Comments welcome!
[email protected]
October 2002
Word, Foot, and Syllable Structure in Burmese*
2
(1)
Antony Dubach Green
Monophthongs
i(:)
u(:)
e:
o:
«
:
ε(:)
a(:)
University of Potsdam
1.
Introduction
The Burmese language has been discussed descriptively by a variety of authors, including Bernot (1963, 1980), Okell (1969), and Wheatley (1987), and detailed phonetic
studies have been done by Mehnert & Richter (1972–77) and Thein Tun (1982). In this
paper I examine the structure of the syllable, foot, and prosodic word in Burmese, using
the constraint-based framework of Optimality Theory (Prince & Smolensky 1993). In
particular, I discuss several issues in the prosodic structure of Burmese, and make a
number of theoretical proposals affecting the theories of prosodic phonology, tone, and
the lexicon more generally.
In the rest of section 1 I give the inventory of Burmese surface phones – vowels,
tones, and consonants. In section 2 I discuss major (= heavy) syllables and show that an
extended Coda Condition bans all singly linked place features (not just consonantal
ones, as in many other languages) from the right edge of a syllable in Burmese. I argue
that the properties that distinguish major syllables from minor (= light) syllables (including presence of tone and toleration of onset clusters) are most straightforwardly accounted for on the assumption that all major syllables are feet and that all feet consist of
exactly one major syllable. Furthermore the foot is the tone-bearing unit (TBU) in Burmese. In section 3 I examine minor syllables and show that their shape and distribution
are attributable to the extended Coda Condition, a markedness constraint against heavy
syllables, and constraints requiring all feet and prosodic words (pwords, symbolized ω)
to be right-aligned. In section 4 I first show that all prosodic categories are preferably
nonbranching in Burmese, then discuss the exceptions to the generalization that a pword
contains exactly one foot in Burmese, arguing that both the pword and the foot are in
some cases prespecified in the input. Section 5 concludes the paper.
1.1
Vowels and tones
The surface vowels and tones of Burmese are as shown in (1).1
* This paper is a revised version of a paper printed in Working Papers of the Cornell Phonetics
Laboratory 10 (1995), 67–96. I should like to thank the following people for their help and advice: Fraser
Bennett, Abby Cohn, Terri Griffith, Máire Ní Chiosáin, David Parkinson, San San Hnin Tun, Ratree
Wayland, Julian Wheatley, Moira Yip, Draga Zec, and an anonymous WPCPL reviewer.
1
There is very little agreement from one author to another on the designation of the tones. Some
authors use terms such as low, high, creaky, checked, falling, heavy, glottalized, etc.; others number the
tones 1–4. Among the authors who use numbers, there is even variation as to which tone is given which
number. There is also wide variation as to the transcription of Burmese. Throughout this paper, I use the
same names of tones as used by Wheatley (1987), and a broad transcription in nearly standard IPA.
The surface vowels and tones of Burmese
Diphthongs
ei
ou
ai
au
Tones
Low
à (etc.)
High
á (etc.)
Creaky
a0 (etc.)
Checked a? (etc.)
The syllable structure of Burmese is C(G)V((V)C), which is to say the onset consists of
a consonant optionally followed by a glide, and the rhyme consists of a monophthong
alone, a monophthong with a consonant, or a diphthong with a consonant. Diphthongs
cannot stand in open syllables, a fact which will be discussed in more detail in § 2.2 below.
Vowel length in Burmese is not phonemic, but predictable: vowels (except «) are long in
open syllables, and short in closed syllables. Some representative words are shown in
(2).2
(2)
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
Basic syllables of Burmese
CV
mè:
CVC
mε?
CGV
mjè:
CGVC
mjε?
CVVC
màuN
CGVVC
mjáuN
‘girl’
‘crave’
‘earth’
‘eye’
(term of address for young men)
‘ditch’
Burmese, like many languages of Southeast Asia, has a distinction between major and
minor syllables.3 The exact definitions of major and minor syllables vary from language
to language, but in general a major syllable is a surface-heavy (µµ) syllable, and a minor
syllable a surface-light (µ) syllable. In most languages that have this distinction, including Burmese, a word must contain at least one major syllable and may not end with a
minor syllable. In Burmese, the characteristics of a major syllable are: (i) it is always
heavy (thus vowels in open syllables are long); (ii) it may contain any vowel except «;
(iii) it bears tone; and (iv) it may have a simple (C) or complex (CG) onset. All the
words in (2) above are examples of major syllables. The characteristics of a minor syllable in Burmese are: (i) it must contain the vowel « and no other vowel; (ii) it must be a
light (therefore open) syllable; (iii) it must not bear tone; (iv) it must have only a simple
(C) onset; and (v) it must not be the final syllable of the word. A result of this last restriction is that a word may not contain only minor syllables. Examples of words containing minor syllables are shown in (3).
2
All examples in this paper are from Bernot (1963), Okell (1969), Esche (1976), or Wheatley
(1987), unless otherwise noted.
3
The terms “major syllable” and “minor syllable” seem to have been used first by Henderson
(1952) for Cambodian and Shorto (1960) for Palaung.
3
(3)
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
Words containing minor syllables
kh«.lou?
p«.lwè:
θ«.j$:
k«.lε?
th«.m«.jè:
méiN.m«.wu?
4
aspirated equivalent of j.
‘knob’
‘flute’
‘mock’
‘be wanton’
‘rice-water’
‘women’s clothing’
(6)
Examples of illicit minor syllables are shown in (4). (4)a and b violate the restriction
that minor syllables must be light; (4)c violates the restriction that minor syllables must
not bear tone; (4)d violates the restriction that a minor syllable may not have a complex
onset; (4)e–g violate the restriction that minor syllables must not be word-final; and
(4)f–g also violate the restriction that a word must have at least one major syllable.
(4)
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
2.
The consonants of Burmese
Stops and affricates
p
t
ph
th
b
d
Fricatives
θ
s
sh
(ð) z
tS
tSh
dZ
S
k
kh
g
h
?
phja?
tShε?
khwε@:
shou?
m8ou?
n8wé:
ø8i¼
l¥u?
S0:
Swe0:
‘cut’
‘cook’
‘split’
‘tear’
‘bury’
‘make warm’
‘to touch with flame, light’
‘set free’
‘reduce’
‘move’
All consonants except the placeless nasal N are allowed in onset position, and an onset
consonant is obligatory in Burmese. Thus vowel-initial words of English and Pāli are
borrowed into Burmese with initial ?, e.g. ?ìNdZìN ‘engine’, ?à:kà:θa0: ‘space, universe’
< Pāli ākāsa. Only placeless consonants are allowed in coda position, namely ? and the
placeless nasal N (which is realized as nasalization on the preceding vowel, with an approximate coronal articulation after monophthongs and an approximate velar articulation after diphthongs (Bennett & Lehman 1994)).4 Although h is placeless, it does not
appear in coda position, presumably reflecting the cross-linguistic tendency to disfavor
coda h.
Illicit minor syllables
*m«N.m«.wu?
*kh«:.lou?
*θ«$.j$:
*θw«.j$:
*lwè:p«
*k«.l«
*k«
1.2
Consonants
The consonants of Burmese are shown in (5).
(5)
Unaspirated/aspirated verb pairs
a.
pja? ‘be cut’
b.
tSε? ‘be cooked’
c.
kwε@: ‘be split’
d.
sou? ‘be torn’
e.
mjou? ‘be buried’
f.
nwé: ‘be warm’
g.
øi¼
‘be alight’
h.
lu?
‘be set free’
i.
j0:
‘be reduced’
j.
jwe0: ‘be moved’
Nasals (N is placeless)
m
n
ø
ŋ
m8
n8
ø8
ŋ*
Approximants
l
j
w
l¥
(w8)
N
(r)
The approximants r and w8 are rare, as is ð except as a voiced allophone of θ.
The feature distinguishing the voiced and voiceless sonorants is probably not
[±voice] but [±spread glottis]. In other words, the voiceless sonorants are phonologically
aspirated. Evidence for this position comes from a set of about 50 pairs of verbs in
which the intransitive or passive member of each pair begins with a nonaspirated sound,
while the transitive, causative, or active member begins with the aspirated correlate
(Okell 1969, 42, 205 ff.). Examples are shown in (6); as seen in (6)i–j, S functions as the
Major syllables
2.1
Bimoraicity
As alluded to above, a word in Burmese must contain at least one major syllable, which
may be defined as a syllable whose nucleus is a full vowel – i.e. any monophthong or
diphthong except «. Major syllables are always bimoraic, as vowels are long in open
syllables, and short in closed syllables.
(7)
a.
b.
c.
Bimoraic major syllables
khà:
khàN
kha?
‘shake’
‘undergo’
‘draw off’
Since vowel length is not contrastive in Burmese, the output khà: can correspond to an
input /khà/; the vowel is lengthened in an open syllable in order to achieve a bimoraic
foot. In optimality-theoretic terms, this can be expressed as compliance with FTBIN (8)
at the cost of violating DEP(µ) (9).5
4
See Trigo (1988) for a full discussion of the behavior of placeless nasals (she calls them nasal
glides) across languages.
5
See McCarthy & Prince (1995) on the MAX and DEP families of constraints. I consider only Input-Output correspondences in this paper, and use MAX and DEP as shorthand for MAX-IO and DEP-IO.
5
(15)
a.
b.
c.
(8)
FTBIN (Prince & Smolensky 1993, 47)
Feet are binary at some level of analysis (σ, µ).
(9)
DEP(µ)
Every mora in the output has a correspondent in the input.
The constraint requiring a pword to contain at least one foot belongs to the HEADEDNESS
family (Selkirk 1995).
(10)
HEADED(ω)
A pword dominates a foot.
(12)
/khà/
[khà]ω
[(khà)]ω
+ [(khà:)]ω
HEADED(ω)
*!
/khàN/
[khàN]ω
+ [(khàN)]ω
[(khà:N)]ω
HEADED(ω)
*!
FTBIN
DEP(µ)
*!
*
FTBIN
DEP(µ)
*!
2.2
Diphthongs and mid monophthongs
The phonotactic restrictions on the rhymes of major syllables are the following: The
diphthongs ei ai ou au must be closed by one of the coda consonants ? or N (13); the
mid monophthongs e o  must occur in open syllables (14); ε may occur in an open syllable or a syllable closed by ?, but no syllable may end in εN (15).
(13)
a.
b.
c.
d.
Diphthongs only in closed syllables
?ei?
‘sleep’
?èiN
shai?
‘arrive’
thàiN
tShou?
‘sew’
tShòuN
tSau?
‘stone’
tSàuN
(14)
a.
b.
c.
e, o,  only in open syllables
?è:
‘be cold’
tShò:
‘be sweet’
tS$:
‘fry’
‘house’
‘sit’
‘overspread’
‘cat’
*?e?
*tSHo?
*tS?
*?èN
*tSHòN
*tS$N
*?èi
*tHài
*tSHòu
*tSàu
ε in open syllables and before ?
θwε$:
‘connect by thread etc.’
θwε?
‘be fluent’
*θwε$N
This complementary distribution of e o  with ei ou au can be explained by prohibiting
all singly linked place features from the right edge of a syllable. The Coda Condition
(Steriade 1982, Itô 1986, 1989, Yip 1991) was devised as a way of restricting the occurrence of features in the coda; for example, by prohibiting place features. A Coda Condition doing just this was formalized by Itô (1989) as in (16).
(16)
The ranking HEADED(ω), FTBIN » DEP(µ) leads to vowel lengthening in open syllables,
as shown in the tableau in (11). No lengthening is necessary in closed syllables, as
shown in (12). A pword is demarcated by [ ]ω, and a foot is demarcated by parentheses
( ).
(11)
6
Coda Condition
* C ]σ
|
PLACE
Burmese patently obeys this constraint, as the only permissible coda consonants, ? and
N, are both placeless. The Coda Condition has traditionally applied only to consonantal
place features, as in Itô’s (1989) illustration with Japanese. In that language, the only
coda consonants allowed are the placeless nasal N (e.g. hoN ‘book’) and the first halves
of geminates (e.g. kitte ‘stamp’) and homorganic nasal-stop clusters (e.g. tombo ‘dragonfly’). The latter two cases are not violations of the Coda Condition, Itô argues, because the place features are licensed by the onset position, and the coda consonants
merely share the onset consonants’ place features. This situation obtains in Burmese as
well, where coda ? and N tend to assimilate in place to a following consonant, as illustrated in (17).
(17)
a.
Place assimilation
jakkwε?
seitthìN
lousza?
<
<
<
ja?kwε?
sei?thìN
lou?za?
‘area, quarter’
‘opinion’
‘fictitious story’
b.
pjáuŋkòuN
?«pjìnthwε?
θàødZei?
<
<
<
pjáuNkòuN
?«pjìNthwε?
θàNdZei?
‘alter completely’
‘go outside’
‘iron hook’
As in Japanese, coda place features in Burmese must be licensed by being linked with
an onset consonant, as illustrated in (18).
7
(18)
Linked coda consonants
σ
σ
µ µ
µ µ
σ
µ
by placing the place features of u in the second mora. In the well-formed structure,
(22)b, the second mora is filled by the o of the first mora (which licenses place features),
and the u is simply omitted from the output.
σ
µ
µ
8
µ
(22)
[+nas]
j a
kw ε ?
jakkwε?
pj áu
pjáuŋkòuN
Diphthongs prohibited in open syllables
[+nas]
k
òu
(a)
* σ
(b)
µ µ
However, unlike Japanese, Burmese apparently prohibits not only consonant place features but also vowel place features from the right edge of a syllable. This extension of
the Coda Condition to vowel place features can explain the complementary distribution
of diphthongs and monophthongs seen above. Specifically, if all place specifications are
barred from the right edge of the syllable, diphthongs can be excluded from open syllables, because to allow diphthongs in open syllables is to allow the place features of the
second element of the diphthong to occur at the syllable’s right edge. Vowel place features are allowed at ]σ only if they are linked also to the preceding syllable-internal
mora, where they are licensed. This is illustrated in (19).
(19)
tShò: ‘be sweet’ (14)b
σ
µ µ
tSh
o
An optimality-theoretic constraint called CODA-COND, excluding all place features from
]σ, can be formulated as in (20).6 Also relevant is MAX(seg), which prohibits deletion of
input segments.
(21)
CODA-COND
* µ]σ
|
PLACE
MAX(seg)
Every segment of the input has a correspondent in the output.
Let us consider a form such as tShò: ‘be sweet’ (19), and assume the diphthong ou to be
in the input; in this case, the ill-formed structure shown in (22)a violates CODA-COND
6
A positive statement of the Coda Condition along the lines of Itô & Mester (1994, 1999) is not
possible under my analysis. A constraint Align-L([PLACE], σ) would not able to judge between wellformed tShou? ‘sew’ and ill-formed *tShou with regard to the place features of u. The extension of the prohibition on place features at ]σ to vowels renders the name Coda Condition rather unfortunate, but I will
retain it here nevertheless in order not to break with tradition.
µ µ
tSh ò u
tSh ò
As shown in the tableau in (23), the constraint ranking CODA-COND » MAX(seg) causes
monophthongization in open syllables.
(23)
(22)a =
(22)b =
/tShòu/
(tSh[ò]µ[u]µ)
+ (tSh[ò]µµ)
CODA-COND
*!
MAX(seg)
*
On the other hand, when the diphthong is followed by a (placeless) coda consonant, as
in tShou? ‘sew’ (13)c, the diphthong is no longer in syllable-final position. I hypothesize
that the diphthong is placed under a branching nucleus. As shown in the tableau in (25),
this violation of *COMPLEXNuc is less serious than a violation of MAX(seg) caused by
deleting part of the diphthong.
(24)
(25)
*COMPLEXNuc (Prince & Smolensky 1993, 87)
The nucleus of a syllable is nonbranching.
/tShou?/
+ (tS [ou]µ[?]µ)
(tSh[o]µ[?]µ)
h
(20)
σ
CODA-COND MAX(seg) *COMPLEXNuc
*
*!
This explanation will hold for the other monophthong/diphthong pairs, seen above in
(13)–(14): ?è: vs. ?èiN, ?ei?; tS$: vs. tSàuN, tSau?. Thus we may conclude that the
monophthongs e o  are output allophones of input ei ou au.7
Since ε and ai both occur before ? (e.g. shε? ‘offer respectfully’ vs. shai? ‘arrive’;
tε? ‘go up’ vs. tai? ‘attack’), they are separate phonemes /ε/ and /ai/, but the distinction
between them is neutralized as ε: in open syllables. It should be emphasized, however,
that since no phonological or morphological process in Burmese will convert an open
syllable into a closed syllable, it is impossible to determine whether words like θwε$:
‘connect by thread’, bε@: ‘duck’, z«bwε@: ‘table’, nε$: ‘district’, wε$: ‘buy’, pε@: ‘peas’, etc.,
7
The alternative hypothesis, that input monophthongs /e o / have diphthongal output allophones,
would have grave difficulties motivating diphthongization in closed syllables.
9
10
have input /ε/ or /ai/.8 From the point of view of the principle of Lexicon Optimization
(Prince & Smolensky 1993), therefore, it is preferable to assume that learners do not
posit lexical forms with /ai/ in an open syllable. English words with aI in an open syllable acquire an epenthetic coda consonant when borrowed into Burmese, e.g. tai?phúN
‘typhoon’, dàiNjà:rì: ‘diary’, nε?tàiN ‘necktie’, etc.
We may regard the absence of εN as an accidental gap, since the other monophthongs permit a nasal coda: iN, uN, aN are all well formed. The set of Burmese input
full vowels is shown in (26).
would be resolved by the placement of stress: (ÈL L) would mean a trochaic system,
(L ÈL) an iambic system. (H) alone is ambiguous, but van de Vijver (1998) argues that
the iamb is not a primitive of metrical phonology and that UG contains no constraint
requiring right-headed feet. If this is correct, the (H) foot of Burmese can be regarded as
a trochee “by default”.
Every pword in Burmese must end in a major syllable, i.e. a foot. This implies
that both MONOσ and ALIGN-R (29) are undominated and inviolable in Burmese. Further discussion of their effect on the grammar will be deferred to § 3.
(26)
(29)
Input full vowels of Burmese
Monophthongs
Diphthongs
i
u
ei
ou
ε
a
ai
au
2.3
Monosyllabic feet
Following standard definitions of feet (Allen 1973, Prince 1990, Hayes 1995, inter alios),
we may assume that heavy (µµ) syllables are in fact feet; they may in principle be either
iambs or moraic trochees. Although most words in Burmese are either [L H] or [H] (L =
light syllable, H = heavy syllable), there is good reason to suppose that the foot in Burmese is not an iamb – either (L H) or (H) – but rather a single heavy syllable (H) only. In
this case, light syllables in [L H], [L L H], and [H L H] words would remain unfooted,
as shown in (27).
(27) Monosyllabic feet in Burmese
a.
(bε@:)
‘duck’
d.
b.
(páN)
‘flower’
e.
c.
(n8i?)
‘year’
f.
z«(bwε@:)
th«m«(jè:)
(méiN)m«(wu?)
‘table’
‘rice-water’
‘women’s clothing’
Now, according to Grouping Harmony (Prince 1990), for both iambs and moraic trochees, (L L) is as harmonious a foot as (H); the two should be equivalent. But although a
Burmese word may consist of a single heavy syllable, as shown above, no Burmese
word consists of two light syllables; *[L L] is not a possible word shape, and therefore
presumably not a possible foot. This fact may be attributed to a constraint against
branching feet, which can be dubbed MONOσ. In general, branching structure may be
considered more marked than nonbranching structure, and therefore such a constraint
finds a natural home in markedness theory.
(28)
ALIGN-R (McCarthy & Prince 1993, 32)
Align-R(ω, ƒ): The right edge of every pword is aligned with the right edge of
some foot.
2.4
Tone and the foot
Modern Burmese is generally analyzed as having a four-way tone contrast in major syllables, as illustrated by the minimal quadruplet in (30).
(30)
The four tones of Burmese (Okell 1969, 5)
a. Low
kHà:
‘shake’
b. High
kHá:
‘be bitter’
c. Creaky
kHa0:
‘fee’
d. Checked
kHa?
‘draw off’
In syllables with a nasal rhyme, only three tones are possible. The Checked tone is excluded from such syllables.
(31)
Three tones in nasal rhymes
a. Low
kHàN
b. High
kHáN
c. Creaky
kHa0N
Wheatley (1987, 842) sums up the acoustic correlates of the four tones as follows:9
Tone in Burmese has a complex realisation of which pitch is only one feature. In
the case of the checked tone, segmental features of vowel quality and final consonantism as well as suprasegmental features of pitch and duration are involved.
The relative presence of these features varies with context. It has been observed,
for example, that in disyllabic words such as za?pwε@: ‘(a) play’, the pitch of the
checked tone (high, in citation) may range from high to low. The same kind of
variation is characteristic of creaky tone as well.
In citation form, the three tones that appear in smooth syllables [i.e. open
syllables and those ending in -N –ADG] have the following features: the ‘creaky’:
tense or creaky phonation (sometimes with final lax glottal stop), medium duration, high intensity and high, often slightly falling pitch; the ‘low’: normal phonation, medium duration, low intensity and low, often slightly rising pitch; the
MONOσ
A foot is nonbranching (is monosyllabic).
One result of the absence of bisyllabic feet is that it is impossible to determine whether
the (H) foot of Burmese is a trochee or an iamb. If (L L) feet were allowed, the issue
8
Historically, Burmese ε: has three Proto-Tibeto-Burman sources, namely *e, *ai, and *āi, as
shown, for example, by pε@: ‘peas’ < TB *be, lε@: ‘change, exchange’ < TB *lai, and nε@: ‘knead’ < TB *nāi
(Benedict 1972, 59 ff.).
‘undergo’
‘dry up’
‘appoint’
9
I have altered Wheatley’s phonetic transcription to conform with the system I use.
11
12
‘high’: sometimes slightly breathy, relatively long, high intensity and high pitch,
often with a fall before a pause.
Detailed phonetic studies of the Burmese tones include Mehnert & Richter (1972–77,
part 3) and Thein Tun (1982). On the basis of these phonetic descriptions, I suggest that
two binary distinctive features are responsible for tone in Burmese: [±constricted glottis]
and [±tense]. Creaky and Checked tones both involve a certain amount of glottal constriction, therefore they are both [+c.g.]; High and Low tones are [–c.g.]. Creaky and
High tones are both characterized by high intensity, therefore they are both [+tense];
Checked and Low tones are [–tense].
(32)
‘Ma Than’
‘Ma Than’s shoulder bag’
g.
?ìNm«tàN
?ìNm«ta0N ?ìNm«tàN
‘very’
‘tremendously, very very’
b.
là:dε$:
là:dε0: lù:
‘came’
‘the man who came’
c.
nè:mε$:
nè:mε0: ?èiN
‘will stay’
‘the house (one) will stay in’
(34)
d.
tS«n$:
tS«n0:gò:
‘I’
‘to me’
σ
e.
nìN
ni¼N ?«mè:
‘you’
‘your mother’
µ µ
The use of these features, which are normally considered laryngeal features, rather than
the tonal features like [±upper register] and [±high pitch] often proposed for other languages (Yip 1980, Duanmu 1990), is justified by Wheatley’s comment, quoted above,
that pitch is only one phonetic correlate of tone in Burmese, and is variable in the [+c.g.]
tones anyway.
The morphology of Burmese is such that tones do not really interact with each
other; there is no tone spreading, tone sandhi10, or other phonological process affecting
tone in Burmese. Burmese does, however, have a morphological process called “induced Creaky tone,” which changes a Low tone, and sometimes a High tone, to a Creaky
tone in a variety of expressive, formative, and grammatical environments. A few examples are shown in (33); see Okell (1969, 18–21) and Wheatley (1987, 848–849) for more
discussion.
Induced Creaky tone (Okell 1969, 18–21)
a.
θóuNzε$:
‘thirty’
θóuNzε0:ŋá:
‘thirty-five’
10
ma0: θáN
ma0: θa0N lwε$:-?ei?
Induced Creaky tone is less common on (originally) High-toned syllables than on Lowtoned syllables, and it does not happen at all on Checked-toned syllables. On originally
Creaky-toned syllables, induced Creaky tone is of course vacuous. These facts may support the featural analysis in (32): induced Creaky tone, i.e. the replacement of the original tone with [+c.g., +tense], is most likely to occur when the original tone is maximally
distinct from Creaky, namely Low tone, which is [–c.g., –tense]. High tone, which
shares [+tense] with Creaky, is less likely to be affected, and Checked tone, which
shares [+c.g.] with Creaky, is not subject to induced Creaky tone at all.
In other languages, the tone-bearing unit (TBU) has been argued to be the mora
or the syllable. For example, Odden (1995) argues that the TBU of African Languages is
the mora, Zec (1988) shows that the TBU of Lithuanian is the mora when it dominates a
vowel or sonorant consonant (but not when it dominates an obstruent), and Duanmu
(1990) argues that the TBU of Chinese languages is the mora, while Yip (1995) argues
for the syllable as the TBU of Chinese languages.
What is striking about Burmese is that only major (i.e. bimoraic) syllables carry
tone at all. If the TBU of Burmese were the mora, we would expect minor syllables to
carry a simple tone and major syllables to be able to carry either a simple or a contour
tone. If the TBU of Burmese were the syllable, we would expect both minor and major
syllables to carry a simple tone. But in fact, minor (monomoraic) syllables carry no tone
at all, and major (bimoraic) syllables carry only a simple tone. This suggests that the
TBU of Burmese is the foot.
The phonetic implementation of Low, High, and Creaky tones is found primarily
on the vowel of the foot with which the tone is associated. The phonation, duration, intensity, and pitch of the vowel are all affected. The chief aspect of the phonetic implementation of Checked tone, however, is the syllable-final glottal stop. The vowel of a
Checked-tone syllable is significantly shorter than vowels in all other syllables: Thein
Tun (1982, 89) demonstrates that the average duration of a monophthong in Checked
tone is 84 ms shorter than that of a monophthong in Low tone, 109 ms shorter than that
of a monophthong in High tone, and 53 ms shorter than that of a monophthong in
Creaky tone. Thus I suggest that the vowel of a Checked-tone syllable is monomoraic,
while the glottal stop itself fills the second mora of the syllable, as shown in (34).
Distinctive features of the Burmese tones
[constricted glottis]
[tense]
Low
–
–
High
–
+
Creaky
+
+
Checked
+
–
(33)
f.
Except for the falling pitch of the High tone before a pause, which is almost certainly a phonetic
rather than phonological effect.
ƒ
n8 i ?
+c.g.
–tense
13
14
As mentioned above, syllables that end in the placeless nasal N do not appear in
Checked tone in Burmese. This fact can be analyzed by assuming that N and ? are both
required to stand in coda position, but Burmese phonotactics do not allow complex codas. Thus one of the consonants must be deleted when they are in conflict.
However, Burmese lacks phonological processes that allow us to know what the
output of a hypothetical input like /θa[+nasal][+c.g., –tense]/ would be. The most plausible candidates are θàN (where [+c.g.] has become [–c.g.]), θa0N (where [–tense] has
become [+tense]), and θa? (where [+nasal] has been deleted). But learners do not encounter any alternations that would motivate the input /θa[+nasal][+c.g., –tense]/ for any
of these outputs, so that Lexicon Optimization predicts that such inputs are not created
by speakers in the first place. If such a form were to be present in the input, however,
the decision would have to be made on the basis of the ranking of faithfulness constraints on the features [nasal], [c.g.], and [tense]. Unfortunately there is no independent
evidence for what this ranking might be, and the question what the output of the hypothetical input /θa[+nasal][+c.g., –tense]/ remains unanswerable.
a “reducing compound.” In a reducing compound, the last syllable of a nonfinal member
of the compound is reduced from a major to a minor syllable. Some examples of reducing compounds are shown in (36). (The obstruent voicing seen on the final element of
some of these compounds will not concern us here, as it does not affect prosodic structure.)11
2.5
The rhymes of major syllables
The complete inventory of rhymes of major syllables, including tones, is shown in (35).
The high vowels i u are pronounced lax in closed syllables (IN, I?; UN, U?) (Wheatley
1987, 840), but as this is not relevant to syllable structure I transcribe such rhymes simply as iN, i?; uN, u?.
(35)
/i/
/u/
/a/
/ε/
/ai/
/ei/
/au/
/ou/
The fifty rhymes of major syllables (adapted from Thein Tun 1982)
Nonnasal rhyme
Nasal rhyme
Low
High
Creaky Checked Low
High
Creaky
1. ì:
2. í:
3. i¼:
4. i?
5. ìN
6. íN
7. i¼N
8. ù:
9. ú:
10. u0:
11. u?
12. ùN
13. úN
14. u0N
15. à:
16. á:
17. a0:
18. a?
19. àN
20. áN
21. a0N
22. ε$:
23. ε@:
24. ε0:
25. ε?
26. ai?
27. àiN
28. áiN
29. a0iN
30. è:
31. é:
32. e0:
33. ei?
34. èiN
35. éiN
36. e0iN
37. $:
38. @:
39. 0:
40. au?
41. àuN
42. áuN
43. a0uN
44. ò:
45. ó:
46. o0:
47. ou?
48. òuN
49. óuN 50. o0uN
3.
Minor syllables
Minor syllables contain only the vowel « in Burmese. They contain neither tone nor
coda consonants, do not allow complex onsets, and may never appear in the final position of a word. As we have seen, major syllables are bimoraic; it is reasonable to suppose
that minor syllables are monomoraic. This supposition is borne out by the phonetic evidence of Mehnert & Richter (1972–77), who show that the duration of minor syllables has
a range of 25–50 ms, while the duration of major syllables has a range of 150–600 ms.
Minor syllables often occur as the initial syllable of a bisyllabic monomorphemic
word like kH«lou? ‘knob’. In this case, the toneless schwa is probably already represented as such since the learner is confronted with no alternations that would justify any
other input. But minor syllables arise also in a kind of compound word that I refer to as
(36)
a.
Reducing compounds
tSáN + pó: > tS«bó:
‘floor’ + ‘insect’ > ‘bug’
b.
ŋá: + ?u0: > ŋ«?u0:
‘fish’ + ‘egg’ > ‘fish-spawn’
c.
θwá: + jè: > θ«jè:
‘tooth’ + ‘juice’ > ‘saliva’
h
h
d.
t «míN + jè: > t «m«jè:
‘rice’ + ‘water’ > ‘rice-water’
e.
k«lá: + pjè: > k«l«bjè:
‘Indian’ + ‘country’ > ‘India’
f.
lu? + pì: + lá: > lu?p«lá:
‘free’ + ‘is’ + Q > ‘is (one) free?’
g.
nè: + mε$: + lá: > nè:m«lá:
‘stay’ + IRREALIS + Q > ‘will (one) stay?’
h.
pja0: + tíN + pau? > p«díNbau?
‘show’ + ‘tighten’ + ‘opening’ > ‘window’
i.
méiN + ma0: + wu? > méiNm«wu?
‘woman’ + fem. + ‘clothing’ > ‘women’s clothing’
j.
láN + ma0: + t$: > láNm«d$:
‘road’ + ‘main’ + ‘honorific’ > ‘main road’
As can be seen from these examples, a number of phonological processes happen under
reduction: tone is lost; all vowel place features are lost, leaving only placeless « behind;
a coda placeless nasal is lost (cf. (36)a, d); and an onset cluster is simplified (cf. (36)c,
h). All of these processes find a single explanation if we assume that minor syllables are
unfooted, an assumption that can be attributed to the role of MONOσ and ALL-FT-R (37).
As discussed above, MONOσ is undominated in Burmese; both it and ALL-FT-R crucially outrank PARSE-σ (38) and DEP(µ). The domination of ALL-FT-R cannot be demonstrated with this tableau, but in § 4.2 we will see that it can be violated.
(37)
ALL-FT-R
Align-R(ƒ, ω): The right edge of every foot is aligned with the right edge of
some pword. 12
(38)
PARSE-σ
Syllables are parsed into feet.
11
Examination of the glosses in the examples (especially (36)f, g) reveals that many “compounds”
in Burmese are not compounds in the traditional sense at all, but rather “concatenation[s] of lexical words
and grammatical formatives, presumably under a single X-bar category (X°)” (Bennett & Lehman 1994,
where the reader is referred also to Lehman 1986 and 1993).
12
The UG constraint ALL-FT-L is ranked too low in Burmese ever to play a role.
15
(39)
/ŋá+?u0/
[(ŋá:)(?u0:)]ω
[(ŋá.?u0)]ω
+ [ŋ«(?u0:)]ω
MONOσ
ALL-FT-R
*!
PARSE-σ
DEP(µ)
**
(43)
*
FTBIN
*!
NOHEAVY
*
*
3.1
Loss of vowel place features
Under the widespread assumption that « is a placeless vowel, the fact of its occurrence
to the exclusion of all other vowels in minor syllables in Burmese can be attributed to
CODA-COND. As defined in (20), this constraint bans place features not specifically from
the coda position of the syllable but rather from the right edge of the syllable. In open,
monomoraic syllables, the nucleus vowel is at the right edge of the syllable and therefore subject to CODA-COND. When a syllable surfaces as a minor syllable, for example
in reducing compounds, the vowel is reduced to « in compliance with CODA-COND and
in violation of lower-ranking MAX(Place) (40). An example comes from the word ŋ«?u0:
‘fish-spawn’ (36)b, as shown in the tableau in (41).
(40)
MAX(Place)
Place features in the input have correspondents in the output.
(41)
/ŋá+?u0/
ŋa.(?u0:)
+ ŋ«.(?u0:)
CODA-COND
*!
/khà/
[(k à)]ω
+ [(khà:)]ω
h
*!
As we saw in § 2.4, the TBU of Burmese is the foot. When foot structure is lost, tone is
necessarily lost with it. The other three phonological processes found in reducing compounding – loss of vowel place features, loss of the coda nasal, and onset simplification
– are also attributable to the loss of foot status under syllable reduction. In what follows
we shall analyze each of these processes in turn; we begin with the loss of vowel place
features.
MAX(Place)
*
Extending the coda condition so that it applies not only to syllable-final consonants but
to vowels as well thus accounts simultaneously for the prohibition on diphthongs in
open syllables and the reduction of all vowels to « in minor syllables.
3.2
Loss of the coda nasal
It is generally accepted that heavy syllables are more marked than light syllables, so that
a constraint banning heavy syllables is predicted.
(42)
16
NOHEAVY
A syllable contains only one mora.
In fact, of course, most syllables in Burmese are major syllables, and therefore bimoraic.
But provided FTBIN outranks NOHEAVY in Burmese, a syllable may be bimoraic only in
order that FTBIN not be violated, as illustrated in (43).
NOHEAVY thus predicts that unfooted syllables must be monomoraic, since FTBIN is not
an issue. This is the reason why the first syllable in a reducing compound such as
/tSáN+pó/ tS«bó: ‘bug’ (36)a loses its coda nasal: a bimoraic syllable would induce an
extra violation of NOHEAVY, and footing the first syllable would violate ALL-FT-R (37).
Undominated MONOσ prevents the two syllables from forming a (L L) foot. The ranking
MONOσ, FTBIN » ALL-FT-R » PARSE-σ, NOHEAVY » MAX(seg) is shown in the tableau
in (44). (The relative ranking of NOHEAVY and PARSE-σ cannot be determined, but
NOHEAVY crucially dominates MAX(seg).)
(44)
/tSáN+pó/
[tS«(bó)]ω
+ [tS«(bó:)]ω
[(tS«bó)]ω
[tSaN (bó:)]ω
[(tSáN)(bó:)]ω
MONOσ FTBIN ALL-FT-R PARSE-σ NOHEAVY MAX(seg)
*!
*
*
*
*
*
*!
*
*
**!
σ!
MONOσ and FTBIN both appear to be unviolated in Burmese: there is no circumstance
under which either a (L L) foot or a (L) foot is permissible.
3.3
Onset simplification
One of the many differences between major and minor syllables in Burmese is that major syllables allow onset clusters while minor syllables do not. If a major syllable with a
complex onset becomes minor in a reducing compound, the second consonant of the
onset is lost, as shown in (45) (Okell 1969, 15).
(45)
a.
b.
c.
Onset cluster simplification in reducing compounds
nwá: + no0: > n«no0:
‘cow’ + ‘udder’ > ‘milk’
θwá: + jè: > θ«jè:
‘tooth’ + ‘juice’ > ‘saliva’
pja0: + tíN + pau? > p«díNbau?
‘show’ + ‘tighten’ + ‘opening’ > ‘window’
To account for this fact I suggest that onset clusters are permitted only in foot-initial
position in Burmese, and that the first consonant of such clusters is linked directly to the
foot. Following arguments formalized in Green (2002), I propose that a universally
ranked subhierarchy on onset clusters includes a string *σ[CC » *ƒ[CC, i.e. a cluster at
the left edge of a syllable is universally more marked than a cluster at the left edge of a
foot. In Burmese, this ranking is interrupted by MAX(seg), i.e. *σ[CC » MAX(seg) »
*ƒ[CC, allowing cluster simplification at the syllable level but not the foot level. Also
low ranked is EXHAUSTIVITYƒ (Selkirk 1995, 443), which militates against domination
by feet of anything other than syllables. The ranking is exemplified in the tableaux in
(49) and (50).
17
(46)
*σ[CC
A sequence of two consonants is forbidden in syllable-initial position.
(47)
*ƒ[CC
A sequence of two consonants is forbidden in foot-initial position.
(48)
EXHƒ
A foot immediately dominates only syllables.
18
of DEP(µ) and NOHEAVY, in order to meet FTBIN.
(52)
(49)
/nwáno0/
.nw«.(no0:.)
+ .n«.(no0:.)
*σ[CC
*!
MAX(seg)
EXHƒ
*ƒ[CC
*
/bε@/
+ [(bε@:)]ω
[(bε@)]ω
no output
FTBIN M-PARSE DEP(µ)
*
*!
*!
NOHEAVY
*
In Burmese, « is never long and never has a tone. The most straightforward explanation
for this is to suggest that « can never be footed in Burmese. This is reminiscent of Cohn
& McCarthy’s (1998) analysis of Indonesian, where « resists footing, where possible, by
virtue of a constraint NON-FOOT(«), which states that a syllable headed by « has no metrical projection, in effect prohibiting the inclusion of « in a foot (53).
In the tableau in (50), the consonant in italics is extrasyllabic, being linked directly to
the foot.
(53)
(50)
In Burmese, this constraint is undominated, since all light syllables contain « in their
nuclei, and all light syllables are unfooted. In (54), we see that because a syllable with «
cannot be footed, but all pwords must have a foot at their right edge, the null parse is the
optimal candidate for an input form whose only vowel is «.13
/nwá/
(.nwá:.)
(.ná:.)
+ (n .wá:.)
*σ[CC
*!
MAX(seg)
EXHƒ
*ƒ[CC
*
*
*
*!
Thus, all of the phonological processes that major syllables undergo when they are
transformed into minor syllables under reducing compounding are linked to the loss of
foot status. Tone is lost, because the TBU of Burmese is the foot. A coda nasal and all
vowel place features are lost, because an unfooted syllable must be light, and place features are banned from the right edges of syllables. And complex onsets are simplified,
because only feet tolerate complex onsets.
*!
*
*!
PARSE-σ
+ [θ«(j$:)]ω
[(θ«j$)]ω
[θ«(j$)]ω
no output
NOHEAVY
/θ«j$/
DEP(µ)
(55)
M-PARSE
The null parse – the candidate in which there is no morphological structure and no phonetic realization – violates no constraints except M-PARSE, and is optimal only when all
other candidates violate undominated constraints. The null parse is indicated in the tableaux by the term no output. The tableaux in (52)–(57) show the interaction of M-PARSE
with other constraints. (52) shows that an open syllable must be made long, in violation
(55) shows that a [L L] word cannot be footed (L L) because of MONOσ; since the last
syllable contains a full vowel (i.e. not «), it can be lengthened in violation of DEP(µ) in
order to be footable.
MONOσ
M-PARSE (McCarthy & Prince 1993, 112)
Morphemes are parsed into morphological constituents.
FTBIN ALIGN-R NON-FOOT(«) M-PARSE DEP(µ) NOHEAVY
*!
*
*!
*
*
*!
*
NON-FT(«)
(51)
/b«$/
[(b«$)]ω
[(b«$:)]ω
[b«]ω
+ no output
FTBIN
3.4
Distribution of minor syllables
Next, let us examine the constraint interactions that prohibit « from occurring wordfinally. I have already said that FTBIN, MONOσ, and ALIGN-R are undominated, unviolated constraints in Burmese. This means that every pword must end in a (H) foot.
Under the principle of Richness of the Base (Prince & Smolensky 1993), the
input must be allowed to contain forms that cannot surface, such as words with final « in
Burmese. When there is no output for a given input, the constraint M-PARSE (51) is
violated. This absence of output is also called the null parse.
(54)
NON-FOOT(«) (Cohn & McCarthy 1998)
Schwa-headed syllables have no metrical projection.
*
*
*
*
*!
13
One possible output for an input /b«$/ would be something like bε$:, where vowel place features
have been added to make the vowel footable. Lexicon Optimization, however, asserts that learners would
posit the input /bε$/, not /b«$/, for such a form.
19
(56) shows that because of the unfootability of «, a [L L] word in which both syllables
contain « can never surface; the null parse is optimal.
NOHEAVY
PARSE-σ
DEP (µ)
M-PARSE
*!
*
*!
*! *
*!
MONOσ
*!
NONFT(«)
[(k«l«$)]ω
[k«(l«$)]ω
[k«(l«$:)]ω
[(k«$:)l«]ω
[k«l«]ω
+ no output
ALIGN-R
/k«l«$/
FTBIN
(56)
*
*
*
*
*
**
*
*
*
*
In (57) we see that the undominated constraints prevent any input that ends with « having a grammatical output; again, the null parse is optimal.
DEP(µ)
NOHEAVY
PARSE-σ
*!
*!
M-PARSE
*!
MONOσ
[(lwè:)p«]ω
[(lwè.p«)]ω
[lwe(p«$:)]ω
+ no output
NON-FT(«)
/lwèip«/
ALIGN-R
(57)
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
4.
Polypodic words
One salient property of Burmese prosodic phonology is that every prosodic category
preferably contains exactly one of the next lower category. Unfooted syllables are necessarily monomoraic because NOHEAVY, prohibiting bimoraic syllables, is dominated only
by FTBIN (cf. (44)). All feet are monosyllabic in Burmese, because MONOσ is undominated. And, as we have seen, most pwords contain exactly one foot, because of highranking ALL-FT-R (cf. (44)). Such words are called “monopodic,” and examples of them
are shown in (58). Thus there is a strong preference for nonbranching prosodic categories in Burmese.
(58)
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
Monopodic words in Burmese
[(θwá:)]ω
[(lè:)]ω
[(sà:)]ω
[(?èiN)]ω
[θ«(j$:)]ω
[kh«(lou?)]ω
[tH«m«(jè:)]ω
‘go’
‘be heavy’
‘writing’
‘house’
‘mock, satirize’
‘knob’
‘rice-water’
20
Nevertheless, there are some words in Burmese that contain more than one foot (“polypodic words”). These are chiefly compounds (59)a or loanwords (59)b. A very few noncompound polypodic words do not appear to be loanwords (59)c. I shall refer to noncompound polypodic words, such as (59)b–c, as “superlong” words.
(59)
a.
b.
c.
Polypodic words in Burmese
(nè:)(thàiN) = (nè:) + (thàiN)
(tSh0:)k«(lε?)
(mòuN)(dáiN)
‘reside’ = ‘stay’ + ‘sit’
‘chocolate’ < English
‘storm’
In this section I shall argue that polypodic words are prespecified for some prosodic
structure: compounds like (59)a contain pword structure in the input, and superlong
words like (59)b–c contain foot structure in the input.
4.1
Nonreducing compounds
Above in § 3 we saw a type of compounding called reducing compounding. Burmese
also has nonreducing compounding, in which the elements of the compound undergo no
phonological changes.14 Nonreducing compounds are thus quite straightforward: two or
more words are strung together to form a single word. The individual members of these
compounds probably retain their original pwords, which are then parsed recursively into
a single, larger pword, as shown in (60).15
(60)
a.
Nonreducing compounds: ω + ω > [ω ω]ω
[(nè:)]ω + [(thàiN)]ω > [ [(nè:)]ω [(thàiN)]ω ]ω
‘stay’ + ‘sit’ > ‘reside’
b.
[(jáuN)]ω + [(wε$:)]ω > [ [(jáuN)]ω [(wε$:)]ω ]ω
‘sell’ + ‘buy’ > ‘trade’
c.
[(tSε?)]ω + [(shìN)]ω > [ [(tSε?)]ω [(shìN)]ω ]ω
‘fowl’ + ‘elephant’ > ‘turkey’
d.
[?«(jè:)]ω + [?«(tShíN)]ω > [ [?«(jè:)]ω [?«(tShíN)]ω ]ω
‘qualification’ + ‘quality’ > ‘standard’
e.
[(po0:)]ω + [(pho0:)]ω + [(kháiN)]ω > [ [(po0:)]ω [(bo0:)]ω [(kháiN)]ω ]ω
‘send’ + ‘to’ + ‘tell’ > ‘tell (him) to send (it)’
f.
[(tSi¼:)]ω + [(lo0:)]ω + [(káuN)]ω > [ [(tSi¼:)]ω [(lo0:)]ω [(káuN)]ω ]ω
‘look’ + ‘-ing’ + ‘be good’ > ‘be good to look at’
14
It is not unusual for a language to have more than one type of compound. Mohanan (1982,
1986), Aronoff & Sridhar (1983), Sproat (1986), and Inkelas (1989) discuss compounds in Kannada and
Malayalam, where “sub-compounds” and “co-compounds” have different phonological effects from each
other. Unlike Kannada and Malayalam, Burmese does not seem to have an obvious semantic distinction
between the two types of compounds.
15
See Inkelas (1989) and McCarthy & Prince (1993) on the recursiveness of the pword.
21
g.
[(kau?)]ω + [(pε@:)]ω + [?«(θí:)]ω + [?«(n8àN)]ω >
[ [(kau?)]ω [(pε@:)]ω [(θí:)]ω [(n8àN)]ω ]ω
‘paddy’ + ‘peas’ + ‘fruit’ + ‘grain’ > ‘crops’
h.
[(?ó:)]ω + [(?ìN)]ω + [(khwε?)]ω + [(jau?)]ω >
[ [(?ó:)]ω [(?ìN)]ω [(khwε?)]ω [(jau?)]ω ]ω
‘pot’ + ‘bowl’ + ‘cup’ + ‘ladle’ > ‘household goods’
(I am not concerned here with certain effects of compounding, such as voicing, as seen
in (60)e, or the loss of the prefix ?«- in some forms like (60)g, but not in others like
(60)d.)
Compound words consisting of more than one pword are well attested: in Igbo
(Zsiga 1992), Malayalam (Sproat 1986, Inkelas 1989), Sanskrit (Selkirk 1980), and
Turkish and Hungarian (Nespor & Vogel 1986), for example, certain compounds contain more than one pword. Also in the history of Welsh, as described by Jackson (1953,
367, 436, 514, 579), external sandhi processes are found between the members of a
compound, and are distinct from internal sandhi processes found within a simple pword.
This implies that the members of the compound are separate pwords in that language as
well.
Whether a Burmese compound will be of the reducing or nonreducing type cannot be determined phonologically. There is no phonological reason why (60)a ‘reside’
must be nè:thàiN, not *n«thàiN, nor why (36)a ‘bug’ must be tS«bó:, not *tSáNbó:. Indeed, there seems to be dialectal variation on this point. Okell (1969, 15) reports reduced tH«jè: ‘toddy juice’ from Upper Burma beside nonreduced tHáNjè: from Lower
Burma. Instead, the decision between reducing and nonreducing compounds must be
made already in the lexicon, for example by prespecifying pwords in nonreducing compounds. Under this analysis, a nonreducing compound like nè:tHàiN is lexically specified
as containing two pwords, thus /[nè]ω+[tHàiN]ω/, while reducing compounds like tS«bó:
do not contain prosodic prespecification, thus /tSáN+pó/. And the word for ‘toddy juice’
is lexically represented as /tHáN+jè/ in Upper Burmese dialects and /[tHáN]ω+[jè]ω/ in
Lower Burmese dialects.
Two constraints relevant for this analysis are MAX(ω) (61) and NONRECω (62).
(61)
MAX(ω)
A pword in the input has a correspondent in the output.
(62)
NONRECω (Selkirk 1995, 443)
No pword dominates a pword.
In Burmese, MAX(ω) dominates NONRECω, which means that a pword may be recursive
only in order to avoid deleting a prespecified pword. The result is that reducing compounds have no recursivity in the output, while nonreducing compounds do have recursivity, as shown in the tableaux in (63)–(64).
22
(63)
/tSáN+pó/
[[tSáN]ω [bó:]ω]ω
+ [tS«bó:]ω
MAX(ω)
NONRECω
*!
(64)
/[nè]ω+[tHàiN]ω/
+ [[nè:]ω [tHàiN]ω]ω
[n«tHàiN]ω
MAX(ω)
NONRECω
*
*!
As for dialectal variation between Upper Burmese and Lower Burmese dialects, this is
probably due to different lexical specifications in the different dialects rather than to
different constraint ranking. Okell (1969, 15) says, “weakening [i.e. reduction in compounding –ADG] is said to be more common in Upper than in Lower Burma” and gives
the tH«jè: ~ tHáNjè: ‘toddy juice’ example as an illustration; but to argue that Upper
Burmese has the ranking NONRECω » MAX(ω) would be to predict that Upper Burmese
never has nonreduced compounds, which cannot be inferred from Okell’s statement.
4.2
Noncompound polypodic words
In addition to compounds, Burmese has a few superlong words, by which I mean morphologically simplex (i.e. not compound) polypodic words. Most but not all of them are
loanwords. Some examples are shown in (65).
(65)
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
Superlong words in Burmese
(tSa0uN)(tSa0:)
(mòuN)(dáiN)
(thà:)p«(nà:)
(bou?)(da0:)
(?à:)(kà:)(θa0:)
?«p«(rí:)S«(jei?)
(tSh0:)k«(lε?)
(?ìN)(dZìN)
‘be anxious’
‘storm’
‘enshrine’ < Pāli ţhapanā
‘Buddha’ < Pāli buddha
‘space, universe’ < Pāli ākāsa
‘appreciate’ < English
‘chocolate’ < English
‘engine’ < English
Just as nonreducing compounds are analyzed as having prespecified pwords, these superlong words can be analyzed as having prespecified feet: the input of thà:p«nà:, for
example, is /(thà)p«nà/. In order to prevent syllable reduction from applying, we need to
assume that a faithfulness constraint MAX(ƒ) (66) outranks ALL-FT-R, as illustrated in
(67).
(66)
MAX(ƒ)
A foot in the input has a correspondent in the output.
(67)
/(tHà)p«nà/
[tH«p«(nà:)]ω
+ [(tHà:)p«(nà:)]ω
MAX(ƒ)
*!
ALL-FT-R
MAX(Place)
*
σσ
Polypodic words are exceptional in Burmese, and arise only when some prosodic struc
23
24
ture (pword, foot) is prespecified in the input. Where no prosodic structure is prespecified, Burmese constraint ranking ensures that pwords are monopodic, in accordance
with the more general tendency toward nonbranching prosodic categories in this language.
Jackson, Kenneth (1953). Language and History in Early Britain: A Chronological Survey of the Brittonic Languages, First to Twelfth Century A.D. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Lehman, F. K. (1986). Problems in the syntax of verb concatenation in Burmese. Paper presented to the
19th International Conference on Sino-Tibetan Languages and Linguistics.
Lehman, F. K. (1993). Some detailed examples of phonemes and their phonetic realizations. Ms., University of Illinois.
McCarthy, John J., and Alan Prince (1993). Prosodic Morphology I: Constraint Interaction and Satisfaction. Ms., UMass–Amherst and Rutgers University.
McCarthy, John J., and Alan Prince (1995). Faithfulness and reduplicative identity. In J. N. Beckman, L.
W. Dickey & S. Urbanczyk (eds.), Papers in Optimality Theory. University of Massachusetts
Occasional Papers, vol. 18. Amherst: GLSA, UMass–Amherst. 249–384.
Mehnert, Dieter, and Eberhardt Richter (1972–77). Untersuchungen zur Phonetik und Phonologie des
modernen Burmesischen. Teil 1, Zeitschrift für Phonetik 25, 306–325. Teil 2, ZPhon 26, 675–
690. Teil 3, ZPhon 29, 145–166. Teil 4, ZPhon 30, 514–534.
Mohanan, K. P. (1982). Lexical Phonology. Diss., MIT.
Mohanan, K. P. (1986). The Theory of Lexical Phonology. Dordrecht: Reidel.
Nespor, Marina, and Irene Vogel (1986). Prosodic Phonology. Dordrecht: Foris.
Odden, David (1995). Tone: African languages. In John Goldsmith (ed.), The Handbook of Phonological
Theory. Oxford: Blackwell. 444–475.
Okell, John (1969). A Reference Grammar of Colloquial Burmese. 2 vols. London: Oxford University
Press.
Prince, Alan (1990). Quantitative consequences of rhythmic organization. CLS 32.2, 355–398.
Prince, Alan, and Paul Smolensky (1993). Optimality Theory: Constraint Interaction in Generative
Grammar. Ms., Rutgers University and University of Colorado.
Selkirk, Elisabeth O. (1980). Prosodic domains in phonology: Sanskrit revisited. In M. Aronoff & M.-L.
Kean (eds.), Juncture, 107–129. Saratoga, CA: Anma Libri.
Selkirk, Elisabeth O. (1995). The prosodic structure of function words. In J. N. Beckman, L. Walsh
Dickey & S. Urbanczyk (eds.), University of Massachusetts Occasional Papers 18: Papers in
Optimality Theory. Amherst: GLSA. 439–469.
Shorto, H. L. (1960). Word and syllable patterns in Palaung. Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 23, 544–559.
Sproat, Richard (1986). Malayalam compounding: a non-stratum ordered account. WCCFL 5, 268–288.
Steriade, Donca (1982). Greek Prosodies and the Nature of Syllabification. Diss., MIT.
Thein Tun, U (1982). Some acoustic properties of tones in Burmese. In D. Bradley (ed.), Papers in SouthEast Asian Linguistics 8: Tonation. Canberra: Australian National University. 77–116.
Trigo, R. Lorenza (1988). On the Phonological Derivation and Behavior of Nasal Glides. Diss., MIT.
van de Vijver, Ruben (1998). The Iambic Issue: Iambs as a Result of Constraint Interaction. Diss., Free
University Amsterdam.
Wheatley, Julian K. (1987). Burmese. In B. Comrie (ed.), The World’s Major Languages. New York:
Oxford University Press. 834–854.
Yip, Moira (1980). The Tonal Phonology of Chinese. Diss., MIT. Published New York: Garland Press,
1991.
Yip, Moira (1991). Coronals, consonant clusters, and the coda condition. In C. Paradis & J.-F. Prunet
(eds.), The Special Status of Coronals: Internal and External Evidence. San Diego: Academic
Press. 61–78.
Yip, Moira (1995). Tone in East Asian Languages. In John Goldsmith (ed.), The Handbook of Phonological Theory. Oxford: Blackwell. 476–494.
Zec, Draga (1988). Sonority Constraints on Prosodic Structure. Diss., Stanford University. Published
New York: Garland Press, 1994.
Zsiga, Elisabeth C. (1992). A mismatch between morphological and prosodic domains: evidence from two
Igbo rules. Phonology 9, 101–135.
5.
Conclusions
In this paper I have discussed several aspects of the prosodic structure of Burmese and
have addressed several problems. Both the complementary distribution of diphthongs
and mid monophthongs and the fact that placeless « is the only vowel allowed in light
open syllables are explained by hypothesizing that the Coda Condition in Burmese applies to both vocalic and consonantal place features. Tone is licensed by the foot in
Burmese, and the absence of complex onsets from minor syllables is attributable to a
constraint interaction allowing consonant clusters only in foot-initial position. Finally,
both pwords and feet can be prespecified in the input, accounting for the contrast between monopodic words (including reducing compounds) and polypodic words (including nonreducing compounds).
References
Allen, W. Sidney (1973). Accent and Rhythm. Cambridge Studies in Linguistics 12. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Aronoff, Mark, and S. N. Sridhar (1983). Morphological levels in English and Kannada; or, Atarizing
Reagan. CLS 19.2, 3–16.
Benedict, P. K. (1972). Sino-Tibetan: A Conspectus. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bennett, J. Fraser, and F. K. Lehman (F. K. L. Chit Hlaing) (1994). Towards an optimality-theoretic account of Burmese sandhi effects. Paper presented at Southeast Asian Linguistic Society IV.
Bernot, Denise (1963). Esquisse d’une description phonologique du birman. Bulletin de la Société de
Linguistique de Paris 58, 164–224.
Bernot, Denise (1980). Le prédicat en birman parlé. Langues et civilisations de l’Asie du sud-est et du
monde insulindien 8. Paris: SELAF.
Cohn, Abigail C., and John J. McCarthy (1998). Alignment and parallelism in Indonesian phonology.
Working Papers of the Cornell Phonetics Laboratory 12, 53–137.
Duanmu, San (1990). A Formal Study of Syllable, Tone, Stress and Domain in Chinese Languages. Diss.,
MIT.
Esche, Annemarie (1976). Wörterbuch Burmesisch–Deutsch. Leipzig: VEB Verlag Enzyklopädie.
Green, Antony Dubach (2002). Extrasyllabic consonants and onset well-formedness. In C. Féry & R. van
de Vijver (eds.), The Syllable in Optimality Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
238–253.
Hayes, Bruce (1995). Metrical Stress Theory: Principles and Case Studies. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Henderson, E. J. A. (1952). The main features of Cambodian pronunciation. Bulletin of the School of
Oriental and African Studies 14, 149–174.
Inkelas, Sharon (1989). Prosodic Constituency in the Lexicon. Diss., Stanford University.
Itô, Junko (1986). Syllable Theory in Prosodic Phonology. Diss., UMass–Amherst.
Itô, Junko (1989). A prosodic theory of epenthesis. NLLT 7, 217–259.
Itô, Junko & Armin Mester (1994). Reflections on CodaCond and alignment. In J. Merchant, J. Padgett &
R. Walker (eds.), Phonology at Santa Cruz III. Santa Cruz: Linguistics Research Center, University of California. 27–46.
Itô, Junko & Armin Mester (1999). Realignment. In R. Kager, H. van der Hulst & W. Zonneveld, The
Prosody–Morphology Interface. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 188–217.