
*
*!
*
*
2.3.2.2 Final obstruent devoicing and the [ç]~[x
[ç]~[x] alternation
The analyses of both dorsal fricative assimilation and final obstruent
devoicing can be combined to derive the correct output realisation of obstruent-final
stem forms with the word-level suffix –chen. Taking the word Kindchen [kɪntçən]
‘little child’ as an example, at the stem level the final /d/ of Kind will be preserved
and the dorsal fricative will be have the output form [ç] because it is domain initial
(c.f. (22)). From the two word level hierarchies already established the crucial
constraint rankings are *Cx, *V[-back]X, *[X, IDENT(back) » *ç and IDENTONS(voice)
» VOP » IDENT(voice) which combine to give the overall ranking (at this point) in
(38). The tableaux in (39) illustrate this hierarchy (showing only the relevant
constraints) for the form Kindchen.
(37)
Domain structure of Kindchen [kɪntçən] ‘little child’ (after Baker 2005)
[kɪntçən]WL
[kɪnd]base
[çən]SL
Word level constraint hierarchy for final obstruent devoicing and dorsal
fricative assimilation:
(38)
*Cx, *V[-back]X, *[X, IDENT(back), IDENTONS(voice) » VOP » *ç »
IDENT(voice)
39
(39)
Kindchen [kɪntçən] ‘little child’
a. Stem level
kɪnd
IDENT
(voice)
☞ kɪnd
kɪnt
çən
*V[-back]X
*!
* [X
*CX
*ç
☞ çən
IDENT(back)
*
xən
*!
*
b. Word level
kɪndçən
*Cx
IDENT
VOP
*ç
(back)
kɪndçən
(voice)
*!
☞ kɪntçən
*
*
kɪndxən
*!
*!
kɪntxən
*!
*!
IDENT
*
*
*
2.3.2.3 G-spirantization and final obstruent devoicing
The process of g-spirantization, as illustrated in (23), causes syllable final
/ɡ/ to be realised as [ç] in the syllable coda when following [ɪ]. When resyllabified
into the onset position however this segment will not be devoiced or spirantized.
The two processes of final obstruent devoicing and g-spirantization interact
opaquely as the application of final obstruent devoicing destroys the conditioning
environment of g-spirantization, that is, g-spirantization counterbleeds final
obstruent devoicing.
In a serialist framework opacity poses no problem for the analysis as rules
apply serially and intermediate representations are permitted. Indeed, such opaque
interactions have formed the fundamental argument for serialist derivations
40
(McCarthy 1998: 2). In these cases /ɡ/ is assumed to spirantize to /ɣ/ which will
then be devoiced syllable finally to /x/ before assimilating to [ç] in the environment
of the front vowel (Wiese 1996: 212) (40).
(40)
Serial rule-application König [køːnɪç] ‘King’ (Wiese 1996: 201-18)
/køːnɪɡ/
g-spirantization
ɣ
Final devoicing
X
Fricative assimilation
ç
[køːnɪç]
Traditional Optimality Theory on the other hand is bound by Strict Surface
Orientation and Strong Parallelism (Prince & Smolensky 1993). Strict Surface
Orientation stipulates that only markedness and faithfulness constraints are
permitted, with no correspondence between the output and any representation other
than the input, and Strong Parallelism allows only one pass through
GEN
and
EVAL.
Stratal Optimality Theory (Bermúdez-Otero 1999) as employed in this paper
combines the insights of serialism with the parallelism of OT and as such opacity is
not problematic.
Following the previous discussion, dorsal fricative assimilation occurs at the
stem level and final obstruent devoicing at the word level. These analyses will now
be combined with and supplemented by constraints necessary for g-spirantization
and illustrated how the rich base is collapsed at the stem level to /ɣ/, which will
become [ç] or [ɡ] at the word level depending upon its syllabic position. As
mentioned above, it is assumed that forms with [k] such as Königlich [køːnɪklɪç]
‘regal’ arise due to a dissimilation process and will not be discussed here.
41
2.3.2.3.1 The stem level
At the stem level the constraint *ɪɡ]σ prevents the occurrence of [ɡ]
following [ɪ] and the markedness constraints *c, *ɟ and *ʝ militate against segments
which never surface in German. The constraint *ɪɡ]σ can be justified on grounds of
typological markedness, given that [ɡ] and the coda position are both marked. Final
obstruent devoicing must also be prohibited at the stem level, thus the constraint
IDENT(voice) is also ranked highly. The only crucial ranking of constraints at this
level is that IDENT(back) must be ranked beneath the markedness constraints
allowing velar obstruents in the rich base to become palatal. The tableau (42)
illustrates how the output of the stem level will be [ɣ] with /ɡ/ as the input from the
rich base. Due to the high-ranking markedness constraints [ɣ] will also be the
output representation if /c/, /ɟ/ or /ʝ/ were input from the rich base. In the onset
position however, the rich base is collapsed to [ɡ] at the stem level (43).
(41)
g-spirantization constraints
*ɪɡ]
ɪɡ]σ
No [ɪ] followed by [ɡ] in the syllable rhyme.
*c
No voiceless palatal plosive
*ɟ
No voiced palatal plosive
*ɣ
No voiced velar fricative
*ʝ
No voiced palatal fricative
42
(42)
Stem level: König [køːnɪç] ‘King’
køːnɪɡ *ɪɡ]σ
IDENT
*V[-back]X
*c
*ɟ
*ʝ
(voice)
køːnɪɡ
*ɣ
(back)
*!
køːnɪk
*!
køːnɪɟ
*!
køːnɪc
*!
*!
☞ køːnɪɣ
*
køːnɪx
*!
*!
*!
køːnɪç
*
*
køːnɪʝ
(43)
IDENT
*!
*
*
[ɡ] in initial position: Gast [ɡast] ‘guest’
a. /ɡ/ as input from rich base
ɡast
*ɪɡ]σ
IDENT
*V[-back]X
*c
*ɟ
*ʝ
(voice)
IDENT
*ɣ
(back)
☞ ɡast
kast
*!
ɣast
*!
b. /ɣ/ as input from rich base
ɣast
*ɪɡ]σ
IDENT
(voice)
*V[-back]X
*c
*ɟ
*ʝ
IDENT
*ɣ
(back)
☞ ɡast
kast
ɣast
*!
*!
2.3.2.4 The word level
At the word level [ɣ] must devoice and become palatal if it remains syllable
final, as it does in the bare form König, or harden to [ɡ] if resyllabified to satisfy
ONSET following the affixation of a vowel-initial suffix e.g. Königin. The wordlevel constraint hierarchy for the interaction of final obstruent devoicing and dorsal
43
fricative assimilation has already been established in (38). When establishing the
constraint hierarchy for dorsal fricative assimilation it was not possible to rank
IDENT(back) crucially against the constraints responsible for the limited distribution
of [x]; *V[-back]X, *CX and *[X. As the velar fricative [ɣ] must become palatal at the
word level when interacting with g-spirantization, it is now necessary and possible
to state that *V[-back]X, *CX and *[X crucially outrank IDENT(back). In addition to the
constraints of (38) the faithfulness constraint IDENT(cont) is required which must be
crucially ranked above IDENT(back), as faithfulness to the feature [continuant] is
more harmonic than faithfulness to [velar] in König. The constraints *c, *ɟ and *ʝ
remain highly ranked as they never emerge in an output form and at the word level
the constraint *ɣ is also necessary for the same reason. The tableaux in (44) and 0
illustrate these rankings for the forms König and Königin from the input form
[køːnɪɣ].
(44)
IDENT(cont)
The value of the feature [continuant] of an input segment must be
preserved in its output correspondent.
(45)
Word level: [køːnɪɣ] → [køːnɪç]
køːnɪɣ
*ʝ
*ɣ
*V[-back]x
køːnɪɡ
VOP
*!
køːnɪk
køːnɪɣ
køːnɪx
køːnɪʝ *!
☞ køːnɪç
IDENT
IDENT
(cont)
(back)
*ç
(voice)
*!
*!
*!
IDENT
*
*
*!
*
*
*
*
*
*
44
Word level: [køːnɪɣ] [ɪn]→ [køːnɪɡɪn]
(46)
*ʝ
køːnɪɣɪn
*ɣ
*V[-back]x
IDENTONS
VOP
(voice)
☞ køːnɪɡɪn
*
køːnɪkɪn
køːnɪɣɪn
*!
IDENT
(cont)
(back)
*ç
IDENT
(voice)
*
*
*!
*
*
køːnɪxɪn
*!
*!
*
køːnɪʝɪn *!
*
køːnɪçɪn
2.3.3
IDENT
*
*!
*
*
*
Dorsal fricative assimilation, gg-spirantization and final obstruent devoicing
The final set of examples to be presented illustrate how dorsal fricative
assimilation and g-spirantization interact in the form rauchig [rauxɪç] ‘smoky’,
where the base form contains a dorsal fricative and the word-level affix undergoes
g-spirantization. Assuming the domain structure in (2) once more, rauch emerges
from the stem level as [raux] and –ig as [ɪɣ]. At the word level [x] remains faithful
to its input form and [ɣ] devoices and palatalises.
(47)
Domain structure of rauchig [rauxɪç] ‘smoky’ (after Baker 2005)
[rauxɪç]WL
[raux]base
(48)
[ɪɣ]SL
rauchig [rauxɪç] ‘smoky’
a. Stem level
raux
rauç
*V[-back]X
* [x
*Cx
*ç
IDENT(back)
*!
*
☞ raux
45
ɪɡ *ɪɡ]σ
IDENT
*V[-back]X
*c
*ɟ
*ʝ
IDENT
(voice)
ɪɡ
(back)
*!
ɪk
*!
ɪɟ
*!
ɪc
*!
*!
☞ ɪɣ
*
ɪx
*!
*!
*
ɪʝ
*!
ɪç
*
*!
*
b. Word level
rauxɪɣ *ʝ * ɣ *V[-back]x VOP IDENT(cont) IDENT(back) *ç IDENT(voice)
*!
rauxɪɡ
*!
rauxɪk
rauxɪɣ
*!
*!
*
*!
rauxɪx
rauxɪʝ *!
*
*
*
*
*
*!
*
*
*!
*
*
*
*
*
*
**
*
**!
**
☞ rauxɪç
*!
rauçɪɡ
rauçɪk
rauçɪɣ
rauçɪx
*
*!
*
*!
rauçɪʝ *!
rauçɪç
*
*
*
*
*
Finally, when followed by a vowel-initial suffix such as the comparative –er,
the /ɡ/ of -ig will be hardened and not spirantized, as in rauchiger [rauxɪɡɐ] ‘more
smoky’. The word-level constraint hierarchy established can account for the output
from the stem level, /ɣ/, being hardened to [ɡ] whilst the dorsal fricative correctly
remains faithful to the input /x/.
46
(49)
Word level: rauchiger [rauxɪɡɐ] ‘more smoky’
rauxɪɣɐ
*ʝ
*ɣ
*V[-back]x
IdentOns
VOP
(voice)
*
☞ rauxɪɡɐ
*!
rauxɪkɐ
*!
rauxɪɣɐ
rauxɪʝɐ
*!
rauçɪkɐ
*!
*
*
*
*
*!
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
**
*
**
**
*
*!
*!
*!
rauçɪçɐ
*
*
*
rauçɪɡɐ
2.4
*
*
rauçɪxɐ
IDENT
(voice)
*
*!
rauçɪɣɐ
*ç
*!
*!
rauxɪçɐ
rauçɪʝɐ
IDENT
(back)
*
*!
rauxɪxɐ
IDENT
(cont)
*
*!
*
*
*
*
Conclusion
This chapter has shown how a Stratal OT analysis is able to account for the
processes leading to three sets of alternation and their interaction with one another
in German dorsal obstruents: [ç]~[x], [+voice]~[-voice] and [ɡ]~[ç]. So called
violations of these alternations have been proven not to be violations which
undermine a cyclic, stratal analysis of these processes, but instead can be accounted
for by assuming word-level affixes trigger a stem-level cycle.
The stratal analysis presented here could conceivably be criticized on the
grounds that, in acquisition, the child needs to realise that [g] in the output of the
world level can derive either from stem-level /g/ or stem level /ɣ/. However, the
two types of [g] belong to different alternation sets. For example, the [ɡ] of Königin
is derived from word-level input /ɣ/, whereas the [ɡ] of Särge [zɛrɡə] ‘coffins’ is
derived from the word-level input /ɡ/, because this alternates with [k] of Sarg [zark]
‘coffin’ and the [ɡ] of Königin alternates with the [ç] of König.
47
The domain structure hypothesized in this paper predicts that markedness
should outrank faithfulness at the stem level, and faithfulness outrank markedness
at the word level. This ranking accounted for the variation in dorsal fricatives
where the assimilating segment was derived at the stem level due to the segmental
position, which was then protected at the word level by the high-ranking
faithfulness constraint IDENT(back). This does not hold in the case of gspirantization and final obstruent devoicing where the harmonic form at the wordlevel is not the faithful variant. However, at the word level the unfaithful mappings
involve the change of at most one feature, for example the /b/→[p] in farblos
changes only [voice], /ɣ/→[ç] in König only [back] and /ɣ/→[ɡ] in Königin only
[continuant]. This supports an argument for a stratal analysis from the perspective
of learnability. The stratification of the grammar and derivational steps at each level,
as shown, are not arbitrary but independently motivated by the size of the
morphological domain. By dividing the task of mapping underlying representations
onto surface representations into a number of smaller steps the mappings at each
level are simpler than they would be in a grammar which requires a single parallel
mapping, and as such is simpler to acquire.
48
3.
3.1
Dutch
Introduction
This chapter focuses on the prosodification of Dutch suffixes. I demonstrate that
key generalisations about the prosodic interaction between Dutch suffixes and their
bases can easily be captured if we assume that a word-level suffix goes through an
independent stem-level cycle before being concatenated with the base at the word
level. Dutch suffixes can be classified along two separate dimensions: stressaffecting vs. stress-neutral, and cohering vs. non-cohering. Cohering suffixes are
defined as integrating into the prosodic word of their base, whereas non-cohering
suffixes head a prosodic word of their own (Booij 1996: 228, 2002: 190). In this
chapter I show that the phonological shape of a Dutch suffix does not allow one to
predict whether a it will be stress-affecting or stress-neutral (pace Van Oostendorp
2004). Rather, this depends on the idiosyncratic stratal affiliation of the suffix:
stem-level suffixes are stress-affecting, whereas word-level suffixes are stressneutral. Among word-level suffixes, however, phonological shape does predict
cohering vs. non-cohering behaviour, as observed by Booij (1995: 112-3).
Nonetheless, Booij (1995) failed to show how this was implemented in the grammar.
In this chapter, I show that a set of stem-level constraints determines whether or not
a word-level suffix can project a prosodic word of its own in its independent stemlevel affix cycle: word-level suffixes that project a prosodic word in their own affix
cycle go to behave non-coheringly when concatenated with the base at the word
level.
A sizeable subset of the suffixes in question are illustrated with examples in
(50) and (51). The suffixes of (50) are stem-level suffixes, all of which are
49
necessarily cohering because they are prosodified as a single unit with their base at
the stem level. List (51) contains all word-level suffixes and is divided into
cohering (51)a and non-cohering (51)b suffixes. The lists are taken from Booij
(1995: 111-114), but the examples are largely my own,5 or found elsewhere in the
referenced literature. A further division of Dutch suffixes into ‘native’ and ‘nonnative’ may be made, and it should be noted that all of the suffixes listed in (50)
and (51) would be considered native suffixes (Trommelen 1993). Non-native
suffixes will not be discussed in this paper, as they are all stress-affecting, cohering
suffixes which are completely regular in terms of stress assignment and phonotactic
patterns (Booij 2002: 190).
(50) Stem-level suffixes (stress-affecting, cohering) (Booij 1995: 114)
-baar
-end
-ig
-isch
-(e)lijk
-zaam
omkeeren
omkeerbaar
opvall
opvallend
driehoek
driehoekig
afgod
afgodisch
afhangen
afhankelijk
opmerken
opmerkzaam
[̍ˈɔmkeːr]
‘to turn around’
[̍ɔmˈkeːrbaːr]
‘reversible’
[ˈɔpfɑl]
‘to be conspicuous’
[ɔpˈfɑlənt]
‘conspicuous’
[ˈdriːhuk]
‘triangle’
[driːˈhukəx]
‘triangular’
[ˈɑfxɔt]
‘idol’
[ɑfˈxoːdis]
‘fanatical’
[ˈɑfhɑŋən]
‘to depend on’
[ɑfˈhɑŋkələk]
‘dependent’
[ˈɔpmɛrkən]
‘to observe’
[ɔpˈmɛrkzaːm]
‘observant’
(51) Word-level suffixes (stress-neutral)
a. Cohering suffixes (Booij 1995: 111)
-e
-en
5
tweedelig
tweedelige
vliegtuig
[tweːˈdeːləx]
‘two-part’
[tweːˈdeːləxə]
‘two-part (infl.)’
[ˈvliːxtœyx]
‘aeroplane’
Thanks to Inge Alferink and Marijn te Braake for suggestions.
50
-er
-erd
-erig
-ing
-nis
-s
-sel
-ster
-te
-tje
vliegtuigen
voetbal
voetballer
gezellig
gezelligerd
bezit
bezitterig
wandel
wandeling
duister
duisternis
tafel
tafels
aanhang
aanhangsel
arbeid
arbeidster
vergroot
vergrote
tafel
tafeltje
[ˈvliːxtœyxən]
‘aeroplanes’
[ˈvudbɑl]
‘football’
[ˈvudbɑlər]
‘footballer’
[ɣəˈzɛləx]
‘enjoyable’
[ɣəˈzɛləxərt]
‘sociable person’
[bəˈzɪt]
‘possession’
[bəˈzɪtərəx]
‘possessive’
[ˈwɑndəl]
‘walk’ (v)
[ˈwɑndəlɪŋ]
‘walk’ (n)
[ˈdœystər]
‘dark’
[ˈdœystərnɪs]
‘darkness’
[ˈtaːfəl]
‘table’
[ˈtaːfəls]
‘tables’
[ˈaːnhaŋ]
‘following’
[ˈaːnhaŋsəl]
‘appendix’
[ˈɑrbɛit]
‘work’
[ˈɑrbɛitstər]
‘female worker’
[vərˈɣroːt]
‘enlarged’
[vərˈɣroːtə]
‘enlarged (infl.)’
[ˈtaːfəl]
‘table’
[ˈtaːfəltjə]
‘table (dim.)’
b. Non-cohering suffixes (Booij 1995: 111)
-achtig
-baar
-dom
-heid
-ling
-loos
-schap
zijde
zijdeachtig
eet
eetbaar
arbeider
arbeiderdom
geestelijk
geestelijkheid
vijf
vijfling
zijde
zijdeloos
lidmaat
lidmaatschap
[ˈzɛidə]
‘silk’
[ˈzɛidəɑxtəx]
‘silk like’
[ˈeːt]
‘eat’
[ˈeːdbaːr]
‘edible’
[ˈɑrbɛidər]
‘worker’
[ˈɑrbɛidərdɔm]
‘work force’
[ˈɣeːstələk]
‘psychological’
[ˈɣeːstələkhɛit]
‘clergy’
[ˈvɛif]
‘five’
[ˈvɛiflɪŋ]
‘quintuplets’
[ˈzɛidə]
‘silk’
[ˈzɛidəloːs]
‘silk-less’
[ˈlitmaːt]
‘member’
[ˈlitmaːtsxɑp]
‘membership’
51
The language discussed throughout this chapter is Standard Dutch, and
transcriptions
have
Uitspraakwoordenboek
been
(2000).
taken
This
from
Heemskerk
pronunciation
&
dictionary
Zonneveld’s
describes
a
supraregional variety of Dutch; the standard, most widely understood pronunciation.
Where a form differs between Dutch as spoken in the Netherlands or Belgium, I
have taken the Netherlands version.
It should be noted that two alterations have been made to the dictionary
transcriptions. Firstly, the diacritic indicating primary stress [ˈ] has been moved,
from immediately before the stressed vowel, to before the onset of the stressed
syllable, in line with the transcriptions used throughout chapter 2. Secondly, vowel
length, which is not indicated in the dictionary, has been added. Not
uncontroversially, I have based this assignment on syllable structure; vowels in
open syllables and closed syllables orthographically represented with a double letter,
are long. Vowel quantity and syllable weight is an interesting topic in Dutch, as VV
syllables appear to be lighter than VC syllables (cf. Lahiri & Koreman 1988, Van
Oostendorp 1995, Gussenhoven 2000). It is not my intention to join the debate as
to how this should be represented, or whether vowel length in Dutch is phonetic or
phonological; however, it is not possible to discuss stress and prosodification in the
following sections without being aware of this issue. For purposes of this paper I
assume closed syllables to be heavy, but open syllables with long vowels may be
light or heavy.
3.2
Stress in Dutch:
Dutch: stressstress-affecting vs. stressstress-neutral affixes
As with the discussion of vowel quantity and weight, a full analysis of
Dutch stress does not fall within the scope of this paper, but a brief overview of the
facts is necessary. More detailed analyses can be found (amongst others) in Van der
52
Hulst (1984), Lahiri & Koreman (1988), Booij (1995), Van Oostendorp (1997, 2004)
and Gussenhoven (2000), and the references contained therein.
Main stress falls on the penultimate syllable of the word in Dutch, as
illustrated in (52)a, with three main exceptions. Firstly, in monosyllabic words
stress must fall on the only syllable (which will be minimally bimoraic to satisfy
word minimality constraints). Secondly, main stress will fall on the antepenultimate
syllable in minimally trisyllabic words with an open penult and closed final syllable.
And thirdly, stress falls on the final syllable if this is superheavy (Gussenhoven
2000: 9). The fact that schwa can never be stressed can be accounted for by
assuming schwa does not project a mora (Van Oostendorp 1994: 159).
(52) a. Unmarked main stress (some examples Gussenhoven 2000: 9)
driehoek
[ˈdriːhuk]
opvallend
[ɔpˈfɑlənt]
afgodisch
[ɑfˈxoːdis]
b. Exceptional stress
[ˈvɛif]
vijf
marathon
[ˈmaːratɔn]
ledikant
[leːdiˈkɑnt]
‘triangle’
‘conspicuous’
‘fanatical’
‘five’
‘worker’
‘bedstead’
At this point the relevance of the discussion of vowel duration and weight
becomes apparent. Van Oostendorp (2004: 1382) states that a superheavy syllable
consists of: ‘a tense vowel followed by one consonant, or a lax vowel followed by
two consonants’ (2004: 1382). This implies that a tense (long) vowel is heavy, and
a form such as omkeer would be incorrectly derived as *[ɔmˈkeːr] due to the
ranking of SUPERHEAVY » NONFIN (also lidmaat, *[litˈmaːt] ‘member’ and
opmerkzaam *[ɔpmɛrkˈzaːm] ‘observant’). As these forms are all stressed on the
penultimate syllable, the final syllables cannot be superheavy, despite comprising a
53
tense vowel followed by a consonant. Thus, as discussed above, phonetically long
vowels may be light. Once again, this debate, although relevant, is not crucial for
the argument of this dissertation.
Forms comprising of a base and stem-level suffix conform to the pattern for
monomorphemic forms in Dutch. This is exemplified by opvall~opvallend [ˈɔpfɑl]~
[ɔpˈfɑlənt] or afhangen~afhangelijk [ˈɑfhɑŋən]~[ɑfˈhɑŋkələk] where primary stress
never falls outside the final three syllables. Upon affixation of a word-level suffix,
however, this restriction no longer holds true: zijde~zijdeachtig [ˈzɛidə]~
[ˈzɛidəɑxtəx].
3.3
Cohering and nonnon-cohering suffixes
Cohering suffixes in Dutch are incorporated into the prosodic word of the
base to which they attach, whereas non-cohering affixes are not, but rather head
their own prosodic word. This phenomena reveals itself through a number of
phonological effects; syllabification (as diagnosed through final obstruent
devoicing), schwa epenthesis, optional schwa insertion, and gapping.
Affixation of a cohering suffix will trigger resyllabification, and the whole
form will be syllabified to form structurally optimal syllables. Conversely,
affixation of a non-cohering suffix does not trigger resyllbification, even if the
segmental structure of monomorphemic forms would permit it. This distinction can
be seen in the two forms driehukig and driehukachtig. In the monomorphemic form,
driehuk [driː.huk], the final [k] forms the syllable coda, but this segment
resyllabified into the onset position after the attachment of the cohering suffix –ig,
[driː.hu.kəx]. On the other hand, upon attachment of the vowel-initial, non-cohering
suffix –achtig, the final [k] remains in the coda, [driː.huk.ɑx.təx], even though this
54
results in an onsetless syllable. The same holds true when an obstruent+sonorant
cluster is formed which would also constitute a legitimate syllable onset. The
cluster [fl] occurs in words such as flink [flɪŋk] ‘robust’, but in vijfling (vijf+ling)
‘quintuplets’ the syllable boundary coincides with the morpheme boundary, [vɛif.lɪŋ]
(Booij 1977: 79, Van Oostendorp 1994: 154).
Similar to German, Dutch neutralises the voicing distinction in the syllable
coda giving rise to alternations like krab~krabben [krɑp]~[krɑ.bən] ‘crab (sg./pl)’;
cf. klap~klappen [klɑp]~[klɑ.pən] ‘bang (sg./pl)’. In the singular form krab the [b]
is in the coda and thus devoiced, whereas the plural morpheme –en is cohering and
triggers resyllabification. The final syllable of krabben is [bən], maintaining the
feature value for [voice]. Once again the suffixes –ig and –achtig provide
contrastive examples, and have frequently been discussed in the literature with the
stem rood [roːt] ‘red’ (Booij 1977, 1995, 2002, 2003, 2005, Grijzenhout & Krämer
1998, Nespor & Vogel 1986, Van Oostendorp 1994, 2004). The non-cohering suffix
–ig triggers resyllabification and therefore the final /d/ of the stem does not devoice:
[roː.dəx]. –Achtig on the other hand is non-cohering and does not trigger
resyllabification; therefore devoicing does occur: [roːt.ɑxtəx]. The word-medial,
voiced obstruent cluster in voetbal [ˈvudbɑl] ‘football’ appears to violate final
obstruent devoicing, however, this is not the case because the surface form [d] can
be attributed to regressive voicing assimilation triggered by the voiced [b] of [bɑl]
(Booij 1995: 59).
The optional rule inserting schwa between a liquid and a non-coronal
obstruent syllable-finally6 can also be used to distinguish between cohering vs. non-
6
This rule is optional in the sense that a speaker may or may not participate in it, however, for
epenthesizing speakers it is obligatory (Trommelen 1984: 77).
55
cohering suffixes based upon resyllabification across the stem-suffix boundary. In
the form melk ‘milk’ a speaker may insert [ə], giving the output form [mɛlək].
Schwa can not be epenthesized in melkig ‘milky’ ([mɛl.kəx], not *[mɛlə.kəx])
because the syllable boundary falls between [l] and [k], and this rule only applies
between segments within the same syllable. Schwa can be epenthesised in the form
melkachtig ‘milk-like’; [mɛlək.ɑxtəx] because the non-cohering affix does not
trigger resyllabification (Trommelen 1984: 77, 1993: 175, Nespor & Vogel 1984:
78-79).
Dutch has a hiatus rule stating that a schwa occurring immediately before a
vowel within the same phonological word will be deleted (Booij 1995: 67, Van
Oostendorp 2004: 1369). Given that a cohering affix forms a prosodic word with its
base, the final schwa of zijde [ˈzɛidə] ‘silk’ will be deleted when concatenated with
a vowel-initial cohering suffix such as –ig; zijdig [ˈzɛi.dəx] ‘silky’. Comparing this
once more to the non-cohering suffix –achtig, the effect of the prosodic word
boundary blocking schwa deletion is apparent: zijdeachtig [zˈɛidə.ɑxtəx] ‘silk like’.
The final diagnostic of cohering or non-cohering affixes is syntactic rather
than phonological. As was the case in German, a phonological word may be
omitted in conjunction with an adjacent form containing the identical phonological
word, illustrated in the examples (53). Given that all non-cohering suffixes in Dutch
head a phonological word, a suffix which may be gapped must constitute a noncohering suffix. Cohering suffixes, because they incorporate into the prosodic word
of their base, may not be gapped: e.g. –ig in *rood- en groenig ‘reddish and
greenish’.
56
(53)
Gapping of non-cohering suffixes (Booij 2005: 164)
storm- en regenachtig
zicht- en tastbaar
christen- en heidendom
eenzijdig- of partijigheid
3.4
‘storm(y) and rainy’
‘vis(ible) and tangible’
‘christian(ity) and heathendom’
‘onesided(ness) or partiality’
Van Oostendorp’s
Oostendorp’s (2004)
(2004) approach
approach
Van Oostendorp (2004) claims that all aspects of the phonological behaviour
of Dutch suffixes can be predicted from the underlying phonological shape of the
suffix. In his account, the basic generalisation, covering the majority of the suffixes,
is that vowel-initial suffixes are cohering, whereas consonant-initial suffixes are
non-cohering. Given this predictability, Van Oostendorp (2004) argues that it is
unnecessary to posit a stratified grammar with suffixes labelled as Class-I or ClassII. Through the constraint hierarchy in (54) he shows how consonant initial suffixes
will be prevented from cohering with their base, identified by the phonotactic
features discussed in the previous section.
(54)
Phonological Integrity (Van Oostendorp 2004: 1378)
MS-INTEGRITY » ONSET » PR=LEX » SC » KEEP-Ə
(55)
MORPHOLOGICAL SYLLABLE
SYLLABLE INTEGRITY (MS(MS-INTEGRITY) (2004: 1374)
All segments in a syllable should be in the same [morphological]
domain as that syllable.
PR=LEX (2004: 1373)
Morpheme boundaries should coincide with the boundaries of
prosodic costituents (i.e. a phonological word).
SYLLABLE CONTACT (SC) (2004: 1377)
*CiCj, where Ci is less sonorous than Cj.
KEEP-Ə (2004: 1370)
Do not delete ə.
57
The constraint MS-Integrity states that all segments in a syllable should
belong to the same word as the head of that syllable. In the tableau (56), neither
form violates MS-Integrity because the domain of the schwa-headed syllable is the
whole word, therefore onset which selects the form [roː.dəx] with resyllabification
of the stem-final obstruent. This resyllabification also implies that ONSET must
dominate PR=LEX; it is more harmonic for morpheme and syllable boundaries not
to coincide than it is to have an onsetless syllable.
(56) MS-INTEGRITY » ONSET » PR=LEX: resyllabification of final obstruent
(adapted from Van Oostendorp 2004: 1375)
[[roːd]əx] MS-INTEGRITY
ONSET
PR=LEX
[[roː.d]əx]
*
[[roːt.]əx]
*!
Resyllabification is blocked between the stem and an obstruent-initial suffix
because of sonority constraints on syllable structure. The ranking PR=LEX » SC
resolves ambiguous situation where a base-final obstruent may legitimately be
resyllabified to maximise the onset of a liquid-initial suffix, as was the case for
vijfling above (vijf.ling or *vij.fling). In monomorphemic forms, the constraint SC
is undominated, but the domination of PR=LEX, blocks resyllabification in complex
forms.
(57) PR=LEX » SC: No resyllabification before liquid-initial affix (adapted from
Van Oostendorp 2004: 1378)
[vɛif] [lɪŋ]
PR=LEX
[[vɛif.]lɪŋ]
[[vɛi.f]lɪŋ]
SC
*
*!
58
This analysis is successful, provided all cohering suffixes are vowel-initial,
and all non-cohering suffixes are consonant-initial. It is therefore inadequate in
accounting for the suffix, -achtig. Van Oostendorp overcomes this by assuming this
suffix is preceeded by a glottal stop, and therefore behaves in the same way as all
other consonant initial affixes.
(58)
–achtig is [ʔ]-initial (Van Oostendorp 2004: 1380)
[roːd] [ʔɑxtəx]
[[roː.d]ʔɑxtəx]
MS-INTEGRITY
ONSET
PR=LEX
*!
[[roːt.]ʔɑxtəx]
In this analysis so far, no reference is made to stress behaviour, and, as
previously discussed, cohering suffixes may be either stress-affecting or stressneutral. Van Oostendorp (2004) notes that the majority of these ‘paradoxical’
suffixes, that is, suffixes which are cohering in terms of syllabification but noncohering in terms of stress behaviour, do not contain a full vowel, and proposes
they should be analysed with the prosodic structure in (59)a. The implication of this
structure is that PR=LEX will not be violated as there is a prosodic word boundary
between the root and the affix, but, given that they both belong to the same
prosodic word, they can be syllabified as one (Van Oostendorp 2004: 1392).
Together with the high ranking constraint, HDWD, which assigns main stress to the
most deeply embedded prosodic word, the situation with suffixes such as –erig can
now be successfully derived. The further constraint, PSI, militates against a
structure where both the stem and the suffix head their own prosodic words, and
LICENSE prevents the suffix from containing a full vowel. This interpretation of the
structure of an affixed form with a non-cohering affix diverges from the structure
assumed by Booij (1996: 228, 2003: 190); a non-cohering affix heads its own
59
prosodic word. In my own analysis presented below, I argue that, through the use
of stem-level cycles, it is possible to retain the structure of (59)b.
(59) a. Prosodic structure of Dutch suffixes (Van Oostendorp 2004: 1392)
ωʹʹ
ω
[[root]
affix]
b. Prosodic structure of base + non-cohering suffix (Van
Oostendorp 1996, 2003)
ωʹʹ
(60)
ω
ω
[root]
[affix]
PROSODIC SYLLABLE INTEGRITY
INTEGRITY (PSI) (2004: 1392)
Every segment should be in the same prosodic domain as the
syllable to which it belongs.
LICENSE (2004: 1394)
Full vowels are only allowed in the head word
HDWD (2004: 1393)
The head of the PrWd is the innermost PrWd.
(61)
bezitterig [bəzˈɪtərəx] ‘possessive’ (Adapted from Van Oostendorp 2004:
1393-4)
[bəzɪt] [ərəx] LICENSE
ONSET
PR=LEX
PSI
[ωʹ[ω bəzɪ.t] ərəx]
[ωʹ[ω bəzɪt.] ərəx]
*!
[ω[Ʃbəzɪ.t] ərəx]
*!
[ωʹ[ωbəzɪ.t] ωərəx]
[ωʹ[ωbəzɪ.t] ərɪx]
*!
*!
60
The crucial problem with this analysis is that it depends upon the
phonological shape of the suffix to determine whether it will be cohering or not,
and assumes that stress patterning is an automatic consequence of the suffix’s
coheringness or noncoheringness. However, whether a suffix is stress-affecting or
stress-neutral is not predictable from either its phonological shape or its
grammatical role or both. In terms of phonological shape, the suffixes -elijk [ələk]
and –erig [ərəx] are structurally very similar, yet –elijk is stress-affecting whereas –
erig is stress neutral: cf. hartstocht ~ hartstochtelek [ˈhɑrtstɔxt] ~ [hɑrtˈstɔxtələk]
‘passion’ ~ ‘passionate, and Judas ~ judasserig [ˈjydas] ~ [ˈjydasərəx] ‘Judas’ ~
‘Judas-like’ (i.e. treacherous) (Van Oostendorp 2004: 1391). Van Oostendorp’s
(2004) analysis discussed above is unable to distinguish between these two suffixes
as they are both onsetless, and neither of them contains a full vowel. With regard to
grammatical roles, all stress-affecting suffixes are derivational, whereas stressneutral suffixes may be either inflectional or derivational; -en is the plural suffix,
and –erd is a de-adjectival, nominalising suffix.
3.5
Cyclic Analysis
In this section I present my analysis, based upon Baker (2005) and the
notion that word-level suffixes go through a separate stem-level affix cycle before
being concatenated with the stem at the word level. In the previous section I
demonstrated pace Van Oostendorp (2004), that the stress behaviour of a Dutch
suffix cannot be predicted on the basis of its cohering or non-cohering status:
cohering suffixes may be stress-affecging, like –elijk, or stress-neutral, like -erig.
More generally, the underlying phonological shape of a suffix does not suffice to
predict whether it will be stress-affecting or stress-neutral. I therefore assume that
the stress behaviour of Dutch suffixes is a function of their idiosyncratic stratal
61
affiliation: stem-level suffixes are stress-affecting, whereas word-level suffixes are
stress-neutral.
In contrast, it is indeed possible to predict whether a Dutch suffix will be
cohering or noncohering. Stem-level (and therefore stress-affecting) suffixes are
necessarily cohering. Word-level (and therefore stress-neutral) suffixes may be
cohering or noncohering depending on their phonological shape. Booij (1995: 111-2)
provides the basis for this analysis in the statement: ‘it is almost completely
predictable whether a native suffix will be non-cohering or not. The rule is: a suffix
that could form a prosodic word of its own, does it, except for –ing and –nis’ (Booij
1995: 111-2). I argue that, with the implementation of stem-level affix cycles for
word-level affixes, this division is in fact entirely predictable.
The combination of a base (root or stem) with a stem-level suffix gives rise
to a single stem-level cyclic domain, where the base and the suffix are of course
prosodified together. In contrast, the combination of a stem with a word-level suffix
creates two separate stem-level cyclic domains, one for the stem and one for the
affix, where the stem and the affix are prosodified separately; the output of these
separate stem-level cycles is then concatenated to define a single word-level cyclic
domain.
(62) a. Stem level suffixation
XSL
base
affix
b. Word level suffixation (after Baker 2005: 17)
XWL
base
affixSL
62
3.5.1
The stem level
The stem-level cycle of word-level affixes in this model serves to determine
whether the affix in question is able to head a prosodic word or not: that is, whether
it is non-cohering or cohering. One of the most salient restrictions on a prosodic
word is word minimality; a prosodic word must be headed by a foot, and a foot
must be minimally bimoraic and cannot be headed by ə. This restriction can be
captured through the high ranking of the constraints *́ə́ and FTBIN. By preventing
schwa syllables from heading a foot, and therefore a prosodic word, *ə́ correctly
penalises the erection of prosodic words over the suffixes –e, -el, -en, -er, -erd, -erig,
-sel, ster, -te and –tje in their affix cycles. In turn FTBIN rules out the erection of
prosodic words over the suffixes –s, and –t as they only comprise one segment and
cannot be bimoraic. The suffix –nes can be realised as [nɪs] or [nəs] (Booij 1995:
112, Heemskerk & Zonneveld 2000). If it is assumed to have the form [nəs], it is
unproblematic for this analyisis and will be penalised by *́ə.́ If it is assumed to have
the form [nɪs], it remains unaccounted for, as noted by Booij (1995: 111-2).
(63)
*ə́
Schwa cannot head a syllable (cannot be stressed).
FTBIN
Feet are binary under moraic or syllabic analysis (e.g. Kager 1999: 156).
PARSE-Ʃ
All feet must belong to a prosodic word.
The following tableaux illustrate the operation of this constraint hierarchy.
[ω[Ʃərəx]] represents a candidate where the suffix projects a foot and a prosodic
word; [Ʃərəx] represents a candidate where the suffix projects a foot but not a
63
prosodic word; and ərəx represents a candidate where the suffix is syllabified but
not footed, and therefore does not project a prosodic word.
(64) Stem Level: -erig [ərəx]
ərəx
*ə́
[ω[Ʃərəx]]
*!
[Ʃərəx]
*!
FTBIN
PARSEƩ
*!
ərəx
(65) Stem Level: -t
t
*ə́
FTBIN
PARSEƩ
[ω[Ʃt]]
*!
*!
[Ʃt]
*!
t
Booij (1995: 112) notes that the suffix –ing is problematic; it conforms to
word minimality constraints, yet is cohering. However, among Dutch heavy
suffixes with a non-schwa vowel, -ing is unique in being monosyllabic and
onsetless. I therefore assume that it is prevented from projecting a prosodic word by
the conjoined constraint AFFIX≠ω&ONSET, which is violated if an affix
simultaneously projects a prosodic word and is onsetless. –Achtig will not be
prevented from heading a prosodic word if AFFIX≠ω&ONSET is ranked below the
constraint *LAPSE, militating against two unfooted syllables.
(66)
*LAPSE
No adjacent unfooted syllables.
AFFIX≠ω
An affix cannot head a prosodic word.
64
(67) Stem Level: -ing [ɪŋ]
ɪŋ
*ə́
FTBIN
PARSEƩ
*LAPSE AFFIX≠ω&ONSET
[ω[Ʃɪŋ]
*!
[Ʃɪŋ]
*!
ɪŋ
(68) Stem Level: -achtig [ɑxtəx]
ɑxtəx *ə́ FTBIN PARSEƩ *LAPSE AFFIX≠ω&ONSET
[ω[Ʃɑx.təx]]
*
[Ʃɑx.təx]
*!
ɑx.təx
*!
The constraints established so far successfully predict that word-level
suffixes with schwa, no vowel, or no onset (with the exception of –achtig) will be
cohering. The constraint WEIGHT-TO-STRESS must be included in the hierarchy to
ensure that suffixes with a heavy syllable and onset segment (–baar, -dom, -heid, -
ling, -los and –schap) are able to head a prosodic word, and are non-cohering.
Furthermore, given the universal ranking that conjoined constraints dominate the
individual component constraints (i.e. [C1&C2] » C1, C2; Kager 1999: 393), the
constraints AFFIX≠ω and ONSET must also be included. Should AFFIX≠ω be
directly subordinate to the conjoined constraint, no word-level suffix would head a
prosodic word; therefore WSP must be dominated by AFFIX≠ω&ONSET but
dominate AFFIX≠ω and ONSET.
(69) Stem level: -ling [lɪŋ]
lɪŋ
*ə́
FTBIN
PARSE Ʃ
AFFIX≠ω
WSP
AFF≠ω
ONSET
&ONSET
[ω[Ʃlɪŋ]]
[Ʃlɪŋ]
lɪŋ
*
*!
*
*!
*
65
Lexical stems and forms with stem-level suffixes will also be prosodified at
the stem level. The tableau (70) illustrates how the monomorphemic form zijde
‘silk’, passes through the stem-level cycle with the established constraint hierarchy.
This is a consonant initial, bisyllabic lexical word which violates no constraints if it
projects a prosodic word consisting of a single foot.
(70) Stem Level: zijde [zɛidə] ‘silk’
zɛidə
*ə́
FTBIN
PARSEƩ
*LAPSE
AFFIX≠ω&
WSP
AFF≠ω
ONSET
ONSET
[ω[Ʃzɛi.də]]
[Ʃzɛi.də]
[ω[Ʃzɛi][Ʃdə]]
*!
*!
*!
zɛi.də
*!
*
For monosyllabic unaffixes stems, we must assume that projection of a
prosodic word is forced by a superordinate constraint requiring that every lexical
stem must be incorporated into some prosodic word.
Combinations of a root or a stem with a stem-level suffix will pass through
a single stem-level cycle and be prosodified as a single unit, thus accounting for
their stress-affecting nature of the suffix. The forms drihoek [ˈdriːhuk] ‘triangle’ and
driehoekig [driːˈhukəx] ‘triangular’ are illustrated in (71) and (72). In addition to the
constraints discussed in this section, the constraint ALIGNR is necessary to ensure
the strong foot aligns with the right edge of a word of more than two syllables.
(71) Stem level: driehoek [ˈdriːhuk] ‘triangle’
driːhuk
*ə́
FT
PARSEƩ
BIN
*LAPSE
AFFIX≠ω&
WSP
AFF≠ω
ONSET
ONSET
[ω[Ʃˈdriːhuk]]
[Ʃˈdriːhuk]
[ω[Ʃˈdri][Ʃhuk]]
driːhuk
*!
*!
*!
66
(72) Stem level prosodification: driehoek [ˈdriːhuk] ‘triangle’
ω
Ʃ
σs
σw
d r i
h u k
Stem level: driehoekig [driːˈhukəx] ‘triangular’
(73)
driːhukəx
FT
PARSEƩ
ALIGNR
*LAPSE
BIN
& ONSET
[ω[Ʃˈdriːhuk]əx]
[Ʃdriː][ω[Ʃˈhukəx]]
AFFIX≠ω
WSP
AFF
ONS
≠ω
*!
*!
[ωdri[Ʃˈhu.kəx]]
[ωdri[Ʃˈhuk.əx]]
(74)
*!
driehoekig [driːˈhukəx] ‘triangular’
ω
Ʃʹ
Ʃ
σ
d r i
3.5.2
σs
h
σw
u
k ə
x
The word level
Consider now what happens when a stem and a non-cohering suffix come
together in a word-level domain. According to our analysis, the non-cohering suffix
will enter the word level with a prosodic word having been predictably assigned to
67
it in its stem-level affix cycle. All we need to do now is to ensure that this is
prosodic word is preserved and that the affix is not incorporated into a single
prosodic word with the stem. This can be done by ranking IDENTHEAD(ω)above
AFFIX≠ω, as shown in tableau (76).
(75)
IDENTHEAD(ω))
A head of the prosodic word in the input must be a head of a
prosodic word in the output.
(76) zeide+loos [ˈzɛidəloːs] ‘silk less’
[ωˈzɛi.də][ωˈɑxtəɣ] IDENTHEAD(ω)
AFFIX≠ω
*
[ωʹ[ωˈzɛi.də][ωˌɑx.təx]]
(77)
[ωzɛi.ˈdɑx.təx]
*!
[ωˈzɛidɑxtəx]
*!
zeide+achtig [ˈzɛidəɑxtəx] ‘silk-like’
ωʹʹ
ωs
ωw
Ʃ
Ʃ
σs
z ɛ i
σw
d
σ
ə
ɑ
σ
x
t ə x
Faithfulness to the prosodic word head, rather than to prosodic word
boundaries, is demanded because at the word level the boundaries or input prosodic
words are flexible and can incorporate further segments. This is evident in the
affixation of cohering, word-level suffixes. Given that they do not head a prosodic
word in the output of the stem level, at the word level they must be incorporated
into the prosodic word of the stem. The IDENTHEAD(ω) constraint has been
68
independently motivated for Swedish (Móren 2007) and Finnish (Karvonen 2007,
cited in Bermúdez-Otero in preparation, Ch 2: 10). By factorial typology and
Richness of the Base, the existence of a constraint demanding faithfulness to
prosodic word heads predicts that there should be languages in which prosodicword headship is lexically contrastive. Bermúdez-Otero (in preparation) provides
evidence from English to support this prediction from idiolects which contrast
fórmidable and cómparable with despícable and applícable (in preparation Ch 2: 1011).
The stem arbeid ‘work’ will be prosodified at the stem level to consist of
one prosodic word. The word-level, feminising suffix –ster will also pass through a
stem-level cycle, but will not project a prosodic word because doing so would
violate *ə́. At the word level arbeid and –ster will be concatenated, and the suffix
will be incorporated into the prosodic word of the stem. Faithfulness to the prosodic
word head ensures main stress will not move from the initial syllable, thus
accounting for the marked stress pattern [ˈɑrbɛitstər] and not *[ɑrˈbɛit.stər].
(78)
Word level: arbeidster [ωˈɑrbɛitstər] ‘female worker’
[ωˈɑrbɛit]stər
IDENTHEAD(ω)
AFFIX≠ω
[ωˈɑrbɛitstər]
[ωɑrˈbɛitstər]
The
other
crucial
*!
ranking
at
the
word
level
is
that
of
ALIGN(ω,R;morpheme,R) » ONSET. The constraint ALIGN(ω,R;morpheme,R) states
that the right edge of the prosodic word must coincide with the right edge of some
morpheme. This ranking blocks resyllabification of the prosodic-word final
obstruent of rood into the onset of the prosodic word –achtig, whilst permitting it in
the form rodig.
69
(79)
Word level: roodachtig [roːtɑxtəx] ‘red-like’
[ωroːd] [ωɑxtəx]
[ωˊ[ωroːt][ωɑx.təx]
IDENTHEAD(ω)
ONSET
*
[ωˊ[ωroː][ωdɑx.təx]
(80)
ALIGN-MORPH-R
*!
[ωroːt.ɑx.təx]
*!
[ωroː.dɑx.təx]
*!
*
Word level: rood-ig [roːdəx] ‘reddish’
[ωroːd]-əɣ
[ωˈroːt.əx]
IDENTHEAD(ω)
ALIGN-MORPH-R
ONSET
*
[ωˈroː.dəx]
3.6
Conclusion
In this section I have shown how stress-neutral vs. stress-affecting behaviour
of affixes is not predictable from the underlying shape of the suffix (pace Van
Oostendorp 2004), and therefore capture this generalisation through stratal
assignment. Cohering vs. non-cohering behaviour of suffixes, on the other hand, is
predictable from its phonological shape once the stem-level and word-level
distinction has been established (pace Booij 1995). This also removes the need for
the [±word] diacritic (pace Van der Hulst 1984). Booij’s (1995: 111-2) insight has
been formalised through the assignment of stem-level affix cycles to word-level
suffixes, during which constraints sensitive to weight and the presence or absence
of an onset determine whether or not the affix will project a prosodic word.
70
4.
Conclusion
This dissertation has shown how the relationship between morphosyntax and
phonological structure cannot be analysed exhaustively using representation or
derivation alone, but that a combination of the two is necessary. By assuming a
grammar in which suffixes are stratified into stem-level and word-level, together
with the notion that word-level affixes trigger their own stem-level cycle (pace
Baker 2005), insightful analyses of segmental and prosodic structure are attested.
Bermúdez-Otero (2009) provides a similar analysis for /l/ vocalisation and
darkening in English on the basis of phonetic evidence from Sproat & Fujimura
(1993).
71
Bibliography
Baker, Brett (2005). The Domain of Phonological Processes. In Ilana Mushin (Ed.)
Proceedings of the 2004 Conference of the Australian Linguistics Society.
http://hdl.handle.net/2123/112
Beckman, Jill (1998). Positional Faithfulness, unpublished PhD dissertation,
University of Massachusetts, Amherst. ROA-234-1297, Rutgers Optimality
Archive, http://roa.rutgers.edu/
Bermúdez-Otero, Ricardo (1999). Constraint interaction in language change:
quantity in English and Germanic [Opacity and globality in phonological
change]. Unpublished PhD dissertation: University of Manchester &
Universidad de Santiago de Compostela.
Bermúdez-Otero, Ricardo (in preparation). Stratal Optimality Theory. Oxford:
Oxford University Press. [Chapter 1 Introduction & Chapter 2, Sections
2.4.3.3 and 2.4.3.2]
Bloomfield, Leonard (1930). German ç and x. Le Maître phonétique 20, 27-8.
Booij, Geert (1977). Dutch Morphology: A study of word formation in generative
grammar. Lisse: Peter de Ridder Press.
Booij, Geert (1995). The Phonology of Dutch. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Booij, Geert (1996). Cliticization as prosodic integration: the case of Dutch. The
Linguistic Review 13, 219-242.
Booij, Geert (2002). The Morphology of Dutch. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Booij, Geert E. (2002). Prosodic Constraints on Stacking up Affixes. In Geert E.
Booij and Jaap van Marle (Eds.) Yearbook of Morphology 2001. Dordrecht:
Foris Publications. 183–201.
Booij, Geert (2005). The Grammar of Words. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
72
Borowsky, Toni (1989). Structure Preservation and the syllable coda in English.
Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 7, 145-166.
Borowsky, Toni (1993). On the word level. In Sharon Hargus and Ellen M. Kaisse
(Eds.) Studies in Lexical Phonology (Phonetics and Phonology 4). San
Diego: Academic Press, 199-234.
Brockhaus, Wiebke (1995). Final Devoicing in the Phonology of German. Tübingen:
Niemeyer.
Chomsky, Noam & Morris Halle (1968). The sound pattern of English. New York:
Harper and Row.
Dressler, Wolfgang (1976). Morphologization of phonological processes: are there
distinct morphological processes? In A. Juilland (Ed.) Linguistic studies
offered to Joseph Greenberg. Vol. 2. Saratoga: Anma Libri. 313-337.
Durrell, Martin & Winnifred V. Davies (1990). Hessian. In Charles V. J. Russ (Ed.)
The Dialects of Modern German: A linguistic Survey. London: Routledge.
210-240.
Féry, Caroline (1999). Final Devoicing and the stratification of the lexicon in
German. To appear in the Proceedings of HILP 4, Leiden (1999), edited by
Vincent van Heuven, Harry van der Hulst & Jeroen van de Weijer. ROA274-0798, Rutgers Optimality Archive, http://roa.rutgers.edu/
Giegerich, Heinz J. (1992). English phonology: an introduction. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Griffen, Toby D. (1977). German [x]. Lingua 43, 375-390.
Grijzenhout, J. and M. Krämer (1998). Final devoicing and voicing assimilation in
Dutch: The interaction of alignment and featural identity. Working papers
Theorie des Lexikons 106, Heinrich-Heine-Universität Dusseldorf. ROA303-0399, Rutgers Optimality Archive, http://roa.rutgers.edu/
73
Gussenhoven, Carlos (2000). Vowel duration, syllable structure and stress in Dutch.
Ms., University of Nijmegen. ROA-381-0200, Rutgers Optimality Archive,
http://roa.rutgers.edu/
Hahn, Axel (1998). Variation, Grammar, and the Power of the Optimal: German
Obstruent Devoicing. Ms., Heinz Nixdorf Institute, University of Paderborn.
ROA-241-0198, Rutgers Optimality Archive, http://roa.rutgers.edu/
Hall, Christopher J. (1992). Modern German Pronunciation: an introduction for
speakers of English. Manchester: Manchester University Press.
Hall, Tracy A. (1989). Lexical Phonology and the Distribution of German [ç] and
[x]. Phonology 6.1, 1-17.
Harris, John (1990). Derived phonological contrasts. In Susan Ramsaran (Ed.)
Studies in the pronunciation of English: a commemorative volume in honour
of A.C. Gimson. London: Routledge. 87-105.
Heemskerk, Josée & Wim Zonneveld (2000). Uitspraakwoordenboek. Utrecht: Het
Spectrum.
Hulst, Harry van der (1984). Syllable structure and stress in Dutch. Dordrecht:
Foris Publications.
Issatschenko, Alexander (1973). Das Suffix -chen und der phonologische Status des
[ç] im Deutschen. Deutsche Sprache 1.3, 1-6.
Ito, Junko & Armin Mester (2001). Structure Preservation and Stratal Opacity in
German. In Linda Lombardi (ed.) Segmental Phonology in Optimality
Theory: Constraints and Representations. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press. 261-295.
Ito, Junko & Armin Mester (2003). On the sources of opacity in OT: Coda
processes in German. Ms., ROA-347-0999, Rutgers Optimality Archive,
http://roa.rutgers.edu/
Iverson, Gregory K. & Joe Salmons (1992). The place of Structure Preservation in
German Diminutive Formation. Phonology 9.1, 137-143.
74
Kager, René (1999). Optimality Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kenstowicz, Michael J (1994). Phonology in generative grammar. Oxford:
Blackwell.
Kloeke, Wus van Lessen (1982). Deutsche Phonologie und Morphologie: Merkmale
und Markierheit. Tübingen: Niemeyer.
Lahiri, Aditi & Jacques Koreman (1988). Syllable weight and quantity in Dutch. In
West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics 7, 217-228.
Lombardi, Linda (1999). Positional Faithfulness and Voicing Assimilation in
Optimality Theory. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 17.2, 267-302.
Lüdtke, Helmut (1959). Deutsche /x/ und /ç/ in diachronisch-phonologischer
Betrachtung. Phonetica 4, 178-183.
Macfarland, Talke & Janet Pierrehumbert (1991). On ich-Laut, ach-Laut and
Structure Preservation. Phonology 8, 171-180.
Maddieson, Ian (1984). Patterns of Sounds. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Mangold, Max, Günter Drosdowski, Wolfgang Müller, Werner Scholze-Stubenrecht
& Matthias Wermke (Eds.) (1990). Duden 6: Aussprachewörterbuch der
deutschen Standardaussprache. 3rd edn. Mannheim: Dudenverlag.
McCarthy, John J (1998). Sympathy & Phonological Opacity. Ms. University of
Massachusetts, Amherst. ROA-252-0398, Rutgers Optimality Archive,
http://roa.rutgers.edu/
Meinhold, Gottfried & Eberhard Stock (1982). Phonologie der deutschen
Gegenwartssprache. Leipzig: VEB Bibliographisches Institut.
Merchant, Jason (1996). Alignment and Fricative Assimilation in German.
Linguistic Inquiry 27.4, 709-719.
75
Mohanan, Karuvannur Puthanveettil (1986). The theory of lexical phonology.
Dordrecht: Riedel.
Moulton, William G. (1947). Juncture in Modern Standard German. Language 23,
212-216.
Nespor, Marina & Irene Vogel (1986). Prosodic Phonology. Dordrecht: Foris
Publications.
Oostendorp, Marc van (1994). Affixation and integrity of syllable structure in
Dutch. In Reineke Bok-Bennema & Crit Cremers (Eds.) Linguistics in the
Netherlands 1994. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. 151162.
Oostendorp, Marc van (1995). Vowel quality and Phonological Projection. PhD
dissertation, University of Tilburg. ROA-084-0000, Rutgers Optimality
Archive, http://roa.rutgers.edu/
Oostendorp, Marc van (1997). Lexicale variatie in optimaliteitstheorie. Nederlandse
Taalkunde 2, 133-154.
Oostendorp, Marc van (2004). Crossing morpheme boundaries in Dutch. Lingua
114, 1367-1400.
Philipp, Marthe & Arlette Bothorel-Witz (1990). Low Alemannic. In Charles V. J.
Russ (Ed.) The Dialects of Modern German: A linguistic Survey. London:
Routledge. 313-336.
Prince, Alan and Paul Smolensky (1993). Optimality Theory: Constraint Interaction
in Generative Grammar. Unpublished Ms., Rutgers University and Johns
Hopkins.
Raffelsiefen, Renate (1999). Diagnostics for prosodic words revisited: the case of
historically prefixed words in English. In T. Alan Hall & Ursula Kleinhenz
(Eds.) Studies on the phonological word. Amsterdam; Philadelphia: John
Benamins Publishing Company. 133-209.
76
Rubach, Jerzy (1990). Final devoicing and cyclic syllabification in German.
Linguistic Inquiry 21, 79-94.
Seebold, Elmar (Ed.) (2002). Kluge Etymologisches Wörterbuch der deutschen
Sprache. 24th edn. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
Trommelen, Mieke (1984). The Syllable in Dutch. Dordrecht: Foris Publications.
Trommelen, Mieke (1993). Lexical word-processes in Dutch. The Linguistic
Review 10, 161-184.
Vennemann, Theo (1968). German Phonology. PhD dissertation. Los Angeles,
UCLA.
Wiese, Richard (1986). Schwa and the structure of words in German. Linguistics 24,
697-724.
Wiese, Richard (1999). The Phonology of German. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
77