CAS LX 500 Topics in Linguistics
Fall 2000
Paul Hagstrom
Language Universals
October 24, 2000
Week 8a: Syllables and sonority
(1)
Sets of syllabic segments
a.
vowels
b.
vowels, sonorants
c.
vowels, sonorants, obstruents
Lithuanian, Bulgarian
English, Gonja
Imdlawn Tashlhiyt Berber
The typology of heavy syllables and sonority
(2)
Clements, G. N. (1990). The role of the sonority cycle in core syllabification. In Kingston and Beckman
(eds.), Papers in Laboratory Phonology I. Cambridge University Press.
Zec, D. (1995). Sonority constraints on syllable structure. Phonology 12:85–129.
Kenstowicz, M. (1994). Phonology in generative grammar. Blackwell. (p.292)
Jespersen:
In every group of sounds there are just as many syllables as there are clear
relative peaks of sonority.
Sonority:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
voiceless stops
voiceless fricatives
voiced stops
voiced fricatives
voiced nasals
voiced laterals
voiced r-sounds
voiced high vowels
voiced mid vowels
voiced low vowels
obstruents
sonorants (m, n, r, l)
σ
RgU
µ
1
a
σ
RgU
µ
1
l
σ
RgU
µ
1
d
Berber
English
Bulgarian
Berber
English
Berber
• A similar thing can be said about the segments which contribute to syllable weight
(those which add a second mora). Languages make a cut on the sonority hierarchy,
allowing everything higher (more sonorous) as the second mora.
(3)
vowels
Sets of moraic segments
a.
vowels
b.
vowels, sonorants
c.
vowels, sonorants, obstruents
Sonority Sequencing Principle:
Between any member of a syllable and the syllable peak, only sounds of higher sonority
rank are permitted.
σ
Rgu
µ
µ
1 1
a
i
σ
Rgu
µ
µ
1 1
a
l
Syllable Contact Law:
In any sequence Ca.Cb, there is a preference for Ca to exceed Cb in sonority.
English
Lithuanian
Khalkha Mongolian
English
Lithuanian
Syllables and weight:
σ
1
µ
σ
3
µ
µ
Light σ
Heavy σ
• More sonorous segments are more likely to serve as syllable nuclei.
(4)
Khalkha Mongolian, Yindiµ
Lithuanian, Tiv
English, Latin, Cairene Arabic
σ
Rgu
µ
µ
1 1
a
d
English
So, it looks like there is a set of language parameters:
• Moraicity constraint (what sonority is required to be a mora)
• Syllabicity constraint (what sonority is required to be a syllable nucleus)
It turns out:
• In any given language,
the set of segments that act as syllable nuclei may or may not belong
to the same class as those that contribute to weight.
• If the two sets are not coextensive, the sonority class of the moraic set
includes that of the syllabic set.
That is:
• mar.in ‘hand (NON-FUT)’ mar.ur. ‘hand (FUT)’ mar.t.a ‘hand (uninfl.)’
• pee‰in ‘ti-tree (non-fut)’ pee‰ur. ‘ti-tree (fut)’ pee‰ ‘ti-tree (uninfl.)’
The sonority requirement on being a mora is never more stringent
than the sonority requirement on being a syllable nucleus.
Point: CVV (pee‰) satisfies minimal word requirement, has two moras.
CVC (wik) does not satisfy the minimal word requirement, has one mora.
CVS (mar.) does not satisfy the minimal word requirement, has one mora.
This follows from our account, though—
• A syllable nucleus has to also be a mora…
• … we can’t have something which can be a syllable nucleus but can’t be a mora.
Some examples…
Cairene Arabic
Lithuanian:
CVC is heavy (like CVV)
CVS is heavy (like CVV), CVO is light (like CV)
(9)
Osthoff’s Law
V Ø / V — [l r m n] C
“Long vowels become short when followed by a tautosyllabic sonorant.”
(relevant for Homeric Greek, but true of Lithuanian too).
(10)
Syllable types in Lithuanian: a.
b.
c.
(5)
a.
b.
c.
kátabu
mára÷a
wálad-i
ĹLL
ĹLL
ĹLL
‘they wrote’
‘broth’
‘my boy’
(6)
a.
b.
c.
qaahíra
¿aalámu
t.aalíba
HĹL (CVV)
HĹL
HĹL
‘Cairo’
‘his world’
‘student (fem.)’
(7)
a.
b.
c.
falsáfa
maktába
bus.t.ági
HĹL (CVC)
‘philosophy’
‘library’
‘mailman’
Bimoraicity Constraint
A syllable may have at most two moras
(8)
a.
b.
fas.s.áru
s.al.láh.it
HĹL (CVG)
‘they explained’
‘she repaired’
• l r m n (sonorants) have moras, obstruents don’t (long vowels have two moras).
Lardil
CVC is light (like CV)
To tell:• Accusative/non-future form of nouns add –n.
• Future forms add –r..
Hence: yalulun ‘flame (ACC)’
kelan ‘beach (NON-FUT)’
wit.en ‘inside (NON-FUT)’
yalulur. ‘flame (FUT)’: root: yalulu.
kelar. ‘beach (FUT)’: root: kela
witer. ‘inside (FUT)’: root: wit.e
• But the uninflected forms are:
yalul ‘flame’ kela ‘beach’ wit.e ‘inside’
Lithuanian accent:
CV, CVV
CVO, CVVO
CVS, *CVVS
Two relevant kinds acute and circumflex.
(11)
a. cvv káimas ‘village’
(12)
a. CVV
b. CVL
c. CVN
d. CVO
e. CV
viĩnas ‘wine’, peĩlis ‘knife’, zuĩkis ‘rabbit’
gar̃sas ‘sound’, baL̃sas ‘voice’
šim̃tas ‘hundred’, lañkas ‘rainbow’
[no cases of circumflex accent or accute on CVO].
[no cases of cirucmflex accent or accute on CV]
So CVS seem to act like CVV and CVO seems to act like CV.
• There is a minimal word constraint:Words must have two moras.
The uninflected form loses its final vowel only if it doesn’t result in
a subminimal word.
• wikin ‘shade (non-fut)’ wikur. ‘shade (fut)’ wika ‘shade (uninfl.)’ [a inserted]
acute
circumflex
Typology and examples (assuming the compressed sonority hierarchy)
[–cons]
vowels
[+son]
vowels and sonorants
—
all segments (including consonants)
a.
Syllabicity constraint
σ
1
[–cons]
b.
c.
Moraicity constraint
µ
1
[+son]
Mohawk, a Northern Iroquoian language, spoken mainly in New York, Ontario, and
Québec. Passamaquoddy is an Eastern Algonquian language spoken in parts of Maine
(15)
A METRICALLY INVISIBLE vowel is a vowel ignored by metrical processes.
(16)
Penultimate stress (normally)
Lithuanian, Kwakwala, Tiv
(MOHAWK)
σ
1
[–cons]
Cairene Arabic
a. r á k . w a s
2
1
σ
1
[+son]
English
a. rákwas
/hra-kw-as/
‘He picks it’
b. wakashé:tu
/wak-ashet-u/
‘I have counted it’
c. wakharatatuhátye /wak-haratat-u-hatye/ ‘I go along lifting up’
(17)
d.
µ
1
[–cons]
Khalkha Mongolian,
Yindiµ, Lardil
e.
µ
1
[+son]
Gonja
f.
Some of my own work on the accentual systems of Mohawk and Passamaquoddy
—
—
Imdlawn Tashlhiyt Berber
Stress skips epenthetic vowels (e below)
a. t é k e r i k s
2
1
a.
b.
c.
d.
(18)
tékeriks
wákeras
t4́kerike÷
wa÷tkatátenake÷
/te-k-rik-s/
/w-akra-s/
/t-4-k-rik-÷/
/wa÷-t-k-atat-nak-÷/
a. w a k é n y a k s
2
1
(13)
ts§.ti
‘she selected’ s§
u.tx§k ‘I struck you’
tf§.tk§t ‘you suffered a sprain.’
a. wakényaks
b. tekahsutérha÷
c. sasáhket
(14)
a.
b.
tr§glas
ts§kras
tx§znas
tz§dmas
tl§bžas
tr§ksas
tn§Sfas
tm§sxas
‘lock’
‘do’
‘store’
‘gather wood’
‘step onto’
‘hide’
‘graze (skin)’
‘transform’
(19)
‘I put them together’
‘it smells’
‘I’ll put together side by side’
‘I scratched myself’
Unskipped epenthetic vowels (e below)
Imdlawn Tashlhiyt Berber
tr§gl§t
ts§kr§t
tx§zn§t
tz§dm§t
tl§bž§t
tr§ks§t
tn§Sf§t
tm§sx§t
(MOHAWK)
/wak-nyak-s/
/te-k-ahsutr-ha÷/
/sa-s-ahkt/
(MOHAWK)
‘I get married’
‘I splice it’
‘go back!’
WHAT YOU WILL COME TO BELIEVE:
i. A metrically invisible vowel does not head a syllable.
ii. Metrical invisibility is dissociated from epenthesis.
iii. Syllables headed by “weak” vowels are avoided.
iv. “Weak” vowels have deficient underlying prosodification
(Sec. 1-2)
(Sec. 3)
(Sec. 4)
(Sec. 5)
(26)
1.
Syllable-sensitive phenomena in Mohawk
(20)
Mohawk generalizations
(diagnosing syllable structure)
a. Stress falls on the penultimate syllable.
(16)
b. A stressed syllable must be heavy (CV:, CVC).
(21-22)
c. A word must consist of two syllables.
(24)
(21)
Vowel is long in open stressed syllable
a. w a . k a s . h é: . t u
a. wakashé:tu
b. khyá:tus
c. khará:tats
(22)
/wak-ashet-u/
/k-hyatu-s/
/k-haratat-s/
(27)
‘I have counted it’
‘I write’
‘I am lifting it up a little
(with a lever)’
a. w a k . h a . r a . t a . t u . h á t . y e
wakharatatuhátye
rákwas
kó÷kwats
tékya÷ks
/wak-haratat-u-hatye/
/hra-kw-as/
/k-o÷kwat-s/
/te-k-ya÷k-s/
‘I go along lifting up’
‘He picks it’
‘I dig’
‘I break it in two’
(23)
Conclusion:
(24)
Prothetic i inserted to ensure a bisyllabic minimal word.
a. íky4s
b. í:keks
c. íkya÷ks
(28)
CVC and CV: are both heavy with respect to (20b).
b. í : . k e k s
/k-y4-s/
/k-ek-s/
/k-ya÷k-s/
*kéks
‘I put it’
‘I eat’
‘I cut it’
2.
Metrical invisibility: Epenthetic e in Mohawk
(25)
Contexts in which epenthetic e is inserted:
a. Between a consonant and a single sonorant (Cen, Cer, Cew)
b. Between a consonant and a word-final glottal stop.
c. After a consonant when followed by a consonant cluster
(except hC and sC).
a. 4́ k e r 4÷
/4- k-r -4-÷/
‘I will put it into a container’
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
/4-k-r-4-÷/
/te-k-rik-s/
/t-4-k-ahsutr-4÷/
/w-akra-s/
/wa÷-t-k-atat-nak-÷/
‘I will put it into a container’
‘I put them together’
‘I will splice it’
‘it smells’
‘I scratched myself’
4́ker4÷
tékeriks
t4kahsúter4÷
wákeras
wa÷tkatátenake÷
And it is also invisible for minimal word requirement.
a. í s e r i ht
/hs-ri-ht-ø/
‘cook!’
a. íseriht
/hs-ri-ht-ø/
‘cook!’
• e is invisible for stress (20a)
(antepenultimate (26a-d) preantepenultimate(26e) stress)
• e is invisible for syllabification (20b)
(e can’t take onset ⇒ stressed σ is closed ⇒ no tonic lengthening)
• e is invisible for minimal word requirement (20c)
(e doesn’t count as a σ ⇒ i-prothesis)
Vowel is not long in closed stressed syllable
a.
b.
c.
d.
Epenthetic e breaking up consonant-sonorant sequence (25a)
(29)
(MOHAWK)
(26)
(28)
(30)
Epenthetic e breaking up word final C÷ sequence (25b)
a. 4ká:ra t e ÷
/4-k-ara t-÷ /
‘I lay myself down’
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
/4-k-arat-÷/
/ro-kut-ot-÷/
/wa÷-t-k-atat-nak-÷/
/t-4-k-rik-÷/
/o-nraht-÷/
/t-4-k-hkw-÷/
‘I lay myself down’
‘he has a bump on his nose’
‘I scratched myself’
‘I’ll put together side by side’
‘leaf’
‘I’ll lift it’
4ká:rate÷
rokú:tote÷
wa÷tkatátenake÷
t4́kerike÷
ónerahte÷
t4́:kehkwe÷
And it is also invisible for minimal word requirement
a. í t e n e h r e ÷
/t-n-ehr-÷/
‘you and I want’
a. ítenehre÷
b. ítewehre÷
/t-n-ehr-÷/
/t-wa-ehr-÷/
‘you and I want’
‘you and I want to’
• e is invisible for stress (20a)
(antepenultimate (28a-b) preantepenultimate (28c-f) stress)
• e is invisible for syllabification (20b)
(e can’t take onset ⇒ stressed σ is closed ⇒ no tonic lengthening)
• e is invisible for minimal word requirement (20c)
(e doesn’t count as a σ ⇒ i-prothesis)
(30)
Epenthetic e breaking up triconsonantal clusters (25c)
a. wa k é ny aks
/wa k-ny ak-s/
‘I get married’
a.
s ó k - % l a n
2
1
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
/wak-nyak-s/
/s-rho-s/
/te-k-ahsutr-ha÷/
/s-k-ahkt-s/
/sa-s-ahkt/
/te-k-hsa÷kt-s/
‘I get married’
‘you coat it with something’
‘I splice it’
‘I got back’
‘go back!’
‘I bend it’
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
sók-%lan
w%́l-%po
nís-ek-%pí-si-t
tót-%po
%pì-n
wakényaks
sérhos
tekahsutérha÷
skáhkets
sasáhket
tekhsà:kets
• e is visible for stress
(always penultimate, stress on e (30a-c) or before e (30d-e))
• e is visible for syllabification
(e can take onset ⇒ tonic lengthening (30f), prior cluster (30d-e))
• e is visible for minimal word requirement (20c)
(e counts as a σ ⇒ no i-prothesis in (30bd) *íserhos, *ískahkets)
Conclusion:
e inserted for syllabification
e inserted for other reasons
DEDUCTION:
3.
(32) Invisible %, disrupting stress
⇒
⇒
visible to all syllable-sensitive processes.
invisible to all syllable-sensitive processes.
There’s a syllable in the first case and not in the second.
Severing invisibility from epenthesis: Passamaquoddy %
(31) Passamaquoddy stress generalization:
First syllable, and even syllables counting from right to left, are stressed.
d.
a.
b.
c.
d.
s é h t á y - e w é s t o
F
2
1
2
1
wás-is
l-éwésto
wík-ewésto
séhtáy-ewésto
‘child’
‘he speaks’
‘he likes to talk’
‘he speaks while walking backwards’
*sók-%́lan
‘it pours (rain)’
‘he sits nicely, comfortably; he is well off’
‘ghost’
‘he sits a long way off, he is far along’
‘sit (sg.)!’
(33) Visible %, after a cluster, same morphemes!
a.
p í s k - %́ l a n
F
2
1
a.
b.
c.
d.
písk-%́lan
‘it rains so hard that it is dark or hard to see’
étót-apsk-%́la-k‘it is raining very big drops’ (245)
tékk-%́pi-t
‘as far away as he sits’ (82)
sp-%́po
‘he sits up high’ (81)
(34) Alternating visibility of % (not after a cluster):
a.
á s % w - % c % k - %́ p o
F
1
2
1
a.
b.
c.
ás%w-%c%k-%́po ‘it (an.) is flopped over to one side’
ht-%́l-%t%m-%́n-%l ‘he is eating them (inan.)’ (92)
h-pásk-%c%k-%́n-a ‘you (sg.) break him/it (an., squishy) with your hand’
Conclusion 1: Passamaquoddy % shows contextual metrical invisibility.
Like Mohawk epenthetic e, % is invisible when not associated to a σ.
(Evidence from (32) vs. (33) and from (34)).
Argument 1 against epenthesis: Clusters interrupted by % occur elsewhere.
(35) a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
kt%́k%m%́lp%n
t%́lpáyo
kt%makp%ket
kp%́cále
wìkp
piskitpohk%t
tp%lokemo
‘we (exc.) hit you (sg. or pl.)’
‘he is scared’
‘it is a weak liquid’
‘he is hoarse’
‘black ash’
‘it is a dark night’
‘he gossips’
cf.
(32b) w%́l%po
cf.
(32c) nísek%písit
cf.
(32d) tót%po
Argument 2 against epenthesis: % in initial position
(36) a.
b.
%pì-n
épi-t
‘sit (sg.)!’
‘when he sits’ (433)
(“Initial change” [Conjunct])
Argument 3 against epenthesis: %-initials pattern with underlying V-initials
Step one:
(putative) %-initial -%po patterns with vowel-initial ewesto
(37) Connective i is inserted between /kis-/ ‘finished, past’ and C-initial finals
a.
kís-ewésto ‘he talked’
b. kísí-ko
‘he is full grown’
(38) /-%pi-/ ‘sit’ patterns with vowel-initial final (37a)
kís-%po
‘it (an.) is finished’
Step two:
Connective insertion is sensitive to underlying distinctions
(39) Motivating initial a of final /-ahte-/ ‘be located’
a.
sákh-áhte ‘it protrudes into view’
b. íht%l-áhte ‘it is always there’
(40) Syncope of a in /-ahte-/ (when not after a cluster (39a) or invisible % (39b))
a.
émék-te ‘it is down below’ < / emehk-ahte-w /
b. nís-ék-te ‘it has two layers’ < / nis-ek-ahte-w /
(41) i insertion is sensitive to underlying form:
kís-te
‘it is finished’ < / kis-ahte-w /
Conclusion 2:
Passamaquoddy % is not epenthetic (at least sometimes)
DEDUCTION:
A vowel need not be epenthetic to show metrical invisibility.
4.
Avoidance of “weak vowels”: Syncope in Passamaquoddy
(42)
Most %’s in Passamaquoddy only surface when they are...
a.
not word-initial
and ( b.
metrically visible
or
c.
preceding a sonorant )
(43)
(44)
c. ht-%́t%lí-na-n
d. t%́lí-ne
cf. (32a) sók-%lan
‘his throat’ (169)
‘his voice is changing’ (169)
‘it pours (rain)’
(42c)
‘he is dying (subordinative)’
‘he is dying’
Syllable contact constraint: ...Cσ][σR...
(45)
(suggested by LeSourd (p.c.))
The pattern: A “weak vowel” will delete unless
• It is needed for syllabification (i.e. it is metrically visible)
• It is needed to satisfy the syllable contact constraint
Suppose STRAY ERASURE / PROSODIC LICENSING holds.
∴
Unprosodified material does not surface.
Suppose this is responsible for syncope;
∴
Weak vowels are preferentially unprosodified.
Section 2: Metrically invisible weak vowels are not dominated by a syllable.
∴
If prosodified, they’re dominated by a mora
(weak layering)
Why the preference?
• Weak vowels are not underlyingly moraic
• For a weak vowel to surface, a mora must be added to the representation.
(*FILL-µ discourages such additions, prefers syncope)
(46) Certain (lexically marked) instances of % resist syncope before an obstruent.
a.
pét-ék-%po
‘it (an.) comes to be located here.’
b. w%́l-%po
‘he sits nicely, comfortably; he is well off’
c.
nís-ek-%pí-si-t ‘ghost’
d. tót-%po
‘he sits a long way off, he is far along’
e.
%pì-n
‘sit (sg.)!’
(47)
“Syncope-resistant” % projects a mora.
5.
The nature of “weak” vowels
(48)
Three behaviors of the Passamaquoddy %
a.
Full vowel
b.
Weak vowel which resists syncope
c.
Weak vowel which can delete before obstruents
(49)
Underlying representations of Passamaquoddy %
a.
V—µ—σ
Full vowel
b.
V—µ
Weak vowel which resists syncope
c.
V
Weak vowel which can delete before obstruents
% before an obstruent, surfacing if metrically visible (a/c) else not (42b)
a. áps-%kíhq%n
‘it is small’
b. kín-kíhq%n
‘it is big’
c. h-q%́ták%n
d. píl%wi-qták%n-e
Word-initial % deletes before a sonorant (a/b) or an obstruent (c/d) (42a)
a. ht-%́lamí-ptin
‘the palm of his hand’
b. lámí-ptin
‘palm of the hand’
Consonant preceding % acts like a syllable coda rather than an onset:
(50)
*STRUC
There can be no prosodic structure in the output which is not
contained in the input. (Prince & Smolensky 1993: 25, Zoll
1993)
(54) a.
b.
A lot of underlying prosodification?
Consider the learner in the context of OT and Lexicon Optimization (Inkelas 1994).
c.
d.
e.
6.
Summary
WHAT YOU HAVE COME TO BELIEVE:
(19) i. A metrically invisible vowel does not head a syllable.
ii. Metrical invisibility is dissociated from epenthesis.
iii. Syllables headed by “weak” vowels are avoided.
iv. “Weak” vowels have deficient underlying prosodification
(Sec. 1-2)
(Sec. 3)
(Sec. 4)
(Sec. 5)
Dutch?
Dutch distinguishes short vowels (å, ´, ø, œ, ˆ) from long vowels (a, e, o, ø, i, y, u) and
diphthongs (åu, ´i, œy) in open syllables.
Short vowels cannot occur in open syllables.
(51) a. * tåksi
b. * sl´
c.
taksi
d. sle
e.
b4y
f.
χal´i
‘taxi’
‘sledge’
‘rain shower’
‘galley’
(52) BIMORAIC CONSTRAINT Syllables dominate at least two moras.
% is different: phonetically a short vowel, but exempt from bimoriacity constraint.
(53) a. * mikå
b. * hˆndˆ
c.
mika
d. hˆndi
e.
mik%
f.
hˆnd%
‘mica’
‘Hindi’
(name)
‘hind’
/h/, /˜χ/, and diphthong + /r/ do not occur either before % or syllable-finally.
They may occur before full vowels.
/˜/ may occur before % and may occur syllable-finally. It does not occur before
full vowels.
Obstruent + liquid consonant clusters do not occur before %.
Syllable final consonant clusters and consonant clusters before % undergo
optional epenthesis of a very short %-like vowel.
In Dutch dialects where /sp/ is metathesized at the end of a syllable, it is also
metathesized before %, but not before full vowels.
Mohawk data and discussion: Alderete (1995), Beatty (1974), Bonvillain (1973), Broselow (1982),
Ikawa (1995), Michelson (1988, 1989), Piggott (1995), Pizer (1996), Postal (1969), Potter (1994).
Passamaquoddy data and discussion: LeSourd (1995), Sherwood (1986), Stowell (1979). Most
precise source locations are given in Hagstrom (1997).
References
Alderete, J. (1995). “Faithfulness to Prosodic Heads,” Ms., University of Massachusetts at Amherst. [Available via
Rutgers Optimality Archive].
Beatty, J. (1974). Mohawk Morphology. Ph. D. dissertation, City University of New York (1972). Published by
Occasional Publications in Anthropology Linguistics Series no. 2, Greeley, CO: Museum of Anthropology,
University of Northern Colorado.
Bonvillain, N. (1973). A Grammar of Akwesasne Mohawk. Ethnology Division Mercury Series no. 8, Ottawa: National
Museum of Man, National Museums of Canada.
Broselow, Ellen. 1982. On predicting the interaction of stress and epenthesis. Glossa 16(2), 115-132.
Hagstrom, Paul. Contextual metrical invisibility. In Bruening, B., Y. Kang, and M. McGinnis (eds.), PF: Papers at the
interface (MITWPL 30). Cambridge, MA: MIT Working Papers in Linguistics.
Ikawa, H. (1995). “On Stress Assignment, Vowel-Lengthening, and Epenthetic Vowels in Mohawk: Some Theoretical
Implications,” Handout from SWOT.
Inkelas, Sharon. 1994. The consequences of optimization for underspecification. Ms., University of California at
Berkeley. [Available via Rutgers Optimality Archive].
Itô, J. and R. A. Mester (1992). “Weak Layering and Word Binarity,” UCSC ms.
LeSourd, Philip. 1993. Accent and syllable structure in Passamaquoddy. New York: Garland.
Michelson, Karin. 1988. A comparative study of Lake-Iroquoian accent, Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Michelson, Karin. 1989. Invisibility: Vowels without a timing slot in Mohawk. Theoretical perspectives on Native
American languages, ed. by Donna Gerdts and Karin Michelson. Albany: SUNY Press.
Piggott, Glynne. 1995. Epenthesis and syllable weight. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 13:283-326.
Pizer, K. (1996). “Epenthesis and (non)Moraicity: the case of Mohawk Weightless [e],” paper presented at LSA 1997.
Postal, P. (1969). “Mohawk vowel doubling,” International Journal of American Linguistics 35(4):291-298.
Potter, Brian. 1994. Serial optimality in Mohawk prosody. CLS 30.
Prince, A. and P. Smolensky (1993). Optimality Theory. Forthcoming from Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Selkirk, E. (1984). Phonology and Syntax, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
Sherwood, David. 1986. Maliseet-Passamaquoddy verb morphology. Canadian Ethnology Service Paper no. 105.
Ottawa: Canadian Museum of Civilization
Sherwood, D. (1986). Maliseet-Passamaquoddy Verb Morphology. Canadian Ethnology Service Paper no. 105.
Ottawa: Canadian Museum of Civilization
Steriade, D. (1982). Greek Prosodies and the Nature of Syllabification, Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.
Stowell, T. (1979). “Stress systems of the world, unite!” MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 1. Cambridge, MA: MIT
Working Papers in Linguistics.
Zoll, Cheryl (1993). Directionless syllabification and ghosts in Yawelmani. ROW-1 [available on ROA].