"Arts, Faculty of"@en . "Linguistics, Department of"@en . "DSpace"@en . "UBCV"@en . "O\u00CC\u00A3la, O\u00CC\u00A3lanike\u00CC\u00A3 O\u00CC\u00A3lajumo\u00CC\u00A3ke\u00CC\u00A3"@en . "2009-04-24T17:59:41Z"@en . "1995"@en . "Doctor of Philosophy - PhD"@en . "University of British Columbia"@en . "This dissertation investigates the instantiation of prosodic constituents, from the level of\r\nthe prosodic word to the mora, in several Benue-Congo languages spoken in Nigeria, Togo, and the\r\nRepublic of Benin. The over-all analysis is couched within Optimality Theory (Prince and\r\nSmolensky 1993, P&S) which states that phonological constraints are hierarchically ranked and\r\nviolable. The cross-dialectal and cross-linguistic diversities exhibited in the languages discussed\r\nare shown to be a consequence of different constraint rankings. The observed variations and their\r\nrespective analyses can be summarized as follows.\r\nFirst, only a subset of the total segmental inventory is moraic in all the languages\r\nexamined. In some dialects of Yoruba (Ilaje), only vowels are tone-bearing and potential syllable\r\npeaks; in other dialects (Standard Yoruba and Onko), both vowels and nasals are tone-bearing, but\r\nonly vowels may occupy the nucleus position in the syllable. In Idoma, vowels, liquids and nasals\r\nare tone-bearing, but only vowels and liquids are potential syllable peaks, nasals are excluded.\r\nThese diversities are shown to follow from the different cut-off points established for non-nuclear\r\nmoras as opposed to nuclear moras on the sonority hierarchy.\r\nSecond, it is observed that vowels differ in their syllabicity capabilities depending on\r\nwhether they are preceded by onsets or not. In Standard Yoruba, Owon-Afa, and Gokana, vowels\r\nare syllabified if onsets precede them; onsetless vowels are not syllabified. In Ondo Yoruba and\r\nEmai, vowels are syllabified regardless of whether they have onsets or not. The variation in the\r\nsyllabification pattern is shown to follow from the variable ranking of ONSET and other syllable\r\nstructure well-formedness constraints such as PARSENUC\u00CE\u00BC or PARSE\u00CE\u00BC.\r\nThird, the properties of foot structure found in the non-stress tone languages examined are\r\nreminiscent of the properties associated with the metrical foot. In Yoruba, Ibibio and Owon-Afa,\r\nfeet are binary and headed. Ibibio utilizes trochaic feet while Owon-Afa and Yoruba use iambic\r\nfeet. This finding confirms the proposal that non-stress processes utilize the metrical foot (M&P\r\n1986, Inklelas 1989, Spring 1991, Downing 1994).\r\nFourth, prosodic minimality and maximality effects are observed at the level of the\r\nprosodic word. Two patterns of minimality effects are found. In languages like Idoma and\r\nGokana, the minimal prosodic word is a binary foot, while in languages like Yoruba and Ebira, the\r\nminimal condition requires the presence of a syllable in every word. Foot binarity effects are only\r\nrequired of specific lexical classes, like nouns, in both languages. The minimal syllable\r\nrequirement is proposed to follow from properheadedness, and the diversities found in the spellout\r\nof prosodic minimally derived by the variable ranking of Foot Binarity and Properheadedness.\r\nThe emergence of unmarked words in child phonology in English, Dutch and Yoruba is cited as\r\nevidence in support of this view of minimality: children start with CV words and then move on to\r\nthe CVCV stage. These two stages are proposed to follow from Properheadedness and Foot\r\nBinarity assuming the \u00E2\u0080\u009CContinuity Hypothesis\u00E2\u0080\u009D which states that language acquisition is made up\r\nof a series of continuous stages determined by Universal Grammar (Pinker 1984). Concerning\r\nprosodic maximally, it is observed that the maximal instantiation of the prosodic word is two feet.\r\nThis property is proposed to follow from the principle of binarity which limits the unmarked shape\r\nof phonological constituents to two tokens of a given phonological unit (Ito & Mester 1992)."@en . "https://circle.library.ubc.ca/rest/handle/2429/7539?expand=metadata"@en . "7090763 bytes"@en . "application/pdf"@en . "OPTIMALITY IN BENUE-CONGO PROSODIC PHONOLOGY AND MORPHOLOGYBYOLANIKE OLAJUMOKE OLA, B.A. (ED)., UNIVERSITY OF WE, 1987,M.A., UNIVERSITY OF ILQRIN, 1990M.A., UNIVERSITY OF LONDON 1992A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OFTHE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OFDOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHYinTHE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES(Department of Linguistics)We accept this thesis as conformingto the required standardTHE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIAOctober 1995\u00C2\u00A9 OLANIKE QLAJUMOKE QLA, 1995In presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirements for an advanceddegree at the University of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make itfreely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensivecopying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the head of mydepartment or by his or her representatives. It is understood that copying orpublication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my writtenpermission.(Signature)Department of Ti CThe University of British ColumbiaVancouver, CanadaDate [i5SDE-6 (2188)ABSTRACTThis dissertation investigates the instantiation of prosodic constituents, from the level ofthe prosodic word to the mora, in several Benue-Congo languages spoken in Nigeria, Togo, and theRepublic of Benin. The over-all analysis is couched within Optimality Theory (Prince andSmolensky 1993, P&S) which states that phonological constraints are hierarchically ranked andviolable. The cross-dialectal and cross-linguistic diversities exhibited in the languages discussedare shown to be a consequence of different constraint rankings. The observed variations and theirrespective analyses can be summarized as follows.First, only a subset of the total segmental inventory is moraic in all the languagesexamined. In some dialects of Yoruba (flaj\u00C3\u00A7), only vowels are tone-bearing and potential syllablepeaks; in other dialects (Standard Yoruba and Onko), both vowels and nasals are tone-bearing, butonly vowels may occupy the nucleus position in the syllable. In Idoma, vowels, liquids and nasalsare tone-bearing, but only vowels and liquids are potential syllable peaks, nasals are excluded.These diversities are shown to follow from the different cut-off points established for non-nuclearmoras as opposed to nuclear moras on the sonority hierarchy.Second, it is observed that vowels differ in their syllabicity capabilities depending onwhether they are preceded by onsets or not. In Standard Yoruba, Qwon-Afa, and Gokana, vowelsare syllabified if onsets precede them; onsetless vowels are not syllabified. In Ondo Yoruba andEmai, vowels are syllabified regardless of whether they have onsets or not. The variation in thesyllabification pattern is shown to follow from the variable ranking of ONSET and other syllablestructure well-formedness constraints such as PARsENUCp. or PARSEII.Third, the properties of foot structure found in the non-stress tone languages examined arereminiscent of the properties associated with the metrical foot. In Yoruba, Ibibio and Qw\u00C3\u00A7n-Afa,feet are binary and headed. Ibibio utilizes trochaic feet while Qw9n-Afa and Yoruba use iambicIIfeet. This finding confirms the proposal that non-stress processes utilize the metrical foot (M&P1986, Inklelas 1989, Spring 1991, Downing 1994).Fourth, prosodic minimality and maximality effects are observed at the level of theprosodic word. Two patterns of minimality effects are found. In languages like Idoma andGokana, the minimal prosodic word is a binary foot, while in languages like Yoruba and Ebira, theminimal condition requires the presence of a syllable in every word. Foot binarity effects are onlyrequired of specific lexical classes, like nouns, in both languages. The minimal syllablerequirement is proposed to follow from properheadedness, and the diversities found in the spelloutof prosodic minimally derived by the variable ranking of Foot Binarity and Properheadedness.The emergence of unmarked words in child phonology in English, Dutch and Yoruba is cited asevidence in support of this view of minimality: children start with CV words and then move on tothe CVCV stage. These two stages are proposed to follow from Properheadedness and FootBinarny assuming the \u00E2\u0080\u009CContinuity Hypothesis\u00E2\u0080\u009D which states that language acquisition is made upof a series of continuous stages determined by Universal Grammar (Pinker 1984). Concerningprosodic maximally, it is observed that the maximal instantiation of the prosodic word is two feet.This property is proposed to follow from the principle of binarity which limits the unmarked shapeof phonological constituents to two tokens of a given phonological unit (Ito & Mester 1992).illTable of ContentsAbstract iiTable of Contents ivAcknowledgements viiiDedication ixChapter One: Introduction I1.1. Overview 11.2. Optimality Theory 61.2.1. Basic Principles of Optimality Theory 61.2.2. Lexical Entry and Underlying Structure Optimality Theory 91.2.3. Constraints on Prosodic Constituents 10Chapter Two: Sonority Constraints on moras in Benue-Congo 192.1. Introduction 192.2. Type 1 language- llaj\u00C3\u00A7 Yoruba 222.2.1. Moraic/Syllabic Segments 222.2.1.1. Moraification 242.2.1.2. AnOptimality Account 252.3. Type 2 languages- Standard Yoruba, Onko Yoruba, Idoma 292.3.1. Standard Yoruba 302.3.1.1. Moraic Symmetries 302.3.1.2. Moraic Asymmetries 34iv2.3.2. OnkoYoba.382.3.3. A Prosodic Account 402.3.4. Nuclear and non-nuclear moras in Optimality Theory 422.3.5.Idoma 492.3.5.1. Distributional facts and analysis 502.4. Summary 55Chapter Three: Syllable Typology in Benue-Congo 573.1. Introduction 573.2. The Unmarked Syllable 603.3. Marked Syllables 623.4. Non-exhaustive syllabification in Gokana 653.4.1. Evidence for Syllable Structure 663.4.2. Optimality Theoretic Account 683.5. Syllable Structure in Qw\u00C3\u00A7n-Afa 733.5.1. Syllabic Asymmetries 733.5.2. Qwn-Afa asymmetries: an optimality solution 783.6. Syllabification in Standard Yoruba 823.6.1. Minimal Word Condition: No [rj deletion 833.6.2. Loan Verb Truncation: V augmentation by [hi epenthesis 843.6.3. Word-initial Morpheme Structure Conditions 853.6.4. Distributive Reduplication 883.6.5. Vowel Hiatus Resolution 903.6.6. An OT Acocunt of Non-exhaustive syllabification in Yoruba 94V3.7. Syllable Structure in Ondo Yoruba.1023.7.1. Minimal Word Condition & the Loss of [r] 1023.7.2. Word-initial Morpheme Conditions 1033.7.3. Distributive Reduplication 1063.7.4. Vowel Hiatus Resolution 1083.7.5. Summary and Interim Analysis 1093.8. Interdialectal Variation in Syllabification through Constraint Rankings 1133.9. Syllable Structure in lmai 1153.9.1. Syllable Types in mai3.9.2. lmai Syllable Structure: an OT account 118Summary of typological Rankings 119Chapter 4: Footing and Headedness in non-stress systems 1214.1. Introduction 1214.2. Metrical Foot: Evidence from Reduplication 1244.2.1. Foot Structure in Yoruba 1244.2.1.1. Ideophone Reduplication 1254.2.1.2. Agentive Reduplication 1294.2.1.3. Numeral Distributive 1324.2.1.4. Back Harmony 1344.2.1.5. Footing and Headedness in Standard Yoruba 1424.2.2. Foot Structure in Ibibio 1474.2.2.1. Negated Verbs 1474.2.2.2. Consonantal Weakening 1484.2.3. Foot Structure in Owon-Afa 150vi4.3. Foot Structure: evidence from truncation .1554.3.1. Yoruba Name Shortening 1564.4. Theoretical Implications 1644.4.1. Metrical Foot vs. Morphological Foot: non-stress systems 1644.4.2.Reduplication & Truncation in OT: the status of PARSE 1654.5. Summary 166Chapter 5: The Prosodic Word in Benue-Congo Minimality & Maximality Effects.1685.1. Introduction 1685.2. The Minimal Prosodic Word: interaction of properheadedness & foot binarity. 1715.2.1. The minimal prosodic word: evidence for foot binarity 1715.2.2. The minimal Prosodic Word: evidence for properheadedness 1775.2.2.1. Standard Yoruba 1775.2.2.1.1. Intransitive Imperatives 1775.2.2.1.2. Loan Verb truncation 1795.2.2.1.3. Ideophone Reduplication 1805.2.2.1.4. Consonantal Deletion 1815.2.2.1.4.1. Optional Intervocalic Sonorant Deletion 1825.2.2.1.4.2. Consonantal Deletion by Identity 1835.2.2.2. Ebira 1965.2.2.3. Markedness and the Acquisition of the Prosodic Word 2035.2.2.4. Typological Rankings: Properheadedness & Foot Binarity 2075.3. Maximal Prosodic Word and Binarity 2085.3.1. Maximal Prosodic Word Effects Across Benue-Congo 2095.4. Summary and Typological Rankings 226Bibliography and references 228VIIACKNOWLEDGMENTSI owe so much to my supervisory committee, I doubt if my gratitude can ever be fully paidback in words. Douglas Pulleyblank (Chair and Supervisor) was fundamental to my coming tostudy at UBC and has been an incredible source of inspiration and encouragement in my academiccareer. He has been a rigorous and sensitive advisor over the last three years. I acknowledge withmuch appreciation, his help, patience, and support. His extensive and detailed comments haveimproved this dissertation tremendously. Mo dtip dtip o. This work owes a major debt toPatricia Shaw. I thank her not only for insightful comments and valuable suggestions on a lot ofissues addressed in this work, but also for support and guidance in academic and personal matters.Special thanks to Mark Hewitt for countless hours of discussion and for useful questions onnumerous issues. I would also like to thank all the professors for the privilege to study at UBC:Dale Kinkade (Head of Department), David Ingram, Michael Rochemont, Guy Carden, R-MD\u00C3\u00A9chaine (University Examiner for the dissertation oral examination), Henry Davis, and IngridBrenzinger. Special thanks to David Ingram for fostering my interest in child phonology.I am grateful to UBC for various forms of funding (Partial (1993-94) and Full (1994-95)Graduate Fellowship), and to Douglas Pulleyblank for financial support from the two grantsawarded to him by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRCC no.410-91-0204 and 410-94-0035). The research that went into this dissertation was conducted underthe auspices of the second grant.I wish to express my gratitude to the following linguists who have at one time or the otherlistened to my ideas on various issues: Akinbiyi Aldnlabi, Diana Archangeli, Bruce Bagemihl, AyBamgboe, Hamida Demirdache, Jane Fee, John Harris, Larry Hyman, Jonathan Kaye, JutaKitching, Charles Kisserberth, Victor Manfredi, John McCarthy, David Odden, AldntundeOyetacle, James Powell, Alan Prince, Edwin Pulleyblank, Keren Rice, Charles Urich; specialthanks to Laura Downing for her tremendous support and friendship.Memories of my studentship at UBC will not be complete without mentioning myclassmates and co-students: Eleanor Blame, Susan Blake, Elizabeth Currie, Lisa Matthewson,Taylor Roberts, Kimary Shahin, Aid Uechi; I make special mention of Myles Leitch and PingJiang-King for their help and friendship. It was great working together as RA\u00E2\u0080\u0099s on the TongueRoot Harmony project (SSHRCC no.410-91-0204 and 410-94-0035). 1 would like to thankStrang Burton for friendship and editing. Thanks are due to Carmen De-Silva for administrativeand personal help.In Nigeria, I am grateful to the following linguists and literary scholars who havecontributed in one way or the other to my training: Dele Awobuluyi, Qiasope Oyelaran, YiwolaAwoyale, Tunde Olowookere, Francis Oyebade. Ore Yusuf, Femi Adewole, Kola Owolabi, Nik\u00C3\u00A7Lawal, Bose Sotiloye. For encouragement at all times, I specially thank my colleagues at theUniversity of Lagos, especially Oloye Thnde Ogunpolu, Olu Alaba, Ayo Yusuf, Deji Medubi, DeleOrimogunje, Ejike Eze, Charles Ogbulogo, Iwu Ikwubuzor.In Vancouver, I acknowledge the support and love of the Ndukwes: Paul, Abi\u00C3\u00A7dun,Jonathan, Faith and Abigail; and members of the UBC Christian fellowship. I also wish to makespecial mention of the love and care received from Doug Pulleyblank\u00E2\u0080\u0099s family: Anne-Marie, Cato,Ingrid, and Victor. It\u00E2\u0080\u0099s been special knowing you all.Finally, I would like to thank members of my family, my parents and my brothers andsisters, for love and unflinching support at all times. I am grateful to Ken for patienceencouragement, and continued love across the seas; I survived Nkem: To God be the Glory.vmTo my father, Douglas and Kennethis\u00C3\u00A9 ni o\u00C3\u00B4giin I4miira si is\u00C3\u00A9 \u00C3\u00B4r\u00C3\u00A9 mii ni a fi di \u00C3\u00A7ni giga(Proverbs 22: 29)ixCHAPTER 1INTRODUCTION1.1. OverviewThe prosodic hierarchy (Selkirk 1980a,b) constitutes the domain for the operation of bothphonological and prosodically conditioned morphological phenomena. For example, phonologicalprocesses involving tones, prominence assignment, tongue root harmony, nasalization, andcompensatory lengthening, make crucial reference to the mora (ji) or the syllable (a), the foot (Ft)and the prosodic word (PrWd); segmental properties are accessed only indirectly via these prosodicconstituents (Hyman 1985, Hayes 1989, Ito 1986, 1989, Archangeli and Pulleyblank 1994,Pulleyblank 1994, among others). Further on, morpho-phonological phenomena such as theminimal word condition, reduplication, truncation, and augmentative epenthesis may apply withinthe domain of the prosodic word, the foot, syllable, nucleus and the mora (Downing 1993, 1994,Hewitt 1992, 1994, ItO 1990, ItO and Mester 1992, McCarthy and Prince 1986, 1993a, 1993b,1994, Qla 1995, among others).Starting at the level of the prosodic word,\u00E2\u0080\u0099 the hierarchy progresses downwards to theconstituency of the foot, is followed by the syllable and terminates at the level of the mora. Eachlevel of constituency formation follows the markedness convention for that level. For example, theprosodic word should always contain at least a single unit of each constituent below it: foot,syllable, nucleus, and mora; a foot is binary at the moraic or syllabic level; a syllable should havean onset and a nucleus; and a mora is preferably the most sonorous set of segments in the sonorityhierarchy (vowels). Additionally, by the strict layer hypothesis (Selkirk 1984) and the principle ofexhaustivity (Prince 1980), each constituent must be properly contained within the next dominating1The prosodic hierarchy actually begins with the phonological phrase (which includes the clitic group andintonational phrase) but the scope of this dissertation is restricted to the constituency of the prosodic wordand the various levels beneath it (foot, syllable, nucleus, as will be motivated in chapter 2, and mora).Iconstituent. Thus, moras must belong to syllables, syllables must belong to feet, and every footmust belong to the prosodic word. The prosodic hierarchy is illustrated in (1).(1) The Standard Prosodic HierarchyPrWd Prosodic WordFt Foota SyllableMoraDespite its overall success, the prosodic hierarchy has been questioned on a number ofgrounds. For instance, recent works have raised issues concerning the standard assumptions on theuniversality of constituency formation at each level in the hierarchy. Questions have been raisedon the issue of morafication especially with regard to certain asymmetric patterns exhibited bymoras (Hyman 1992, Shaw 1992, 1993, Steriade 1991, Qia 1994b). The notion of exhaustivesyllabification has been challenged in work such as Bagemihi 1991, Hyman 1990, Downing 1993,Qla 1993. Even though foot structure is assumed to be binary in the unmarked case, someunresolved issues still remain on the existence of degenerate feet and headedness (Hayes 1991,Poser 1990, Crowhurst 1991, Kager 1993, Hewitt 1994, among others). In addition, an issue hasalso been raised by works such as Bagemihl (1991) and Ito and Mester (1992) as to whether or notconstituency is truly hierarchically layered in a strict dominant fashion as proposed for instance inSelkirk (1980, etc) and Nespor and Vogel (1980). The latter constitutes the strict vs. weak layeringhypothesis debate. These issues arise from the cross-linguistic diversities observed acrosslanguages, diversities which standard phonological theory cannot explain without resorting to adhoc devices.2Optimality Theory (UT, Prince & Smolensky 1993, McCarthy & Prince 1993a,b) offers aformal mechanism through which the cross-linguistic variation observed in natural languages canbe explained. Linguistic diversity follows from constraint interaction in UT. Specifically, differentrankings of the same set of universal constraints yield different grammars. For example, given twoconstraints (A,B), we can produce two languages by ranking these constraints differently: A>> Bor B >> A. The dominance relation (signified by >>) determines the significance of a givenconstraint within a specific grammar. The satisfaction of higher ranked constraints is moreimportant than the satisfaction of lower ranked constraints. In fact, a lower ranked constraint maybe violated to ensure the satisfaction of a higher ranked constraint.This dissertation examines prosodically conditioned phenomena in a number of BenueCongo languages of Nigeria, Togo, and Benin Republic (Bendor-Samuel ed., 1989 classification,also cited as Niger-Congo Languages elsewhere). In Yoruba (Standard, Unko, Undo, Ilaje), cross-dialectal diversty is attested in how segments are assigned moras, and differences also occur in thesyllabicity of vocoids. The variation is carried over into the constituency of prosodic units whichare higher up the hierarchy. Thus, variation occurs in the spellout of a foot and the prosodic wordin these dialects. Similar variation is observed in other languages such as Qw\u00C3\u00A7n- Ala, Idoma,Ebira, Emai, Gokana, and lbibio. The variation observed in these languages is shown to followfrom the different rankings of the same set of constraints provided by Universal Grammar for thewell-formedness of moras, syllables, foot structure and the prosodic word.The dissertation contains five chapters. Chapter 1 provides an introduction to UptimalityTheory and some of the relevant constraints for the phenomena under discussion are presented.Chapter 2 discusses the formation of moras. Three major patterns are found: (a) in llaj\u00C3\u00A7-typelanguages, only vowels are possible moras, (b) in Standard Yoruba type languages, vowels andnasals are potentially moraic, (c) in Idoma type languages, vowels, liquids and nasals are potentialmoras. These languages also vary with respect to the selection of moras which may serve assyllable nucleus. In Standard Yoruba and Unko Yoruba, only vocalic moras may occur as syllablepeaks with a preceding onset consonant, while in Idoma vowels and liquids may group together3with onsets into syllables. In both cases, nasals (although moraic) are systematically excludedfrom occurring as syllable peaks. These asymmetries are shown to follow from the different cutoff points established for moraic entities and nuclear entities (Shaw 1992, Steriade 1991).Syllabification is examined in chapter 3. Two different patterns are observedinterdlialectafly and cross-lingusitically. In Ondo Yoruba and mai, vowels are syllabic regardlessof whether they have onsets or not. In Standard Yoruba, Qw\u00C3\u00A7n-Afa and Gokana, the syllabicityof vowels is tied to the presence of onsets. The two patterns are derived from the variable rankingof ONSET and other constraints governing the well-formedness of syllable structure.Chapter 4 examines footing in non-stress tonal languages like Yoruba, Qwon-Afa, andIbibio, and discusses issues relating to binarity and headedness. In these languages, the unmarkedfoot is binary and the moraic and syllabic constituents contained within the foot exhibit someasymmetries which are consistent with an analysis in which the foot distinguishes between a headand non-head position (M&P 1986). The conclusion that follows is that non-metrical systemsutilize metrical feet for phonological processes.Chapter 5 investigates the prosodic constituency of the prosodic word and shows thatminimality and maximality effects are attested at that level. M&P (1986, 1993a) propose that theminimal prosodic word is a binary foot (Ft-Bin); however, the languages examined here exhibitsome variation in the spellout of the minimal word. In Idoma and Gokana, the minimal word is abinary foot, whereas in Yoruba and Ebira, the minimal requirement is that a syllable be present inevery word. Binary footed words exist in these languages but are usually restricted to the domainof nouns. Child phonology, as is well-known, is a good testing ground for any principle oflinguistic universals. Across languages (English, Dutch, Yoruba), children start out with CVwords, that is, all words are truncated to a single syllable; following this stage, binary footed words(CVCV) emerge (Ingram 1978, Fikkert 1994, Demuth 1995, Demuth & Fee 1995). This evidenceis quite telling: the unmarked word in child phonology is first a CV word and later a CVCV,exactly the same minimal patterns found in adult grammars across languages. If the stages ofacquisition are determined by Universal Grammar (UG) as assumed by the \u00E2\u0080\u009CContinuity4Hypothesis\u00E2\u0080\u0099t (Hyams 1987, Pinker 1984, for example), these two stages must follow fromprinciples provided by UG. Following Ito and Mester (1992), the minimal syllable requirement isproposed to follow from properheadedness (PROP-HEAD, Qia 1995). In Optimality Theory, thedifferences in the speflout of the minimal prosodic word are shown to result from the variableranking of Ft-Bin and PROP-HEAD. The faithfulness family of constraints, namely PARSE andRECOVERABILiTY (defined as LEX, following A&P 1994), are also shown to interact in interestingways with Ft-Bin and PROP-HEAD to derive either augmentation, the lack of augmentation (to FtBin or PROP-HEAD) or the failure to parse segments in child phonology. Maximality effects arealso attested at the prosodic word level: the maximal prosodic word is two feet. This restriction isargued to follow from the principle of binarity which constrains unmarked phonologicalconstituents to two tokens of a given phonological unit (ItO and Mester 1992).1.2. Optimailty TheoryThe fundamental principles of Optimality Theory are laid out in this section and myassumptions on the infonnation contained in lexical entries made explicit. Some constraintsgoverning the well-formedness of prosodic constituents such as mora, syllable foot and theprosodic word are briefly discussed.1.2.1. Basic Principles of Optimality TheoryThe central hypotheses of Optimality Theory (Prince & Smolensky 1993, McCarthy &Prince 1993 a) are the following. First, the output of phonology or morphology is determined bythe weilformedness constraints provided by Universal Grammar (UG). Optimality Theory assumesthat all UG constraints are present in every grammar and the relative activity or inertness ofconstraints in each language is determined by ranking. Constraint ranking is the second majorprinciple of OT: the grammar of a language is obtained by constraint rankings, these rankings are5carried out in a dominance order, so that some constraints are highly ranked, while some are lowlyranked. OT differs in this regard from other constraint-based theories such as the parameterizedbased approaches (Paradis 1989, 1990, Kaye 1990), theories in which constraints are either turned\u00E2\u0080\u009Con\u00E2\u0080\u009D or \u00E2\u0080\u009Coff\u00E2\u0080\u0099. These two approaches (OT vs. parameterized approaches) differ in no trivialmeasure in their empirical coverage. In OT, since all UG constraints are present and hierarchicallyranked in a language, the effect of a given constraint is predicted to be active under the appropriateconditions. In contrast, the parameterized approaches predict that only the effects of constraintswhich are turned \u00E2\u0080\u009Con\u00E2\u0080\u009D in a language will be manifested, contraints that are turned \u00E2\u0080\u009Coff\u00E2\u0080\u0099 arepredicted to be totally inert, a prediction which is not borne out in a lot of languages.Third, phonological and templatic constraints are in principle, violable, but violation isminimal. Priority is given to the undominated and highly ranked constraints; hence they arepreferrably, non-violable. Lowly ranked constraints are functional in the grammar, but lesspriority is accorded them,;hence they may be violated under pressure to satisfy higher rankedconstraints. The grammar generates, by the function GEN, an infinite number of candidate formsfrom a given input, and the candidates are evaluated in a parallel fashion against the hierachicallyranked set of constraints. The optimal (or winning) candidate is the one that best satisfies theranked hierarchy of constraints. The basic properties of OT outlined above may be summarized asfollows.(2) Basic principles of Optimality Theorya. Violability: constraints are violable; but violation is minimalb. Ranking: constraints are ranked on a language particular basis; the notion of minimalviolation (or best satisfaction) is defined in terms of this rankingc. Parallelism: best satisfaction of the constraint hierarchy is computed over the wholehierarchy and the whole candidate setConsider a schematic implementation of the above principles. First, assume that a6grammar consists of two constraints (A,B) and that the following ranking is established betweenthe constraints: A>> B. For any given input the optimal candidate is one that satisfies bothconstraints or the higher ranked constraint, A. This situation is made more explicit in a tableau.The basic conventions developed by Prince and Smolensky for interpreting a tableau are thefollowing: (a) A>> B means constraint A dominates constraint B, (b) left-to-right column ordershows the domination order of the constraints, (c) violation of a constraint is marked by \u00E2\u0080\u009C*\u00E2\u0080\u009C, (d)constraint fatal violation (which results in the rejection of a candidate) is marked by an exclamationmark \u00E2\u0080\u009C*!\u00E2\u0080\u009C, (e) constraint satisfaction is indicated by a blank cell, and (f) a \u00E2\u0080\u009C sign indicates theoptimal or winning candidate.2(3) A>> B, /inputJI Candidates II A IVcandl___________cand.2 *!In (3), cand.2 incurs a violation of A, the higher ranked constraint, and is rejected in favor ofcand. 1 which satisfies A. Thus, even though cand. 1 violates B, a lower-ranked constraint, it is stillchosen as the optimal candidate because it obeys higher ranked A. Another possible scenario isone in which the two candidates violate the higher ranked constraint. In such a case, the selectionof the winning candidate is determined by the satisfaction of the lower- ranked constraint. Thefollowing tableau depicts this situation.(4) A>> B, /inputlCandidates H A I Bcand.1 * *!Vcand.2 *2This is equivalent to the pointing finger convention of (P&S 1993, M&P 1993a,b,) or the thumbs upconvention of (A&P 1994, Pulleyblank 1994).7The tableau in (4) shows how the candidates are evaluated for constraint satisfaction. Bothcandidates violate A, and so they tie on this count. In other words, the choice of the optimal formcannot be made at this point. Evaluation is thus passed on to the lower ranked constraint B.Candidate (4b) as shown in the tableau is the optimal candidate because it obeys constraint Bwhich is violated by its competitor, candidate (4a).In a situation where both candidates violate or obey the two constraints, the selection of theoptimal form is determined by multiple versus fewer violation of constraint. In other words, thecandidate that incurrs fewer violations of a constraint will emerge as the winner as demonstrated inthe following tableaux.(5) A>>B,/inputlCandidates A Bcand.1 * **!Vcand2 1* *A>> B, /inputlndidates A Bcand.lVcand2 II *If two constraints do not dominated each other in a grammar (that is A does not crucially dominateB, and B does not crucially dominate A),3 they are said to be unranked with respect to each other.4The optimal candidate in such a situation is one that satisfies the two constraints. Any candidateform that violates any of these constraints is considered sub-optimal. The following tableauillustrates this situation.3Lack of crucial domination may occur anywhere in the hierarchy of constraint ranking within agrammar.4This case is different from a case involving crucial non-ranking (Blake 1993), a ranking that is proposedto account for optional processes. The analysis of optional phenomena still remains a topic of debate inOT. It is accounted for in Pesetsky (1995) as the surface effect of tied constraints; and, in Grimshaw(1995), it is analyzed as forms having different inputs.(6)8(7) A, B: /inputlCandidates A Bcand.1 I[*! I______________cand.2 ILv\u00E2\u0080\u0099 cand.3 1f1.2.2. Lexical entry and underlying structure in Optimality TheoryIn standard generative phonology (SPE and its autosegmental-based descendants), aphonological representation is assumed to have a unique underlying representation (UR). Rules arethen posited and applied in a step-by-step fashion to the UR to derive the correct surfacerepresentation (SR). One fundamental assumption in Optimality Theory which contrasts sharplywith the previous (standard) assumption is that constraints do not hold of UR, the satisfaction of aconstraint is determined at the surface.5 This raises a question on the status of underlying structurewithin this theory: what is the equivalent of the standard theory\u00E2\u0080\u0099s underlying structure in OptimalityTheory? In Optimality Theory, the input structure consists of lexical entries in which lexicallycontrastive constituents, featural or prosodic, are encoded (Archangeli & Pulleyblank 1994,Pulleyblank 1994, Shaw 1995, to mention a few). I assume in the present work that the underlyingrepresentation is encoded as follows (culled from Shaw 1995):(8) The lexical entry in Optimalitv Theorya. Moraic representation:Underlying Representation consists of segmental string annotated with moras on vowelsand long segments (Hayes 1989, Pulleyblank 1994, M&P 1993a)5Surface here implies phonological surface rather than phonetic surface.9b. Melodic representation:Segments are formally represented as Root NodesSegments consist of feature-setsFeature sets are organized in terms of hierarchical dependenceFeatures are monovalent, with specification reflecting markedness1.2.3. Constraints governing the well-formedness of prosodic constituentsAssuming that lexical entries consist of segments and moras, what the grammar must do isdevise a way of grouping these phonological constituents together to receive phoneticinterpretation. The syllable functions as the basic organizing node for the grouping of segmentsand moras. Segments that are incorporated into the syllable are prosodically licensed (Ito 1986,1989).6 In Optimality Theory, the work of prosodic licensing is carried out by the faithfulnessfamily of constraints commonly referred to as PARSE, constraints which require the parsing ofsegments, moras (nuclear and non-nuclear), syllables, and feet.(9) PARSE family of constraintsa. PARSE (broadly defined):phonological constituents are licensed by higher prosodic structureb. PARSE-segment (PARSE-seg): root nodes are parsed by the syllablec. PARSE-mora (PARSE-li): moras are parsed into syllablesd. PARSE-nuclear mora (PARSENUC-p,): nuclear-moras are parsed into syllablese. PARSE-syllable (PARSE-a): syllables are parsed into feetf. PARSE-foot (PARsE-Ft): feet are parsed into prosodic words6The mora is proposed to be a prosodic licenser in work such as Zec (1988), Hyman (1990), Bagemihl(1991) and others. Chapter 3 of this work argues for moraic licensing in some languages of Benue-Congo.10As far as syllabification is concerned, under the framework of assumptions in moraictheory, the relevant PARSE constraints are PARSE-seg and PARSE-i. Other relevant syllablestructure well-formedness constraints are ONSET and No-CODA.(10) Syllable Structure Well-formedness constraintsa. ONSET: Syllables must have onsetsb. NUCLEUS: Syllables must have nucleic. NO-CODA: Syllables are openNotice that the syllable well-formedness conditions in (9) state that certain syllabic constituents areuniversally preferred, while some are universally dispreferred. These conditions say nothing aboutthe location of syllabic constituents within the syllable. For example, given a CV string input, asthe constraints in (9) stand, in formal terms, nothing prohibits either the onset-C from occupyingthe right edge of the syllable, or the nucleus-V from occupying the leftmost position within thesyllable, an undesirable result for syllabification. To prevent such fflicit parses, alignmentconstraints are crucial. Alignment constraints are constraints which govern the well-formedness ofconstituent edges, prosodic, morphological, or grammatical. The formal statement of constituentAlignment appears below (M&P 1993b).(11) Generalized AlignmentAlign(Catl, Edge 1, Cat2, Edge 2) = defV Catl 3 Cat2 such that Edge 1 of Cat 1 and Edge 2 of Cat 2 coincide,WhereCati, Cat2 e PCat u GCatEdgel, Edge2 e {Right, Left}11Alignment constraints may hold of prosodic constituents such as moras, syllables, feet andprosodic words. Using syllabification as an illustration (Ito & Mester 1994), these two alignmentconstraints are needed to formalize ONSET and No-CODA:7(12) Syllable Structure Alignment constraintsa. ONSET (ONS): ALIGNLEFT (a, L; C-Rt, L)The left edge of a syllable is directly aligned with the left edge of a consonantal rootnocleb. No-CODA: ALIGNRIGHT (a, R; NUC, R)The right edge of a syllable is directly aligned with the right edge of a nucleusLanguages differ with respect to their tolerance of segment clusters: some languagespermit segment (consonant or vocalic) clusters while others simply disallow clustering. Prince &Smolensky propose the family of constraints to capture the differences between thelanguage types described above. *COMPLEX ranges over syllable structure positions such asONSET, NUCLEUS and CODA.(13) *C0MPLEx family of constraintsa. *COMPLEXONS: No more than one segment may directly link to the syllable nodeb. *COMpLEXNUC: No more than one segment may directly link to the nuclear positionc. *COMPLEXCOD: No more than one segment may directly link to the coda positionIf a language does not tolerate segment clusters, and if it so happens that such a languageborrows words from a language that permits clusters, such clusters, as is well-known, are either7Even though ONSET and NO-CODA are reinterpreted in Alignment terms, these terminologies are stillused throughtout this dissertation for expository ease, not as formal constituents.12deleted or broken up by an epenthetic vowel. The insertion of epenthetic segments into syllablepositions is captured by the constraint FILL (another family of constraint that ranges over syllablepositions like *cOMPLEx) in Optimality Theory. Languages that permit epenthetic segmentsviolate FILL, while languages which disallow epenthesis do not tolerate violations of FILL8(14) FILL: Syllable positions are filled with segmental materialRecoverability (defined in this dissertation as LEX, following A&P 1994) is also crucial indetermining the well-formedness of output forms in Optimality Theory. Recoverability (of feature(F) or of the path (P) between a feature and a prosodic anchor) ensures faithfulness between agiven input and the successful output candidate. Since recoverability is linked to the faithfulness ofinput-output relation, the class of phonological constituents which it governs are those present inthe lexical entry: features, segments (root nodes) and moras. Recoverability is defined as follows.(15) LXa. LEx-F: an F-element (feature) that is present in an output form is also present in theinput (A&P 1994, (Ito, Mester & Padgett 1993, McCarthy 1993)b. LEX-P: for any path between an F-element cx and some anchor f, if a is associated to 3in the output, then a is associated to I in the input (A&P 1994, (ItO, Mester & Padgett1993, Kirchner 1993)c. LEXRT: a root node that is present in the output form is also present in the input formd. LExJI: a mora (nuclear or non-nuclear) that is present in the output form is also presentin the input form8When featural content is assigned to an epenthesized morn, FILL is not violated, rather, LEX is(defined in (15d) of the text).13Once segments are parsed into syllables, PARSE-a, the constraint governing the groupingof syllables into feet becomes relevant At this stage, a binarity constraint which limits theorganization of syllables (or moras) into feet to two tokens of each constituent is crucial:(16) Ft-Binarity (Ft-Bin): A foot is binary at the moraic or syllabic levelThe distinction between trochees and iambs is captured by head alignment constraints, the head ofa trochee is realised at the left edge of the foot, while the head of an iamb surfaces at the right edgeof the foot.9(17) Foot typologv alignment constraintsa. Trochee: AUGN-HEAD (Ft,L; HEAD, L)The left edge of the head of a trochaic foot (p or a) is aligned with the left edge of the footb. Iamb: ALIGN-HEAD (Ft,R; HEAD, R)The right edge of the head of a iambic foot (ji or a) is aligned with the right edge of the footPARSE-foot is the constraint that requires the parsing of feet into prosodic words. At thislevel, too, the grouping of feet into prosodic words is also governed by binarity (Ito and Mester1992, Ola 1995):(18) Prosodic Word Binarity (PrWd-Bin):Prosodic word is maximally binary at the level of the footA summary of the constraints discussed so far is given in (19).9Note that alignment constraints can only refer to formal predicates (PCat, GCat), thus, ALIGN-HEAD isused here just as a functional label for the iambic and trochaic parse.14(19) Summary of constraintsa. Faithfulness ConstraintsPARSE: phonological constituents are licensed by higher prosodic structureFILL: Syllable positions are filled with segmental materialLEX: a phonological constituent (feature, root node, path, ji) that is present in the outputform is also present in the input formb. Syllable structure constraintsONSET: Syllables must have onsetsNUCLEUS: Syllables must have nucleiNo-CODA: Syllables are open*COMPLEX: No more than one segment may link to a syllable positionc. Alignment constraintsALIGN-LEFT:align the left edge of a constituent (phonological or grammatical) with the left edge of aconstituent (phonological or grammatical)ALIGN-RIGHT:align the right edge of a constituent (phonological or grammatical) with the right edgeof a constituent (phonological or grammatical)d. Binaritv constraintsFt-Binarity (Ft-Bin): Foot is binary at the moraic or syllabic levelProsodic Word Binarity (PrWd-Bin): Prosodic word is maximally binary at the level ofthe foot15In accounting for the expression of morphological processes such as reduplicative copyingand truncation processes, I assume the theory of Correspondence developed in M&P (1993a, 1994,1995). Defined below is Correspondence, a type of input-output faithfulness condition on therelation of base-reduplicant, or base-truncative identity:(20) CorrespondenceGiven two strings S1 and S2, related to one another by some linguistic processes,Correspondence is a relationf from any subset of the elements S1 to Any element aof and any element 3 of S2 are correspondents of one another if is the image of aunder Correspondence, that is, [ =f(a).The following constraints on correspondent elements are important in the dicussions onreduplication and truncation in this work. First, there is MAX (21) which demands that copying betotal or complete such that the reduplicant is identical to the base; and there is DEP (22) whichstates that the copy must be like the base in all respects, thus excluding the addition of extraphonological materials in the copy:(21) MAx (or Completeness of mapping)Every element of S1 has a correspondent in S2Domainf= S(22) DEP (Faithfulness of the copy to the base)Every element of S2 has a correspondent in SRange (1)Second, prefixation and suffixation are controlled by ANCHORING (ANCHOR is an Alignment-typeconstraint used in templatic morphology) such that prefixal forms surface with materials which16correspond to those found at the left edge of the base, while suffixal forms correspond to materialswhich occur at the right edge of the base:(23) {RIGHT. LEFT}-ANCHOR (S12Any element at the designated periphery of S1 has a correspondent at the designatedperiphery of S2Third, CONTIGUITY requires that the copy or reduplicated form be a continuous substring of thebase in order to prevent the skipping over of segmental melody in mapping:(24) CONTIGUITYa. I(NPUT)-CONTIG (\u00E2\u0080\u009CNo Skipping\u00E2\u0080\u009D)The portion of S1 standing in correspondence forms a continuous substringb. O(UTPUT)-CONTIG (\u00E2\u0080\u009CNo Intrusion\u00E2\u0080\u009D)The portion of 2 standing in correspondence forms a continuous substringFourth, there is LINEARrrY, the constraint that preserves segmental linearity and prohibitsmetathesis when segments are mapped onto prosodic structure:(25) LINEARiTY (of mapping\u00E2\u0080\u0099)S1 reflects the precedent structure of S2 and vice versaFifth, the input-output relation between segmental features in the base-reduplicant is governed byIDENT (F) defined as follows:(26) IDENT (F) (Faithfulness of copy-base featural identity\u00E2\u0080\u0099)Correspondent segments have identical values for the feature F17Finally, I would like to make two points on data exposition and the analyses offered forfeature-based phenomena. First, the elucidation of data is duplicated because of the diversetheoretical implications which they have for the issues addressed in this dissertation. Second,because this work is focused on the characterization of prosodic consitutents, theoretical analysesof feature-based phenomena such as assimilation, deletion, nasalization, and aspiration are notoffered in detail.18CHAPTER 2Sonority Constraints on Moras in Benue-Congo2.1. IntrohictionIn moraic theory, the mora (t) is the prosodic level mediating between the syllable nodeand the melodic tier,\u00E2\u0080\u0099 and it performs diverse roles in phonology. In current understanding,springing from Hyman (1985), the mora variously functions as the weight unit (WU), tone unit(TBU), and a sub-syllabic unit (see also Hayes 1989, McCarthy & Prince 1986, Pufleyblank1994). Zec (1988) argues that the mora perfonns an additional role in phonology, the role of aprosodic licenser, a property that makes the mora an autonomous constituent which need notconstitute part of the syllable to be prosodically licensed (see also Hyman 1990, Bagemthl 1991,Downing 1993, QIa 1993).There are three basic proposals on the moraic represensation of segments. In Hyman(1985), every segment starts out with a mora; as segments are assigned to syllable positions, onset-type segments lose their moras and are adjoined to the moras of sonorous segments whose morasare consistently retained throughout the derivation. In McCarthy & Prince (1986), only geminatesand long vowels are assigned one mora underlyingly; the assignment of single moras to shortvowels and a second mora to long vowels is assumed to be a redundant property; consequently,morafication for this class of segments is not a lexical property. In Hayes (1989), all vowels,whether long or short, are assigned moras in underlying structure; under this approach, morasconstitute part of the lexical information required for vowels. Pulleyblank (1994) providesevidence for Hayes position from the tonal facts of Yoruba and demonstrates that the non-\u00E2\u0080\u0098The moraic level corresponds in certain respects to the CV tier (McCarthy 1979, Clements & Keyser1983, Steriade 1982) or the \u00E2\u0080\u0098x\u00E2\u0080\u009D tier in skeletal theories (Levin 1985, Kaye and Lowenstamm 1984).predictable nature of tonal linking in underived words warrants the prelinldng of tones to tonebearing units in underlying structure.The issue of morafication is sharply focused in Zec (1988) and sonority constraints areshown to play a fundamental role in determining whether or not a segment is moraic. Under thisapproach, only sonorous segments are assigned moras. Sonority constraints, both universal andlanguage specific in nature, combine to select the moraic inventory within a given language. Zecidentifies four ways in which languages may delimit the class of moraic and/or syllabic segments.2A type I language involves a situation where syllabic and moraic segments are coextensive andform a subset distinct from the non-syllabic and non-moraic segmental inventory (KhalkhaMongolian). A type 2 language is one in which syllabic and moraic segments are a subset of thesegmental inventory, and syllabic segments in turn form a subset of the moraic set (Danish,Lithuanian). A type three language involves cases where the set of moraic segments is coextensivewith the segmental inventory while a subset of the moraic set functions as syllabic (English). Atype four language permits any segment- obstruents, sonorants and vowels- to function as moraic(lmdlawn Tashlhiyt Berber, Dell & Elmedlaoui 1985; Mon-Khmer languages, Shaw 1993 andreferences cited therein).This chapter is dual-purposed. First, empirical evidence is presented from Benue-Congolanguages for Zec\u00E2\u0080\u0099s type 1 and type 2 languages; the diverse sonority settings for syllabic andmoraic segments are characterized in Optimality Theory (Prince & Smolensky 1993, McCarthyand Prince 1993) as resulting from the various cut-off points established for each language, and therelative ranking of PARSE within the sonority scale.The second goal concerns the structural characterization of moraic asymmetries. Zecproposes that the mora is a prosodic constituent and also notes that moras differ in two respects.First, moras are different in terms of syllabicity (moraic vs. syllabic distinction). Secondly, it isobserved that distinctions often occur in terms of the strength of the position of moras within thesyllable (strong vs. weak mora distinctions). Even though this proposal may account for2The typology of languages is not ordered exactly as given in Zec (1988).20asymmetric cases involving bimoraic forms, it encounters some difficulties when asymmetriesinvolving monomoraic forms are considered. In two dialects of Yoruba (Standard Yoruba andOnko Yoruba), vocalic moras behave differently from consonantal moras in terms of syllabicityand reduplicative morphology. This asymmetry cannot be analyzed as following from thedistinction between strong and weak moras because a single mora is analyzed as strong under Zec\u00E2\u0080\u0099smodel. It is proposed here that moraic asymmetries are better encoded in structural terms within amoraic theory that recognizes the Nucleus as a prosodic constituent (Shaw 1992, 1993, Steriade199 1). Under this approach, vowels are formally characterized as nuclear moras and consonantalmoras as non-nuclear moras.The discussion begins with an account of a type 1 language, flaj\u00C3\u00A7 Yoruba. Among thewhole segmental inventory, only vowels are moraic and potentially syllabic segments. Thediscussion of ilaje is followed by an account of two type 2 languages, Idoma and two dialects ofYoruba (Standard Yoruba and Onko Yoruba), where sonorants and vowels act as morale entities.Standard Yoruba and Onko Yoruba, however, differ from Idoma in two regards. First, onlyvowels and nasals may be morale in the Yoruba dialects; liquids are impermissible moras. InIdoma, on the other hand, vowels, liquids and nasals are morale. Second, in Yoruba only vowelsare syllabifiable with onsets; consonantal moras, i.e., nasals, are excluded. In Idoma too, onlyvowels may function as syllable nuclei; liquids and nasals, however, group into syllables subject tocertain restrictions, the chief constraining factor being the CODA-CONDiTION principle (Ito 1986,1989, Goldsmith 1990, Yip 1991, ItO & Mester 1993).3Steriade (1991) proposes that there is a distinction between nuclear and non-nuclear segments. However,this proposal does not explicitly argue for the Nucleus as a formal pmsodic consituent. In this regard, itdiffers minimally from Shaw (1992).212.2. Type 1 language Syl = Mor c Seg: Ilaj\u00C3\u00A7 YorubaThis section provides an introduction to the segmental inventory of liaje and shows thatonly vowels are moraic and potential syllabic moras. In Zec\u00E2\u0080\u0099s framework, only the class ofsegments that constitute a proper extension (defined in (7) below) of other segments, that is,vowels, are assigned moras. In Optimality Theory, the cut-off point for moraic and nuclearsegments is ranges from *p/j to *p/a; that is, the set of peak preferring segments begin with highvowels and terminate with low vowels.2.2.1. Ilaj\u00C3\u00A7 Yoruba: Syllabiclmoraic segments, distributional factsflaj\u00C3\u00A7 has a phonemic segmental inventory consisting of eighteen consonants and twelvevowels as shown below (Ogunpolu 1973, Ayela l988).(1) Consonantal inventoryt d3 k kpb d g gb gwm nf s y hw(2) Vocalic inventoryOral vowels: i, e, e, a, o, o, uNasalized vowels: I, , , 5, i4The Yoruba Standard Orthography is adopted in the citation of examples: \u00C3\u00A7 = [e], \u00C3\u00A7 = [nj, Vn =nasalized vowel, = [j], p = [kpj, gh = [yJ, = H-tone, = L-tone, and absence of tonal marking on a vowelor moraic nasal indicates M-tone.22Of the entire segmental inventory, only vowels may bear tones. Vowels may surface withany of three lexical tones; high, low or mid (Pulleyblank 1986, Akinlabi 1985), as illustrated by therepresentative data given below.(3) Only vowels are tone bearing in ilajeIc go igi stickmon drink Ola tomorrowg\u00C3\u00A9 cut oddn festivalf\u00C3\u00A0 pull \u00C3\u00A0rlr\u00C3\u00A8 tirednessIn contrast, consonants (be they sonorant or non-sonorant), do not bear tones. For example, llaj\u00C3\u00A7does not have homorganic tone bearing nasals which are common in the Standard dialect (the tone-bearing nasal is a progressive marker).(4) a. Standard Yoruba: Old n Ic \u00E2\u0080\u009COlu prog go: Olu is going\u00E2\u0080\u009DOld ni bO \u00E2\u0080\u009COlu prog come: Olu is coming\u00E2\u0080\u009Db. Haje Yoruba: Old ml l\u00C3\u00A7 \u00E2\u0080\u009COlu prog go: Olu is going\u00E2\u0080\u009DOld j w\u00C3\u00A1 \u00E2\u0080\u009COlu prog come: Olu is coming\u00E2\u0080\u009DAs is evident from the above examples, the corresponding form of the Standard dialect\u00E2\u0080\u0099shomorganic nasal is a CV in ilaje and the vowel bears the tone of the morpheme. Under theassumption that tone bearing units are necessarily moraic (Hyman 1985), these vowels must bemoraic in flaj\u00C3\u00A7 Yoruba. Following Pulleyblank (1994), I assume that the mora is the prosodicanchor to which tones are linked in this dialect.The facts of syllabification also show that only vowels are potentially syllabic in llaje.Words having the syllable shape CV are commonly found in flaj\u00C3\u00A7, while in contrast, *CC wordsare completely unattested.23(5) Only vowels are syllabified with a preceding consonantCV syllablebtl abuse *brshut *tlga tall *gflya to be *yjThe clisthbution described above, namely, the fact that only vowels act as syllabic, is explained ifwe adopt proposals by Zec (1988) that vowels are preferred syllable peaks across languagesbecause they occupy the sonorous end of the sonority scale. The question that arises concerns howexactly the sonority distinction between vowels and consonants is to be formally encoded? In thefollowing subsection, the characterization of segmental sonority in Haj is formalized in Zec\u00E2\u0080\u0099sproposals and then translated into an Optimality Theoretic version to fit in with the over-allthreoretical approach adopted for characterizing typological variation in this work.2.2.1.1. Morification in Ilaj\u00C3\u00A7Zec, following Clements (1983), assumes that the sonority scale is universally representedas in (6) (\u00E2\u0080\u00980\u00E2\u0080\u009D stands for Obstruent, \u00E2\u0080\u009CN\u00E2\u0080\u009D stands for nasal, \u00E2\u0080\u009CL\u00E2\u0080\u009D stands for liquid, \u00E2\u0080\u009CV\u00E2\u0080\u009D stands forvowel).(6) 0< N< L< V- Consonantal [-cons]+ + Approximant [\u00C3\u00B7approx]+ + + Sonorant [+son]Under this approach, there is an algorithm that enables the sonority information to be directlyencoded into the root node, the organizing node for features in phonology. Sonority ranking and24computation is then obtained by appealing to the notion of extension and proper extension definedbelow.(7) a. Extension:Segment A is an extension of segment B if all feature specifications in B are also found in A.b. Proper extension:Segment A is a proper extension of segment B if all feature specifications in B are also found inA, and A has at least one feature specification not found in B.Under the approach defined in (7), the feature specification of segments in (6) is defined as follows(a) vowels form a proper extension of all other segments; (b) liquids are a proper extension of allother segments excluding vowels; and (c) nasals are a proper extension of obstruents. How is flaj\u00C3\u00A7accounted for in this approach?In Llajc, evidence from tone and syllabification show that only vowels are moraic andsyllabic. All other segments, liquids, nasals and obstruents function as syllable onsets in thephonology. By implication, only segments that form a proper extension of all other segments, i.e.vowels, are computed as moraic and syllabic by the sonority scale.2.2.1.2. An Optimality AccountAcross languages, the variation in the sets of possible onsets and nuclei are governed bytwo parameters: EONS and c. EONS is the sonority cut-off point in the Margin hierarchy, while tNUC is the sonority cut point in the Peak hierarchy. The possible onsets are segments with lesssonority or equal to oNs\u00E2\u0080\u0099 whereas the possible peaks are segments with greater sonority or equal to\u00E2\u0080\u009C\u00E2\u0080\u00A2In Optimality Theory, Prince & Smolensky (1993) assume that Universal Grammar25provides a universal peak hierarchy as well as a universal margin hierarchy, a type of defaulthierarchical organization of sonority sequencing which languages may rank in specific ways.Canonically, vowels are peak-preferring and consonants are margin-preferring. Codasdefine the middle-point: sometimes they occur in peak positions, sometimes they appear in marginpositions. The properties of this class of segments tend to vary from language to language, and itis actually at this point in the scale that variability in rankings occurs the most. Possible tenableand untenable peaks and margins are defined as follows in Optimality Theory. (The reading of theranked notation is as follows: *1)10>> *P/L means it is worse to have an obstruent in the peakposition than it is to have a liquid in the peak position, whereas *MJL() >> M/HI means it isworse to have a low vowel in the margin position than it is to have a high in the margin position.Peak position is here read as Nucleus position, while Margin corresponds to Onset position).(8) Peak and Margin Hierarchies (adapted from Prince & Smolensky 1993: 141)a. Universal Peak Hierarchy*p/() >> *P/N >> *P/L >> *P/Ffl >> *pjjjjb. Universal Margin Hierarchy*MJLO>> *JHi >> *MJL >> *MJN >> *fJ()PARSE, the constraint governing the prosodic incorporation of segments into higherstructures like the mora or syllable interacts with the peak and margin hierachies to select thesegments that are suited to occur in a particular prosodic constituent based on their sonority values.Thus, if the maximum sonority of possible onsets and peaks is set at /i,u/, assuming that thedifference between high vowels and glides is structural not featural, following Guerssel (1986), thismeans that PARSE will be ranked above *MJLO and *PJHI to ensure that high vowels are eitherparsed into the margin or the peak:(9) *MJL()).> PARSE >> *J.4JIfl, *1)/ifi26By the ranking in (9), low vowels (by the undonilnated status of *M/LO) are prohibited from beingparsed into margin positions while high vowels are potential margin or peak segments.To illustrate this Optimality account of the sonority properties of segments, let usreexamine the segmental inventory of llaj\u00C3\u00A7. The basic generalization in llaj\u00C3\u00A7 is that only vowelsare potential moraic or nuclei elements, all other segments are margin preferring. FollowingGuerssel (1986), if we assume that the difference between high vowels and glides is structural notfeatural, the ranking that will account for Uaj\u00C3\u00A7 is the following:(10) *MJJ), *p/(), *p/N, *PL>> PARSE >> *IJ(), *M/N, *MJL, *MJ}fl, *p/}fl, *pfoThis ranking, whereby PARSE is crucially dominated by *MJO, *p/(), *p/N, and */J derives thefollowing facts: (a) low vowels never occur in onset position, (b) obstruents, nasals and liquidsnever appear in peak positions. The crucial domination of PARSE over *MJO, *MJN, *ML,*MJIfl, *PIHI and *PILO forces the parsing of these segments in either margin or peak positions.The moraic interpretation of the ranking in (10) is given below:(11) Possible NucLeus or Possible Mora = it[low] [-hi] >> [\u00C3\u00B7hi] >> liquid nasal >> obstruentJJ.\u00E2\u0080\u0094* Possible Pre-nuclear consonant (Onset) = EONSThe llaj\u00C3\u00A7 forms in (5: ga \u00E2\u0080\u009Cbe tall\u00E2\u0080\u009D vs. *gn) where obstruents, nasals and liquids are prohibited fromappearing in peak positions support the established ranking in (10) as follows.27(12) *P/N >> PARSE>> *MJO, *pf[()Input: Igal *PJN PARSE *MJO *pf[ja.[g] [a]b. *! *aNUC1\u00E2\u0080\u0099 [a]C. *! */[9] The tableau in (12) shows that the parsing of segments into margin and peak positions must respectthe ranking in (10): candidate (b) is rejected because the obstruent [gj is not parsed into the margin(PARSE>> *M/O), candidate (c) fails because the vowel is not parsed into the peak position(PARSE>> *p/LO), candidate (a) is the winner because it respects the established ranking: thesegments respect the sonority constraints imposed on peak/margin hierarchies and are parsed intothe appropriate margin and peak positions.28In contrast, in tableau (13), the ranking *PIN>> PARSE rules out the candidates (a, b)that parse nasals into the peak position. The optimal candidate, (c), respects the ranking;consequently, the nasal is not parsed as illustrated below:5(13)*P/N >> PARSE >> *MJ() *p/Jo______________2.3. Type 2 languages Syl c Mor c Seg: Idoma, Standard Yoruba, and Onko YorubaTwo categories of type 2 languages are presented in this section: Standard Yoruba andOnko Yoruba constitute one category, while Idoma constitutes another category. The two dialectsof Yoruba treat vowels and nasals as moraic for tone, weight, and prosodic processes involving5A fourth plausible candidate which is not considered in the tableau is one in which the nasal is unparsedas in (c) but the obstruent, by the ranking (PARSE>> *MJO) is parsed, as in candidate (12c). This form isarguably ruled out on independent grounds by the principles of syllabification which prohibit onsetsegments from constituting syllables without peak segments.Input: Ig ii *P/N PARSE *MjO [ *ffj*![gJ [nJb. *! *aN1JC1\u00E2\u0080\u0099 [n]C.v\u00E2\u0080\u0099 ** * .n>29templatically driven lengthening. However, only vowels are potentially syllabic; nasals are neversyllabified. A problem arises in Yoruba with respect to the general prediction made about theuniversal property of the sonority of liquids: liquids are supposed to be higher in sonority thannasals, yet, in Yoruba, liquids are never moraic or syllabic. This problem is proposed to followfrom the ranking of PARSE [nasal] and PARSE [+approximant]. In Idoma, the morale inventoryencompasses vowels, liquids, and nasals which are all tone bearing, but only vowels may appear insyllable nuclei positions.2.3.1. Standard YorubaThis section documents the properties of moraic segments in Standard Yoruba. StandardYoruba exhibits the same vocalic inventory as flaj\u00C3\u00A7, but differs from flaj\u00C3\u00A7 in that the set of moraicsegments include vowels and nasals. Moraic properties, both symmetrical and asymmetrical, arehighlighted and characterised in formal terms as similarities and differences following fromstructural distinctions between nuclear-moras and non-nuclear moras.2.3.1.1. Morale symmetriesStandard Yoruba exhibits a phonological regularity whereby nasals and vowels patterntogether for tone assignment (Pulleyblank 1994), and weight assignment (Qia 1994a). As shown in(14), vowels and nasals are tone-bearing, and as the alternating forms in (15) show, vowels andnasals may interchangebly occur in the same position:30(14) Tone-bearing unit: vowels and nasals.Word Glossr6nib6 orangea l th gb lizardii d\u00C3\u00A2 nevergbt ii jo sale(15) Weight-bearing unit: vowels and nasals as evidenced by alternating patterns of theunderlined segments.Base Aternation 1 Alternation 2 Glosst\u00E2\u0080\u0099it \u00C3\u00B1t stampwiw we oowe swimmergtigb\u00C3\u00A7 nIgbe gb\u00C3\u00A7 thirstkIkw\u00C3\u00A9 jkw\u00C3\u00A9 kw\u00C3\u00A9 writerThe point of interest in the alternating data in (15) is that when a tone bearing nasal is deleted, itoften triggers compensatory lengthening. That is, the vocalic features of the preceding vowelspread onto the position vacated by the nasal. Following Hayes (1989), I assume that thecompensatory lengthening effect is guided by the prosodic frame encompassing the relevantsegments, vowels and nasals in this instance. The formal description of this prosodic frame is themora.The claim that vowels and nasals are moraic predicts that both should participate inprosodically defined processes which make reference to the mora. This prediction is borne out. Toform hypocoristics, the presence of four vowels is required in a word, so that the tonal melody ofthe hypocoristic template, HHLM, may have sufficient tonal anchors to link to. Examples appearin (16) of hypocoristic formatives which are productively produced by suffixing a monomoraic31possessive marker /mi/ to a VCV or CVCV name. As shown in the data, /mi/ systematicallylengthens to CVV in the output.(16) Hypocoristics ( Bamgbose 1987)mi \u00E2\u0080\u0094+ m\u00C3\u00B1 \u00E2\u0080\u0098my friend\u00E2\u0080\u0099\u00E2\u0080\u0098iyw6 mi \u00E2\u0080\u0094* y\u00C3\u00A1w\u00C3\u00B3 m\u00C3\u00B1 \u00E2\u0080\u0098my wife\u00E2\u0080\u0099gbn mi \u00E2\u0080\u0094* gbn m\u00C3\u00B1 \u00E2\u0080\u0098my senior\u00E2\u0080\u0099mi\u00E2\u0080\u0094mu \u00E2\u0080\u0098my boss\u00E2\u0080\u0099Alternatively, some speakers lengthen the initial vowel of the name which serves as the base for thesuffixal possessive; in this case, the possessive vowel does not lengthen The following data showthis process.(17) Hypocoristics: initial V-lengtheningmu \u00E2\u0080\u0094* r\u00C3\u00A7 ml \u00E2\u0080\u0098my friend\u00E2\u0080\u0099mu \u00E2\u0080\u0094* yawo ml \u00E2\u0080\u0098my wife\u00E2\u0080\u0099gbn mu \u00E2\u0080\u0094* 4gb\u00C3\u00A7n ml \u00E2\u0080\u0098my senior\u00E2\u0080\u0099mu \u00E2\u0080\u0094> ga ml \u00E2\u0080\u0098my boss\u00E2\u0080\u0099The hypocoristic template is fonnally defined as a prosodic word consisting of two feet.By the principle of binarity, a foot must be binary (Prince 1980). The name to which thepossessive marker is suffixed in (16) is a binary foot (VCV or CVCV), the possessive markerhowever, is monomoraic, a form which does not satisfy foot binarity. This leads to augmentationby final V-lengthening to enable the output of augmentation to satisfy the prosodic requirement.Alternatively, augmentation by V-lengthening may take place at the left edge of the hypocoratedword, as shown in (17). The important factor given the variation in the position of lengthening(right as in (16), or left as in (17)) then appears to be the satisfaction of the templatic four mora32requirement, which cannot be met by the input shape of the name and the monomoraic possessivemarker. This process provides evidence that the vocalic mora may constitute part of a prosodicconstituent.Similarly, the tone bearing nasal performs a prosodic function in reduplicativemorphology. In denoting \u00E2\u0080\u009Cend of utterance\u00E2\u0080\u009D in a language game which reduplicates everysyllable in the word,6 the nasal surfaces before the consonant of the final syllable, as seen in thefollowing data.(18) En (Language game: nasal denotes end of utterance, Isola 1982)Sentence Eni varianta. Mo f lg Mo-go f-g l\u00C3\u00A7-tjg\u00C3\u00A7\u00E2\u0080\u0098I want to go\u00E2\u0080\u0099b. Mo w si kligi\u00C3\u00B1 Mo-go w-g si-gi k-g li-gi gi-gi \u00C3\u00B1-jjI\u00E2\u0080\u0098I came to Calgary\u00E2\u0080\u0099c. Mo mg Bd\u00C3\u00A9 Mo-go mo-gon B\u00C3\u00A1-g d\u00C3\u00A9-g\u00C3\u00A9\u00E2\u0080\u0098I know Bade\u00E2\u0080\u0099d. Fda pupa d\u00C3\u00A0 Fi-gI l\u00C3\u00A0-ga pu-gil pa-ga d\u00C3\u00A0-g\u00C3\u00A0Cap red where\u00E2\u0080\u0098where is the red cap\u00E2\u0080\u0099From the foregoing, we see that vowels and nasals perform functions which are associatedwith moraic segments in phonology: both vowels and nasals are tone bearing, weight units, andconstitute part of prosodic constituents in prosodic morphology. However, there is a difference inthe way nasal and vowels are utilized as moraic entities in prosodic morphology. For example,whereas vowels may count for constructing a minimal binary foot, nasals do not count. Therefore,it is common to find VCV nouns such as those shown in (17), but NCV nouns are unattested inStandard Yoruba. In the language game presented in (18), only a consonantal nasal denotes end of6As shown in the data, there is not total correspondence between the base and the reduplicant because theonset of the reduplicated syllable is fixed, a voiced velar Igi. A copy of the vowel and tone, howeverappear in the reduplicated form.33utterance, vocalic nasals are prohibited from carrying Out this function. For example, the enaequivalent of (17d) can only stated as FI-g\u00E2\u0080\u0099l l\u00C3\u00A0-ga pu-gu pa-ga d\u00C3\u00A0-jg\u00C3\u00A0, not as *F1..gI l\u00C3\u00A0-ga pu-gupa-ga da.iga, where the nasal denoting end of utterance is vocalic. In the following subsection, Ishow that other differences occur in how these moraic segments function in other phonologicalprocesses.2.3.1.2. Moraic asymmetriesMoraic segments (vowels and nasals) differ in two important ways. First, only vowels arepotential syllable nuclei, nasals are not - V\u00E2\u0080\u0099[CV}a, *[CNJG.(19) Syllabtfication: only vowels group into well-formed syllables with a preceding onsett \u00E2\u0080\u0098urinate\u00E2\u0080\u0099 *tflgb sweep\u00E2\u0080\u0099 *gb6d \u00E2\u0080\u0098contribute, break\u00E2\u0080\u0099sumn \u00E2\u0080\u0098sleep\u00E2\u0080\u0099 *jjThe second kind of evidence that shows a distinction between vowels and nasals comesfrom reduplication. As established in Ola (1993), nasals and (onsetless) vowels are not syllabified,hence, neither reduplicates when a template is morphologicafly specified as a syllable.7 However,the striking asymmetry that emerges between nasals and vowels from reduplicative processes isthat nasals, not vowels are skipped over in mapping melody to reduplicative templates. Tworeduplication processes illustrate this phenomenon, ideophone suffixal syllable reduplication andnominal distributive reduplication. Consider each process in turn below.7The assumption that (onsetless) vowels and nasals are not syllables derives the fact that neitherreduplicates as syllable. For details on syllabification, see chapter 3.34In the ideophonic reduplication pattern denoting light intensity of action given in (20), thereduplicant is a syllable and always corresponds with the rightmost CV in the base. The data in(20a) illustrate this fact.(20) kleophone a suffixal Reduplication (denotes light intensity, Awoyale 1989):a. CV-finalReduplicated Form Glosshb hbi-b clumsyrogodo rogodo-p small and roundfrgd large and wideNotice in (20b) that the base-reduplicant correspondence is somewhat different from that of (20a).The rightmost segment in (20b), the moraic nasal, is not reduplicated as a syllable, but is skippedover in order to reduplicate a CV.(20b). N-final: moraic nasal is skipped overb\u00C3\u00A2r\u00C3\u00B1 bath-ba *b\u00C3\u00A2thrn *btha \u00E2\u0080\u0098hard and heavy\u00E2\u0080\u0099gbr\u00C3\u00B1 gbth-g *gb\u00C3\u00A8thth *gbthe \u00E2\u0080\u0098soft and heavy\u00E2\u0080\u0099The scenario in (20c) is completely different from what obtains in (20a,b). Here, the rightmostsegment is an onsetless vowel preceded by a sequence of two CVs. Reduplication fails in (20c),however; this shows that a vowel cannot be skipped over to copy the required CV syllable. In thisregard, vocalic moras contrast with nasal moras.35(20c). V-final: vocalic mora cannot be skipped overpl.u \u00E2\u0080\u0098palau-u *pa1au.1d *palau4lJ \u00E2\u0080\u0098flat and empty\u00E2\u0080\u0099*palau4a *palau4aia *palau.pgbyiI *gbayauu *gbayauiJ *gbayau.y \u00E2\u0080\u0098large and loose\u00E2\u0080\u0099*gbayau..y *gbayau..y *gbayau.gFrom (20), we see that moraic nasals are treated differently from vocalic moras. Thesecond reduplication process that illustrates an asymmetry in the behaviour of moraic segments isnominal distributives. As illustrated in (21a), the reduplicated prefix is always realised as a VCVwhose segmental content is identical to the leftmost segment of the base.(21) Nominal Distributive, reduplicant is a foot prefix.a. VCV-initial nounReduplicated Form Gloss Distributive\u00C3\u00A8b\u00C3\u00A1 \u00C3\u00A8b\u00C3\u00A8-\u00C3\u00A8b\u00C3\u00A1 side every side\u00C3\u00A8b\u00C3\u00A1d\u00C3\u00B4 \u00C3\u00A8b\u00C3\u00AA-\u00C3\u00AAb\u00C3\u00A1d\u00C3\u00B4 river-bank every river-bankapr apa-apr basket every basketojiirn\u00C3\u00B3 ojo-ojtlm\u00C3\u00B3 day every dayWhen a noun begins either with sequences of vowels (VV) or a sequence of a vowelfollowed by a nasal, a different pattern emerges. Consider the data in (21b).(21b). VN-initial noun: morale nasal is skipped overReduplicated Form Gloss Distributive meaning\u00C3\u00B1t \u00C3\u00B4t-iit stamp every stampijw w-ijw swimmer every swimmer*-w36Notice in (2 ib) that the reduplicant, as in (21 a), is a VCV. Observe, however, that the nasal doesnot constitute part of the reduplicated form, suggesting that the nasal was skipped over in mappingmelody to the prosodic template. In contrast, a vowel cannot be skipped over in the same manneras evidenced by the failure of reduplication in (21c).(21c). VV-initial noun: vocalic moras are not skipped overouso *oo.ouro *oroouro\u00E2\u0080\u0098morning\u00E2\u0080\u0099eur\u00C3\u00A7 *ee.eure *ereeure\u00E2\u0080\u0098goat\u00E2\u0080\u0099The above differences, to wit, (i) that vowels are potential syllabic constituents, and thatnasals are not, and (ii) the skipping over of nasals in reduplication and the impossibility of thesame with vowels, clearly demonstrate that moras may pattern unevenly in the phonology of thesame language, moraic mismatches following Flyman (1992).8 The following table summarizes thegeneralizations obtained so far:(22) Generalizations: moraic similarities and differencesFunction Tone Bearing Unit ) Weight Bearing Unit Prosodic unit I Syllabic unitSegment II Vowels, Nasals Vowels, Nasals Vowels, Nasals VowelsThe main task to be handled now concerns how to capture the asymmetric properties ofmoras in a principled way. Before an attempt is made at doing that, let us consider Onko, anotherdialect of Yoruba in which moras exhibit distinct properties.8This case is analogous to the Bantu case (Luganda, Cibemba, and Runyambo-Haya) where a preconsonantal nasal counts as a mora for prosodic processes, but does not count as a mora for tonalprocesses (Hyman 1992). Hyman analyses the Bantu moraic mismatches as following from the hypothesisthat only a subset of moras may be tone-bearing in a given language (Zec 1988, Steriade 1991), andpredicts the non-existence of cases where only a subset of tone-bearing units are moraic for the purpose ofcalculating syllable weight. This prediction, however, is not borne out, as shown by the Yoruba case whereall moras are tone-bearing, but only a subset is selected for purposes of syllabification and prosodicreduplication.372.3.2. Onko YorubaUnlike Standard Yoruba, where nouns do not begin with moraic nasals, both vowels andconsonantal moras may begin nouns in Onko Yoruba. As a matter of fact, nasals and the highfront vowel [i] occur in different contexts in these two dialects. Cognate forms which begin withnasals in Onko surface with an [ii in the Standard dialect as the following data illustrates.(23) Standard Yoruba Onko Yoruba Gloss\u00E2\u0080\u0098iy\u00C3\u00A1 \u00C3\u00B1y\u00C3\u00A1 motherisu ntsu yamigb\u00C3\u00A2 \u00C3\u00B1gb\u00C3\u00A0 timeito ntO saliva\u00E2\u0080\u0098frOlO \u00C3\u00B1rOl eveningit\u00C3\u00A2d\u00C3\u00B3giin \u00C3\u00B1t\u00C3\u00A0d\u00C3\u00B3gtin fifteen daysThe complementarity is neutralized in syllables. Thus, in CV syllables, high front vowels arerepresented alike in both dialects as shown in the following data.(24) Standard Yoruba Onko Yoruba Glossri seebi bi *bn give birthId ki *kfl greetcr1 eti *etn earon cr1 *em headIdi \u00C3\u00B1di *\u00C3\u00B1dn buttock38To confirm that nasals are impossible syllabic constituents, consider distributiveformatives. In fonning distributives in Onko Yoruba, initial vowels and nasals may count as partof the distributive prefixal foot template. Thus the reduplicant in (25) is expressed either as VCVor NCV. This fact constitutes evidence that vowels and nasals may serve as part of prosodicconstituents in prosodic processes (distributive forms in Standard Yoruba and Onko Yoruba arecited as examples, but the discussion is mainly focussed on the latter dialect).(25) Distributive reduplicationStandard Yoruba Onko Yorubaj Reduplicant Reduplicant Gloss Distributivea. Oru OrO-Oru Oni OrO-\u00C3\u00B4ru night every nightOwiir \u00C3\u00B4wO-\u00C3\u00B4wtir \u00C3\u00A0wtir \u00C3\u00B4w\u00C3\u00B4-Owiir morning every morningb. il\u00C3\u00A2 ill -ha fil\u00C3\u00A0 \u00C3\u00B1lI-ula line every lineIrl I\u00C3\u00B14r1\u00C3\u00A9 \u00C3\u00B1rOl\u00C3\u00A9 \u00C3\u00B1\u00C3\u00B14rl\u00C3\u00A9 evening every eveningIt\u00C3\u00A3dogdn ItI-It\u00C3\u00A0dOgtin \u00C3\u00B1t\u00C3\u00A0d\u00C3\u00B3gtin \u00C3\u00B1tl-It\u00C3\u00A0d\u00C3\u00B3giin 15 days every 15 daysIy\u00C3\u00A11ta IyI4y\u00C3\u00A1l\u00C3\u00A8ta \u00C3\u00B1y\u00C3\u00A11ta \u00C3\u00B1yI-Iydlta dawn every morningNotice in (25 a), where the reduplicant is realised as VCV, that the final vowel of the reduplicant isidentical to the initial vowel of the base.. In the Onko forms in (25b), however, the nasal onlysurfaces at the begining of the reduplicant, it no longer appears at the begining of the base, and as aconsequence it does not surface in the final position of the reduplicated form either. What we findinstead is a denasalized and vocalized segment, a high front vowel [iJ.The data presented above can be summarized as follows:39(26) Summary of generalizationsa. the tone bearing nasal and high front vowel [ii are in complementary distribution in OnkoYoruba: [ii occurs after consonants in CV syllables, while [n] never occurs after aconsonant (23-25).b. [nJ denasalizes and vocalizes to [i} when preceded by a consonant (25).The challenge for standard moraic theory is how to provide a principled prosodic explanation forthe moraic asymmetries. In the following subsection, this problem is laid out and a prosodicsolution offered.2.3.3. A prosodic account of moraic asymmetriesUnder the standard version of moraic theory (Hyman 1985, Hayes 1989, Zec 1988, tomention a few), the distribution of moraic segments in Yoruba presents a startling paradox. Whydo vowels and nasals count for tone and weight assignment? Why does syllabification singlevowels out as possible syllabic constituents? Why are nasals excluded as syllabic constituents?One way of explaining the asymmetric patterns observed is to assume that there are twomoraic projections in the grammar: one serves as tonal anchor while the other serves as syllablenuclei. This option is rejected by Hyman (1992), specifically because it falls to capture the factthat some segments are selected as tonal anchors and syllable nuclei. To rule Out a situation wheretwo moraic projections occur in phonology, Hyman proposes the rnoraic uniqueness hypothesiswhich states that \u00E2\u0080\u009CAt any given stage of derivation, there is only one morale projection\u00E2\u0080\u009D.Assuming that there is only one morale tier, one could account for moraic asymmetries by directlyencoding segmental properties into prosodic structure. Under such an analysis, consonantal nasalmoras would be different from vocalic moras since the prosodic structure would be able to accesssegmental features in a direct fashion. This assumption would warrant direct reference tosegmental materials in stating prosodic templates. So, in specifying the foot reduplicative template40in (20&21), a negative condition nfling Out nasal moras would be needed to prohibit nasals frommapping into the prosodic template. This analysis works, but is in direct conflict with McCarthy &Prince\u00E2\u0080\u0099s (1986, 1993a) Prosodic Morphology Hypothesis which states that \u00E2\u0080\u009CTemplates are definedin terms of authentic units of prosody\u00E2\u0080\u009D- mora, syllable, foot or prosodic word. This conflict is nontrivial, since this hypothesis is well instantiated cross-lingusitically.There is an alternative prosodic explanation for the morale asymmetries within moraicframework of assumptions: the nuclear-mora hypothesis of Shaw (1992). According to this view,sonority requirements constrain vowels to link to nuclear-moras, and constrain nasals to link tonon-nuclear moras. Under this account, the featural/Sonority properties of vowels and nasals areindirectly encoded in the nuclear vs. non-nuclear distinction. Assuming that nuclear and nonnuclear moras are authentic prosodic constituents, templatic processes would be able to accessthem without direct reference to features. This enables us to explain the moraic asymmetry byconstituency, i.e., nuclear vs. non-nuclear distinction, not by segmental/featural properties. Acomparison of the two morale models is summarized in the following table:(27)Standard Moraic Theory Nuclear Morale Modela. Incorrectly predicts moraic symmetry. Correctly predicts both moraic symmetry andasymmetry.b. Marks asymmetry via diacritic notation: Asymmetry captured by constituency, i.e.,nuclear vs. non-nuclear distinction./\IS Wc. Referencing at least some degree of Featural/Sonority properties encoded in thefeatural content in templatic processes in nuclear vs. non-nuclear distinction. Sinceviolation of the Prosodic Morphology nuclear and non-nuclear moras are authenticHypothesis: Templates are defined in terms of prosodic constituents, templatic processesauthentic units of prosody (McCarthy and access them without direct reference toPrince 1986, 1993a). features.The recognition of the nucleus as a prosodic constituent calls for a revised prosodichierarchy of the type given in (28b):41(28) Standard Prosodic Hierarchy (28b) Revised Prosodic HierarchyPrWd Prosodic Word PrWd Prosodic WordFt Foot Ft Foota Syllable a Syllablep. Mora N Nucleusp. MoraThe structure in (28b) is assumed throughout this dissertation.2.3.4. Nuclear and non-nuclear moras in Optimality TheoryThe preceding section considered the prosodic characterization of moraic asymmetries andproposes, following Shaw (1992), that the distinctions be structurally encoded as differencesbetween nuclear moras and non-nuclear moras. What this means in Optimality Theory is that thecut-off point set for moraic segments can be different from that established for nuclear segments.The behavior of liquids is particularly striking in view of the ranking established by UniversalGrammar, which rates liquids as higher ranked than nasals: in Yoruba, nasals are possible morasbut liquids never exhibit any of the properties associated with moraic segments (tonal processesand compensatory lengthening); liquids only function as prenuclear segments (onset). Thissuggests that nasals have higher sonority value than liquids in Yoruba. The problem that arises ishow to capture this property given that the sonority hierarchy is supposed to be organized instrictly dominance fashion.42Technically, this is not a problem for OT because of the prediction that languages couldrank constraints in specific orders. Under this view, the nasal-liquid sonority asymmetry can becaptured by ranking nasals higher than liquids on the sonority scale, a language particular rankingas predicted by Optimality Theory:(29) Nasal/liquid asymmetry: reversal of sonority rankingMoraic segments: sonority cut point= Possible Nucleus = Possible Mora(vowels) low, non-high > high > nasal > liquid > obstruent&L\u00E2\u0080\u0094\u00C3\u00B7 Possible Pre-nuclear consonant (Onset)= 1ONSBy this ranking nasals and vowels are well-formed when linked to moras (30), whereas othersegments are considered ill-formed when linked to moras (31):(30) Well-formed morasI\u00E2\u0080\u0099 I\u00E2\u0080\u0099[iJ [eJ [a] [n](31) Illicit Moras* Il *JL[1] [tJThis ranking futher permits vowels to link to nuclear moras and disallows nasals from being linkedto nuclear moras:43(32) Well-formed nuclear moras:NTJC NTJC NUCI I[i] [eJ [a](33) Illicit Nuclear Mora* NUCII[n]The problem with this technical solution is that it permits the reranking of any sonorityvalue: for example, the ranlcing Obstruents>> Vowels ought to be as licit as Nasal >> Liquid. Noknown language provides justification for a ranking where obstruents are rated higher in sonoritythan vowels. How do we achieve a limit reranldng within a harmonic scale?To get around this problem, one may spell out the featural values for capturing thesonority scale as follows (as in (6) but assuming a fully specified matrix here):(34) 0< N< L< V+ + +- Consonantal [-cons] = Vowel-- + + Approximant [+approx] = Liquids- + + + Sonorant [+son] = V. L, N- +-- Nasal [\u00C3\u00B7nasal] = Nasal44The augmented scale enables us to make reference to nasality in rating sonority values: nasals arelike liquids and vowels in terms of sonority [+son], but are distinct from liquids by being nasals[nasal]. The nasal-liquid asymmetry can now be explained by ranking PARSE [nasal] andPARSE [\u00C3\u00B7approximant].(35) PARSE[-cons]>> *P/[approxj >> *P/[+approx] >> PARSE [+nasal]>> PARSE [+approx]PARSE [+son]According to the ranking in (35), highly ranked PARSE[-cons] incorporates the standardassumption that vowels are the most sonorous set of segments, and demands that vowels [-cons] beobligatorily parsed as moras. The ranking *p/[..approx] >> *P/[pp] states that it is worse tohave a non-approximant (that is, nasal) in peak position than it is to have an approximant (liquidsand vowel); establishing the standard claim that liquids and nasal are more sonorous than nasals.At this point, the nasal-liquid asymmetry still remains unexplained. The dividing point is at thebottom of the scale where PARSE [\u00C3\u00B7nasal] outranks PARSE [+appox], and PARSE [\u00C3\u00B7son]. Theranking here enforces the parsing of nasals over that of liquids, the parsing of vowels is essentiallyguaranteed by undominated PARsE[-cons]. The inference to be drawn from this analysis is that theasymmetry between nasals and liquids lies not in the reversal of the sonority scale, but in thevariable ranking of this scale with the parsing constraints governing the incorporation of sonorityvalues into prosody. The reward that follows is the preservation of the hierarchical ordering of thesonority scale.A final point concerns the interaction of featural markedness and moraic representation.Pulleyblank (1988) proposed, based on various asymmetries involving the high front vowel [i] andother vowels that [ii is the least marked vowel in Yoruba. Structurally, whereas other vowels arespecified with one feature or the other, [ii is represented as a root node which does not dominateany featural specifications in the lexical entry. Given the assumptions of underspecification theory,45and the claim that vowels are nuclear segments, a high front vowel has only prosodic structure andis represented as a NUqi. node (D denotes featureless segment or a bare root node):(36) Prosodic representation of underspecified IiiNUCL) =[i]When featural markedness is combined with nuclear distinction in moraic representation,four representations are predicted for Yoruba (37): (a) a moraic node specified for lexical features,(b) a moraic node which is unspecified for lexical features, (c) a nuclear node which is specified forlexical features, (d) a nuclear node which is unspecified for lexical features:(37) Featural specification and moraic representation(a) (b) (c) (d)NUC NUCI\u00E2\u0080\u0099 I\u00E2\u0080\u0099[n} [alThere is evidence for the four representations in (37) in Standard Yoruba and OnkoYoruba. Evidence for the representations in (37a) and (37c), representations involving lexicallyspecified features, is demonstrated in various ways in Yoruba phonology. Firstly, robust evidencefor (37c) is documented in Pulleyblank (1988) where asymmetries involving vowels are shown torequire the specification of all vowels except [ij. Secondly, with regard to (37a), in most cases,46nasals exhibit three properties which suggest that they weaker than vowels. First of all, nasalsalways assimilate to preceding vowels, as was shown for example, in (15, t\u00E2\u0080\u0099it- \u00C3\u00B1t\u00E2\u0080\u0094\u00E2\u0080\u009Cstamp\u00E2\u0080\u009D).9 This may be viewed as a spreading process involving a specified vowel and anunspecified (or weak) nasal. Second of all, nasals are skipped-over in reduplication as depicted forexample in (21b, Base: iit \u00E2\u0080\u009Cstamp\u00E2\u0080\u009D Reduplicated form: t-iit \u00E2\u0080\u009Cevery stamp\u00E2\u0080\u009D). Third, moraicnasals are always homorganic to the following consonant (15, \u00C3\u00B1t \u00E2\u0080\u009Cstamp\u00E2\u0080\u009D jw \u00E2\u0080\u009Cswimmer\u00E2\u0080\u009D)because they lack Place specifications (Pulleyblank 1988, Ito, Mester and Padgett 1993). Thesefacts suggest an analysis that warrants minimal featural specification for nasals. However, in thelanguage game, ena, in which a nasal consonant denotes \u00E2\u0080\u009Cend of utterance\u00E2\u0080\u009D, the nasal cannot beassimilated to the preceding vowel (18, Ful\u00C3\u00A0 pupa d\u00C3\u00A0 is realised as: Fi-\u00C3\u00A7I l\u00C3\u00A0-ga pu-gu pa-ga d\u00C3\u00A0not as *Fj.g\u00E2\u0080\u0099j l\u00C3\u00A0-ga pu-gu pa-ga d\u00C3\u00A0-\u00C3\u00A3ga). The fact that assimilation is blocked in this contextsuggests that we are dealing with a specified nasal here.10 The conclusion which appears apparentfrom these facts is that there are two types of moraic nasals in Yoruba, one is lexically specified,the other is minimally specified for features.Evidence for representations (37b) and (37d) (representations where the prosodic struturesare not anchored to lexically specified features), comes from [nj vocalization in distributiveformatives in Onko where [n] is shown to vocalize to [iJ when preceded by a consonant (25). Thisprocess is mysterious if the prosodic representation is not taken into consederation: why should anasal consonant vocalize to a high front vowel [ii given that there is no known phonetic orphonological correlation between nasality and highness or fronting. However, once we take the9The only exception involves the a case where the negative marker/of assimilates to the first personsingular subject pronoun In! a reduced form of /miJ: n \u00C3\u00B4 1. becomes a \u00C3\u00B1 l\u00C3\u00A7 or mi \u00C3\u00B4 l\u00C3\u00A7 becomes mi I l\u00C3\u00A7 \u00E2\u0080\u009CIam not going\u00E2\u0080\u009D. This processes, as argued by Owolabi (1989), is governed by syntactic considerations asthe requirement that the featural properties of the subject, a lexical/syntactic head overides the those of thenegative marker, a functional/syntactic head. Thus, the featural properties of the subject, be it vocalic ornasal, appears in the output form.10n a way, the nasal constitutes a single domain with the preceding and following syllable as evident bythe fact that it bears the same tone as the preceding vowel and has the same place specification as thefollowing consonant. These properties are exactly the same as those exhibited by nasals in (15: O\u00C3\u00B1t \u00E2\u0080\u0094O\u00C3\u00B4t\u00C3\u00A8 \u00E2\u0080\u009Cstamp\u00E2\u0080\u009D). These properties tend to lead one to expect the application of assimilation in the languagegame data.47prosodic and featural characterization of nasals and vowels into consideration, the vocalizationphenomenon receives a straightforward account. I propose that the vocalization process entails ashift in prosodic structure as dictated by the syllabfication algorithm which selects nuclear-morasrather than non-nuclear moras in constructing syllables. This shift is constrained by markednessconsiderations. If markedness were not a factor in the choice of the nuclear mora that replaced thenasal, any vowel should be a likely candidate for this shift. That markedness is involved issupported by the fact that the least marked NUCj.t, that is, [iJ, rather any other vowel is chosen.\u00E2\u0080\u009DIn sum, the analysis of morale asymmetries in terms of distinctions between nuclear-morasand non-nuclear moras enables us to specify the moraic entities required for the processes of tone,\u00C3\u00A7n\u00C3\u00A2 language game, and syllabification as follows.(38) Moraic units in Yoruba (Standard, Onko) prosodic phonologyProcess Moraa. Tonal anchor (i) morab. 1n\u00C3\u00A0 language game \u00E2\u0080\u009Cend of utterance\u00E2\u0080\u009D (j.t) morac. Syllabification (NUCI.t) nuclear-moraUnder this theoretical view, the structural configuration for the representation of tones is shownbelow where vowels and nasals bear tones (Tones are bolded and underlined.):\u00E2\u0080\u009CThe major competitor is a nasalized high front vowel which would result from adding the vocalicfeatures of [i] to nasality. This option is not salient in the speech of informants consulted. Whereas a low-level nasality effect is observed in the speech of some speakers, some speakers consistently produced anon-nasalized variant.48(39)L /I/11,L /1/UL /p.if Io r o m b oSyllabification, in contrast can select only a NUCIi. as peak as illustrated below:(40) Yoruba syllable structure(a) a (b)* a4\u00E2\u0080\u009COnset\u00E2\u0080\u009D \u00E2\u0080\u009COnset\u00E2\u0080\u009D2.3.5. IdomaThere have been two types of variation among the three grammars examined so far.Firstly, in Ilaje, only vowels ftinction as moraic for tone assignment and syllabification. Thisproperty is shown to follow from the sonority cut point of moraic segments, which is set betweenhigh vowels and low vowels. PARSE, is ranked at par with this sonority setting, such that therange of segments that fall into this group are well-formed if parsed into moraic structure.Secondly, in Standard Yoruba and Onko Yoruba, the class of moraic segments includesvowels and nasals, as evident from the facts of tone, compensatory lengthening. Syllabificationand reduplication processes, however, reveal some asymmetries between vowels and nasals, and aprosodic characterization is offered in terms of distinctions between nuclear moras and non-nuclearmoras. The sonority setting for possible moras is set between nasals and vowels, and that ofnuclear segments includes only vowels. One striking factor about the characterization of moraic49segments in Yoruba is that liquids are prohibited moras: they are neither tone bearing nor syllabic.This fact is argued not to follow from the reranking of the universal sonority scale but a factorwhich follows from the ranking of PARSE [nasal] and PARSE [+approximantj in Yoruba.The third type of variation is found in Idoma, a Benue-Congo language spoken in Nigeria.Idoma offers evidence for the universal sonority scale: vowels, liquids and nasals are tone-bearing,hence moraic. Thus, the scope of the sonority cut point in Idoma is wider than the two languagetypes examined previously. Vowels are undoubtedly nuclear because they may occurindependently as syllable nuclei. Liquids, however, exhibit interesting characteristics in syllables.The properties associated with liquids and the analyses proposed are summarized as follows. First,liquids may only occur as prevocalic moras (CLV or CRy); they never appear in postvocalicposition (*CVL or *CVR): a result of a general prohibition against Place specification in Codaposition (CODA CONDiTION, the inventory of moraic segments is restricted to homorganic nasalsand germinates (Ito 1986, 1989, Goldsmith 1990, Yip 1991, Ito & Mester 1993).12 Further,liquids do not appear independently as syllable nuclei (*CL or *CR): this shows that only nuclearmoras (vowels) are possible syllable peaks, as was shown to be the case in Yoruba.2.3.5.1. Distibutional facts and analysisIdoma displays a larger inventory of tone-bearing segments than those found in Yoruba;Tone-bearing segments in Idoma include nasals, liquids, and vowels (Abraham 1951, Ama 1983).(41) a. vowels b. vowels and nasals c. vowels. nasals and liquidsa hi palm \u00C3\u00B3\u00C3\u00B1dii owner \u00C3\u00B4 d \u00E2\u0080\u0098r \u00C3\u00A9 food\u00C3\u00A8 t\u00C3\u00A9 pot nikpo water ii k 1 6 work0 pi\u00C3\u00A0 cutlass kthil\u00C3\u00A8 swallow ii d 1 o navel\u00C3\u00A8 g\u00C3\u00BCa snake Ok\u00C3\u00B3mkpin\u00C3\u00B1 door way \u00C3\u00B4 hi b 11 jump12Some languages permit placeless consonants such as glottal stop (as in Makassarese cf. M&P 1993a,also Gokana cf. Aremkhare 1972) or [ii] (as in Chinese cf. Jiang-King 1994).50As proposed for the Yoruba dialects, tone bearers are always moraic. Following this line ofreasoning, then, by implication, vowels, liquids and nasals are moraic in Idoma. This shows thatthe cut-off point for moraic segments is Set between nasals, liquids and vowels:(42) Moraic segments: sonority cut point<=z Possible Mora(vowels) low, non-high > high > liquid nasal > obstruentPossible Pre-nuclear consonant (Onset)In forming syllables, however, Abraham (1951) observes that these (moraic) segments arerestricted in disiribution. Not all moraic segments are syllabifiable: only vowels and liquids mayoccur as syllable peaks with a preceding onset consonant. This gives rise to syllable types CV,CRV or CLV as shown in the data in (43).(43) a. CV sequences b. CRV or CLV sequencesgba pay 11 d \u00E2\u0080\u0098r o navelmti see (ikl5 workdz\u00C3\u00A8dz\u00C3\u00AA dance a b I a kp a slipperst\u00C3\u00A9rI look for o iii b 1 1 basketThat liquids are syllabified with preceding consonants is noted in Abraham (1951 in The IdomaLanguage as follows): \u00E2\u0080\u009Ca consonant followed by \u00E2\u0080\u0098T\u00E2\u0080\u0099 or \u00E2\u0080\u009Cr\u00E2\u0080\u009D employs these two sounds as vowels, notas consonants; and the combination forms one syllable\u00E2\u0080\u009D. Phonologically, however, liquids do notpattern exactly like vowels. Whereas vowels syllabify freely with preceding consonants, there areno syllable type *CR or *CL. This means that only vowels are potential syllable nuclei, that is,nuclear-moras. Because liquids are not nuclear-moras, *CR, *CL syllables are thus correctly ruledout.51Given the existemce of CRV/CLV syllables, one might expect to find syllables such as*CVPSJ*CVL where the position of the moraic segments (vowels and liquids) are reversed.However, such syllables are not reported in Idoma. Why are *CVPSJ*CVL syllables impossible?Before addressing this question, let us examine the distributional properties of moraic nasals.Nasals in Idoma, unlike liquids, do not syllabify prevocalicafly: nasals occur only inpostvocalic positions: CVN *QiJ(44) a. CVN sequences b. *CNvsequences\u00C3\u00B3\u00C3\u00B1dii owner *\u00C3\u00B3d\u00C3\u00B1d6 ni b I I basket *obmjnIkp3 waterOk\u00C3\u00B3mkpin\u00C3\u00B1 door way *OkmdkpiniINotice in (44) that nasals are homorganic, assimilating in place to a following consonant. Nasalsthus obey the CODA CONDmON (CODA CON])), which restricts the inventory of moraic segmentsis restricted to homorganic nasals and geminates (Ito 1986, 1989, Goldsmith 1990, Yip 1991, Ito& Mester 1993). The fact that liquids are banned from occurring in this same context suggeststhat they are specified for Place and consequently ruled Out by the CODA CON]). This explainswhy *CVPSJ*C\TL are impennissible syllables in Idoma. In other words, CODA CON]) is. higliiyranked in the grammar of Idoma. The data discussed in (43b: tl d I o \u00E2\u0080\u009Cnavel\u00E2\u0080\u009D) is accounted for bythis ranking (only the interaction of *PIL, CODA COND>.> PARSE, is shown in the tableau):52(45) PARsEV, *p/(), *p/N, *PfL, *J4JLO, CODA C0ND>> PARSE*P/L CODA C0ND >> PARSEInput: /u d I o/ PIL ] CoDA COND [ PARSEa.a aC /MJC[uj [dl [r] [oJb. *!a a/ NTJCI/[ii) [dl [o] c.a ac 1c/ I[u] [dl [o] [rJd. *!a aNUC NUCI/[u] [dl [r] *PJL and CODA COND are higher-ranking constraints which determine the well-formedness ofpeak and coda segments. Both constraints are respected by the optimal candidate (a), candidate (b)is a permissible sequence in Idoma (as in data 41a), but it loses because it incurs a PARSE53violation which the winning candidate obeys, candidates (c,d) are penalized and rejected becausethey violate *P/L and CODA COND repectively.The evidence presented so far leds one to conclude that the cut-off point for nuclearsegments ranges over the set of vowels, while liquids and nasals, on the other hand, are moraic notnuclear segments.(46) Sonority cut point for moraic and nuclear segmentsPossible Nucleus r Possible Mora(vowels) low, non-high > high > liquid > nasal > obstruentJJ.\u00E2\u0080\u00944 Possible Pre-nuclear consonant (Onset)The sonority ranking in (47) permits the following nuclear structures in (48) and rules outstructures such as shown in (49):(47) Well-formed nuclear-morasNUC NUC NUCI II I I[i] [e] [a](48) illicit nuclear-moras* NUC * NUC *NTJCJL JtI I[n] [fI [t]The analysis presented above is summarized in the following table:54(49) Moraic units in Idoma prosodic phonologyI Process II Mora Ia. Tonal anchor (ii) morab. Syllabification (NUC.t) nuclear-moraUnder this formal conception of morafication, tonal anchors (i.e. moras) are as shown in (51),while nuclear moras which constitute syllable peaks are shown in (52):/\u00E2\u0080\u0098L / L NUCII!od r e*L\ I T YUCI / \/\ /11\u00E2\u0080\u0098Io d e rIn this chapter, I have presented evidence motivating moraic structure in three dialects ofYoruba (Standard, Onko, and Haje), and Idoma, all Benue-Congo languages of Nigeria. Evidencewas adduced from various sources, including tone, compensatory lengthening, syllabification andreduplicative morphology. Moraic segments are also shown to exhibit interesting asymmetries in(50) Tone-bearing morasa aNUCJ.L0mbL NUCH\//I-Ltii(51)2.4. Summary55syllabification and reduplication. The asymmetries are analyzed in prosodic terms as distinctionsfollowing from nuclear-moms and non-nuclear moras.The delimitation of segments into morale and non-moraic entities on the one hand, andnuclear or non-nuclear on the other, is analyzed as difference following from the sonorityproperties of segments as defined by Universal Grammar and language particular factors,following Zec (1988). In Optimality Theory, the differences in sonority sequencing is derived notby reranking the universal sonority scale, but by the variable ranking in different languages, ofPARSE feature constraints. The CODA COND constraint is also demonstrated to play an importantrole in restricting the distributional properties of moras in Idoma: only homorganic nasals (whichare not inherently specified for Place) occur postvocalically, liquids, in contrast, (which arespecified for Place) are banned in this position.Throughout this dissertation, I wifi rely on two assumptions for morale representation.First, I will assume that vowels are linked to nuclear-moras. Thus, for a dialect like flaje-Yorubawhere the Standard- or Onko-type nuclear versus non-nuclear distinction is absent, this assumptionstill holds. This is so since the dialect does not present any negative evidence against such a view.I assume that consonantal moras (liquids and nasals) are generally linked to non-nuclear moras.Second, following Pulleyblank (1994), I assume that morale representation constitutes part of thelexical information given that lexical tone is unpredictable in the languages presented.1313The question arises, however, on whether the nuclear projection is also part of the lexical information.The answer is in the affirmative. As will be shown in chapter 3, there are certain restrictions on the tonalspecification of initial vowels in Standard Yoruba which suggest that the moraic and nuclear levels arepresent m the lexical entry.56CHAPTER 3Syllable Structure Typology in Benue-Congo3.1. IntroductionThe principle of prosodic licensing requires that segments must be linked to some higherlevel of prosodic structure in order to surface; otherwise, they are deleted by Stray Erasure (Ito1986, 1989; Steriade 1982; McCarthy 1979). By the strict layer hypothesis (Selkirk 1984), thesyllable (a) functions as the prosodic licenser for all sub-syllabic segments (moraic and nonmoraic). Three sub-syllabic segments are universally recognized: onset, nucleus and coda. Onsetsegments occupy the leftmost position (margin) in the syllable, and nuclei segments occupy therightmost position (peak), but may be followed by coda segments (if any), in which case, the coda,rather than the nuclear segment, surfaces as the rightmost element in the syllable. Minimally, thissequencing results in a CVC syllable. Markedness considerations, however, select the CV syllabletype as the unmarked form (Jackobson 1969, Clements & Keyser 1983, P&S 1993, M&P 1994).But, in spite of markedness restrictions, language particular requirements allow marked syllablessuch as onsetless syllables (V) and/or syllables with coda (CVC or VC).Crosslinguistically, marked syllables often exhibit interesting exceptional properties. Forexample, onsetless syllables (V) are known to display two distinct characteristics across languages.They either exhibit the same phonological properties as CV syllables or display asymmetricproperties which clearly distinguish them from CV syllables. When there is no phonologicalcontrast between onset-less (V) and onset-ful syllables (CV), there is a general consensus amongphonologists that these forms are syllabified. Such characteristics often confirm some of the basicassumptions of moraic theory that the onset is neither syllabic nor contributes to syllable weight(Hayes 1989, Hyman 1985). However, when onsetless Vs behave distinctly from CVs inphonology, an issue arises as to how to give a structural characterization of this contrast.5.7Two analyses of exceptional onsetless syllables are established in the literature, theExtraprosodicity-based approach and the Moraic Licensing-based approach. Diagnostically,extraprosodic onsetless Vs often occur on the periphery of phonological or morphologicalconstituents and are either ignored or skipped-over for syllable counting processes (Downing 1995,Ito 1986, 1989, Inkelas 1989, McCarthy and Prince 1986). On the other hand, moraically licensedsegments may either occur on the periphery of defined constituents or in any position in thephonological string. Like exiraprosodic onsetless Vs, moraically licensed Vs do not participate insyllable processes (Hyman 1990, Bagemihi 1991, Downing 1993, Qia 1993). In terms ofsusceptibility to skipping, moraically licensed segments exhibit a two-way split pattern: in Salishlanguages such as Bella Coola, they are ignored (skipped-over, see Bagemihl 1991), while inBenue-Congo languages like Owon-Afa and Yoruba, they are never skipped, but in fact requiredfor the well-formedness of certain prosodic constituents (as shown in the reduplicative processesdiscussed in this dissertation). Extraprosodic onsetless syllables are common in Austronesian andBantu languages, while moraically licensed segments are familiar in Salish and Benue-Congolanguages.Couched in terms of exhaustivity (Prince 1985), extraprosodicity is a formal deviceadopted in an exhaustive parsing analysis to render exceptional onsetless syllables invisible forsyllable counting processes. In other words, the inertness of onsetless syllables in syllable countingprocesses is explained via extraprosodicity. Crucially, syllables (whether \u00E2\u0080\u009Cnormal\u00E2\u0080\u009D or exceptional)are not distinguished structurally: syllables may differ in segmental terms (onsetless V vs. onset-fulCV), but by the principle of exhaustivity, syllables are not different in prosodic terms. In contrast,the moraic licensing approach establishes a structural distinction between syllables and moraicallylicensed segments: syllabic segments are syllabifed, but moraically licensed segments are notparsed into syllables. Thus, syllabification is not achieved in an exhaustive fashion. Even thoughExtraprosodicity-based and Moraically licensed-based approaches are required to capture cross-linguistic variations in syllabification, there is no formal mechanism in the pre-Optimality standardtheory to express this parametric diversity. In Optimality Theory (OT, P&S 1993, M&P581993a,b), the attested divergence is analyzed by varying the ranking of two constraint families,Faithfulness and Alignment. Specifically, syllabification (exhaustive or non-exhaustive), is derivedfrom the variable ranking of (a) PARSE (SEGMENT, t, NUCj), and (b) syllable well-formednessconditions such as ONSET, NUCLEUS and NO-CODA.This chapter examines the inter-linguistic and cross-dialectal characterization of syllablesin Benue-Congo languages. Briefly, in the languages to be examined, whereas the syllabificationof CV syllables is uncontroversial, the syllabic status of onsetless vowels is a subject of theoreticaldebate: in some languages, onsetless Vs exhibit exceptional properties which distinguish them fromonset-ful syllables in phonology, while in others there is no such distinction. The chapter begins bypresenting schematic illustrations and analysis of the unmarked syllable type in OptimalityTheory. Considered next is the representation of marked syllables, and the predicted rankings foranalyzing such forms within an Optimality-based approach. Following, cases are presented fromBenue-Congo languages to illustrate the predicted rankings. The empirical presentation startswith languages in which CV syllables are distinguished from onsetless ones. Gokana, a languagewell-known for its tolerance for strings of vowels, is presented first. It will be shown that the basicinteraction between syllable structure constraints and faithfulness constraints derives therequirement that stems begin with a CV in Gokana. The non-syllabicity of word-internal onsetlessvowels will also be derived from constraint ranking. A discussion of Qw\u00C3\u00A7n-Afa follows, andevidence from reduplication is presented to ifiustrate the asymmetric patterning of syllables withonsets and those without onsets. The analysis of Qwgn-Afa will be along the lines of that ofGokana since both languages distinguish vowels with onsets from those without onsets. Next, thefacts of Standard Yoruba are presented. Like Gokana and Qwon-Afa, Standard Yorubadiscriminates the syllabicity of vowels based on the presence or absence of onsets. A whole rangeof evidence from minimality effects, truncation, reduplication, and morpheme structure conditionsis presented to show the distinct chacteristics of CV syllables and onsetless Vs. Again, theseasymmetries are shown to follow from constraint ranking in Optimality Theory. The discussionthen shifts to languages that display exhaustivity in syllabification, that is, cases where vowels with59or without onsets typically pattern symmetrically in phonology. Two languages are presented.The first case to be considered is Ondo Yoruba, a dialect of Yoruba that treats CVs and Vs alike inprosodic and morphological processes. Unlike Standard Yoruba, where the onset is required forsyllabification, Ondo Yoruba syllabifies vowels even if they do not have onsets. This interdialectalvariation is shown to follow from the different ranking of the same set of constraints. The secondcase to be considered is mai, another language that allows onsetless syllables (V) to behaveparallel to CVs in prosodic processes. The basic ranking established for Ondo Yoruba will beshown to derive the mai syllabification pattern.3.2. The unmarked syllable structureThe unmarked syllable is a CV, a syllable consisting of an onset and a vocalic mora (anuclear-mora, as claimed in chapter 2). No known natural language forbids this syllable. Thus,even though languages may disallow either syllables without onsets (V) or syllables with codas(CVC), all languages permit CV syllables (Jakobson 1969, Clements & Keyser 1983, Steriade1982, P & S 1993). The basic syllable conditions deriving the unmarked syllable shape areformalized in Optimality Theory as follows (M&P 1993b, Ito & Mester 1994):(1) Syllable Structure Alignment constraintsa. ONSET (ONs): ALIGNLEFT (a, L; C-Rt, L)The left edge of a syllable is aligned with the left edge of a consonantal root-nodeb. No-CODA: AUGNRIGHT (a, R; Nuqi, R)The right edge of a syllable is aligned with the right edge of a nuclear moraThe realization of the unmarked syllable as a CV demands that ONs and NO-CODA be obeyed.Cases which would otherwise yield a violation of any of these constraints are generally rescued by60violating the constraints that require the faithful parsing of input representations in the output,PARSE and LEX.(2) PARsEa. PARSE (broadly defined):phonological constituents are licensed by higher prosodic structure.b. PARSE-segment (PARSE-seg): non-moraic segments are parsed by the syllable.(3) LEX: phonological materials which are present in the output are also present in the inputSchematic examples ifiustrating the effect of the ranking of ONS and NO-CODA abovePARSE are shown below (an angled indicates an unparsed segment). In (4),candidates (a,b) are lessharmonic becuase they either violate highly ranked ONS or NO-CODA. The optimal candidate (a)obeys ONS and NO-CODA even though it does not consitute a faithful parse of the input.(4) ONS, NO-CODA>> PARSEI /CVCI Q ONS NO-CODA I PARSEVaCV *b.CVC *!c.V *! **Schematic examples showing the effect of ranking ONS and NO-CODA above LEXRT appear in (5)(epenthetic consonants are bold-faced)(5) ONS, NO-CODA >> LEXRTNI ONS I NO-CODA I LEXRTa.CV *b. CVC *! **c.V *!61As shown in tableau (5), LEXRT (a root node which is present in the output is also present in theinput) may be violated to satisfy ONS, as evident from the fact that a violator of LExRT emerges asthe optimal form. On the other hand (5b), a form in which FILL is violated to create a codaconsonant, yields a No-CODA violation and is considered less harmonic than (5a). Lastly, thefaithful parse of candidate (C) creates a sub-optimal onsetless syllable.As seen in the schematic examples in (4,5), the optimal syllable is a CV. Acrosslanguages, this syllable type is attested, but in general, not all syllables obey ONS and NO-CODA.That is, languages admit marked syllables, syllables without onsets, and syllables with codas. Iturn to a brief discussion of marked syllables in Optimality Theory in the following section.3.3. Marked SyllablesLanguages within the Benue-Congo family generally tend to admit open syllables; closedsyllables, in contrast, are mostly forbidden. Open syllables are either CV or V. The formersyllable shape, CV, obeys the unmarked syllable siructure constraints ONS and NO-CODA.Whereas the latter type, a V obeys NO-CODA, and lacks an onset. In Optimality Theory, the basicinterpretation of this defect is to say that an onset-less V violates ONS. The violation of ONS mayeither be permitted or prohibited in a given language. Assuming ONS is violable, this demandsranking ONS below PARSENucJ.t, the constraint that requires the parsing of nuclear moras intosyllables. PARSENUqL, previously defined in chapter 1, is repeated below for reference.(6) PARSE-nuclear mora (PARSENUC-JI): nuclear-moras are parsed into syllablesAssuming that PARsE-seg and LExRT are undorninated, the following ranking, whose effect isshown in the tableau below, is needed.62(7) PARSENUCp,, PARSE-seg, LEXRT>> ONSinput: PAR5ENU4t PARSE-seg LEXRT ONSNUC NUCtI IV C VVa. *a aNUC NUCV_C Vb. *!a aCc. vacuously *!a< NUC> NUC<>/__C Vd. *! vacuouslyaNUC NUCV_C VThe candidate in (7b) is rifled out because it contains an epenthetic consonant, a LEXRT violation.Candidates (c,d) are rejected by different violations of PARSE; PARSE-seg violation which results inthe underparsing of the prosodic anchor of the vowel, that is, the nuclear-mora, rules out (c), while(d) is rejected by PARsE-NUql. violation. The optimal form is one where the undominated63constraints are respected. I assume that ONS does not contribute to the rejection of (c) because theunderparsing of the vowel and its prosodic anchor, the nuclear-mora, ensures that syllable structureis not erected. In the same vein, the candidate in (d) does not violate ONS because a violation ofPARSE-NUCp. implies the absence of syllable parsing.Optimality Theory predicts the opposite pattern of domination; that is, a situation wherebyONS outranks other constraints. The effect of this ranking is demonstrated in the followingtableau.(8) ONS >> PARSENUCJ.t, PARSE-seg, LEXRTinput: ONS PARsENUqt LExRT PARSE-segNTJC NTJCJ.LV C Va.V_C VVb. *ccc. vacuously * C<>/__C VVd. vacuously *NTJC CI /1V_C V64Candidate (a) is illicit because it violates highly ranked ONS. The other three candidates (b,c,d) arepossible output forms given their lowly ranked status. Candidate (b) obeys ONs by incuring a FILLviolation; candidate (c) avoids an ONS violation by violating PARSE-seg, thus preventing theprojection of syllable structure; similarly, candidate (d) avoids a violation of ONS by failing toparse the nuclear-mora into syllable structure. The nuclear-mora serves as the prosodic licenserfor the vowel in (d).For the remainder of the chapter, cases illustrating the various rankings predicted byOptimality Theory for the representation of onsetless vowels are presented. The latter type ofranking illustrating the dominance of ONS over PARSENUq.L is considered first.3.4. Non-exhaustive syllabification in GokanaHyman (1985) was the first to hypothesize that segments need not belong to syllables inorder to surface in Benue-Congo. He observes that Gokana, an Ogoni language of Eastern Nigeriapermits sequences of vowels which do not give any hint of how syllable structure is constructed.Representative examples are given below:(9) a. m\u00C3\u00A9\u00C3\u00A9 \u00C3\u00AA kz m n k \u00E2\u0080\u009Cwho said I woke him up?\u00E2\u0080\u009Db. kwake-CAUS- LOG - HIM- FOCc. kuuai \u00E2\u0080\u009Cto open (intr. 2pl.)d. ku\u00C3\u00B1\u00C3\u00A2\u00C3\u00AA \u00E2\u0080\u009Cto open (mhz. log.)The pervasive sequencing of vowels in Gokana led Hyman to conclude that the language has nosyllable structure. He argues that segments are licensed by the mora (moraic licensing), not thesyllable. While still maintaining the moraic licensing view, Hyman (1990) in a recent work shows65that the syllable does play some roles in Gokana: every stem must have a syllable at the left edge,and a reduplicative template is expressed as a syllable. I summarize each of these argumentsbelow and give an Optimality Theoretic interpretation of what it means for a system to have non-exhaustive syllabification.3.4.1. Evidence for syllable structure in GokanaStem-internally (a stem consists of a verbal root and suffixes), Gokana permits sequencesof vowels with no intervening consonants as demonstrated in (1) and in the additional examplesgiven in (10):(10) ,p\u00C3\u00A1\u00C3\u00A1\u00C3\u00A1 \u00E2\u0080\u009Cto change (intr.)\u00E2\u0080\u009D pdaaa \u00E2\u0080\u009Cto change (intr.2pl.)\u00E2\u0080\u009D\u00E2\u0080\u009Cto wake up (tr.)\u00E2\u0080\u009D ki \u00E2\u0080\u009Cto wake up (tr. 2pl.)\u00E2\u0080\u009DHowever, stems obligatorily begin with a CV. This requirement forces underlying V-initial stemsto surface with an epenthetic glottal stop as shown below (data from Arekamlie 1972 and Hyman1990):\u00E2\u0080\u0099(11) a. C-initial words b. V-initial words: glottal stop insertionzob \u00E2\u0080\u0098dance\u00E2\u0080\u0099 leg! \u00E2\u0080\u0094* [?dgl \u00E2\u0080\u0098go up\u00E2\u0080\u0099ku \u00E2\u0080\u0098go\u00E2\u0080\u0099 loll\u00E2\u0080\u0094 [?Ol] \u00E2\u0080\u0098farm\u00E2\u0080\u0099pig \u00E2\u0080\u0098mix\u00E2\u0080\u0099 Ku! \u00E2\u0080\u0094 [?ti?j \u00E2\u0080\u0098die\u00E2\u0080\u0099lao \u00E2\u0080\u0098cow\u00E2\u0080\u0099 Id\u00E2\u0080\u0094 [??J \u00E2\u0080\u0098moon\u00E2\u0080\u0099\u00E2\u0080\u0098Notice the occurrence of glottal stop in the post-vocalic position in forms like [?iVJ \u00E2\u0080\u0098die\u00E2\u0080\u0099 and [Pc?] \u00E2\u0080\u0098moon\u00E2\u0080\u0099.I shall return to provide an account of this set of data in chapter five, where I address the issue of prosodicwords in Benue-Congo.66According to Hyman (1990), the stem-initial obligatory onset requirement is accounted for if weassume that syllables are present in Gokana and that such syllables are constructed at the left edgeof a stem. If this prosodic requirement is a general one, one would expect the process of glottalepenthesis to apply inside Stems, however, epenthetic glottals are not found inside stems. As aresult, the forms in (9) do not surface as follows:(12) *a. meP\u00C3\u00A9 ?\u00C3\u00A8 ko m nI k ? ? ? ? ? \u00E2\u0080\u009Cwhoi said I woke him up?\u00E2\u0080\u009D*b. k ? ? ? ?The fact that the obligatory onset condition does not hold word-internally as in the starredexamples in (12) is explained if these vowels do not necessarily have to belong to syllables.The second piece of evidence for syllable structure in Gokana comes from reduplication.As exemplified in (13), the reduplicant is realized as a CV corresponding to the leftmost CV in theverb stem:(13) Gloss Reduplicant Glossdo? fall do- do? fallingdib hit di- dib hittingdara pick up da- dara picking uppIIga try pi- p1Iga tryingGiven that reduplicants are only statable as prosodic templates by the Prosodic MorphologyHypothesis (M&P 1986), the reduplicative prefix in the above process can only be expressed as asyllable (a), thus constituting additional evidence that the syllable is a licit prosodic constituent inGokana (Hyman 1990).Obviously, the basic generalization that emerges from the data in (3,4) is that syllablestructure is present in Gokana. The well-formedness of syllables is however dependent on the67presence of onsets, as evidenced by the glottal stop insertion in (13). This can be argued to showthat the Onset Principle is strongly enforced in Gokana:(14) Onset Principle (ItO 1989): Avoid G[VThe syllabicity of morpheme-internal onsetless Vs still remains doubtful, and in Hyman\u00E2\u0080\u0099s view theyare licensed by the mora not the syllable. This claim is supported by the absence of glottal stopinsertion stem-internally in the forms in (9,10). If this analysis is valid, by implication onlysyllables with onsets are guaranteed syllabification in Gokana. The surface realisation ofunsyllabifed moras is ensured by moraic licensing, which shields them from deletion by StrayErasure (a condition on the phonetic realisation of segments). Structurally, the difference betweena syllabified vowel and an unsyllabified vowel is as shown below:(15) a. Syllabified vowel b. Moraicaflv licensed vowelNUC NUC/Lcv vIn the following section, 1 will develop an OT model for how non-exhaustive syllabification couldbe accounted for via constraint ranking.3.4.2. Optimality Theoretic account of non-exhaustive syllabificationTo begin establishing the appropriate constraint ranking for Gokana syllabification, recallthat syllables are constructed if they have onsets. The Optimality Theoretic interpretation of this isthat ONS must be respected for syllabification. The data in (1 2b), where glottal stops are68obligatorily epenthesized stem-initially, establishes this. What this means in OTis that ONScrucially dominates LEXRT (ONS>> LEXRT); this ranking forces epenthesis. Since the presenceof a syllable is only required in the stem-initial position, an Alignment constraint is required.Alignment constraints, as mentioned in chapter 1, are OT constraints which govern the wellformedness of constituent edges, prosodic, morphological, or grammatical. This constraint isdefined as ALIGN-STEM-LEFT (ALIGN-L):(16) ALIGN-L: ALIGN (STEM, L; a, L)The left edge of a Stem is aligned with the left edge of a syllableThis establishes the following ranking: ALIGN-L, ONS >> LEXRT. Assuming that postvocalicconsonants are moras which link to the syllable, this implies that NO-CODA is low-ranking inGokana. The ranking and the relevant tableau are given in (17).(17) input loll \u00E2\u0080\u009Cfarm\u00E2\u0080\u009D: ALIGN-L, ONS >> LEXRT, NO-CODAI Candidates ALIGN-L I ONS I LEXRT I NO-CODA Iv\u00E2\u0080\u0099a ?\u00C3\u00B3l * *b ol * *The failure of candidate (1,) establishes the claim that ALIGN-L and ONS are undominated andinviolable in Gokana. On the other hand, candidate (a) is the optimal form because it obeysALIGN-L and ONS. Even though it violates LExRT, this violation is not costly because theconstraint is lowly-ranked. In fact, it is by violating LExRT that (a) is able to escape a fatalviolation of higher-ranked ALIGN-L and ONS.Let us now turn to the verbal reduplication process exemplified in (13: dib \u00E2\u0080\u0094> di- dib). Asearlier analysed, the reduplicative prefix is a monomoraic syllable, expressed as CV. Thus, we seefrom the data that even if the base has a postvocalic consonant, it is never copied. Only theleftmost CV of the base is reduplicated. This is a case of emergence of the umarked (M&P 1994,69Shaw 1995): even though NO-CODA is generally violated in Gokana, it is respected in the prosodicdomain of the reduplicant. In conjunction with high-ranking ONS and No-CODA, the followingconstraints governing reduplicative correspondence are required to account for the reduplicationprocess (McCarthy & Prince 1993, 1994):(18) B = Base, RED = Reduplicant (underlined in the tableau)a. MAX: Every element of B has a correspondence in REDb. ANCH-L: The left peripheral element of RED corresponds to the left peripheral elementof B, if RED is to the left of B(19) ONS, NO-CODA, RED = a, B = Verbal root, ANCH-L >> MAXBASE: /dib/ ONS NO-CODA RED = a B = Verb Root ANCH-L MAXREDUP: a. chb -dibb. i-dib F*! * * **V__c._di_-dibd. go-dib j *!The optimal form in (19) is candidate (c) where ONS and NO-CODA are obeyed. Other highly-ranked constraints such as RED = a, B = Verbal Root and ANCH-L are also respected by thecandidate in (19c). Because the canonical pattern in OT is a case where at least a constraintviolation may be incurred, the optimal candidate, (19c); violates MAX, but receives a minimalpenalty as a result of the low ranking of this constraint. Other candidates are eliminated forviolating one higher-ranked constraint or the other: (19a) violates NO-CODA, (19b) violates ONSand RED = a, and (19d) incurs a violation of B = Verb Root.At this point, it is appropriate to ask how moraic licensing is accounted for in OptimalityTheory. The constraint governing the syllabification of vowels is PARSENI, a constraint thatrequires nuclear-moras to parse into higher prosodic structure, which, by strict layering (Selkirk1982, 1984) is the syllable node. Assuming onsetless moras are unsyllabified in Gokana, as70argued by Hyman, the appropriate ranking for the language is one where ONS is undominated andPARSE-NuqL, a violable and lowly ranked constraint: ONS >> PARSENUcp. The undominatedranking of ONS captures the fact that syllables are only erected if onsets are present, while the lowranking of PARSENUCI.L. captures the fact that moras are not parsed into syllables if onsets are notpresent. The violation of PARSENUCI provides an escape hatch to avoid a fatal violation ofundominated ONS: if onsetless moras are not parsed into syllables there will be no syllablestructure and ONS will be satisfied vacuously. Let us now adapt this ranking to the analysis ofstem-internal unsyllabified moras in Gokana as exemplified by the data in (9,10). Some examplesfrom (9) are repeated below for convenience:(20) a. kuuai \u00E2\u0080\u009Cto open (intr. 2pl.)\u00E2\u0080\u009Db. ku\u00C3\u00BC\u00C3\u00A0\u00C3\u00A8 *ku?U?a? \u00E2\u0080\u009Cto open (intr. log.)\u00E2\u0080\u009DIn (20), glottal epenthesis is prohibited stem-internally because word-internal moras do not have tobe syllabified. This prohibition contrasts with the well-formedness of the same vowel-initial stemswhere the presence of a syllable is required in stem-initial position:(21) /egl\u00E2\u0080\u0094 [?gJ \u00E2\u0080\u0098go up\u00E2\u0080\u0099loll \u00E2\u0080\u0094 [?\u00C3\u00B3l] \u00E2\u0080\u0098farm\u00E2\u0080\u0099In order to account for the data in (20), ALIGN-L, ONS and LEXRT must outrank PARSENUCI asfollows:71(22) ALIGN-L, ONS >> LExRT >> PARSENUCVa.a/i iik Ub.ak UIn all the candidate forms in (22), ALIGN-L is satisfied because the stem begins with a well-formedsyllable, that is a CV. What the tableau in (22) shows then is the effect of the crucial ranking ofPARSENUqt below ONS and LExRT. In Gokana, the constraint ONS rejects the candidate withan onsetless syllable (b), while the constraint LEXRT rules out candidate (C) as the winner becausethe violation incurred is not induced by ALIGN-L (the left-edge of the candidate is properly alignedwith the left-edge of a syllable). None of these violations are incurred by the optimal form,candidate (a). Notice in this candidate that the nuclear moras are unsyllabifed, so that there is nosyllable projection. This makes it possible for this candidate to satisfy ONS vacuously. Also, theCandidates ALIGN-L ONS LExRT PARSENUCI**N Na ia/N Nj.t j.La i*C. *!a a/X Nk u 7 a i72fact that there is no syllable projection makes glottal epenthesis unnecessary and therefore it isruled Out by general constraints against the insertion of features and/or segments.3.5. Syllable structure in QwQn-AfaThe next language that I shall examine is QwQn-Afa, an Akokoid language spoken in OkeAgbe, Ondo-State, Nigeria.2 Syntactic information plays a crucial role in determining the prosodicshape of lexical items in Qw\u00C3\u00A7n-Afa: verbs are typically C-initial, while nouns are typically Vinitial. Consonant-initial nouns also exist in this language, but they are optionally realised with anepenthetic high front vowel lit which is inserted word-initially. A process of reduplication appliesto nouns and obligatorily requires the presence of an initial vowel in the base. This makesreduplication possible in C-initial nouns if only an epenthetic vowel is present. This fact ispresented as evidence to show that in Qwyn-Afa Vs without onsets differ from CVs. Specifically,only syllables with onsets (CV) are analysed as phonological syllables. Onset-less syllables (V)are analysed as unsyllabifed nuclei as established in Gokana.3.5.1. Syllabic asymmetries in QwQn-AfaOwon-Afa has a productive process of numeral reduplication which signifies countingdone in a uniform fashion. As shown in (23), no matter how long the root is, the reduplicant isalways realised as a VCV prefix:2Previous work on Qwon-Afa includes Awobuluyi (1973) and Ama (1983). The reduplication data waselicited from Sunday Adewumi, Ojo Adu, and Dele Awobuluyi.73(23) Gloss Reduplicated form Glossik one iki - ik one by oneIji two IjI - Iji two by twoida three idi - ida three by threeId3\u00C3\u00A8 ten 1d31 - Id3\u00C3\u00A8 ten by tenoit ihundred oro - oit 1 hundred by 1 hundredigb6ro 2 hundered igbi- igb6ro 2 hundred by 2 hundredAnother reduplication process which expresses the reduplicant as a VCV is distributive nominals.As shown by the data below, the reduplicated form is always a VCV prefix.(24) Distributive reduplication, V-initial nounsGloss Reduplicated form Glossojui month ofo - ofu every monthoriy6 morning ro-z,ruy6 every morningeret afternoon crc -crct every afternoon\u00C3\u00A8r\u00C3\u00A9r\u00C3\u00A8 night \u00C3\u00A8r\u00C3\u00A8 - \u00C3\u00A8r\u00C3\u00A9r\u00C3\u00A8 every nightConsonant-initial nouns also participate in this process, but they reduplicate under one condition:an epenthetic [1] must be inserted in the word-initial position for reduplication to apply, asexemplified below.74(25) Distributive reduplication, C-initial nounsGloss Reduplicated formb\u00C3\u00A0t\u00C3\u00A0 shoekOk\u00C3\u00B3 cocoak\u00C3\u00A8k bicyclekp\u00C3\u00A1k\u00C3\u00B3 woodGlossevery shoeevery cocoaevery bicycleevery woodEvidence for the epenthetic status of [ii is provided by the productive loan restructuringprocesses where this vowel is used to break consonant clusters, as well as to restructure C-initialnames to V-initial. Consider the form of the following English names in Qw\u00C3\u00A7n-Afa (note: non-initial epenthetic vowels may surface as [1] or [UI, depending on whether the preceding vowel isback or front. This is parallel to the situation found in Yoruba, analyzed as Back Harmony inPulleyblank 1988)._____Restructure\u00E2\u0080\u009D fnrmi-komf\u00C3\u00B3\u00C3\u00B4tii-j\u00C3\u00A8\u00C3\u00A9nCii-t\u00C3\u00B3m\u00C3\u00B3Os\u00E2\u0080\u0099ii-s\u00C3\u00A1mti\u00C3\u00A8lIVowel-initial names do not permit initial V epenthesis:ibi - ib\u00C3\u00A0t\u00C3\u00A0iki - ikOk\u00C3\u00B3iki - ik\u00C3\u00AAk\u00C3\u00A9ikpi- ikp\u00C3\u00A1k\u00C3\u00B3*b\u00C3\u00A2t\u00C3\u00A2b\u00C3\u00A0t\u00C3\u00A2*kOk\u00C3\u00B3.kOk\u00C3\u00B3*k\u00C3\u00AAk&k\u00C3\u00AAk\u00C3\u00A9*kpdk\u00C3\u00B3kp\u00C3\u00A1kd(26) Loan word restructurine: [ii epenthesisName_________________ComfortJanetThomasSamuel75(27) Vowel-initial namesName Restructured formEdward ediw\u00C3\u00B3Od\u00C3\u00BC *Iedlw\u00C3\u00B3OduEmmanuel \u00E2\u0080\u0098im\u00C3\u00A1nii\u00C3\u00AAfi *i4m\u00C3\u00A1nti\u00C3\u00A8fjAbraham \u00C3\u00A9bIr\u00C3\u00A1\u00C3\u00A0m\u00C3\u00BC *i..\u00C3\u00A9bjr\u00C3\u00A1\u00C3\u00A0muElizabeth \u00C3\u00A8lIs\u00C3\u00A1b\u00C3\u00A9\u00C3\u00AAtI *l.\u00C3\u00A8lis\u00C3\u00A1b\u00C3\u00A9\u00C3\u00A8Having established that [ii is the epenthetic vowel in QwQn-Afa, let us return to thediscussion of reduplication. The Qw\u00C3\u00A7n-Afa pattern of reduplication (exemplified in 25, where b\u00C3\u00A0t\u00C3\u00A0is reduplicated as ibi - ib\u00C3\u00A2t\u00C3\u00A3 *b\u00C3\u00A0t\u00C3\u00A0..b\u00C3\u00A0ta) where the reduplicative prefix is well-formed if attachedto a V-initial base, contrasts with reduplication pattern found in languages such as Timugon Murut(TM, M&P 1986, 1993a,b) and SiSwatl (SSW, Downing 1994) where the reduplicant ispreferably realised as a prefix occurring next to the leftmost CV in the base. Thus, in consonant-initial bases, the reduplicant surfaces as a prefix, while in vowel-initial bases it surfaces as aninfix. Examples are given in (28) and (29).(28) Timugon Murut Reduplication (McCarthy & Prince 1993a,b)Reduplicated form Glossbulud bu - bulud hill/ridgelimo li- limo five/about fiveabalan a-ba-balan bathes/often bathesompodon om-po-podon flatter/always flatter76(29) SiSwati Reduplication (action done on a small scale or from time to time; Downing 1994)Reduplicated form Gloss-bdna -bon\u00C3\u00A1-bona see-bonisa-bom-bonisa show-estila -e-sul\u00C3\u00A1-sula wipe-elusa -e-lusa-lusa herdIn McCarthy & Prince (1986), the infixation pattern is accounted for by prosodiccircumscription, which excludes onset-less syllables from the base of reduplication. This enablesthe reduplicative prefix to attach directly to the leftmost CV of the base. But, as argued inMcCarthy & Prince (1993a,b), an onsetless syllable is not a prosodic constituent, hence, cannot becircumscribed. They offer another analysis within the theory of Generalized Alignment byproposing that the constraint that requires that all syllables have onsets outranks the constraintwhich requires the left edge of the prefix to be aligned with the left edge of the stem. Downing(1994), in her analysis of SiSwati, reinterprets McCarthy & Prince\u00E2\u0080\u0099s (l993a,b) account as aninstance of misalignment between the left edge of the morphological stem and the prosodic stem.The morphological word may begin with either a consonant or vowel, however, the prosodic stemmust begin with the leftmost well-formed syllable (that is, CV) within the stem. It is thisrequirement that causes onsetless Vs to be left out of the prosodic domain of reduplication.Essentially, these two accounts uphold the view that higher-ranked ONS compels the delimitationof the prosodic base to the leftmost onset-ful syllable, onset-less Vs are violators and areconsequently by-passed.The existing analyses of onsetless syllables as presented in McCarthy and Prince andDowning (1994, 1995) makes the Qwon-Afa pattern quite interesting for two reasons. First, unlikeTimugon Murut and SiSwati where onsetless syllables are ignored and skipped-over inreduplication, initial vowels are neither ignored nor skipped-over in Qwon-Afa. Second, unlike theTM and SSW cases, where the prosodic base begins with an onset-ful syllable, the prosodic base in77Qwon-Afa is well-formed only if it begins with an onsetless syllable. A base that begins with a CVis considered relatively ill-formed, as evident from the epenthesis effects in (21). How do weaccount for this generalization? A satisfactory account of these facts must answer two questions:1, why are onsetless Vs skipped in some languages and not in others? 2, why are onset-ful syllablesrequired to begin the prosodic base in some languages and why are onsetless Vs required in otherlanguages? In the following subsection, these questions are addressed within an Optimality-basedframework.3.5.2. QwQn-Afa Asymmetry: an Optimality solutionLet us address the questions posed in the previous section. First, why are onsetless Vsskipped in some languages and not in others? In OT, the observed asymmetry in skipping isaccounted for by ranking ANCH-L and ONS constraints differently in these languages:(30) ANCH-L: The left peripheral element of RED corresponds to the left peripheralelement of B, if RED is to the left of BIn cases such as Qwon-Afa, where initial onsetless Vs are not ignored, ANCH-L would outrankONS preventing the skipping of initial vowels, while in cases such as TM and SSW, whereonsetless Vs are ignored, ONS would outrank the same set of constraints such that violations ofthem would be permitted:(31) a. Qwon-Afa: ANCH-L>> ONSb. TM, SSW: ONS>> ANCH-LConcerning the second question (why are onset-ful syllables required to begin the prosodicbase in some languages while onsetless Vs required in other languages), two plausible solutions are78available in the theory. The first solution is offered within an analysis that does not recognize themora as a licit prosodic constituent (M&P 1993a,b; Downing 1994). As earlier summarized, inaccounting for cases such as TM where the base and the reduplicant obligatorily begin with onsetful syllables, M&P argue that ONS, the constraint that requires that all syllables have onsets,outranks the constraint which requires the left edge of the prefix to be aligned with the left edge ofthe stem. In Downing\u00E2\u0080\u0099s account, the prosodic base must begin with the optimal syllable, a CV, arequirement that forces a misalignment between the prosodic base which excludes onsetlesssyllables and the morphological base which includes vowels with or without onsets. The ranking in(3 Lb) accounts for this fact.Now, in accounting for the obligatoriness of onsetless Vs in data such as illustrated in (25-27) in an analysis where the mora is not considered an independent phonological constituent, onewould have to analyse onsetless Vs as syllables. To account for the V-initial requirement imposedon the base, one could propose that ONS is ranked below the alignment constraint that requires theleft edge of the prefix to align with the left edge of the morphological word. But this wouldincorrectly predict that both onset-ful initial (CV) and onset-less-initial (V) bases would participatein reduplication. It does not explain why the prosodic base is well-formed only if it begins with anonsetless V. To obtain this effect, one would need a negative constraint that crucially rules outonset-ful syllables from beginning the prosodic base and at the same time requires that an ONSviolation be incurred at the left edge of the base:(32) *PJJGNL (B, L; ONS, L):The left edge of the base must not be aligned with the left edge of an onsetThe negative constraint in (32) is suspicious, however. Syllables are considered optimal if theyhave onsets, not if they lack onsets. There is a robust amount of evidence in the literature thatsyllable counting prosodic processes prefer to be expressed as CV (the unmarked syllable type)rather than as onsetless Vs, which are relatively disfavoured syllables. If one admits the constraint79in (32), then one would have to assume that the universal onset constraint is statable eitherpositively (34a) or negatively (34b) as follows:(33) ONSET:a. syllables must have onsets (CV)b. syllables must not have onsets (V)Apart from the fact that the reformulation of ONSET in (33) is counter-intuitive, it neither explainswhy onset-less syllables are not as common in languages as onset-ful ones, nor why onset-lesssyllables exhibit exceptional properties.Alternatively, suppose we say that onsetless Vs are not syllabified, but licensed by thenuclear-mora. Further, following proposals by Hyman (1985, 1990), Zec (1988), suppose weassume that the mora is a licit prosodic constituent. Given these two assumptions, here is analternative account of the Qwon-Afa data in (25-27). First, B is defined as a Binary Foot. Second,the alignment constraint is set up such that the left edge of the foot is aligned with the left edge of anuclear-mora. With this alignment requirement, the epenthetic V is analyzed as a LEXNUCtviolation induced by higher-ranked ALIGN-L:(34) RED = Ft, ALIGN-L >> LEXNUC,.t, PARSENUqta. ALIGN-L (B, L; NUCI.L, L):The left edge of the base must be aligned with the left edge of a nuclear-morab. LEXNUC$I:A nuclear-mora that is present in the output is present in the inputTogether with ANcH-L, the constraints in (34) are ranked in order of preference and illustrated ina tableau in (35).80(35) RED = Ft, ALIGN-L, ANcH-L>> LEXNUC.t, PARSEN)IBASE /b\u00C3\u00A0t\u00C3\u00A0/ RED = Ft ALIGN-L ANCH-L LEXNUCJ.i. I PARSENJJ.RED:\u00E2\u0080\u009D a. ibi ib\u00C3\u00A0t\u00C3\u00A0 * *b.b\u00C3\u00A0t\u00C3\u00A2b\u00C3\u00A0t\u00C3\u00A0 J *!c. ata ib\u00C3\u00A2t\u00C3\u00A0 ] *! * **d.b\u00C3\u00A2b\u00C3\u00A2t\u00C3\u00A0 jI*! *Let us examine the candidate set generated in tableau (35). Candidate (b) fails the ALIGN-Lconstraint for lack of initial nuclear-mom in the base, candidate (c) passes the same constraint butfails higher ranked ANCH-L because the initial consonant in the base is ignored in reduplication;candidate (d), a degenerate foot, passes ANcH-L but fails RED = Ft since it is not binary footed.Even though candidate (a) fails LEXNUCJ.t, the constraint that enables it to augment the base to therequired prosodic shape, it still surfaces as the winner because it respects all the higher-rankedconstraints violated by the other competitors.The analysis presented above, where the nuclear-mora serves as a prosodic constituent foronsetless Vs, has two advantages over the alternative where the syllable licenses vowels withoutonsets. First, it enables us to get around the problem of defining the ONSET constraint (34b) in acounter-intuitive fashion. Second, the proposal that onsetless Vs are unparsed nuclear-morasenables the vacuous satisfaction of ONS, thus eliminating unnecessary violations of this constraintfrom the grammar.It is reasonable to ask if ONS plays any role in QwQn-Afa, though. There is a syllablereduplication process that demonstrates the importance of ONS in syllabification. Consider theverbal reduplication signifying \u00E2\u0080\u009Caction done anyhow\u00E2\u0080\u009D in (36).3Other interesting observation which will be accounted for in chapter four are the following: 1, thereduction of the reduplicated vowel to the least marked vowel [iJ, and 2, the V-lengthening effect in thebase. Observe also that the tonal specification deriving this reduplication pattern is LHH.81(36) Yrh Gloss Reduplicated form Glossd3\u00C3\u00BC eat - diiii eat anyhowkp\u00C3\u00A9 dig \u00C3\u00A7p - kp\u00C3\u00A9\u00C3\u00A9 dig anyhowkO sing - k\u00C3\u00B3\u00C3\u00B3 sing anyhowj\u00C3\u00A9 dance- j\u00C3\u00A9\u00C3\u00A9 dance anyhowAs shown by the data in (36), the reduplicant is consistently realised as a CV syllable. Theconsonant of the reduplicant is identical to the initial consonant of the base and the vowel of thereduplicant consistently surfaces as [ii, the least marked V as evident from the fact that this vowelis the epenthetic vowel (26-27). This data contrasts with the set of data illustrated in (25): (b\u00C3\u00A0t\u00C3\u00A0ibi - ib\u00C3\u00A0ta *b\u00C3\u00A0t\u00C3\u00A0..b\u00C3\u00A0t\u00C3\u00A0), where the left edge of the base and the reduplicant must not coincide withthe left edge of a CV syllable. The fact that the initial consonant is copied in (36) shows that V isnot sufficient to satisfy the templatic requirement: a syllable is well-formed if it has an onset.Structurally, the proposal that onset-less Vs are nuclear moras and that onset-ful ones are syllablesaccounts for this contrast quite nicely. If RED is defined as NUCi, then ONS is irrelevant, but ifRED is stated as G, then the satisfaction of ONS becomes crucial. The ranking that derives thiseffect is the one already established for Gokana, where ONS dominates PARSENUCj.t: nuclearmoras are syllabified only if they have onsets, and otherwise they remain unsyllabified, that is, arenot parsed into syllables.3.6. Syllabification in Standard YorubaThere are a number of phenomena that require the presence of a syllable in Yorubaphonology. Such phenomena include the minimal word condition, morpheme structure conditions,and templatically induced truncation and reduplication. Dialects of Yoruba differ with respect tothe syllabification of vowels, causing syllable conditioned processes to diverge in interesting ways.In the Standard dialect, onset-ful Vs differ from their onsetless counterparts in many ways. For82example, a word must minimally contain a CV (3.5.1), a syllable truncative template is expressedas CV causing V-initial verbs to augment to CV by [hi epenthesis (3.5.2), three morphemestructure conditions require the presence of CV word-initially to license High-tone, nasal vowelsand backness in High vowels (3.5.3), in forming distributives, the reduplicant is well-formed ifspelt out as VCV, not as CVCV or VV (3.5.4), and deletion is triggered when Vs occur adjacentlyacross morpheme boundary, while the same process is blocked in cases where CVs occuradjacently in the same context (3.5.5). Onsetiess Vs, on the other hand, neither satisfy theminimal word condition nor any of the templatic requirements requiring syllables. The focus of thissection is to lay out the asymmetric behavior of vowels showing that an onset is required forsyllabification in Standard Yoruba.3.6.1. Minimal Word Condition: No [r] deletionEvery word in Standard Yoruba must contain a CV. Thus, no matter how many Vs arepresent in a word, word well-formedness is satisfied only if a CV is present in it (Qla 1994, 1995).This requirement blocks consonant deletion in a context where it would otherwise have applied.Consider for example the process of intervocalic [r] deletion that is triggered when one of thefollowing conditions is met (Aldnlabi 1993):(37) a. The two vowels flanking [r] are identical, orb. One of the vowels is high(38a) illustrates the process of [r] deletion (which is accompanied by progressive assimilation ofvocalic features), while the forms in (38b) show that an [r] in any VCV noun canon consistentlyresists deletion:4A formal account of this process is given in chapter 4.83(38) Fri deletionFull form Fri deletion Glossa. eriIp ep sandoosa godorIki odId praise nameor\u00C3\u00B3Ii o6zi *5\u00E2\u0080\u0099j mausoleumb. on *\u00C3\u00A7j head\u00C3\u00A2r\u00C3\u00A1 *aa thunderor6 *()() painor *y3 wealthNotice in (38b) that the environment for deletion is appropriate, yet [rj does not delete. Why is [r]shielded from deletion in (38b)? If CVs and Vs group into licit syllables, the presence or absence ofan onset should not be phonologically significant for the satisfaction of the minimal wordcondition: a lexical word must contain a a. The data in (38) suggest that an onset is crucial forsyllabification. When compared with a CV, the examined set of data strongly suggests that a V isdegenerate in syllabic terms. Some questions immediately arise about the phonological status ofonsetless Vs. Why do Vs not behave as syllables in Standard Yoruba? If Vs are not syllables, whatare they? Before an attempt is made at providing plausible answers to these questions, let usexamine other processes that contrast CV5 and Vs in significant ways.3.6.2. Loan Verb Truncation: V augmentation by [h] epenthesisConsider next a productive process of truncation that reduces loan verbs to the initial syllable inthe word (reduced verbs signify an action done secretly).84(39) Loan verb truncationBase Truncated form Glosspa to passpnibii p to pumphe \u00C3\u00A9/ *\u00C3\u00A9iiI *f\u00E2\u0080\u0099j *h\u00C3\u00A9Ii to envy\u00C3\u00B3gIlI h6 / *6/ *g1 / *fi to be uglyNote in the above examples that consonant-initial loan verbs shorten to the initial CV in the word.In vowel-initial forms, however, prevocalic [hJ epenthesis obligatorily accompanies the truncationof postvocalic materials5 This is again another case where CVs and Vs pattern asymmetrically ina syllabic process, a situation that should not hold under the assumption that both are well-formedphonological syllables.3.6.3. Word-initial Morpheme Structure Condition: No H-tone, Nasal or H-back VSupporting evidence showing that CVs behave differently from onsetless Vs comes fromthree morphemic constraints involving the occurrence of a high tone, nasality, and backness in theword initial position. Briefly, the constraints require that a high tone vowel (V# c\u00E2\u0080\u0099), a nasalizedvowel (V# c)6 and a high back vowel (v\u00E2\u0080\u0099# Cu) may occur word-initially only if such words are5[hJ epenthesis may occur in the untruncated V-initial forms as well, but it is optional. As shown in (39),the segments of the truncative a prefix always corresponds strictly to the leftmost segments of the Base.Thus, in a Base such as iogirii, even though there are segmental materials which could potentially satisfythe templatic requirement (e.g.,*gi, *li), they are never copied. These forms are illicit because copying inthis case would entail the skipping over of the initial vowel of the Base. As it turns out, vowels cannot beskipped over in Standard Yoruba. Phrased in Optimality terms, mis-alEgnment (M&P 1993b) is prohibitedin prosodic processes involving vowels in Yoruba (QIa l994b). Note that the property of onsetless Vs inYoruba contrasts with that of onsetless Vs in Timugon Murut which are skipped in reduplication; seediscussion above in section 3 and M&P (1993a,b) for details.6A nasal vowel is indicated by a superimposed tilde.85consonant-initial:7(*# ), (*# ), (\u00E2\u0080\u0098# u). Examples ifiustrating word-initial high tones are shown in(40). By contrast, vowel-initial high tone words are completely unattested in the native vocabulary.(40) High toned vowels do not occur word initially: ccv, v, *jrvWord Glossk\u00C3\u00A9 shoutbe cutwiira goldptip\u00C3\u00B4 manynipon thickr\u00C3\u00A1r\u00C3\u00A0 allergyr\u00C3\u00B3gddd small and roundPreflxation provides additional evidence for the general ban on vowel-initial High tonewords. In Standard Yoruba, V prefixes either bear a mid or a low tone. The only high tone prefixin the dialect is consonant-initial. As shown below in (41a,b), both the mid tone and low toneprefix are expressed as V. The High tone prefix, in contrast, is expressed as CV. An additionalinteresting observation is that the consonant of the prefix is identical to that of the verb, suggestingthat consonantal copying is triggered by the need to avoid a violation of the (*#) constraint. Thedata in (41c) exemplify these observations.71n loan phonology, these constraints are violable as shown by forms such as [\u00C3\u00A9fifi] \u00E2\u0080\u0098envy\u00E2\u0080\u0099, fifki] \u00E2\u0080\u0098ink\u00E2\u0080\u0099when not augmented to CV-initial forms by [hi epenthesis.86(41) Prefixation: H-tone prefix must be C-initiala. Mid-toned Prefix b. Low-toned Prefix c. High-toned Prefixi-jo \u00E2\u0080\u0098dance\u00E2\u0080\u0099 \u00C3\u00AC-j\u00C3\u00B3 \u00E2\u0080\u0098dancing\u00E2\u0080\u0099 j-jO *ij\u00C3\u00B3 \u00E2\u0080\u0098dancing\u00E2\u0080\u0099i-ku \u00E2\u0080\u0098death\u00E2\u0080\u0099 1-ku \u00E2\u0080\u0098dying\u00E2\u0080\u0099-k\u00C3\u00BC *Ika \u00E2\u0080\u0098dying\u00E2\u0080\u0099j-sO \u00E2\u0080\u0098fart\u00E2\u0080\u0099 \u00C3\u00AC-s\u00C3\u00B3 \u00E2\u0080\u0098farting\u00E2\u0080\u0099-sO *IsO \u00E2\u0080\u0098farting\u00E2\u0080\u0099i-l\u00C3\u00A0 \u00E2\u0080\u0098marks (e.g. facial)\u00E2\u0080\u0099 1-l\u00C3\u00A0 \u00E2\u0080\u0098splitting\u00E2\u0080\u0099 fl-l\u00C3\u00A0 *il\u00C3\u00A0 \u00E2\u0080\u0098spliting\u00E2\u0080\u0099Consider the restriction on the occurrence of word initial nasals next. As the examples in(42) show, nasalised vowels are permitted in word-initial position if preceded by an onsetconsonant. Nasalised vowel-initial words, on the other hand, are systematically absent in theStandard Yomba word inventory.(42) Nasalised vowels do not occur word initially: c,Word Gloss\u00C3\u00B1n [\u00C3\u00B1] walkf\u00C3\u00B3nron [f5r5] strandkinnbin [l&iIii] lionk\u00C3\u00A1ntin [kj potashkanga [k&ga] well, bore holeg\u00C3\u00A1ngan [gga] a talking drumWord-initial high back vowels are also sensitive to the presence or absence of precedingconsonants. Specifically, [ul can only occur word-initially if a word is consonant-initial. Thus in(43), we see that the first vowel of consonant-initial words may be a high back vowel [u].Completely unattested in Standard Yoruba, however, is the occurrence of onsetless vowel-initialhigh back vowel words.87(43) High back vowels do not occur word-initially: cu, CUCV, *u *(jWord Glossk\u00C3\u00A1 dieri.i carrylu piercekt\u00C3\u00A0 unsuccessfulburil wicked, badsubil fallThe three morpheme structure conditions show that there is a phonological contrastbetween vowels depending on whether they have onsets or not. A structural explanation of thissystematic contrast will be presented presently, but before that, more evidence is presented belowfrom reduplication to illustrate the difference in the syllabicity of vowels in Standard Yoruba.3.6.4. Distributive Reduplication: RED = Ft & Ft is VCV, *VV, *VVLet us now turn to reduplication for further evidence to show that CV and V contrast instriking ways. Yoruba forms distributives by a process of reduplication. The reduplicative prefix isa foot (RED = Ft, Folarin 1987, Pulleyblank 1988). Under the standard moraic framework ofassumptions, where the onset does not count for syllabification, one would expect any of CVCV,VV, or VCV noun to satisfy the templatic requirement RED is a Ft. As it turns out, the reduplicantis always realized as VCV, never as VV or CVCV, as shown in (44). Again, this is an unexpectedrequirement if CV and V are characterized as phonological syllables.88(44) Distributive ReduplicationVCV-initial nounBase Reduplicated Form Gloss Distributivea. ewe ewe-ewe leaf every leaf1a 11141\u00C3\u00A0 line every line\u00C3\u00B4ru \u00C3\u00B4r\u00C3\u00B4-\u00C3\u00B4ru midnight every midnightirOl\u00C3\u00A9 Iri4rOl evening every eveningb. VV-initial noun: does not reduplicateReduplicated Form Gloss Distributiveo\u00E2\u0080\u0099iir\u00C3\u00B4 OwO-OwIrO morning every morningO\u00C3\u00B3rO OrO-\u00C3\u00B4\u00C3\u00B3r\u00C3\u00B4 morning every morningour\u00C3\u00A7) *6ro *orourQ morning every morningIn (44b), observe that reduplication is possible in forms with an identical initial VV sequence butimpossible in an unidentical initial VV. This is explained if we assume that (i) long vowels arerepresented as two moras linked to one segment, (ii) non-identical vowels are represented as twomoras linked to two different segments, (iii) copying targets melody not prosody (McCarthy &Prince 1986). Under this assumption, initial identical VVs are copied as monosegments whereasnon-identical VVs are copied as two different segments. If the reduplicant is obligatorily spelt outas VCV, copying would simply select the first VCV in a strictly linear fashion (skipping of vocalicmelody is prohibited, see note 3) as follows: oro (ooro) vs. ou * oro (ouro). If the grammar treatsCVs differently from Vs, the contrast in VCV reduplication in \u00C3\u00B4\u00C3\u00B3r\u00C3\u00A7) and \u00C3\u00B4iir3 followsstraightforwardly. Similarly, CVCV nouns do not reduplicate because the left-edge of the basedoes not begin with a V as required by this process. A plausible but non-occurring fil\u00C3\u00A2\u00E2\u0080\u0094 *\u00E2\u0080\u0098llfll\u00C3\u00A289is ruled out by ANCH-L because the reduplicant does not begin with the same segment that the basebegins with.c. CVCV: does not reduplicateNo Reduplication Glossfil\u00C3\u00A0 . *fi1.fi \u00E2\u0080\u009Cil\u00C3\u00A2-ffla cap every capb\u00C3\u00A2t\u00C3\u00A1 \u00E2\u0080\u0094 *b\u00C3\u00A0t\u00C3\u00A1.b\u00C3\u00A0 *\u00C3\u00A0b\u00C3\u00A2t\u00C3\u00A1 a type of drum every bata drumIn (44), we see that the leftmost constituent of the base must be an onsetless V, a familiarrequirement from Qw\u00C3\u00A7n-Afa (3.4.). The il-formedness of(38c) demonstrates the validity of thisclaim. Recall that in Owon-Afa, the ill-fonnedness of C-initial nouns is redeemed by [iiepentliesis. Even though Standard Yoruba also has epenthetic [ij (Pulleyblank 1988), it does notexploit the option of augmenting the nominal base to the desired prosodic shape for reduplication.Instead, Standard Yoruba simply does not reduplicate non-conforming nominals such as the formsin (44c). The distributive is expressed in consonant-initial forms by prefixing the lexical item\u00E2\u0080\u009Cgbogbo\u00E2\u0080\u009D which means \u00E2\u0080\u009Call\u00E2\u0080\u009D to unreduplicated nouns. Thus, \u00E2\u0080\u009Cevery cap\u00E2\u0080\u009D is expressed as \u00E2\u0080\u009Cgbogbofil\u00C3\u00A0\u00E2\u0080\u009D.3.6.5. Vowel Hiatus ResolutionThe final evidence is offered by vowel hiatus resolution in Standard Yoruba. When vowelhiatus arises via morpheme concatenation as in verb-noun collocations, vowel deletion is triggeredto eliminate the hiatus.8As shown by the data in (45), when the noun is consonant-initial, deletiondoes not apply. However, a hiatus environment is created when a vowel-initial noun is collocated8See Pulleyblank (1988) and the references cited therein for a detailed account of various vocalic processessuch as assimilation and coalescence which result from hiatus contexts.90with a verb. To resolve the hiatus, the vowel of the verb deletes,9and the initial vowel of the nounconsequently incorporates into the onset of the verb. The following data illustrates this point:(45) Vowel Hiatus Resolution: vowel deletionri b\u00C3\u00A0t\u00C3\u00A0 see the shoe\u00E2\u0080\u0099 vs. ii aso\u00E2\u0080\u0094 rtiso \u00E2\u0080\u0098see the dress\u00E2\u0080\u0099ta kOk\u00C3\u00B3 \u00E2\u0080\u0098sell cocoa\u00E2\u0080\u0099 vs. ta ewe\u00E2\u0080\u0094> tew\u00C3\u00A9 \u00E2\u0080\u0098sell leaves\u00E2\u0080\u0099se k\u00C3\u00B3kO \u00E2\u0080\u0098cook cocoyam\u00E2\u0080\u0099 vs. se eran\u00E2\u0080\u0094 seran \u00E2\u0080\u0098cook meat\u00E2\u0080\u0099gb\u00C3\u00A9 kanga \u00E2\u0080\u0098drill a borehole\u00E2\u0080\u0099 vs. gb \u00C3\u00A8re\u00E2\u0080\u0094 gb\u00C3\u00A9re \u00E2\u0080\u0098carve a wood\u00E2\u0080\u0099The deletion process described above is another instance where consonant-initial syllables behavedifferently from vowel-initial ones. This contrast is accounted for if we adopt proposals by Kaye(1989), Downing (1990), and others that vowel hiatus resolution processes such as deletion areusually driven by the requirement to build syllables with onsets. Thus, the vulnerability of onsetlessVs to deletion is naturally expected if they are not licit syllables.Let us summarize briefly at this point. In the foregoing, we have examined syllabicprocesses in Standard Yoruba. The generalization that emerges is that onset\u00E2\u0080\u0094ful Vs, i.e., CVs,contrast sharply and in important ways from onsetless Vs in this dialect. Crucially, syllableconditioned processes require the presence of an onset in a phonological syllable. Why?As proposed in QIa (1993), a straightforward explanation for the observed differences isthat the Onset Principle is strictly enforced in syllabifying vowels in Standard Yoruba:(46) Onset Principle (Ito 1989): Avoid a[VBy the onset principle in (46), syllables must have onsets. Violators, i.e., onsetless Vs, are simplynot syllabically affiliated. This analysis explains some of the asymmetries observed earlier. For9This is not always the case; sometimes, the vowel of the noun deletes. See QIa (1990), Pulleyblank (1987)and the references cited in these works for a full account of vowel deletion in Standard Yoruba.91example, if the presence of a syllable is required for minimality conditions, then the seeminglymysterious variations in intervocalic [r] deletion in (32: or\u00C3\u00B3ii \u00E2\u0080\u0094* ooai *6j \u00E2\u0080\u0098mausoleum\u00E2\u0080\u0099 vs. on *01head\u00E2\u0080\u0099) follow straightforwardly. If [r] deletion were to apply in these forms, word minimalitywould be violated, since onsetless Vs are not phonological syllables. In addition, the obligatoryrequirement that an epenthetic [h] be present in shortened loan verbs is also accounted for, sincethe truncative form always corresponds to the leftmost syllable, a condition which cannot besatisfied by an onsetless vowel in a vowel-initial loan verb (p\u00C3\u00A1\u00C3\u00A2s\u00E2\u0080\u0099i \u00E2\u0080\u00944 pa vs. \u00C3\u00A9iifi \u00E2\u0080\u0094* he *e).Further, an analysis of the word-initial morphemic constraints follows automatically if the proposalis adopted that the onset is required for syllabification: word-initial high tone, vowel nasalizationand backness in high vowels are obligatorily licensed within a left-edge syllable. The questions thatremain unanswered though are: what is the prosodic status of an onsetless V, and how is it licensedin the phonology?As regards the first question, as already established in my analysis of Gokana and QwonMa, an onsetless V is an unsyllabified mora, that is, a mora that is not dominated by syllablestructure in the phonology. Concerning the second question, there are two possible solutions withinmoraic framework. First, one may adopt the exhaustive view of syllabification, an approach thatholds the view that all moras must belong to syllables by the Morn Confinement Condition (Ito &Mester 1992:11): p. is licensed only by a. Under this account, all non-peripheral moras must besyllabified. However, peripheral moras may or may not be syllabified, depending on the language.In a case where a constituent peripheral mora is unsyllabified, it is rendered extraprosodic, a.k.a.invisibility, a form of covert licensing which applies strictly at constituent edges (ItO 1986, 1989,Inkelas 1989, McCarthy and Prince 1986). This puts an onsetless mora outside the domain ofsyllabification. INs yields the prediction that non-peripheral onsetless vowels will behave asphonological syllables, whereas their peripheral counterparts will not. Three sets of data invalidatethis prediction. First, this view incorrectly predicts that an illicit output such as (38: ordii * \u00C3\u00B3i\u00E2\u0080\u0098mausoleum\u00E2\u0080\u0099) should be well-formed, since the non-peripheral mora ought to syllabify, meeting theminimality condition that requires the presence of a syllable in every lexical item. Second, if a92peripheral V is outside the domain of syllabification, there is no reason why it should not berendered extraprosodic and consequently ignored in truncation: as depicted by the illicitness of rlfi\u00E2\u0080\u0094 *fj a peripheral V cannot be ignored to till the truncative template in loan verbs. Third, it failsto account for why word-initial unsyllabified moras count as part of the prosodic template indistributives; the reduplicant, which is a foot, is obligatorily spelt out as VCV, not CVCV, asshown by comparing the licitness of (47a) with the illicitness of (4Th):(47) , Reduplicated Form Gloss Distributive meaninga. \u00C3\u00B4ru \u00C3\u00B4rO-Oru midnight every midnightb. fil\u00C3\u00A0 *fil\u00C3\u00A0.fiI\u00C3\u00A2 cap every capThe implication of data such as shown in (47) is that unsyllabified left edge moras may count forprosodic processes. If peripheral moras are available for prosodic processes, as is the case in (47a),then they must be prosodically licensed overtly in some way.This is exactly where the second view, the non-exhaustive hypothesis, plays a crucial role.As argued by works such as Downing (1993) and Spring (1990), in languages where the OnsetPrinciple is strictly invoked onsetless vowels may remain unsyllabified in the phonology becausethey are prosodically licensed by the mora, moraic licensing (Bagemihl 1991, Zec 1988, Hyman1985, 1990).\u00E2\u0080\u0099\u00C2\u00B0 The idea that a mora is a valid prosodic licenser derives a straightforward accountfor why the left edge mora is not ignored in the reduplication data shown in (41 a), and challengesthe standard assumption that onsetless Vs are not a (prosodic) constituent (see M&P 1993a,b))If the Prosodic Morphology Hypothesis entails that reduplicants in templatically conditionedreduplication be formally specified as prosodic units (i., cy, Pt, PrWd), then the initial unsyllahifiedmora in distributives, which constitutes part of the foot template, ought to be prosodically defined.10n Spring (1990), the rhyme constituent serves as the prosodic licensers for unsyllabified segments.\u00E2\u0080\u0098Left edge Vs are also not ignored in truncation, see data in example 34.93The account proposed so far for syllabification in Standard Yoruba is the following: thelanguage strongly enforces the Onset Principle (46); hence, moras can only group into well-formedsyllables if an onset is present, otherwise moras remain phonologically unaffiliated to the syllable.Unsyllabified vowels are not deleted by Stray Erasure because they are licensed by the mora.Consequently, they remain in the representation participating actively in the phonology.\u00E2\u0080\u009923.6.7. An OT account of Non-exhaustive syllabification in Standard YorubaRecall that in Standard Yoruba, a phonological syllable is obligatorily spelt out as CV. InOptimality Theory, this means that ONS and NO-CODA must be satisfied. To exemplify, recall theloan verb truncation data: (paas\u00E2\u0080\u0099i - pa \u00E2\u0080\u0098pass\u00E2\u0080\u0099 vs. \u00C3\u00A9tifi \u00E2\u0080\u0094* h * \u00E2\u0080\u0098envy\u00E2\u0080\u0099) where the Truncative affixis a syllable prefix (TRUNC = a). In consonant-initial verbs, truncation targets the leftmost CV,whereas in vowel-initial verbs [hJ epenthesis must accompany truncation to satisfy the templaticrequirement. This clearly shows that a nuclear-mora is incorporated into a syllable node only ifpreceded by an onset. [h] epenthesis forces the insertion of a root node which was not present inthe input. This shows that a LEXICAL ROOT (LEXRT)\u00E2\u0080\u00993violation is permited in the prosodicdomain of TRUNC, though not tolerated elsewhere in the grammar (for example, VCV nouns do notaugment to CVCV).(48) LEXRT: A root node that is present in the ouput must also be present in the inputThe templatic constraint, ONS, PARSENUC and LEXRT are ranked as follows.12Word-mitial moras are visible to tonal processes (Akinlabi 1984, Pulleyblank 1986) and tongue rootharmony (Archangeli & Pulleyblank 1994 among others).13The constraints governing epenthesis in Optimality Theory are formulated as FILL: FILLONSET (Onsetposition is filled by lexical material), and FILLNUCLEUS (Nucleus position is filled by lexical material). Irefrain from using FLLONSET to account for [h] eperahesis for theory-internal reasons, specificallybecause of the standpoint of moraic theory (Hayes 1989, Hyman 1985) which does not regard the onset asa prosodic constituent.94(49) TRUNCATIVE = a prefix, ONS, NO-CODA, >> LEXRT >> PARSENUCaN/h ec. *!Ned.aN /NaN/ \u00E2\u0080\u0098h e nThe first candidate in (50) violates LEXRT, a lower ranked constraint, but is evaluated as the bestbecause it satisfies the templatic requirement: the Truncative affix is a a prefix. The violation of(50) Templatically induced LEXRT violation: TRUNCATIVE = a prefixInput: /iifil [ TRUNCGa.ONS NO-CODA LEXRT PARSENUCb.aNe___________________I_______*1**1e.95LEXRT enables candidate (a) to satisfy higher-ranked ONS which would otherwise be violated ifLEXRT was obeyed. The second candidate is ruled out by an ONS violation because the left edgeof the syllable is not aligned with the left edge of a consonantal root node. Its satisfaction ofLEXRT does not salvage, it because the violation of ONS is costlier than the satisfaction ofLEXRT. The third candidate also fails to win because it does not satisfy the templatic requirement:it is an unparsed nuclear-mora, not a syllable. Candidate (d) is identical to the input, but is non-optimal because the TRUNCATIVE is strictly restricted to a a prefix.14 The final candidate in (e) isless harmonic when compared with the optimal form because it does not respect NO-CODA.The analysis presented above suggests that PARsE-NUqI. is highly ranked in Yoruba.However, when a process such as distributive reduplication is considered, we find that this rankingcannot be maintained for PARSE-NUqI. As in the ranking established for Gokana and Qwon-Afa,PARSE-NUqI is ranked below ONS in Standard Yoruba. This ranking explains the variousasymmetries between vowels with onsets and those without onsets. The distributives are repeatedbelow for reference.(51) Reduplicated Form Gloss Distributivea. Oru \u00C3\u00B4r\u00C3\u00B4-Oru midnight every midnightb. fil\u00C3\u00A0 *fil\u00C3\u00A0..fil\u00C3\u00A2 *ifi..lfil\u00C3\u00A0 cap every capCrucially, the base and the reduplicant in clistributives must be V-initial, i.e. an unparsed nucleusin Optimality Theory. Parsed Nuclei (i.e., syllabified vowels) are disqualified in the initial positionof the base and the reduplicant. This is demonstrated by the illicitness of disyllabic (5 ib), showingclearly that the reduplicative template is a foot whose left edge is aligned with a nuclear-mora, afamiliar requirement from the QwQn-Afa data. That the epenthesis option witnessed in Qw\u00C3\u00A7n-Afais not available in Standard Yoruba shows that LEXNUcp. is undominated. Further, the fact that\u00E2\u0080\u00984See footnote 4 for why a plausible output such */fjj is disallowed.96initial vowels do not augment to CV in VCV nouns is accounted for by ranking LEXRT abovePARsENUCJ.t. The ranking that derives this effect is given in (52).\u00E2\u0080\u0099(52) Non-exhaustive syllabification: PARSENUCII violationONS, LEXNUqI, LExRT>> PARSENUCIIThe tableaux in (53) and (54) demonstrates the implementation of the established ranking in (52).(53) PARSENUC.L is violable: ONS, LEXRT>> PARSENUCj.t\u00E2\u0080\u009965Because *COMpLEX is neither violated nor crucially ranked with any other constraint in the processesdiscussed in this paper, it is left out of the discussion.16Because the nuclear-mora is not syllabified, I assume, by the Weak Layering Hypothesis (Ito & Mester1993), it incorporates into a foot with the syllable. Even though the unsyllabified mora does not respectPARSENUC.L, it still satisfies the principle of prosodic licensing as much as much as it can by linking tothe foot.Input: I\u00C3\u00B4rul j) ONS LEXRT PARSENUCVa. *N /NJb. *!;I /0 r Uc. *!ho ru97In (53), the rightmost syllables in candidates (a), (b) and (c) are properly aligned; however, in (b)the leftmost syllable is ill-aligned at the left edge, since it lacks an onset consonant. This ill-alignment causes (b) to violate higher-ranked ONS and is consequently knocked out of thecompetition. Even though candidate (c) obeys ONS, it is still rejected because it violates high-ranking LEXRT. Candidate (a) does not violate ONS because it is not a syllable, it is properlylicensed by the nuclear-mora. Notice that PARSENUC is violated by this candidate, but it stillpasses because of the low ranking status of the constraint.LEXNUCI, like LEXRT is a highly ranked constraint. Unlike LExRT which may beviolated under pressure to satisfy TRUNCG,\u00E2\u0080\u00997the violation of LEXNUCI is never induced by anyhigh-ranking constraint in Yoruba. For example, ANCH-L never induces the violation ofLExNUCIJ. in forming distributives. The undominated status of LEXNUCI is demonstrated in thefollowing tableau.18(54) LEXNUqL is undominated: Failure of distributive reduplication in C-initial baseInput: Ifil\u00C3\u00A0/ ANCH-L LEXNUqIVa0*1/ //if i 1 a17The satisfaction of ONS in this context is further induced by PROP-HEAD, defmed in (57). If thetruncated forms are prosodic words, as argued in chapter 5, then, they must be properly headed containingat least a single instantiation of foot, syllable, nuclear-morn, and mora.\u00E2\u0080\u00988The undominated status of will be established further in the discussion of minimality restrictions inchapeter 5.98One plausible candidate predicted by the ranking in (52) is one containing a sequence ofunparsed nuclear-moras. Such forms are predicted to be well-formed because the absence ofsyllable results in the vacuous satisfaction of ONS. Thus, it should be possible for a form like/OruJ to surface as *1 OW given the productive process of [r] deletion which applies in the languageto forms that occur in the appropriate environment for deletion is satisfied. The repeated examplesin (56) illustrate this process.\u00E2\u0080\u00999(55) Full form Fri deletion Glossa. Or(ll\u00C3\u00A9 OOld roofb. or\u00C3\u00B3ii o6ii *odj mausoleumc. Oru * midnightAkinlabi (1993) proposes that [rj is susceptible to deletion because it is unspecified forCORONAL,20\u00E2\u0080\u009921 Under this proposal the special (defective) property of [rj is structurally encodedinto its underlying representation. Given the assumption that constraints do not hold of underlying\u00E2\u0080\u009891n general, the rightmost syllable in a noun is retained in deletion. This property is captured by WordRight Edge Syllable Alignment constraint Qla (1995).20Among coronals, only [r] is argued to be unspecified underlyingly. The coronal node is thus assumed tobe activated underlyingly for obstruents in Standard Yoruba. That is, obstruents are linked to theCORONAL node in the lexical entry. The claim that CORONAL is the default value in Yoruba raises aquestion on the epenthetic status of [hi in loans: why is [r] not the epenthetic consonant in loansyllabification if it is truly unspecified for place features? I would like to suggest two plausible answers tothis question. Firstly, Nigeria was a British Colony and most of the loans are borrowed from BritishEnglish, R.P., a variety of English in which a glottal stop [?] may appear before vowel-initial words.When such words are borrowed, the glottal stop surfaces as a glottal fricative [h] since Yoruba does nothave a glottal stop. In this respect, the [hJ insertion reported for loans in (5) may be a property of directborrowing from English. Lilooet (a Salish language) also inserts [hJ in the same context as pointed outby Henry Davis. Secondly, assuming that we adopt the proposal that both [rj and [h] are unspecified forplace features as advanced in Akinlabi (1991) and (1993) respectively, there is still a significantspecification difference between these segments. If we compare the specification of glottal [hj with that of[rJ, the former lacks an oral place-node (both in the underlying and surface representations); hence,vacuously satisfies FILLPLACE since it has no Place node to be filled. The latter, on the other hand,acquires an oral place-node by default. This property seems to suggest that [hi is considered less specifiedthan the [rJ.21The second argument (and perharps the stronger one) for claiming that [ri is unspecified comes fromthe transparency of [r] to V-spreading in loans. See Akinlabi (1993) for details.99representations in OT, the proposed underspecifled representation cannot be imposed on [r]. Thus,the condition governing [r] deletion is fonnulated along the same lines as the segmental sonorityconstraints motivated in chapter 2, the *peaJc, *Margjn constraints of P& S (1993):(56) *M/COR[r]: [r] is not a good margin consonantThis constraint is obeyed in examples such as (56a,b) but is violated in words like (56c) where [r]surfaces. However, as shown earlier, the condition that a CV must be present in every word inStandard Yoruba overrides the process of deletion. Thus the deletion of [r] is not tolerated in thedomain of minimality. This minimal condition is defined as Properheadedness (PROP-HEAD Ito &Mester 1992, Qia 1995). This constraint will be discussed in detail in chapter 5.(57) PROP-READ: Every Prosodic Word contains a footEvery foot contains a syllableEvery syllable contains a nucelusEvery nucleus contains a mora*MJCOR[rj is violated in the domain of minimality, that is, PROP-HEAD. This constitute anevidence that PROP-HEAD outranks *WCOR[r](58) PROP-HEAD, ONS NO-CODA>> PARSENUC, *WCOR[rjThe tableau in (59) demonstrates the effect of the ranking in (58).100(59) CV Minimality (Properheadedness) induced.*In (59), a domain illustrating the implementation of PROP-HEAD, i.e. the CV minimality condition,candidate (a) incurs a violation of *WCOR[r] This enables the satisfaction of PROP-HEAD.However, candidate (b) is non-optimal because it violates undominated PROP-HEAD to satisfylowly ranked *wcoR[rj.Let us summarize the crucial points of the analysis. First, syllabification in StandardYoruba requires the presence of an onset consonant and a syllable nucleus. The high ranking ofONS forces the violation of *MJCOR[r] and LEXRT to guarantee the presence of Onsets forpurposes of syllabification in templaticafly-conditioned and/or minimality-conditioned contexts.Second, it has been claimed that syllabification is non-exhaustive; in other words, not all segmentsare syllabically affiliated. For example, onsetless moras (nuclear or non-nuclear) are not parsedinto the syllable node, but are licensed by the mora. This effect is derived by the low ranking ofPARSENUC.L. The distributives provide evidence that PARSENUCII is violable: only unparsedCandidates PROPHEAD ONS NO-CODA PARSENUC *WCOR[rla. * *PrWdCORb. *!N NIIo r> U101nuclei are allowed at the left edge of the base and the reduplicant. Finally, as previously argued,the explicit assumption made about the interaction of PARSENUC!I and ONS is that an onsetless Vviolates only PARSENUCi, not ONS. ONS is vacuously satisfied in this configuration since aPARSENUCL violation entails that syllable structure is not erected. The story would be different ifPARSENUCI were undominated as would be the case in an exhaustive parsing system. In a systemwhere all vowels must syllabify, PARSENUCII must outrank ONS. This ranking would enforce Vsto syllabify whether or not they have onsets. This is what happens in Ondo as we will see in thenext section.3.7. Syllable structure in Ondo YorubaWhen syllable processes in Ondo (an Eastern Yoruba dialect) are considered, the syllabicasymmetries observed between CVs and Vs in the Standard dialect are neutralized. In particular,the loss of [r] in this dialect (Adetunji 1988) gives rise to the violation of a whole range ofconditions that obligatorily hold of the Standard dialect. For example, [ri-less Ondo violates theCV minimality condition in lexical items which obligatorily contain [rj in Standard Yoruba, thethree morphemic conditions are disrespected in words where [rj is lost, and the distributivereduplicant, a Ft, is expressed as VCV or VV.3.7.1. Minimal Word Condition & the loss of [r]As demonstrated in the preceding section, minimality conditions require the presence of aCV syllable in every word in Standard Yoruba. This requirement is shown to block the deletion of[r] in contexts where this segment would have otherwise deleted. Adetunji (1988) observes thecomplete loss of [rJ in Ondo Yoruba and shows that words which have [rj in the Standard dialectdo not surface with [rJ in Ondo. This observation is made explicit by comparing the followingcognates in Standard Yoruba and Ondo Yoruba.102(60) Standard Yoruba Ondo Yoruba Gloss1-1 1 seer\u00C3\u00A2 a buytin en RI walk111 \u00C3\u00BC carry(61) Standard Yoruba Ondo Yoruba Glossjj *oi oigho head\u00C3\u00B4rO \u00C3\u00B4\u00C3\u00B4 wordara *aa aa body*em [elI fourThe loss of [rJ in Ondo, as exemplifed above in (60,61) gives rise to sequences of Vs;consequently, words are either expressed as CV or V in this dialect, contra the scenario witnessedin the Standard dialect.3.7.2. Word-initial Morpheme Condition: H-tone V, Nasal-V, H-back VConsider next, the effect of the loss of [rJ on the spellout of the three morpheme structureconditions in word-initial position. First, High tone words may either be C-initial or V-initial inOndo. Because of the loss of [rj, High toned intial vowels are quite common in this dialect. Casesinvolving monomorphemic words are given in (62), while those involving prefixation are shown in(62) below.103(62) High toned vowels freely occur word initially in OndoStandard Yoruba Ondo Yoruba Glossa. wilr\u00C3\u00A0 wil\u00C3\u00A2 goldnip\u00C3\u00A7n nlp\u00C3\u00A7n thickb. r\u00C3\u00A9rd \u00C3\u00A9\u00C3\u00A9 far; deeprog\u00C3\u00B3d\u00C3\u00B3 dgOdd small and round(63) Prefixation: a high tone prefix may either be C-initial or V-initial in OndoStandard Yoruba Ondo Yoruba Glossa. 1-19 il-b going1-je il-je eatingi-\u00C3\u00B1n \u00C3\u00BC-n [\u00C3\u00B1-] walking1-r\u00C3\u00A7je \u00C3\u00BC-\u00C3\u00A9je [il-\u00C3\u00A9d3e] cheatingb. Standard Yoruba Ondo Yoruba Gloss11-19 I-lQ 1119 goingjIj\u00C3\u00A7 *ij\u00C3\u00A7 jlj\u00C3\u00A7 eatingrI-\u00C3\u00B1n *I\u00C3\u00B1n i-n [I-] walkingrI-rj\u00C3\u00A7 *lrje 1-\u00C3\u00A9je [I-\u00C3\u00A9d3e] cheatingObserve in (63a), where the prefix bears a low tone, that the copying of the initial consonant of thebase is neither triggered in the Standard variety nor Ondo dialect.22 In contrast, in (63b), high tone22Actually, the data in (63a) also illustrate another point of divergence between Standard Yoruba andOndo Yoruba, as the former allows [ul to occur word-initially only if the word is C-initial (Also, see datain 65).104V prefixation is obligatorily accompanied by base consonantal copying in the Standard dialect.Consonantal copying in the standard forms is ensured because all verbal roots are consonant-initial. If a verb root is consonant-initial in Ondo a violation of this condition is avoided; but if averb root is vowel-initial, as is the case with [ri-less roots, the high toned prefix is attached to theleft edge of the root in violation of the (*#) constraint. Notice the attempt to avoid High toneinitial words even in Ondo, as shown by the fact of C-copying in (63b). Thus l\u00C3\u00A7 \u00E2\u0080\u0098go\u00E2\u0080\u0099 is rendered as11-19 \u00E2\u0080\u0098going\u00E2\u0080\u0099, not as *llo as one might expect. This data may be accounted for if we assume thatthe prefix is a syllable which must be maximally filled. By the principle of syllable maximization,the syllable prefix in C-initial verbs is realized as CV, while in V-initial forms the prefix simplysurfaces as V. Additionally, through C-copying the prefix is expressed as an unmarked syllable.Given the observed variation in the treatment of syllabic constituents in these two dialects,specific questions arise for any account that characterizes syllabification as a uniform universalalgorithm. Why are Vs characterized differently from CVs in the Standard dialect? Why doesStandard Yoruba require the presence of onsets for syllabification? On the other hand, why areonsetless vowels permitted to group together with CV syllables in Ondo as illustrated in (60-63)?With these questions in mind, let us examine other phenomena that further illustrate thesymmetrical behavior of CVs and Vs in Ondo.Consider the characterization of other morphemic conditions that were earlier advanced asevidence showing that CVs and Vs are phonologically asymmetric in Standard Yoruba. Contraryto what obtains in the Standard, onsetless nasalised vowels and onsetless high back vowels mayoccur word-initially in Ondo. The examples in (64) show that initial nasalized vowels may either beC-initial or V-initial.105(64) Word-initial nasalised vowels may either be C-initial or V-initial in Ondo:Standard Yoruba Ondo Yoruba GlossIr\u00C3\u00BC [iru] \u00C3\u00BCn\u00C3\u00BCn [1111] tailodnj\u00C3\u00A7 [oId3e] unjIje [IIdld3e] foodun [ill en [J walkf\u00C3\u00B3nr\u00C3\u00B3n [f6r5] fon\u00C3\u00B3n [f55J strandThe examples in (65) show that word initial [uj may occur with or without a preceding onsetconsonant:(65) Word-initial [ul may either be C-initial or V-initial in OndoStandard Yoruba Ondo Yoruba Glossidi \u00C3\u00BCd\u00E2\u0080\u0099i buttockil\u00C3\u00A9 ull houseri ii carryku Icui diek\u00C3\u00B1t\u00C3\u00A2 k\u00C3\u00B1t\u00C3\u00A0 unsuccessfulbuni bud wicked, bad3.7.3. Distributive ReduplicationRecall that in order to form dlistributives in Standard Yoruba, prefixal reduplication targetsthe initial VCV in the word; word-initial unidentical VVs do not reduplicate as demonstrated in therepeated data given below:106(66) Distributive Reduplication in Standard Yorubaa. VCV-initial nounBase Reduplicated Form Gloss DistributiveOru Or\u00C3\u00B4-Oru midnight every midnightIr1 I\u00C3\u00B14rl evening every eveningb. VV-initial noun: does not reduplicateo\u00E2\u0080\u0099iir OwO-\u00C3\u00B4wtir morning every morningur *oro *oro..ouro morning every morningHowever, in forming disiributives in Ondo, the impossible scenario noted for Standard Yoruba isindeed licit: VV nouns reduplicate in exactly the same manner as VCV nouns. The relevant dataappear in (67).23(67) Distributive Reduplication in Ondo YorubaVCV- and VV initial nouns reduplicate in OndoReduplicated Form Gloss Distributiveewe ewe-ewe leaf every leafula ifl-il\u00C3\u00A0 line every lineOu OO-Ou midnight every midnightII4l \u00E2\u0080\u0098evening every evening23J Ondo (OD), Monomorphemic CVCV nouns are not reduplicatable as disthbutives. One possibleexplanation for this gap is the observation that C-initial nouns are rare in Ondo. The few forms arepossibly borrowings from the Standard (SY) variety. One piece of evidence that supports this suggestion isthat consonant-initial monomorphemic nouns in Ondo also have alternative vowel-initial forms: ful\u00C3\u00A0 (SY)= \u00C3\u00A0kO\u00C3\u00B3 (OD) \u00E2\u0080\u0098cap\u00E2\u0080\u0099, y\u00C3\u00A0r\u00C3\u00A1 (SY) = otip\u00C3\u00B4 (OD) \u00E2\u0080\u0098room\u00E2\u0080\u0099, baba (SY) = iba (OD) \u00E2\u0080\u0098father\u00E2\u0080\u0099 or b\u00C3\u00A0b\u00C3\u00A1 = b\u00C3\u00A0i \u00E2\u0080\u0098father\u00E2\u0080\u0099,f\u00C3\u00A8r\u00C3\u00A8s\u00C3\u00A9 (SY) uw\u00C3\u00B3ll (OD) \u00E2\u0080\u0098window\u00E2\u0080\u0099.107The reduplication pattern in (67) suggests that there is no phonological contrast between onset-ful(CV) and onset-less (V) syllables. If this is so, then it is not surprising that the reduplicant footprefix is realised as VV or VCV.3.7.4. Vowel Hiatus ResolutionFinally, let us establish that onsetless syllables in Ondo do not begin with covert onsets, asis the case in languages such as French (h-aspire) where covert consonants block the deletion ofvowels in expected environments. The evidence is offered by vowel hiatus resolution in OndoYoruba. As is the case in Standard Yoruba, when two vowels occur at morpheme junctures, ahiatus context arises. In cases involving verb-noun collocations, vowel deletion is triggered toeliminate the hiatus.24 As shown by the data in (68), deletion does not apply when the noun isconsonant-initial. However, when the noun begins with an initial vowel, one of the vowelsdeletes.25 The following data illustrates this point:(68) Vowel Hiatus Resolution: vowel deletion (Data from Adetunji 1988)26Verb + C-initial Noun Gloss Verb + C-initial Noun GlossI b\u00C3\u00A3t\u00C3\u00A0 see the shoe vs. I aso\u00E2\u0080\u0094 dso see the dresst\u00C3\u00A2 kOk\u00C3\u00B3 sell cocoa vs. t\u00C3\u00A2 ewe\u00E2\u0080\u0094> teWd sell leavess\u00C3\u00A8 k\u00C3\u00B3kO cook cocoyam vs. se \u00C3\u00A7b\u00E2\u0080\u0094> s9b cook meatpa Dada kill Dada vs. pa u\u00C3\u00B3\u00E2\u0080\u00944 pu kill a lie (to lie)24Other strategies for resolving vowel hiatus in Standard Yoruba include vowel assimilation andcoalescence. See Pulleyblank (1988) and the references cited therein for a detailed account of variousvocalic processes which result from hiatus contexts.25Like Standard Yoruba, the vowel of the verb tends to delete in the general pattern. However, at times, itis the vowel of the noun that deletes. See Adetunji (1988) for details.26Also confirmed in my findings on Ondo.108The data in (68) where (a) vowel deletion is blocked in C-initial nouns and (b) one of the vowels inconjunction is deleted in V-initial nouns, show that there are no covert consonants in Ondo. If acovert consonant is present in the vowel-initial nouns, deletion ought to be blocked. The deletionprocess also suggests that the language creates CV syllables where possible, a fact that supportsthe claim that syllables are optimally CV in the unmarked case.3.7.5. Summary and Interim AnalysisIn summary, we have seen that Vs, with or without piceding onsets, behave asphonological syllables in the morpho-phonemics of Ondo. In Ondo, unlike in Standard Yoruba,CV and V do not contrast phonologically. So, how do we account for syllabification in Ondo?Clearly, CVs syllabify in this dialect; this must be the case under any analysis of syllabification.What about onsetless Vs? Are they also syllabified as CVs with covert onsets or do they remainunsyllabified as Vs do in the Standard dialect?The first proposal which entails rendering Vs phonologically unsyllabified is a non-starter.This is because the data presented obviously show that the two dialects diverge in terms of howonsetless Vs are treated. The assumption that Vs do not syllabify in Standard Yoruba accounts forwhy they contrast with CVs in the phonology. But this analysis fails in Ondo, where there are no-contrasts between CVs and Vs. However, if exhaustive parsing is adopted, Vs without onsets willparse into syllables in exactly the same manner as CVs, and the observed similarities between CVsand Vs will follow logically. The second proposal, which entails an analysis where onsetlesssyllables are treated as Vs with covert onsets, also falls because the facts of vowel deletiondiscussed in the previous section show that onsetless Vs are not syllabified with covert onsets. Thestructural representation, of syllables in Ondo are given below:109(69) Vowels are syllabified with or without onsetsa. Onset-ful syllable b. Onset-less syllable/c3.7.6. An Optimality account of Syllabification in Ondo YorubaAs shown in the preceedling discussion, adherence to the Onset Principle is not obligatoryin Ondo Yoruba. Thus, it is possible to have phonological syllables without onsets. Recall that thefactors that converge to enforce this requirement are (a) the loss of [r], (b) the absence of [hiepenthesis. What this means in Optimality terms is that the constraints *MJCOR[r] and LEXRT areundominated. Therefore, these constraints can never be violated to generate the presence of onsetsfor syllabification in Ondo dialect. The undominated ranking of these constraints in Ondo contrastswith their low ranking in the Standard dialect, a ranking that enforces the presence of onsets forsyllabification in minimality-conditioned or templatically-conditioned environments. The obligatorysatisfaction of higher-ranked *MJCOR[rJ and LEXRT gives rise to V-only words in Undo.27(70) Standard Yoruba Undo Yorubaii [n] I [i] \u00E2\u0080\u0098see\u00E2\u0080\u0099r\u00C3\u00A2 [ra] a [a] \u00E2\u0080\u0098buy\u00E2\u0080\u0099ara [ra] *aa aa [aa] body\u00E2\u0080\u0099\u00C3\u00A8nn [1 *\u00C3\u00A7j em [iij \u00E2\u0080\u0098four\u00E2\u0080\u009927Placeless nodes, specified or unspecified, are generally not tolerated in Ondo. This implies thatFJLLPLACE is also inviolable in Undo. For instance, in addition to the loss of [r}, Ondo has no wordscontaining [hi. Words with [h] in the Standard (SY) surface in Ondo (01)) as a glide corresponding inbackness to a flanking vowel: th\u00C3\u00A0 \u00E2\u0080\u0098SY, hole\u00E2\u0080\u0099 vs. uw\u00C3\u00B4 \u00E2\u0080\u009801), hole\u00E2\u0080\u0099; ho SY, boil\u00E2\u0080\u0099 vs. wO \u00E2\u0080\u0098OD, boil\u00E2\u0080\u0099.110The data in (70) exhibits one of the major points of divergence between Ondo and the Standarddialect. Standard Yoruba, as shown, never allows V-only words: a phonological syllable is requiredin every word by properheadedness. Syllabification is achieved in Standard Yoruba if only there isan onset and a nucleus in the syllable; thus, only a CV can satisfy properheadedness. BecauseOndo permits V-only words and allows Vs to count for syllabic processes (morphemic constraintsand reduplication), one is led to conclude that CVs and Vs are licit phonological syllables in thisdialect. The facts of Ondo are straightforwardly analyzed as resulting from the high ranking ofPARSENUCj.t, NO-CODA, *WCOR[rj, and LEXRT, and the low ranking of ONS:(71) Exhaustive Syllabification: High ranking of PARSENUq.tPARSENUCI.L, NO-CODA, *WCOR[r], LEXRT>> ONSThe tableau in (72) depicts the effect of ranking PARSENUC)I and *WCOR[rj above ONS.28(NO-CODA is undominated in Ondo. It is omitted in tableau (72) because it is not crucial for thepoint of focus.)28LEXRT is not included in the the tableau because it is a general constraint that holds throughout thegrammar in Ondo. This claim is evidenced by the fact that there are no words with [h] either in the lexicalentry or in derived contexts in the dialect (see note 27). This makes a prediction that speakers of Ondowill not epenthesize [hi prevocalically in V-initial loans. I have to check this prediction with speakers.111The candidate in (72a) satisfies the high ranking constraints: PARSENUCi, NO-CODA,*WCOR[rj; it violates ONS which is a lower-ranked constraint twice; nonetheless, this candidateincurs a minimal penality. It is in fact the optimal output. By contrast, the candidates in (72b,c&d)are impossible surface forms because they (fatally) violate one high ranking constraint or the other;(72b) violates LEXRT, (72c) violates *WCOR[rJ, and (72d) violates PARSENUCi.29Whether or not [rj is part of the underlying structure in Ondo, the ranking established will prevent itfrom appearing on the surface. In other words, the absence of [r] is a lexical property of the grammar, notan idosyncratic property of lexical items.(72)29 PARSENUCI is undominated in OndoInput /OruJ PARSENUqL *MJCOR[rl LEXRT ONS7a.a aN N0 U**b.aNJI0 :4C.aN0PLCOR*!d.Nii-0 NU112Under the assumption that Vs (with or without onsets) exhaustively parse into syllables byhigher-ranked and inviolable PARSENUCJ.L, the distributive reduplication pattern attested in Ondofollows logically (67, repeated below as 73).(73) Distributive ReduplicationVCV- and VV initial nouns reduplicate in Ondoewe\u00E2\u0080\u0094 ewe-ewe \u00E2\u0080\u0098leaf\u00E2\u0080\u0094* \u00E2\u0080\u0098every leaf\u00E2\u0080\u00944 II-Il \u00E2\u0080\u0098evening\u00E2\u0080\u0099-4 \u00E2\u0080\u0098every evening\u00E2\u0080\u0099The reduplicant here is simply stated as a disyllabic foot prefix which may be spelt out as eitherVV or VCV by the syllabification algorithm of the dialect.3.8. Interdialectal variation in syllabification through constraint rankingsThus far, phonological syllabification has been analyzed as either exhaustive (Ondo) ornon-exhaustive (Gokana, Qwon-Afa, Standard Yoruba). Recognizing the viability of bothapproaches raises the question of how to characterize this diversity. In particular, how do weexpress this typological variation in formal terms without resorting to ad hoc rules and/or filters?It is not immediately obvious how this problem would be handled in standard phonological theory.However it is tackled, this typological variation can at best be captured in terms of descriptivestatements augmented with specific rules and/or filters such as the Onset Principle (40, Avoid(5[V). A plausible standard account of the interdialectal diversity in syllabification is given below:(74) a. Non-exhaustive Parsing:In Standard Yoruba, the Onset Principle is strongly invoked for syllabification (ItO1989). Thus, only CVs are syllabified. Onsetless Vs violate this condition and113consequently remain unsyllabified in the phonology. The mora, being a valid prosodiclicenser, guarantees the phonetic interpretation of onsetless Vs (Bagemihl 1991, etc).b. Exhaustive Parsing:In Ondo Yoruba, the Onset Principle is weakened, thus, both CVs and Onsetless Vs aresyllabically affiliated.In Parameterized-based approaches, this difference could be formalized as follows (YES meansparameter turned \u00E2\u0080\u009Con\u00E2\u0080\u009D No means parameter turned \u00E2\u0080\u009Coff\u00E2\u0080\u0099):(75)Yoruba ONSETa. Standard YESb. Ondo NoEven with statements such as given in (74), or the Yes/No parameter setting proposed in(75), questions still arise for such accounts. Why is the Onset principle strongly invoked in onedialect of a language and not in the other? Wbat drives the obligatory satisfaction of the Onsetprinciple in one dialect and not in the other? What does it mean to be strongly invoked vs.weakened in formal terms? Why should a parameter be totally activated in one dialect of alanguage? Why on the other hand should the same parameter be totally inert in another dialect ofthe same language? These questions cannot be easily answered in standard phonological theory.For example, under a standard analysis, the syllabification algorithm of Standard Yoruba (74a)and Ondo (74b) would simply be treated as different. There is no formal mechanism withinstandard accounts for integrating this distinction into an analysis. Parameter-based approachesalso face problems in accounting for why some syllables have onsets in the dialect where ONSET issupposedly turned \u00E2\u0080\u009Coff\u00E2\u0080\u0099. As observed, even in Ondo, syllables must have onsets if they canwithout violating either LEXRT or *MJr. A formal analysis is offered by Optimality Theory which114states that typological differences follow from the variable ranking of the constraints madeavailable by Universal Grammar.In Optimality Framework, the crucial constraints at issue are PARSENUCI.L and ONS.3\u00C2\u00B0ONS is inviolable for syllabification in Standard Yoruba, hence, undominated in the ranldnghierarchy. However, PARSENUCj.t ranks relatively low since onsetless Vs are never parsed intosyllables. In Ondo, the reverse holds in terms of ranking: PARSENUCI.L is inviolable whereas ONSis violable. This ranking enables vowels to syllabify even if they do not have onsets. The relevantrankings are given in (76) below:\u00E2\u0080\u009876) Interdialectal Syllable Structure TvpoloavDialect Exhaustivity of parsing (syllabification) Constraint Rankingsa. Standard Yoruba Only vowels with onsets syllabify ONS >> PARSENUCJJ.(non-exhaustive syllabification)b. Ondo Yoruba Vowels, with or without onsets syllabify PARSENUCI.t>> ONS(exhaustive syllabification)This analysis shows that typological variations in syllabification, both interdialectal andcrosslinguistic, can be reduced to a difference in constraint ranking. Through the principles ofviolability and ranking, the seemingly conflicting syllabification hypotheses (exhaustive vs. non-exhaustive accounts) in moraic theory, which could not be intergrated into an analysis in standardaccount receive a straightforward analysis in Optimality Theory.3.9. Syllable structure in EmalThe last case to be presented is Emal, an doid language of Nigeria. Like Ondo Yoruba,mai does not differentiate the syllabicity of vowels based on the presence or absence of onsets:vowels in mai behave as syllables even if they do not have onsets. First, evidence from the shape30As demonstrated in this chapter (3.3 and 3.4), a language specific constraint, *M/C0R[rl is also crucialfor syllabification. I set aside these specific constraints here, focussing instead on constraints which aremore general in scope for any analysis of syllabification.115of verbal roots and reduplication is presented to back up this claim. Second, the rankingestablished for Ondo Yoruba is adopted in accounting for syllabification in lmal since bothlanguages exhibit the same syllable pattern.3.9.1. Syllable types in EmaiEmai has verbal roots which may be consonant-initial or vowel-initial as shown below(data from Egbokhare 1990):(77) Verbal roota. t\u00C3\u00A2 saygb\u00C3\u00AA beatd\u00C3\u00A0 betrayb. \u00C3\u00A8 eat5 drink\u00C3\u00BC dieIn incorporating emphasis (which indicates that the speaker\u00E2\u0080\u0099s intension, expectation or belief hasbeen violated) into verbs, a syllable prefix is attached to the verbal root. The vowel of this prefixis consistently realised as a high toned [i]. The shape of the prefix is dependent upon whether ornot the root is consonant-initial. If the verb is consonant-initial, such as the forms in (77a), theprefix copies the initial consonant and surfaces as [Ci]. If, on the other hand, the verbal root isvowel-initial, the prefix is realised as a high toned [i].116(78) Derived form Glossa. t\u00C3\u00A0 ti- t\u00C3\u00A0 say; still saygbe gbl- gb\u00C3\u00A8 beat; still beatd\u00C3\u00A2 dl- d\u00C3\u00A2 betray; still betrayb. \u00C3\u00A8 \u00C3\u00AD - \u00C3\u00AA eat; still eatI - o drink;stilldrinkii I-i die;stilldieFrom the prefixation pattern presented above, mai seems to allow syllables with or withoutonsets. In this regard, it behaves like Ondo Yoruba, which was presented in the previous section.Reduplication presents futher evidence illustrating the symmetric characteristics of CVand V syllables. In marking aggregation in nouns and numerals, either a VCV or VV is prefixed tothe base, as illustrated in these examples.3\u00E2\u0080\u0099(79) Reduplicant GlossIkpOs\u00C3\u00B4 Oki - IkpOso) Iki- kp\u00C3\u00B4sO women; all womenim3h\u00C3\u00A8 (Imi- Imhe) lm\u00E2\u0080\u0099i- mh\u00C3\u00A8 men; all men\u00C3\u00A8v\u00C3\u00A1 (eve- eva) \u00C3\u00A8v\u00C3\u00A8- va two; botheea (\u00C3\u00A8\u00C3\u00A8- \u00C3\u00A8\u00C3\u00A9\u00C3\u00A0) \u00C3\u00A8\u00C3\u00A8- \u00C3\u00A9\u00C3\u00A0 three; all threeThis pattern again is familiar from Ondo Yoruba where foot reduplication is freely spelt either asVCV or VV. The above two properties, (a: minimally, words may be CV or V, and b: syllable andfoot reduplicative templates are either CV or V and VCV or VV respectively) argue that vowelsare syllabified in lmai regardless of whether they have onsets or not.\u00E2\u0080\u0098In (79), a process of deletion deletes one of the adjacent vowels in the reduplicated form. It is not clearwhich mora deletes, that of the base or the reduplicant.1173.9.2. Emai syllable structure: an OT accountSince Ondo Yoruba and mai allow vowels to syllabify with or without onsets, it isexpected that the same constraint ranking is applicable to both languages. For example, byranking PARSENUCJi. highly, all vowels are require to syllabify. By ranking ONs lowly, the factthat some syllables surface without onsets is accounted for. This ranking, previously establishedfor Ondo Yoruba, predicts the symmetric characterization of onset-less Vs and onset-ful syllables(CVs).(80) Exhaustive Syllabification in mai: PARSENUCp. outranks ONSPARSENUQa, NO-CoDA, LExRT >> ONSTo illustrate the validity of this ranking, consider how it accounts for the syllable reduplicationdata in (79) where the reduplicative prefix is either realised as CV or V, depending on whether thebase begins with a consonant or vowel.(81) RED = a, PARSENUC, LExRT >> ONSBase: ta RED = a PARSENUC__[ LEXRT ONSRED:V au-tab.i-ta *!c._hi-taIn (81), the difference between candidate (a) and candidate (b) lies in the satisfaction of ONS sinceboth satisfy all other contraints. By violating ONS, albeit a lower-ranked constraint, candidate (b)loses in the competition. The grammar selects (a) as the winner because it satisfies ONS, aproperty which makes it a better syllable. Candidate (c) is presented to show that LEXRT is not apossible option for satisfying ONS.118Compare this situation with a case involving an onsetless syllable base:(82) RED = a, PARSENUC, LExRT >> ONSBase: /e/ RED = a PARSENUC LEXRT ONSRED:V a.i-e *b.hi-e *!c.i-he *!djll.-he *!*Note that candidate (a), the optimal form, is chosen as the winner even though it does not have anonset, affirming the low-ranked status of this constraint. The failure of (b, c, d) show that it isbetter to violate ONS, a lower-ranked constraint than it is to violate LEXRT in Emai.3. Summary of typological rankingsThis chapter has examined syllabification in five languages focussing on the properties ofonsetless Vs. Two types of patterns are attested. First, there is a scenario (illustrated in languagessuch as Gokana, Qwon-Afa and Standard Yoruba) where vowels act as syllables only when theyhave onsets. The ranking established for this class of languages is one where ONS cruciallyoutranks PARSENUCj.L. The second situation, demonstrated by Ondo Yoruba and Emai, involvescases where vowels behave as syllables, with or without onsets. This system is shown to derivefrom the opposite ranking, PARSENUCI dominates ONS. These constraints interact withfaithfulness constraints such as LEXRT and LEXNUcJI. The ranking of LEX constraints, asdemonstrated in the languages discussed either induce or prevent augmentation of a phonologicalconstituent to a desired shape. A summary of the attested rankings appears in (83).119(83) Variable ranking of ONS and PARSENUCIL and Faithfulness ConstraintsLanguage RankingGokana ONS, LEXNU4L>> PARSENUCji, LExRTQwon-Afa ONS, LEXRT >> PARSENUqL, LEXNUqIStandard Yoruba ONS, LEXNUq.t>> LEXRT>> PARSENUCJJ.Ondo Yoruba PARSENUqL, LExRT, LExNUQ.t >> ONSEmai PARSENUqL, LEXRT, LEXNUC4L >> ONS120Chapter 4Footing and Headedness in non-stress systems4. 1. IntroductionOne of the fundamental arguments motivating foot structure is the observation that instress systems, stress is assigned to groupings of syllables; groupings which may either be in twosor in an unbounded shape form (Liberman 1975, Prince & Liberman 1977, Hayes 1981, tomention a few). In formal terms, the first foot type, which is the focus of interest in this chapter, isreferred to as a binary foot. A binary foot selects any two members of the prosodic constituentbelow the foot level (mora, nuclear-mora or syllable), one of which is usually the strong member orthe head. There is also a weak member which occupies the non-head position. In metricalphonology, stress is always assigned to the strong member, which occupies the head position withinthe foot.Foot structure is also present in non-stress systems. In tone languages, where tone ratherthan stress is used for lexical contrast, evidence for foot structure usually comes from the empiricaldomain of prosodic morphology such as reduplication and truncation. Featural processes may alsoselect the foot rather than morphological constituents as domain. This chapter documents evidenceof this type from non-metrical systems in Benue-Congo languages.The claim that non-stress systems make use of foot structure raises a number of theoreticalissues. These issues concern the nature and properties of foot structure: issues relating to binarity,headedness, and the issue of whether or not there is a distinction between metrical andmorphological feet. Views on these issues vary in the phonological literature. Let us begin byestablishing the two major points of agreementFirst, foot structure is assumed to be the organizing node for groupings of moras andsyllables. The main significant argument for this proposal comes from the observation that certainprocesses such as stress and reduplication apply within a domain which is larger than the mora orsyllable and smaller than the word. The formal implementation of this observation is the proposalthat the foot is the organizing node or constituent under which moras and syllables are grouped toform the domain for the application of processes like stress assignment and reduplication. Thequestion then is: how many tokens of the mora or syllable are permitted to group together under thefoot?This question leads us to the second point of agreement: the notion of binarity. Thegeneral pattern in assigning bounded stress to metrical constituents is to group moras or syllablestogether in twos. This property serves as the basis for the proposal that, in the unmarked case, footwell-formedness is determined by the principle of binarity: a foot is maximally binary either at themoraic or syllabic level (Hayes 1980, Hammond 1990, Prince 1991, M&P 1993a).Beyond this point, opinions differ on other issues: Are there degenerate feet? Do ternaryfeet occur in languages? Is there a distinction between metrical and morphological feet? Are allfeet headed? As regards the first two questions (on degenerate and ternary feet), there are twoopinions in the literature. According to one view, although languages prefer binary branching feet,the existence of degenerate and ternary feet cannot be denied (Everett and Everett 1984, Levin1988a, Rice 1991, Crowhurst 1991, Hayes 1995, to mention a few). According to the other view,degenerate and ternary feet are impossible and thus banned by UG as possible foot types inlanguages (Hayes 1991, Kager 1989).The last two questions (on metrical vs. morphological distinction and heactedness) are ofparticular interest in this chapter for the following reason. The languages to be examined here arenon-stress, yet they utilize foot structure for prosodic morphology. The critical question to beanswered regarding the property of foot structure in these languages is this: is the foot structure ina non-metrical system metrical or morphological? To answer this question, the notion ofheadedness in footing is quite significant. Again two views are expressed on headedness and footstructure in phonological literature. In M&P (1986, 1990), all foot types, metrical ormorphological, are headed. Crowhurst (1991) takes the opposite view and argues based on the122notion of headedness that there is a distinction between metrical and morphological feet: metricalfeet have heads whereas morphological feet lack heads.These two views make different predictions on the phonological relationship of footconstituents. The first view, where a head is an obligatory component of foot structure, predictsasymmetry between the two prosodic units (mora, syllable) contained within the foot: the head isassigned a special status while the non-head is not. Under the second view, however, since amorphological foot lacks a head, neither of the two prosodic members of the foot is more specialthan the other, predicting the absence of complete asymmetry. The choice of either view isdependent on empirical justification. The cases to be presented here from non-metrical systemsprovide support for the proposal that feet are headed.The remaining discussion is organized as follows. Section 4.1. presents evidence for footstructure from the empirical domain of reduplication in Standard Yoruba, Qwon-Afa and Ibibio.Three types of asymmetries provide evidence for headedness in these languages. First, in Ibibioand Qwon-Afa, heads of feet are bimoraic. This requirement induces the lenghtening of shortvowels, leftmost vowel lenghtening Ibibio (left-headedness, trochaic foot) and rightmost vowellenghtening in QwQn-Afa (rightheadedness, iambic foot). Second, in Ibibio CVCV words,obstruents are tolerated in the initial syllable while they are disallowed as onsets in the secondsyllable; this constraint induces weakening of obstruents to fricatives and [r}. Third, in Yoruba,the rightmost syllable in a VCV sequence is accorded a special status in the phonology. Section4.2. turns to the prosodic domain of truncation and demonstrates with facts from Yoruba that footstructure plays a crucial role in capturing the process of shortening. The overall analysis will bepresented within OT. Much work on prosodic morphology within OT has focussed onreduplication, while truncation has received very little attention (though see Hewitt 1994, Qla1995). This chapter will touch on the issue of how to formalize the similarities and contrastsbetween reduplication and truncation within OT. Specifically, the status of PARSE- SEG isexamined with respect to the input\u00E2\u0080\u0094output relation of the base and the reduplicant and the base andthe truncative. M&P (1994) argue that sub-total reduplication entails violations of MAX but not123violations of PARSE because the base is present in the output of reduplication. In truncation,however, the base is never present in its entirety in the output, a factor that suggests that PARSEviolations are incurred. Section 4.3. discusses the theoretical implications of this work and section4.4. summarizes the chapter.4.2. Non-metrical Foot: Evidence from ReduplicationIn this section, I will present evidence for foot structure from the empirical domain ofreduplication. Data will be presented from Yoruba, Qwon-Afa and Tbibio showing that the footis binary and headed in these languages. In Standard Yoruba, headedness is determined on thebasis of syllabification (only vowels with onsets are potential heads, vowels without onsets occupythe non-head position). In Qwon-Afa and Tbibio, the notion of headedness is motivated by thebimoraic requirement imposed on the head, a factor which triggers vowel lengthening when thehead contains an open light syllable. In another process in Ibibio, syllables in CVCV words exhibitasymmetries with respect to the tolerance of obstruents: the first syllable tolerates obstruents whileobstruents are generally weakened in the second syllable. This is treated as a case involvingasymmetries between the head and non-head position within the foot.4.2.1. Foot Structure in YorubaFour types of phonological phenomena are given as evidence for foot structure in Yoruba:(a) Ideophone Reduplication signifying disorderliness, (b) Agentive reduplication, (c) NumeralDistributive, (d) Back Harmony. Each process is discussed in the following sub-sections.1244.2.1.1. Ideophone ReduplicationAwoyale (1974, 1989) documents a copious number of reduplicative processes involvingideophones in Yoruba. These processes exhibit interesting patterns which are significant for thetheory of prosodic morphology. Two basic patterns are observed: the non-templatically governedand the templatically constrained. Let us examine the first pattern. Virtually all ideophonesundergo total reduplication of both the segmental and tonal melody and the resulting meaning is\u00E2\u0080\u009Ceven intensity\u00E2\u0080\u009D. Representative data appear in (1). The meaning of the base form appears in thegloss, to this is added the meaning \u00E2\u0080\u009Ceven intensity\u00E2\u0080\u009D after reduplication.(1) Ideophone Reduplication signifying \u00E2\u0080\u009Ceven intensity\u00E2\u0080\u009D: total reduplicationReduplicated Form Glossr\u00C3\u00A2kO r\u00C3\u00A0kO-r\u00C3\u00A0kO dull (appearance or color)rOdO r\u00C3\u00B3dO-r\u00C3\u00B4d\u00C3\u00B4 brightr\u00C3\u00B3b\u00C3\u00B3t\u00C3\u00B3 r\u00C3\u00B3bdt\u00C3\u00B3-r\u00C3\u00B3b\u00C3\u00B3t\u00C3\u00B3 small and round (object)gb\u00C3\u00A2\u00C3\u00A7idI gb\u00C3\u00A0gIdI-gb\u00C3\u00A0gIdi bulkyferegede feregede-feregede large and widegb\u00C3\u00A0r\u00C3\u00A2g\u00C3\u00A0d\u00C3\u00A0 gb\u00C3\u00A2r\u00C3\u00A0g\u00C3\u00A2d\u00C3\u00A0-gb\u00C3\u00A0r\u00C3\u00A0g\u00C3\u00A0da fallingFrom the viewpoint of prosodic morphology, the above process involving total reduplication is notprosodically governed, a situation in which morphology takes precedence over prosody. In OT(M&P 1993, 1994), total reduplication is governed by the following undominated constraint.(2) Constraint governing total reduplication in OTMAX : The reduplicant is identical to the base125With this constraint, we can account for the data in (1) as fo1lows(3) MAX is undominatedIn (3), the last three candidates are rejected because they violate the undominated constraint:reduplication is partial, not total, in these forms. The first candidate which reduplicates in itsentirety, in contrast obeys MAX and is selected as the optimal form.Let us turn to the templatically governed type of reduplication. In expressing\u00E2\u0080\u009Cdisorderliness\u00E2\u0080\u009D, only a subset of ideophones are selected for reduplication. Consider the data in(4) below.(4) Ideophone Reduplication signifying \u00E2\u0080\u009Cdisorderliness\u00E2\u0080\u009DReduolicated Formj\u00C3\u00A0l\u00C3\u00A0b\u00C3\u00A0l\u00C3\u00B1y\u00C3\u00A8lw\u00C3\u00B1r\u00C3\u00BCr\u00C3\u00A0d\u00C3\u00A0bOrOj\u00C3\u00A1la-j\u00C3\u00A0lab\u00C3\u00A1lu-b\u00C3\u00A0luyl\u00C3\u00A7-yl\u00C3\u00A7w\u00C3\u00BCru-w\u00C3\u00B1rur\u00C3\u00A1da-r\u00C3\u00A0dab\u00C3\u00B3ro-b\u00C3\u00B4roGlossmoving shabbilyunsteady movementcarelesslydisorderlysluggishopen and drippyAs shown by the data in (4), the base of reduplication is always two syllables long and itreduplicates totally. The tonal melody expressing \u00E2\u0080\u009Cdisorderliness\u00E2\u0080\u009D, HMLM, maps on to the vowelsof the reduplicant from left-to-right, displacing whatever tone the base originally had. By merelyBASE: MAXREDUP:v\u00E2\u0080\u0099a. f\u00C3\u00A7r\u00C3\u00A7g\u00C3\u00A7d- f\u00C3\u00A7rcg\u00C3\u00A7dcJc b. f\u00C3\u00A7r\u00C3\u00A7g\u00C3\u00A7d\u00C3\u00A7- g\u00C3\u00A7d\u00C3\u00A7 *!***X c. f\u00C3\u00A7r\u00C3\u00A7ged\u00C3\u00A7- r\u00C3\u00A7g\u00C3\u00A7d\u00C3\u00A7 *!*Jc d. f\u00C3\u00A7r\u00C3\u00A7gd\u00C3\u00A7- f\u00C3\u00A7r\u00C3\u00A7g\u00C3\u00A7 *!*126looking at the data in (4), one could hypothesize that this is yet another instantiation of totalreduplication, as shown for example in the data in (1). However, a difference emerges when longerbases are considered: reduplication fails to apply. Relevant examples appear below.(5) Unattested Forms:Reduplicated Forms Glossrpt *rp\u00C3\u00A7tcrp\u00C3\u00A7te bulky (soft)gb\u00C3\u00A0r\u00C3\u00A0g\u00C3\u00A2d\u00C3\u00A0 *gb\u00C3\u00A1ragada..gbaragada fallingThe contrast in the reduplication process in (4) and (5) is accounted for if we assume, followingDowning (1994), that prosodic restrictions may be imposed on the base of reduplication, in thiscase the prosodic requirement that the base of reduplication must be a foot. Formalized within OT,the prosodic conditions governing the reduplication pattern in (4) is defined as follows:(6) Prosodic Constraints governing the shape of the base and the reduplicant:a. BASEFootb. RED= FootBoth constraints are undominated, as evident from a comparison of the following two tableaux.(7) BASE = Ft, RED = FtBASE: /b\u00C3\u00A0liV BASE = Ft I RED = FtVa. b\u00C3\u00A1lu- b\u00C3\u00A2lub.b\u00C3\u00A1lu-b\u00C3\u00A0The second candidate in (7) is sub-optimal because the reduplicant is not a binary foot, a factorthat prevents the tonal specification of this reduplicative process (HMLM) from being fullyrealised. The option of linking the two tonal melodies - LM- to a single vowel or tone-bearing unit127(ii) is unavailable in Yoruba because of the one-to-one linking constraint between mora and tone inthe phonology. Candidate (Th) therefore emerges as the winner, since the base and the reduplicantare binary footed.Now, consider tableau (8).(8) BASE=Ft,RED=FtBASE: /r\u00C3\u00A8p\u00C3\u00A8t\u00C3\u00A8/ BASE = Ft RED = FtX a repete-repe *,JC b. rpet-rp\u00C3\u00A7t\u00C3\u00A7 *Tableau (8) involves a situation where the base violates the binary foot condition imposed on it bythe grammar. This accounts for why both candidates are rejected. Notice that (8a) is still ill-formed in spite of the fact that the reduplicant obeys RED = Ft, a fact that shows that BASE = Ft isequally undominated. Both constraints must be satisfied for the output to be well-formed, asdemonstrated by the licitness of (7b: b\u00C3\u00A1lu - b\u00C3\u00A0lu). The optimal situation for longer forms is a NullParse (M&P 1993a: 112), defined as follows(9) M-PARsEMorphemes are parsed into morphological constituentsAlthough this constraint was originally formulated to capture the failure of morphological parsingin cases where illicit outputs would result (e.g. {think, ation} which never surfaces in English), itmay be applied to prosodically constrained processes such as the data forms in (5). If BASE = Ftand RED = Ft outrank M-PARSE, the optimal output is the one which does not reduplicate.(10) BASE Ft, RED = Ft>> M-PARSEBASE: Ir\u00C3\u00A8p\u00C3\u00A8t\u00C3\u00AAl BASE = Ft RED = Ft M-PARSEa repete-repe *b. rp\u00C3\u00A7te-rpet\u00C3\u00A7 j *! *v\u00E2\u0080\u0099c.r\u00C3\u00AApte j *128The proposal that this process is foot-constrained provides a straightforward explanationfor the well-formedness of the forms in (4): the base of reduplication is a foot and meets theprosodic condition imposed on the base. The failure of reduplication in (5) is also explainedbecause the base of reduplication is longer than a foot.4.2.1.2. Agentive ReduplicationA second argument for foot structure is provided by agentive reduplication (Pulleyblank &Akinlabi 1988). Reduplicated agentives are productively formed when the following conditions aresatisfied: (a) a CVCV verb phrase (comprising a CV verb and a VCV object reduced to CVCV byvowel deletion) is the base of reduplication, (b) the CVCV is reduplicated in its entirety. Thefollowing data show this process.(11) Agentive ReduplicationReduplicated Formk\u00C3\u00B3l\u00C3\u00A9 k\u00C3\u00B3l\u00C3\u00A9-k\u00C3\u00B3l\u00C3\u00A9jdI jdl-jdIyInriin 4nrn-ylnrfthl\u00C3\u00A1mi l\u00C3\u00A1mi-l\u00C3\u00A1min\u00C3\u00A1w\u00C3\u00B3 n\u00C3\u00A1w\u00C3\u00B3-n\u00C3\u00A1w\u00C3\u00B3jayd jayd-jay\u00C3\u00A9Glossinvade a house; thiefeat anus; piletwist neck; meningitislick water; a type of water insectspend money; extravagant personenjoy life; lover of pleasureAgain, the pattern of reduplication in (11) is accounted for if we assume that there is a Foot limitprosodic restriction on the base and the reduplicant. The same constraints required for theideophone-type reduplication ( b\u00C3\u00A1lu b\u00C3\u00A0lu versus r\u00C3\u00A9pete-r\u00C3\u00A8pete ) are also needed in this case (6is repeated for ease of reference):129(12) Prosodic Constraints governing the shape of the base and the reduplicant:a. BASE=Footb. RED=FootThe following tableau demonstrates the relevance of these constraints.(13) BASE = Ft, RED = FtI BASE: Ikdl\u00C3\u00A9/ A BASE = Ft I RED = FtVa k\u00C3\u00B3l\u00C3\u00AB - k\u00C3\u00B3l\u00C3\u00A9x b. k\u00C3\u00B3l\u00C3\u00A9-k\u00C3\u00B3 *!Candidate (13a) does not fully satisfy the constraint requirement: it obeys BASE = Ft, but failsRED = Ft and is thus considered ill-formed. Candidate (b), on the other hand, satisfies bothconstraints and surfaces as the winner.Pulleyblank & Akinlabi (1988), however document some examples which do not conformto the general pattern described and analysed above:(14) Reduplicated Form GlosssOdodo sOdodo-sOdodo truthful person (e \u00E2\u0080\u0098do\u00E2\u0080\u0099 Ododo \u00E2\u0080\u0098truth\u00E2\u0080\u0099)\u00C3\u00A8b\u00C3\u00A2j \u00C3\u00A8b\u00C3\u00A0j-\u00C3\u00AAb\u00C3\u00A0j evil-doer (e \u00E2\u0080\u0098do\u00E2\u0080\u0099 Ib\u00C3\u00A0j \u00E2\u0080\u0098badness\u00E2\u0080\u0099)y\u00C3\u00A4n11\u00C3\u00A19 y\u00C3\u00A1rn1\u00C3\u00A1-y\u00C3\u00A1ni1\u00C3\u00A1\u00C3\u00A7 cloth-lender (yd lend\u00E2\u0080\u0099 \u00C3\u00A7ni \u00E2\u0080\u0098person\u00E2\u0080\u0099 ni\u00E2\u0080\u0098syntactic case marker\u00E2\u0080\u0099, aso \u00E2\u0080\u0098cloth\u00E2\u0080\u0099)f\u00C3\u00A9nil\u00C3\u00B3m\u00C3\u00A7 somebody who takes peoples\u00E2\u0080\u0099 daughtersand marries them (f \u00E2\u0080\u0098marry\u00E2\u0080\u0099 cm \u00E2\u0080\u0098person\u00E2\u0080\u0099ni \u00E2\u0080\u0098syntactic case marker\u00E2\u0080\u0099 \u00C3\u00A7m \u00E2\u0080\u0098child\u00E2\u0080\u0099)130The data in (14) have two exceptional properties which distinguish them from the data in (1 1).First, unlike the forms in (11), each of the forms in (14) have another agentive variant which isderived by attaching /aJ -prefix to the verb phrase.(15) Prefixed Form GlosssOdodo a-sOdodo truthful person (e \u00E2\u0080\u0098do\u00E2\u0080\u0099 Ododo \u00E2\u0080\u0098truth\u00E2\u0080\u0099)\u00C3\u00AAb\u00C3\u00A3j a-\u00C3\u00AAb\u00C3\u00A0j\u00C3\u00A9 evil-doer (e \u00E2\u0080\u0098do\u00E2\u0080\u0099 Ib\u00C3\u00A0j \u00E2\u0080\u0098badness\u00E2\u0080\u0099)y\u00C3\u00A1nil\u00C3\u00A1so a-y\u00C3\u00A1nil\u00C3\u00A1so cloth-lender (y\u00C3\u00A1 \u00E2\u0080\u0098lend\u00E2\u0080\u0099 cm \u00E2\u0080\u0098person\u00E2\u0080\u0099 nI\u00E2\u0080\u0098syntactic case marker\u00E2\u0080\u0099, a\u00C3\u00A7 \u00E2\u0080\u0098cloth\u00E2\u0080\u0099)fnil\u00C3\u00B3mo a-f\u00C3\u00A9nilOmo somebody who takes peoples\u00E2\u0080\u0099 daughtersand marries them (f\u00C3\u00A9 \u00E2\u0080\u0098marry\u00E2\u0080\u0099 \u00C3\u00A7ni \u00E2\u0080\u0098person\u00E2\u0080\u0099ni \u00E2\u0080\u0098syntactic case marker\u00E2\u0080\u0099 \u00C3\u00A7m\u00C3\u00A7 \u00E2\u0080\u0098child)But it is impossible to have the same process apply to the forms in (11):(16) Reduplicated Form Glossk\u00C3\u00B3l\u00C3\u00A9 k\u00C3\u00B3l\u00C3\u00A9-k\u00C3\u00B3l\u00C3\u00A9 *akdl\u00C3\u00A9 invade a house; thiefjdl jd1-jd\u00E2\u0080\u0099i *aj\u00C3\u00A8di eat anus; pileyinriin ylryinn\u00E2\u0080\u0099in *a.yjpj twist neck; meningitisl\u00C3\u00A1mi l\u00C3\u00A1mi-l\u00C3\u00A1mi *a4\u00C3\u00A1mi to lick water; a type of water insectn\u00C3\u00A1w\u00C3\u00B3 n\u00C3\u00A1wd-n\u00C3\u00A1w\u00C3\u00B3 *an\u00C3\u00A1w\u00C3\u00B3 to spend money; extravagant personSecond, unlike the forms in (11, repeated in 16) which are accepted by all speakers, thereis a split judgement among speakers with respect to the acceptability of (14). For some, they aremarked but possible forms (A. Akinlabi, personal communication); for others, they are simplyimpossible. For the latter type of speaker the forms in (15) are the only acceptable forms foragentives whose verbal bases exceed two syllables.131The exceptional properties of(14) are explained if, as proposed, there is a foot limitrestriction on the base and the reduplicant. In (14), both the base and the reduplicant are largerthan a foot and are predicted to be marked, as they turn out to be.4.2.1.3. Numeral DistributiveA third argument for foot structure in Yoruba comes from distributive numerals which areproductively derived by reduplicating the leftmost VCV in the base: If the base is a VCV, as in(17a), total reduplication applies, if on the other hand the base is longer as in the forms in (17b),the leftmost VCV is reduplicated. Consider the following examples.(17) Distributive NumeralsBase Reduplicated Form Glossa. \u00C3\u00B4kan OkO-Okan one\u00C3\u00A8ji \u00C3\u00A8j\u00C3\u00AA-\u00C3\u00A8ji twoeta \u00C3\u00A8t\u00C3\u00AA-\u00C3\u00A8ta three\u00C3\u00A0nin \u00C3\u00A0r\u00C3\u00A0-\u00C3\u00A0riin fiveb. ogojI ogo-og\u00C3\u00B3jI forty\u00C3\u00A7)g<)ta 9g9-9g(ta sixtyygnn 9gy-Qg(nn eightyygnin-iin \u00C3\u00A7gy-\u00C3\u00A7gdriin-iin hundredAn explanation of the distributive numeral formatives again is obtained in prosodic terms if weassume that the reduplicant is a foot prefix. However, the data in (16) differ from the two sets ofthta examined previously in that the foot prosodic limit is imposed on the reduplicant only, unlikein the previous cases where the base and the reduplicant are prosodically constrained. Thus, wesee in (17) that the base may contain materials which are longer than the foot: VCV or VCVCV.132Under the assumption that the reduplicant is a foot, we derive a straightforward explanation forwhy the reduplicant is systematically expressed as VCV rather than VCVCV.In Optimality framework, the requirement that the reduplicant be a foot is accounted for bythe constraint in (1 8a), while the prefixal position of the reduplicant can be accounted for by thealignment constraint in (18b).(18) Constraints governing the formation of numeral distributivesa. RED = Foot: The left and right edges of RED must coincide with the left and rightedges of a binary footb. ALIGN RED (RED, Left, Stem, Left)The left-to-right mapping of the base to the reduplicant is accounted for by the followingundominated constraints:(19) a. ANCH-Lb. CONTIGUITYFinally, MAX, the constraint that requires identity between the base and the reduplicant, is violablebecause in cases where the base is longer than a foot reduplication is not total: the reduplicant isidentical only to the leftmost foot of the base. The ranking and tableau that obtain this effect areshown in (18, undominated ANCH and CONTIGUITY are not included).(20) RED = Ft, ALIGN-RED>> MAXBASE: Ioqota/ RED = FtX a. \u00C3\u00A7gta-Qgta *!x b. og\u00C3\u00B3ta-ataVc. ogo-QgtaI ATJGN-\u00E2\u0080\u0099D I133The tableau in (18) depicts the effects of the ranking established for the numeral distributives:candidate (a) fails because the reduplicant is larger than a foot, candidate (b) is rejected because itdisobeys higher-ranked ALIGN-RED which requires that the reduplicant be expressed at the leftedge of the word, and candidate (c) is the optimal form because it respects the highly rankedconstraints that the two candidates violate; MAX, a lowly ranked constraint is violated by (c), butdoes not prohibit the well-formedness of the candidate.4.2.1.4. Back HarmonyThe fourth argument for foot structure comes from a rounding harmony involving twoaffixes: /1<1/ infixation and /oml prefixation. First, let us consider fkiJ infixation. There is a robustdescriptive literature on /id! infixation, a morphological process in which 1kW is inserted betweentwo identical nominals. The meaning expressed by the derived forms is \u00E2\u0080\u009Cany NP or bad NP\u00E2\u0080\u009D(Owolabi 1976, 1981, 1985, Awobuluyi 1983, Bamgbose 1987). Examples illustrating thisprocess are given below:(21) fkIJ infixation signifying \u00E2\u0080\u009Cany NP or bad NP\u00E2\u0080\u009Da. Consonant-initial nounsNoun cIL Noun Output Glossfil\u00C3\u00A0 ki fil\u00C3\u00A2 fil\u00C3\u00A0kifila any type of capd\u00C3\u00BCni Id d\u00C3\u00BCrt dmikid\u00C3\u00BCrfi any type of pianop\u00C3\u00A1t\u00C3\u00A1k\u00C3\u00B3 Id p\u00C3\u00A1t\u00C3\u00A1k\u00C3\u00B3 p\u00C3\u00A1t\u00C3\u00A1k\u00C3\u00B3kip\u00C3\u00A1t\u00C3\u00A1k\u00C3\u00B3 any type of woodj\u00C3\u00A0g\u00C3\u00BCda ki j\u00C3\u00A0g\u00C3\u00BCd\u00C3\u00A2 j\u00C3\u00A0g\u00C3\u00BCd\u00C3\u00A0kij\u00C3\u00A0g\u00C3\u00B1d\u00C3\u00A0 any thiefj\u00C3\u00A0\u00C3\u00B1d\u00C3\u00BCkii ki j\u00C3\u00A2\u00C3\u00B1d\u00C3\u00BCkii j\u00C3\u00A0\u00C3\u00B1d\u00C3\u00B1lciikij\u00C3\u00A0\u00C3\u00B1d\u00C3\u00BCkii any dubious personsw\u00C3\u00A9dow\u00C3\u00B3 Id sw\u00C3\u00A9dow\u00C3\u00B3 sw\u00C3\u00A9dow\u00C3\u00B3kisw\u00C3\u00A9dowd any check134b. Vowel-initial nounsNoun /JcL Noun Output GlossQmQ ki \u00C3\u00A7m\u00C3\u00A7 Qm9kmQ any childi Id is\u00C3\u00A9 is\u00C3\u00A9kis\u00C3\u00A9 any jober\u00C3\u00A9 ki er\u00C3\u00A9 er\u00C3\u00A9kdr\u00C3\u00A9 any playolo\u00C3\u00B1 ki olo\u00C3\u00B1 olo\u00C3\u00B1k\u00C3\u00B3lo\u00C3\u00B1 any queenak\u00C3\u00A9kO\u00C3\u00B3 ki ak\u00C3\u00A9kO\u00C3\u00B3 ak\u00C3\u00A9k\u00C3\u00B4\u00C3\u00B3k\u00C3\u00A1k\u00C3\u00A9k\u00C3\u00B4\u00C3\u00B3 any studental\u00C3\u00A1k\u00C3\u00B4w\u00C3\u00A9 Id al\u00C3\u00A1kOw\u00C3\u00A9 al\u00C3\u00A1k\u00C3\u00B4w\u00C3\u00A9k\u00C3\u00A1l\u00C3\u00A1k\u00C3\u00B4w\u00C3\u00A9 any educated personNotice in the examples in (21) that the surface realisation of /kul varies depending on whether thefollowing noun is C-initial or V-initial. When the noun is C-initial, /kul remains unchanged.However, when the noun following the infix is V-initial, a hiatus context is created between thefinal vowel of /kil and the initial vowel of the second noun. To resolve the hiatus, il is deletedbefore other vowels because it is the least specified vowel in the language (Pulleyblank 1987,1988); its high tone, however, is realised in the surface form (see Akinlabi 1985, Pulleyblank 1986for discussions on tonal specification in Yoruba). The vowel deletion process applies regardless ofthe prosodic shape of the noun as demonsirated in (21b).The scenario changes when we consider hiatus resolution in cases involving deverbalnouns derived productively by prefixing a low toned lu to verbal bases. Consider the following setof data.135(22) Vowel hiatus resolution in deverbal nouns: surviving high vowel is rounded:Infixation and Reduplication GlossIwo IwOkuwO looking; bad lookIe Iek\u00C3\u00BCe doing; bad conduct\u00E2\u0080\u0098Ije Ijekiije eating; bad eating\u00E2\u0080\u0098It\u00C3\u00A0 It\u00C3\u00A0kut\u00C3\u00A0 selling; bad sellingim imOkum) knowledge; bad knowledgelyl lyikli3iIi turning; bad turningNotice in (22) that all the verbal bases have one property in common: all are monosyllabic.Observe also that the hiatus resolution not only deletes one of the vowels as expected, but therounding or backness property of the surviving vowel is also different: the surviving vowel is [UI,not [iJ as one might expect. This process applies exceptionlessly in Standard Yoruba and is asubject of lively debate in the phonological literature of the language: it is variously characterizedas (a) coalescence (Awobuluyi 1983, 1987), (b) a relic of dialectal influence in Standard Yoruba(Bamgbose 1987), and (c) back harmony between the velar stop/k! and the vowel hi (Pulleyblank198 8). Whatever the correct analysis of this fact, the critical point for the discussion here is thedomain of the application of this process. If the process were a purely segmental phenomenawhich is presumably driven by the syllabification well-formedness requirement (as argued inchapter 3), one would expect it to apply across the board to all deverbal nouns. This expectation isnot fulfilled: when ui is prefixed to bases longer that CV verbs, the output of vowel hiatusresolution is /1/ not IuJ, as attested to by the following data.136(23) High vowel Rounding is blocked in longer forms:Infixation and Reduplication GlossImOr\u00C3\u00A2n ImOr\u00C3\u00A0n ki mOran imOr\u00C3\u00A0n lcd mOran advice, bad adviceidiir\u00C3\u00B3 Idiir\u00C3\u00B3 lcd d\u00C3\u00BCdr\u00C3\u00B3 *1d\u00C3\u00B3 kid diiro standing; bad standingIy\u00C3\u00A9si IysI lcd ys1 ysI kid ysd respect; bad respectIj\u00C3\u00B3kO\u00C3\u00B3 Ij\u00C3\u00B3kOd lcd j\u00C3\u00B3k\u00C3\u00B4\u00C3\u00B3 \u00E2\u0080\u0098ij\u00C3\u00B3kO\u00C3\u00B3 kid j\u00C3\u00B3kOo sitting, bad sittingIdidj iddj ki d\u00C3\u00A0\u00C3\u00A1j \u00E2\u0080\u009CIddj\u00C3\u0098 kid d\u00C3\u00A2dj\u00C3\u00A7 judgement, bad judgement\u00E2\u0080\u0098iydpad\u00C3\u00A2 Iyipad\u00C3\u00A0 ki yipad\u00C3\u00A0 \u00E2\u0080\u009Ciydpad\u00C3\u00A0 kid ydpada change; bad changeThe difference in resolving vowel hiatus in (22 &23) suggests that the rounding harmony issensitive to something else. I propose that the additional factor needed to capture the roundingprocess is the notion of foot structure. Specifically, I propose that the rounding harmony whichturns the low toned [ii deverbal prefix into [u] applies within the domain of the rightmostfoot inthe word. Once we delimit the domain of [iJ rounding to the rightmost foot, the constraintsrequired to capture the facts can now be stated as follows.(24) Constraints deriving the rounding harmonya. Foot-Bin: Foot is binary at the moraic or syllabic analysis.b. ALIGN-FOOT (WD, R; Ft, R): The right edge of the word must coincide with the rightedge of a foot.c. NO-HIATUS: Vowel Hiatus is prohibited across morpheme boundaryd. [[ij-ROIJNDING]FOOT: If low toned [1] is contained within the rightmost foot in deverbalconstruction, then it is rounded.Constraint (24d) is stipulated to capture the tone-vowel interaction rounding phenomenon whichappears to be triggered by the presence of the low tone on the high vowel. It is unclear at presentwhy a low tone would induce back hannony. All other constraints are familiar from other137processes discussed previously. I will motivate the ranking of each of these constraints as eachcase is presented. Consider a case involving vowel hiatus resolution between /kiJ and a deverbalV-CV noun as shown in the following tableau.(25) Ft-Bin, ALIGN-Ft, [fll-ROU DING1P(-y-IT_NO-HIATUsIn (25), all three candidates respect Ft-Bin and AuGN-Ft. However, candidate (b), in which therightmost foot is ternary, is sub-optimal because it violates [C1J-ROUNDII\u00E2\u0080\u00994G1FOOT, candidate (c) isINPUT\u00E2\u0080\u00991yl- ki \u00E2\u0080\u0098lyl Ft-Bin jJGN-Ft1[flJ-ROUNDING1pnoT NO-HIATUS\u00E2\u0080\u009Ca./\PrWd PrWdR R,\u00E2\u0080\u009CGo7iyi kuyub. *!/\PrWd PrWdFt Ft/\a a7iyi kiyiic. *!WDPrWd PrWdFt Ft/\a a a\7L 7lyl ki iyi138ifi-formed because it does not obey NO-HIATUS. The illicitness of these two forms shows that [[1]-ROUND1NG1FJT and NO-HIATUS must be respected when there respective structural requirementsare satisfied. The first candidate is chosen as the optimal form: it respects No-HIATUS andvacuously satisfies [[il-ROUNDINGIFOOT because the structural condition for the rounding processis not satisfied as [ku does not constitute part of the rightmost foot.To further motivate the constraints given in (24) and the relevant rankings, consider a caseof /kil infixation with a V-CVCV deverbal base where the surviving vowel is an unrounded highvowel. Ft-Bin and ALIGN-Ft are the relevant constraints for evaluation here.(26) Ft-Bin, ALIGN-Ft. [rl]-ROUNDING]RflflT, NO-HIATUS_________INPUT: Idtir\u00C3\u00B3- Id - \u00E2\u0080\u0098idtlr\u00C3\u00B3 Ft-Bin I ALIGN-Ft [fl]-ROUNDING]FT NO-HIATUSVa. vacuously satisfied/\PrWd PrWdFt Ft//\ //\/ a a faaNUCa \u00E2\u0080\u0098s\u00C3\u00A771 duro ki__duuro________b. *!PrWd PrWd/ aaNUCc7 /i duro kuduuroC.WDPrWd PrWd/a /NoNUC7II1 duro kuduu ro139The rightmost foot in candidate (b) is ternary branching and it thus incurs a fatal violation of FtBin, and candidate (c) is rejected because it fails to obey ALTGN-Ft, as the rightmost binary footthis form is not expressed at the right edge of the word. In contrast, candidate (a) surfaces as theoptimal form because it obeys the undominated constraints. Note in particular that the failure tofoot /id! in the rightmost foot enables it to satisfy the rounding constraint in a vacuous fashion.The second construction in which high vowel rounding occurs involves the prefixation of/onil to deverbal nominals.\u00E2\u0080\u0099(27) Prefixation Output Gloss1-fe ont-lf\u00C3\u00A9 ol\u00C3\u00BCf\u00C3\u00A9 *of\u00C3\u00A9 owner-love; loverI- ohl\u00C3\u00B3 *onis\u00C3\u00B3 owner-watching; one who keepswatchI-k\u00C3\u00B3 oni-ik\u00C3\u00B3 olfik\u00C3\u00B3 *onlk\u00C3\u00B3 owner-teaching; teacherI-b\u00C3\u00BCkdn onl-lb\u00C3\u00BCkLin ol\u00C3\u00BCbiIktin *onib\u00C3\u00BCn owner-blessing; one whoblesses\u00E2\u0080\u0098i-gb\u00C3\u00A0l\u00C3\u00A0 oni4gb\u00C3\u00A0l\u00C3\u00A0 ol\u00C3\u00BCgb\u00C3\u00A0l\u00C3\u00A2 *onigbala owner-saving; saviorI-wOran oni-Iw\u00C3\u00B4ran ol\u00C3\u00BCwOran *oulwOran owner-gazing; spectatorIn (25), the prefixation of /onil to a vowel initial deverbal nominal creates a hiatus environment.This causes one of the high vowels to delete. Following deletion and a denasaiization processwhich changes In! to /1/ before other vowels apart from hi (Oyelaran 1970, Pulleyblank 1988), the\u00E2\u0080\u0098To derive the meaning \u00E2\u0080\u009Cowner or possessor of NP\u00E2\u0080\u009D in Yoruba, two nominalizing prefixes, /on\u00E2\u0080\u0099i/ and /onilare prefixed to nouns (see Bamgbose 1987 for details). These prefixes appear to be somewhatcomplementary in distribution; the former /onul is typically prefixed to any nominal (oni + \u00C3\u00B4t ; ol\u00C3\u00B31\u00E2\u0080\u0098owner of poverty, poor person\u00E2\u0080\u0099; oni + Igb\u00C3\u00A0gb\u00C3\u00B3: onigb\u00C3\u00A0gb\u00C3\u00B3 \u00E2\u0080\u0098owner of believe, christian\u00E2\u0080\u0099), while deverbalnominals exclusively select the the latter prefix Iom, e.g. om + Ise: ole *othse*onise, \u00E2\u0080\u0098owner of action,doer\u00E2\u0080\u0099!. Certain nominals which are clearly non-deverbal forms are also nominalized by /onii, for example,on, + \u00C3\u00B4t\u00C3\u00A8; ol\u00C3\u00B4t\u00C3\u00AA \u00E2\u0080\u0098owner of conspiracy, rebel\u00E2\u0080\u0099; oni + \u00C3\u00A0\u00C3\u00A0y\u00C3\u00A8; al\u00C3\u00A0\u00C3\u00A0y\u00C3\u00A8. Notice however, that these forms aresthkingly low-tone initial, an important trade-mark of the deverbal nominals under discussion.Prefixation to non deverbal forms only trigger vowel deletion whereas prefixation to deverbal formstrigger both vowel deletion and high vowel rounding as discussed in this chapter.140surviving high vowel surfaces as a high rounded vowel [u], in exactly the same fashion aswitnessed for lid! infixation in (22). The analysis of this data requires the following OTconstraints, one of which was motivated earlier.(28) Constraints deriving the font! rounding harmonya. ALIGN- oni (oni, L; WD, L):The left edge of font! must coincide with the left edge of the word.b. NO-HIATUS: Vowel Hiatus is prohibited across morpheme boundaryc. lorn/-ROUNDING: hi is is rounded in the leftmost foot when prefixed to deverbal nouns.d. ALIGN-FOOT (oni, L; Ft, L):The left edge of Ionil must coincide with the left edge of a foot.The constraints in (28) are proposed to account for the facts in (20) as follows: (28a) accounts forthe fact that /oni! is a prefix which occurs at the left edge of the word, (28b) accounts for thedeletion effect, (28c) accounts for the high vowel rounding effect. These constraints are inviolableas depicted in the following tableau, where the optimal candidate is the one in which all theconstraints are satisfied.(29) ALIGN- om, NO-HIATUS, Ionil-ROUNDINPUT: /oni4gb\u00C3\u00A0l\u00C3\u00A0/ ALIGN- onia. Igb\u00C3\u00A0l\u00C3\u00A0-onu___________________________________b. \u00E2\u0080\u0098Igb\u00C3\u00A0l\u00C3\u00A0-nu *!c._om-Igb\u00C3\u00A0lad. onigb\u00C3\u00A2l\u00C3\u00A2e. ol\u00C3\u00B1qb\u00C3\u00A2l\u00C3\u00A0i**! *II. .,..1414.2.1.5. Footing and Headedness in Standard Yoruba: evidence from deletionUntil now, we have presented evidence demonstrating the presence and vitality of footstructure in Yoruba, but have not touched on the issue of whether or not footing requires thepresence of a head. To briefly show that heads are required for footing, consider once more theprocess of intervocalic [r] deletion which was presented in the discussion on syllabification inchapter 3 (the structural description for this process requires either (a) total identity of the vowelsflanking [r], or (b) one of the vowels is [\u00C3\u00B7high]).(30) Fri deletiona. eriIp\u00E2\u0080\u0094 ep \u00E2\u0080\u0098sand\u00E2\u0080\u0099\u00E2\u0080\u0094 \u00E2\u0080\u0098god\u00E2\u0080\u0099oriki\u00E2\u0080\u0094 ooki \u00E2\u0080\u0098praise name\u00E2\u0080\u0099orori oon *0(51 \u00E2\u0080\u0098mausoleum\u00E2\u0080\u0099b. on \u00E2\u0080\u0094 *01 \u00E2\u0080\u0098head\u00E2\u0080\u0099tr\u00C3\u00A1 \u00E2\u0080\u0094 *aa \u00E2\u0080\u0098thunder\u00E2\u0080\u0099or6 \u00E2\u0080\u0094 *yj \u00E2\u0080\u0098pain\u00E2\u0080\u0099or * \u00E2\u0080\u0098wealth\u00E2\u0080\u0099The structural description for [r] deletion is satisfied in all the data in (30), yet [r] deletion ispossible in (30a) but impossible in (30b). In (30) there is a crucial difference between the inputforms in (a) and (b): the former contains two CV syllables in the input form whereas the latter hasonly one CV in the input. What is the relevance of this description to the different deletion patternsillustrated in (30)? In the output of deletion in (a), a CV is still present in the word; in contrast in(b), the result of deletion yields a sequence of two vowels which in prosodic terms qualifies as abinary foot. Why then is this form illicit even though it satisfies foot binarity?142The difference in the deletion process is explained if we assume that a syllable is the headof a foot. As argued in chapter 3 for Standard Yoruba, only vowels with onsets are syllables, andconsequently, only CVs qualify as heads of a foot. The foot in (30b) would not be headed if [r]deletion were to apply; the obligatoriness of heads in foot structure, then, correctly predicts theabsence of [r] deletion in these forms. The data in (30a) also offer some information on thelocation of a head within a foot in Yoruba: the syllable head is expressed at the tight edge of thefoot as evident from a form such as (or6\u00C3\u00B1 o6\u00C3\u00B1 *o&,*or\u00C3\u00B3j) where the two [r]s are potentiallydeletable since both meet the structural condition for deletion; but in fact, only the initial [ri can bedeleted, the rightmost never deletes. To account for this requirement, I propose the followingconstraint (these constraints will be further motivated in the discussion of truncation in Yoruba insection 4.2. and in the discussion of prosodic minimality in chapter 5):(31) Foot headedness constraints in Yorubaa. Head of Foot = ab. AIJGN-HEAD-R (Ft, R; Head, R):The tight edge of a foot corresponds to the tight edge of a syllableTo account for the asymmetric behavior of [r] in the data in (30), three assumptionsregarding the structural representation of [rj, high vowels and identical vowels are crucial.Formally, following Akinlabi (1993), I assume that underspecifed [r] is represented as a root nodewhose place features are not parsed because of *WCOR [rJ. Also, assuming followingPulleyblank (1988) that [ii is unspecified for place features in Yoruba, I assume that the formalcharacterization of this segment is just a bare nuclear-mora. Third, I assume that the general OCPprohibition against having identical X at the melodic level forces the representation of identical(long) vowels as a single root node linked to two nuclear-moras. These structures are illustratedbelow:143(32) Structural represetation of [r], high vowels and identical (long) vowels2a. b. Fligh vowels c. Long vowelsNUC NUC[r][I] IRT RT RT PLGiven the structural representations in (32), the structural confIgurations that emerges when [r] isflanked either by identical vowels or when one of its flanking vowels is high are the following:(33) Fri flanked by identical vowels: *ocp PLACENUC NUC11I [rJ IRT RT RTPL PL(34) one of the vowels flanking Fri is high: *PJCELFS NUcp.NUC NUCFLI [r] IRTRT RTPL2By Containment (P&S 1993), the specification in angled brackets are assumed to be present in therepresentation.144In (33), an OCP Place violation context is created, while (34) has two bare root nodes. I proposethat the pressure to avoid an OCP Place violation causes the underparsing of [ri\u00E2\u0080\u0099s root node; thiscauses [ri to be phonetically unrealised as shown in (35). Further, in (36), the spreading of theplace feature of the initial nuclear-mora to the rightmost nuclear-mora is triggered by its lack ofplace feature (*PLACELESS NUC!I: a nuclear-moraic position is specified for Place feature).(35) Surface representation of Fri in deletion contexts involving identical vowelsNUC NUCIiI [r] IRT RTV(36) Surface representation of Fri in deletion contexts involving a high vowelNUC NUCI [r] IRT RTPL Notice the striking resemblance between the two configurations in (35&36): the satisfaction of*OCP PLACE and *PLACELFS NUC1 both result in the underparsing of [r]. In OptimalityTheory, this is interpreted as a situation where *p PLACE and *PLACEL5S NUCp. outrank*MJCOR[ri and *p/HJ. Together with the undominated constraints governing headedness (Head =y and ALIGN-HEAD-R), the ranking that derives the facts of [rj deletion in words such as (orIki \u00E2\u0080\u0094145o\u00C3\u00B3kI \u00E2\u0080\u0098praise name\u00E2\u0080\u0099 and or6\u00C3\u00B1 o\u00C3\u00B3\u00C3\u00B1 *5i \u00E2\u0080\u0098mausoleumt)is depicted in the following tableaux (Iassume that the satisfaction of PARSECOR[r] and PARSEHI is militated against by *MJCOR[rJ,*p/pj The two violable constraints are not considered in the tableaux):(37) Head = a, ALIGN-HEAD-R, *Cp PLACE, *PLACELESS NUCp. >>*MICOR[rj, *pfffl/oI Head = a AUGNR *Ocp PLACE *PLACELS *COR[rJ [ *a. orikI *!b.oikic.o\u00C3\u00B3kiC. or\u00C3\u00B3Od. oC\u00C3\u00B3ne. or\u00C3\u00B3Vf. ooo*!In (37), candidate (c) incurs no violation of the ranked set of constraints and is favoured over theother two candidates that either violate one lowly constraint or the other. However, the selection ofan optimal form is not always dependent on total satisfaction of all the constraints, as depicted in(38), (C indicates a placeless root node, and V stands for a placeless nuclear-mora).(38) Head = a, AUGN-HEAD-R, *OCp PLACE, *PLACEL5S Nuqi >>*MJCOR[r], *pfffl/or\u00C3\u00B3\u00C3\u00B1l Head = a AGNR *OCp PLACE *PLACELS *WCOR[rI *P/Hia. or\u00C3\u00B3\u00C3\u00B1 * :b.or\u00C3\u00B3I____*!_______________________I::!g.o\u00C3\u00B3n * **,*!146In (38), the pressure to satisfy undominated Head = a, and ALIGN-HEAD-R forces the optimalcandidate to violate lower ranked *MJCOR[r], and *p/I{I. Other candidates are rejected becausethey violate one higher ranked constraint or the other. Candidate (g)\u00E2\u0080\u0099s major competitor iscandidate (a), but (g) wins because its competitor incurs more violations of *MJcoR[rl.4.2.2. Foot Structure in IbibioIbibio is another Benue-Congo language which provides evidence for foot structure fromprosodic processes. Like Yoruba, Ibibio is a non-stress system, but foot structure plays a crucialrole in defining the domain of certain phonological processes (Akinlabi & Urua 1992). I presenttwo of the foot-constrained processes documented in Akinlabi & Urua: negated verbs andconsonantal weakening.4.2.2.1. Negated VerbsIn deriving the negative form of verbs, a monosyllabic suffix /k/ (whose vowel is alwaysidentical to the final vowel of the verb) is attached to a verbal root. No matter what the underlyingshape of the verb is, on the surface, the verb is either CVV or CVC. Thus, when a verb root isunderlyingly CV, it surfaces as CVV, when it is CVVC, it shortens to CVC on the surface andwhen it is CVC, it remains unchanged in the output. The following data illustrate thegeneralizations.(39) Negated Verbs (data from Akinlabi & Urua 1992)a. CV Root Gloss Negated Form GlossSe look s\u00C3\u00ABd-y\u00C3\u00A9 not lookingn give n3-y6 not givingd\u00C3\u00A1 stand d\u00C3\u00A1\u00C3\u00A1-y\u00C3\u00A1 not standingkp\u00C3\u00BC be in vain kp\u00C3\u00BC\u00C3\u00BC-y\u00C3\u00A1 not be in vain147b. CVVC Rootf\u00C3\u00A1\u00C3\u00A1k wedge between f\u00C3\u00A1k-k\u00C3\u00A1 remove wedge objecttwo objectsk65ij hang on hook k6ij-i1 remove from hookc. CVC Root Gloss Negated Form GlosskOp hear k\u00C3\u00B4p-pd not hearingyet wash yet-ui not washingk3k talk k3k-k5 not talkingd\u00C3\u00B3m bite d\u00C3\u00B3m-m\u00C3\u00B3 not bitingAn insightfifl analysis of this data is given in Akinlabi & Urua (1992). They propose thatthe negated verb (verb root plus suffix = stem) constitutes a trochaic foot If the foot is a trochee,then the various lengthening (39a) and shortening (39b) processes observed above followstraigthforwardly The requirement that the leftmost syllable must be heavy follows from thegeneral property of moraic trochees: the trochee is left headed. In (39a), the material in the inputbase is insufficient to satisfy the weight requirement imposed on the head, hence the need foraugmentation by vowel lengthening. In (39b), on the other hand, the material in the input is toomuch, for if syllabified into the same syllable, it would yield a marked ternary branching syllable.To get around the problem of the erection of a marked representation, the vowel shortens and weend up with a CVC, and the final consonant provides the onset for the negative suffix.4.1.2.2. Consonantal WeakeningThe second process which is best explained by making reference to foot structure is aprocess of consonant weaking which changes intervocalic stops to fricatives and [r] in CVCV148forms. Relevant data appear below from the suffixation process which expresses the reflexive oragentless passive forms of verbs.(40) Bt Gloss Suffixation Glossyat wear a hat yard wear a hat on oneselfdOt place on top of dOr\u00C3\u00B3 place on top of oneselfkp lock k3j36 be lockedwet write w\u00C3\u00A8rd be writtenAs in the former case involving the negated verbal forms, Akinlabi & Unia (1992) propose that theconsonantal weakening process is prosodically controlled and can only be explained if we assumethat the domain of weakening is the trochaic foot.3 However, they do not explain why the secondconsonant is always targeted for weakening.4 I propose that the leftmost syllable being the head ofthe trochee, must satisfy Best Onset (P&S 1993); that is, it must have an onset which is not high insonority value. In contrast, the rightmost syllable, which occupies the non-head position in thetrochee, need not satisfy best onset, hence the weakening tendency.The class of segments that best satisfy Best Onset is the set containing stop consonants. Iffollowing Shaw (1991 a for Athapaskan and 1 993b, 1995 for Nisgha) and LaCharit\u00C3\u00A9 (1993 forSetswana), we assume that stops are specified as for continuancy as [-cont], then we can invoke analignment constraint which restricts the well-formedness of this feature the left edge of a trochaicfoot:(41) ALIGN-L[-cont]: ALIGN-L ( [-conti, Ft)3According to these authors, this weakening process is blocked between prefixes and roots, and theyattribute it to extraprosodicity. The present work abstracts away from a discussion of this class of data.4Hyman (1990), citing Cook (1985), reports the same process in Efik and analyses the weakening processas a syllable conditioned process which changes stops to fricatives in coda position. An alternativeaccount of this fact is the one presented here where trochaic headedness rather than syllable wellformedness acts as the trigger for weakening.149Assuming that ALIGN-L[-contj is not outranked within the domain of the trocahic foot, it will forcethe appeararnce of the least sonorous consonant in the leftmost syllable in a trochee. In a situationwhereby the rightmost syllable contains a stop, weakening is triggered to avoid violations ofALIGN-L[-cont]. Weakening entails the underparsing of [-cont], a PARSE-F violation. This showsthat ALTGN-L[-cont] is ranked above PARSE-F. The data in (40) is accounted for as in tableau(42).(42) ALTGN-L[-COflt] Ft>> PARSE-FINPUT: Ikopol- I AUGN-L[-cont]Ft PARSE-F Iakpob. yz43o I **!Vc.k3130 j *Tableau (42) demonstrates that it is more optimal to obey AUGN-L[-contl Ft than to violate it. Asevident from the well-formedness of the optimal candithte (c), a minimal PARSE-F violation ispermitted as long as it is enforced by the need to satisfy any of the high ranking constraints.4.2.3. Foot Structure in Qwon-AfaLike Yoruba and Ibibio, Qw\u00C3\u00A7n-Afa, another non-metrical system utilizes foot structure inreduplication. Two reduplicative processes are presented as evidence for this claim. The first isnumeral reduplication indicating \u00E2\u0080\u009CNumber by Number\u00E2\u0080\u009D. Examples are given below.150(43) Numeral ReduplicationGloss Reduplicated form Glossik one ib - ik one by one\u00E2\u0080\u0098ij\u00C3\u00AD two iji - ui two by twoida three idi - ida three by three\u00E2\u0080\u0098ld3\u00C3\u00A8 ten 1d31 - Id3\u00C3\u00A8 ten by tenoifr ihundred oro - oit 1 hundred by 1 hundredigb5ro 2 hundred Igbi - igb5ro 2 hundred by 2 hundredAs the data in (43) show, the reduplicant is always identical to the initial VCV in the base.Following M&P (1986, and subsequent works), we assume that reduplicative forms are bestcaptured as prosodic templates rather than segmental entities; then, the reduplication processdescribed above can only be defined as a foot. The reduplicant is also a prefix because it isrealised at the left edge of the word. The constraints that account for this process in OT are thefollowing:(44) a. RED = Foot: The left and right edges of RED must coincide with the left andright edges of a binary footb. ALIGN RED (RED, Left, Root, Left)(45) RED = Ft, ALIGN-RED>> MAXI BASE: 1igb5ro/ I RED = Ft I ALIGN-RED I MAXa. igb6rn-lgb5ro *!b. Igb6ro-orc. igbi-igb5roThe tableau in (45) depicts the effects of the ranking established for the numeral distributives:candidate (a) fails because the reduplicant is larger than a foot, candidate (b) is rejected because it151disobeys higher-ranked AUGN-RED which requires that the reduplicant be expressed at the leftedge of the word, and candithte (c) is the optimal form because it respects the highly rankedconstraints that the two candidates violate; MAX, a lowly ranked constraint is violated by (c), butdoes not prohibit the well-formedness of the candidate.The second process that depicts the effect of foot structure in Qw\u00C3\u00A7n-Afa is a verbalreduplication process denoting \u00E2\u0080\u009Caction done anyhow\u00E2\u0080\u009D. Relevant examples appear below:(46) Gloss Reduplicated form Glossd3u eat di - eat anyhowkp\u00C3\u00A9 dig ki - kp\u00C3\u00A9\u00C3\u00A9 dig anyhowkO sing k\u00E2\u0080\u0099i- kdO sing anyhowja pull jI - j pull anyhowg5 gather gI-gather anyhownu carry iii- miii carry anyhowThe above data reveal the following generalizations. First, about the base: observe that the verbalbase is consistently monosyllabic, the canonical shape of verbs in the language. Second, thereduplicant exhibits the following characteristics: (i) it is expressed as CV-CVV, (II) the initial(leftmost) vowel of the reduplicant is the default vowel in the language, (iii) the vowel of the basesystematically lengthens changing the original CV shape of the base to CVV.The above generalizations are straightforwardly explained in prosodic terms as aninstantiation of the iambic foot: the iamb consists a of light-heavy syllable sequence. The weightrequirement imposed on the rightmost syllable is a consequence of headedness: the iambic foot isright headed. The following Optimality Theoretic constraints account for the reduplicativeprocess. First the prosodic condition imposed on \u00E2\u0080\u009Cany action verbs \u00E2\u0080\u009Cis defined as follows:152(47) Any type of Action Verb = Iambic Foot:The left and the right edges of \u00E2\u0080\u009Cany action verb\u00E2\u0080\u009D correspond to the left and right edges ofan iambic foot.Second, since input monosyllabic verbs surface as bimoraic forms, this shows that LEX-iis violated: a mora that was not in the input surfaces in the output:(48) LEX-NUCI.t: a mora that is present in the input must also be present in the outputThird, the fact that the leftmost vowel in the output is not a copy of the vowel of the verbalbase must be accounted for. Recall that this vowel is expressed as [ii - the default vowel. Thisfact suggests that there is a segmental markedness factor involved. Drawing on the proposaladvanced for Nisgha in Shaw (1995) that the prosodic domain of reduplication may induce thereduction of segmental markedness, I propose that the presence of the default vowel in the nucleusof the leftmost syllable an instantiation of the reduction of segmental markedness. Thus, what wehave then is complete asymmetry between the prosodic and featural specification of the head andnon-head syllable of the iambic foot. Compared with the syllable at the right edge of the foot, theleftmost syllable, which is the non-head position, is reduced both in weight (because it ismonomoraic) and in segmental features (because only the default vowel may occur in the nuclearposition). The rightmost syllable in contrast, exhibits no such reduction: it is bimoraic (as evidentfrom the lengthening effect) and the featural properties of the nucleus of the base are fully retainedin it.In order to explain the presence of the default vowel in the leftmost syllable of the iambicfoot, I adopt the following analysis (based on Shaw 1995). First, I assume that the constraintgoverning the copying of the segmental properties of the nucleus is MAX/NUC, a subconstraint ofthe MAX fantily of constraints which enforces a full copy of the BASE NUC. Second, I assumethat the melodic simplification which selects the default vowel as the vowel of the leftmost nucleus153of the iambic foot may be captured by *NJJC/[f] ([fj stands for any feature), an analog of *STRUCconstraint which prohibits any featural representation in the nucleus of the non-head syllablenucleus.Finally, given the asymmetry between the featural specification and the weight property ofthe head and non-head syllables of the iambic foot in Owon-Afa, the shape of the prosodicstructure of \u00E2\u0080\u009Cany type of action\u00E2\u0080\u009D already given in (47) needs to be properly spelled out:(49) Undominated Constraints: \u00E2\u0080\u009CAny Type of Action Verb\u00E2\u0080\u009Da. Any Action = iambic Footb. Head is a bimoraic syllable: GNUCPii.c. Non-Head is a monomoraic syllable: aNUCid. ALIGN-HEAD: (HEAD, Right, Ft, Right): The right edge of the head corresponds withthe right edge of the foote. ALIGN-NON-HEAD: (NON-HEAD, Left, Ft, Left): The left edge of the headcorresponds with the left edge of the footThe following constraint ranking is established and demonstrated in tableau (50) for the iambicprocess (The alignment constraints and Any ACTION = IAMBIC Ft are excluded in the tableau).(50) HEAD = aNUCt. NON-HEAD = aNUCp., *NU(/[f] NON-RD. MAX/NUC-HD >> LEXiBASE: /pe/ HDNUqqL NON-HDNUqI *NTJC/[f]NON4TD MAX/NUC-HD LEX.ta. pI-piI *b. p-p\u00C3\u00A9 *! *c. iI-p\u00C3\u00A9\u00C3\u00A9d.pI-p *!v\u00E2\u0080\u0099e jpTableau (50) reveals the interaction of the constraint ranking. Form (a) surfaces with a defaultvowel in the head position and fails because of the requirement that the featural specification of the154base should be maximized (MAXINUC-HD violation). Form (b), on the other hand, is sub-optimalbecause the non-head nucleus fails *NJJC/[fj NON-HD, a constraint that disallows any featuralrepresentation in the non-head nuclear position. Even though form (c) is rejected because it is not aproper iamb (it has two heavy syllables), the major reason for its failure results from a violation ofNON-HEAD = aNUCj.t, a constraint that prohibits a heavy syllable from occupying the non-headposition. Like (c), candidate (d) is not an iambic foot: it is monomoraic, hence, does not satisfy thebimoraic weight requirement imposed on the head of the foot. Candidate (e) satisfies all theconstraints violated by the other candidates considered earlier and emerges as the winner. Thiscandidate is able to satisfy the weight requirement of the head by violating LEXj.t, but receives aminimal penalty because of the low ranking status of this constraint.To sum up this section, evidence has been presented from the domain of reduplication toshow that foot structure is actively utilized in non-stress systems. Footing, as demonstrated, isidentical to the type found in metrical systems in that foot structure is optimally binary (moraic orsyllabic) and headed. In the next section, more evidence is documented from truncation to showthe vitality of foot structure in a non-stress system: Yoruba.4.3. Foot Structure: Evidence from TruncationThis section provides further evidence for foot structure from the productive process ofname truncation in Yoruba. The process is then formalized in Optimality Theory as a footdependent prosodic process which maps sufficient segmental material from the base to foot tosatisfy the templatic requirement. The remaining materials which are left unmapped remainunparsed: in OT, this is expressed as PARSE-seg violation. This is the dividing line betweenreduplication and truncation. Reduplication, as argued by M&P (1994) does not entail violationsof PARSE-seg because the base is always present in the output. The opposite holds of truncationbecause the base is only partially realised in the output form.1554.3.1. Yoruba Name ShorteningOduyoye (1972) gives a detailed documentation of Yoruba names. According to Oduyoye,a name in Yoruba maybe formed from a combination of two nouns (as in 51), a sentencecomprising a noun and a verb phrase (comprising a verb plus noun and sometimes additionally, aprepositional phrase as in 52) or a verb phrase (comprising a verb plus noun and verb as in 53).Phrasal boundaries are indicated with a dash (-).(51) Noun plus Noun name formativesNoun Noun Output Glossol\u00C3\u00A1 oldwa \u00C3\u00A7l\u00C3\u00A1oliiwa the high estate of GodIf oltiwa If\u00C3\u00A9oliiwa the love of Godakin \u00C3\u00A7il\u00C3\u00A1 akin9l\u00C3\u00A1 the valor of high statuswtir\u00C3\u00A0 ol\u00C3\u00A1 wtlrol\u00C3\u00A1 Gold of honoray ad\u00C3\u00A9 ayad\u00C3\u00A9 the joy of a crownow\u00C3\u00B3 kowd bag of money(52) Sentential name formativesNoun Verb Phrase Output Glossad\u00C3\u00A9 doyin ad-doytn the crown becomes honeyniyl \u00C3\u00A7my-nii children are the gloryoy\u00C3\u00A8 in\u00C3\u00A2 oy\u00C3\u00A8\u00C3\u00A9-mn\u00C3\u00A0 a tittle opens the wayol\u00C3\u00A1 j\u00C3\u00BCm\u00C3\u00B4-k\u00C3\u00A9 ol\u00C3\u00A1-j\u00C3\u00BCm\u00C3\u00B4-k\u00C3\u00A9 fame gathers to pet this childoltiwa ftinmi-hiyO oldwa-fdnmi-l\u00C3\u00A1y God gave me joyohiwa d\u00C3\u00A1mi-hl\u00C3\u00A1 oldwa-d\u00C3\u00A1mi-lOl\u00C3\u00A1 God gave me honor156(53) Predicate (verb phrase name formativesVerb Phrase Glossfoltl-mI breathe with honorkOre-d\u00C3\u00A9 gather good things ingb1\u00C3\u00A1-han exhibit honorkOl\u00C3\u00A1-w\u00C3\u00A7l\u00C3\u00A9 bring honor into the housefol\u00C3\u00A1-sad\u00C3\u00A9 make a crown out of honorb\u00C3\u00A1mi-j\u00C3\u00B3kO\u00C3\u00B3 sit with meIn Yoruba, the output forms of the names list above are traditionally used when a person is beingaddressed seriously or when invoking incantations or blessings on someone. Recently, it is alsoused in formal contexts such as in formal school registration and formal documentation such asregistration of birth and announcement of death. To signify \u00E2\u0080\u009Cfamiliarity\u00E2\u0080\u009D with a peer or youngerperson, however, names are shortened to either VCV, CVCV CVCVCV or CVCVCVCV forms(surnames are in general not subject to this process). Examples appear below.(54) Shortened names:NounNoun Base Output Gloss\u00C3\u00A7l\u00C3\u00A1oltIwa 91\u00C3\u00A1 or old the high estate of GodIf\u00C3\u00A9oliiwa If\u00C3\u00A9 or old the love of Godakinol\u00C3\u00A1 akin or \u00C3\u00A7l\u00C3\u00A1 the valor of high statuswiIr\u00C3\u00A0ol\u00C3\u00A1 wdr\u00C3\u00A2 or ol\u00C3\u00A1 Gold of honorayOad\u00C3\u00A9 ay or add the joy of a crownOk\u00C3\u00A9owd Ok or owd bag of money157(55) Shortened names:Noun plus Verb Phrase Basea. add-doyinomo-niyioy\u00C3\u00A8-in\u00C3\u00A0b. \u00C3\u00A7l\u00C3\u00A1-j\u00C3\u00BCmO-koliiwa-Mnmi-l\u00C3\u00A1yohiwa-ddmi-l\u00C3\u00B3l\u00C3\u00A1(56) Shortened names:Verb Phrasea. fold-mIkOre-d\u00C3\u00A9gb\u00C3\u00B3ld-h\u00C3\u00A0nb. k\u00C3\u00B3ld-woldfold-sad\u00C3\u00A9bdmi-jdkO\u00C3\u00B3Tnmcated Formsad\u00C3\u00A9 or doymomo or niioy\u00C3\u00A8 oi\u00E2\u0080\u0099sIn\u00C3\u00A0\u00C3\u00A7ld or j\u00C3\u00B1mk or jiImold orfimnmaldy\u00C3\u00A7or\u00E2\u0080\u00A2fdnrni orldy\u00C3\u00A7old or ddmil\u00C3\u00B3ldor ddmi or l\u00C3\u00B3l\u00C3\u00A1Truncated Form(s)fold *ldmi *mjkdre \u00E2\u0080\u0098red\u00C3\u00A9 *d\u00C3\u00A9gbdld *ldh\u00C3\u00A0n *hdnk\u00C3\u00B3ld or wol\u00C3\u00A9fold or sad\u00C3\u00A9bdmi or j\u00C3\u00B3kO\u00C3\u00B3Glossthe crown becomes honeychildren are the glorya title opens the wayfame gathers to pet this childGod gave me joyGod gave me honorGlossbreathe with honorgather good things inexhibit honorbring honor into the housemake a crown out of honorsit with meName shortening is analyzed in Oduyoye (1972: 26) as involving two patterns: shortening mayeither select the (a) subject or (b) predicate. This analysis captures cases in (54) where noun-nouncompounds are shortened to the first or second noun. It also explains why in (55b) a form likeohiwafdnmildyo is shortened to old orfdnmildy\u00C3\u00A7. However, the possiblity of truncating toshorter forms like fimnmi or ldyo is not explicitly predicted by this account. To capture the diverseshortening patterns, we need to look into the prosodic structure of these forms in addition to themorphemic information prescribed by Oduyoye. Observe from the data that the smallest and most158regularly shortened form is either VCV or CVCV, a binary foot (bimoraic or disyllabic) inprosodic terms.In addition to the prosodic requirement, another observation which must be accounted foris the fact that shortened names always correspond to the leftmost segmental materials of themorpheme. For example, a name such as kl\u00C3\u00A1-wg1\u00C3\u00A9 may be shortened to either k\u00C3\u0094l\u00C3\u00A1 or wol\u00C3\u00A9,while a name Like fgl\u00C3\u00A1-mi may only have one shortened form, namely, fol\u00C3\u00A1 other forms such as*l\u00C3\u00A1mj or *mj are impossible. The latter illicit form is independently ruled out by the foot-basedprosodic restriction proposed earlier. But why is *Imi, a binary footed name illicit? I proposethat truncation is thus constrained because the TRUNCATIVE FOOT (TRUNC) is a prefix. Prefixes,obviously occur at the left edge of the word, so this property explains why the segmental propertiesof the truncated forms are identical to the leftmost segments in the base. The question that stillremains, though, is why a verb phrase comprising two verb phrases (kl\u00C3\u00A1-w\u00C3\u00A7le: kl\u00C3\u00A1 or wQle) orone verb phrase plus a prepositional phrase ( fiinmil\u00C3\u00A1y\u00C3\u00A7: ftlnmi or l\u00C3\u00A1y\u00C3\u00A7) may have two truncatedvariants. To answer this question, I propose that truncation targets the leftmost materials in themorpheme. The templatic and leftmostness requirements are formalized in Optimality Theory asfollows.(57) a. TRUNC = Foot: The left and right edges of TRUNC must coincide with the leftand right edges of a binary foot.b. ALIGN TRUNC (TRUNC,L;Morpheme, L):the left edge of the truncative must be aligned with the left edge of a morphemeSince truncation entails mapping of segmental materials from the base to the truncativefoot, ANCHORING and CONTIGUITY, two Optimality Theoretic constraints that were alreadymotivated in our analysis of reduplication are also relevant for the truncation analysis to bepresented shortly. I propose that these two constraints must be respected because segments are159mapped from left-to-right with no form of skipping in the truncated forms. As a result of theconstraints motivated so far, the truncated forms are realised as a single binary foot whosesegmental materials is identical to that of the leftmost foot in the morpheme.One salient issue remains to be addressed: the status of segments which do not surface inthe truncative. Are they parsed or not? M&P (1994) discuss the status of PARSE-seg inreduplication, and argue that what the non-total templatically constrained reduplicant disobeys isMAX because the segmental content of the base is not fully realised in the copy. Under this view,reduplication does not entail violations of PARSE-seg because the base is always present in theoutput. Clearly the opposite holds of truncation, because the base is only partially realised in theoutput form, a property that suggests that PARSE-seg violations are incurred. If PARSE-segviolations are possible in truncatives, then the constraint is ranked below the undominatedconstraints motivated earlier. The following tableau demonstrates this fact.(58) TRUNC = Foot. ALIGN TRUNC. ANCHORING. CoNTIGurry >>PARsE-SegBASE: /oliiwa-ftinini-l\u00C3\u00A1y/ TRUNC=Foot AUGNTRUNC ANCHO CONT fPARSERX a. oliiwa *!X b. hiwa *! * *********X owa **!v\u00E2\u0080\u0099d. ol\u00C3\u00BC **********e. fiinmi *********Vf l\u00C3\u00A1yFor tableau (58) TRUNC = Foot rules Out candidate (a). The second candidate, (b) fails because itdisobeys ALIGN-TRUNC and ANCHOR. Candidate (c) is ruled out by CONT violation: thesegments in the truncated form are not realised in a contiguous string. Candidates (d-f) are optimalbecause they satisfy all the undominated constraints. The fact that they all violate PARSE-Seg isnot critical for evaluation because that constraint is low-ranking. As long as the prosodicrequirements are satisfied, PARSE-Seg are not treated as fatal.The constraint ranking is further demonstrated in the following tableau.160(59) TRuNC = Foot, ALIGN TRUNC, ANCHORING, CONTIGUITY >> PARSE-SegBASE: Ifol\u00C3\u00A1-mlI TRUNC = Foot j ALIGN TRUNC I ANCW )R (\u00E2\u0080\u0098.)NT PARS1-xal\u00C3\u00A1ml *K b. ml *!c. fomlVd. fol\u00C3\u00A1In (59), even though candidate (a) obeys TRUNC is a Foot, it is still sub-optimal because it violatesAUGN-TRUNC and ANCHOR. Candidate (b), a syllable, is ruled out by TRUNC is a Foot, andcandidate (c) fails by violating CONT. Candidate (d) is the winner: it satisfies higher rankedconstraints and is not penalized for violating lower-ranked PARSE.Arabic loan names provide further support for the prosodic template proposed forshortened names in Yoruba. Consider the following data.(60) Loan Name truncation:Base Truncated formganiyatu gani *yatul\u00C3\u00A2tif\u00C3\u00A1tii iri *fatuwiil\u00C3\u00A8m\u00C3\u00B3t\u00C3\u00BC wLll\u00C3\u00A8 *m\u00C3\u00B3t\u00C3\u00BCm\u00C3\u00B4dln\u00C3\u00A1th m\u00C3\u00B4di *n\u00C3\u00A1t\u00C3\u00BCa\u00C3\u00B1istii aM *satu\u00C3\u00A2b6bk bi *bakaThe generalization that we see is that the truncated form is either the leftmost VCV or CVCV inthe word, a familiar pattern from the native forms considered previously. To account for thispattern, the constraints motivated for the native forms are adopted. The tableau illustrating theanalysis of the loan names is given below.161(61) TRUNC = Foot, AUGN TRUNC, ANCHORING, CONTIGUITY >> PARSE-SegBASE: /m\u00C3\u00BCrit\u00C3\u00A0l\u00C3\u00A1l TRUNC = Foot AUGN TRUNC I ANCHOR I CONT I PARSEa tala *, *b mula ****, ****c mu *1d. milti ****In tableau (54), candidate (a) is rejected because it violate AUGN-TRUNC: the left edge of thetruncative does not match the left edge of the morpheme, as evident from the segmental materialscontained in this candidate. Unlike native words where names are formed by word and morphemeconcantenation, loan names are treated as one single morpheme, even if they are derived in thesource language. Thus, the truncative treats loans as one word and must therefore target the leftedge of the morpheme in mapping segments to the truncative foot. Candidate (b) is illicit becauseit incurs violation of CONT. Candidate (c) is ill-formed because it is a syllable, not a foot asrequired by the prosodic restrictions governing truncated names. Candidate (d) surfaces as theoptimal form because it obeys the higher-ranked constraints.Consider now the following additional set of data, cases involving tone-bearing nasalswhich appear to violate the bimoraic Foot templatic requirement:(62) Truncated form(s GlossAd\u00C3\u00A9-b\u00C3\u00A1-n-k\u00C3\u00A9 Ade, b\u00C3\u00A1-n-k\u00C3\u00A9, *b\u00C3\u00A1..n,*n4\u00C3\u00A9 crown helps me petOhIwa-gb\u00C3\u00A9-n-r\u00C3\u00B3 Olu, gb\u00C3\u00A9-n-ro, *gbe.n, *n..r\u00C3\u00B3 God sustains meOl\u00C3\u00A1-r\u00C3\u00B3-n-k\u00C3\u00A9 Ql\u00C3\u00A1, r\u00C3\u00B3-n-k\u00C3\u00A9, *r\u00C3\u00B3n, *n.k\u00C3\u00A9 wealth has something to petOy\u00C3\u00AA-ti-p\u00C3\u00A8-ml Oy\u00C3\u00A8, p\u00C3\u00A8-ml, *Iip\u00C3\u00A8 chieftaincy beckons to meThe above data reveal two major generalizations. First, the shape of the truncated form is VCV,CVCV or CVNCV. Second, the truncated form is never expressed as NCV or CVN, a fact that162suggests that there is something special about the property of the tone-bearing nasal. Thesegeneralizations will be accounted for in turn.To begin with the latter: what is special about the tone-bearing nasal in Yoruba? Asargued in chapter 2, the tone-bearing nasal is a mora in Yoruba. Evidence from prosodicmorphology was adduced to show that the nasal is never syllabified by itself: the nasal neverreduplicates as a syllable. If the nasal is not a syllable, and if only a syllable (CV) constitutes apotential head of the foot in Standard Yoruba, then a nasal is ruled out from occurring at the rightedge of the foot by ALIGN-HEAD-R, the constraint that requires the presence of a head at the rightedge of the foot. As regards why NCV names are not attested, this follows from the fact that thealignment constraint states that the left edge of the truncative must be aligned with the left edge ofthe prosodic word, but no lexical item begins with a nasal in Standard Yoruba. Minimally, a noun(name) is expressed as VCV or CVCV which is characterized as a binuclear-mora foot orbisyllabic foot. The tone-bearing nasal is neither a nuclear-mora nor a syllable, and is thusindependently ruled out on these grounds.Both CONTIGUrFY (NO-SKIPPII\u00E2\u0080\u0099JG) and ALIGN-HEAD-R, (a non-violable constraint)conspire to ensure the well-formedness of CVNCV shortened forms as shown in tableau (63) (theleftmost name lade! is not considered in the tableau).(63) TRUNC = Foot, ALIGN TRUNC ANCHORING. CONTIGUITY, ALIGN-HEAD>> PARSE-SegBASE: /ad\u00C3\u00A9-b\u00C3\u00A1-n-k\u00C3\u00A9l TRUNC: ALIGN TRUNC ANCHO CONT ALIGN-HEAD PARSEFoot Ra. ban *i.***X b. nk\u00C3\u00A9 **X c. b\u00C3\u00A1 *!x d. b\u00C3\u00A1k *1Ve._b\u00C3\u00A1-n-k\u00C3\u00A9As is obvious from (63), the undominated status of AUGN-TRUNC, CONT and ALIGN-HEAD forcesthe optimal form (candidate e) to surface as CVNCV. This candidate violates binarity at the163moraic level because it contains three moras, but this is the best the grammar could do given thehigh ranking status of CONT. Foot Binarity is however maintained in this form at the nuclear andsyllabic levels. Other candidates are rejected for violating one higher-ranked constraint or theother: candidate (a) fails AUGN-HEAD, candidate (b) fails ALIGN-TRUNC, candidate (c) failsTRuNC is Foot and candidate (d) fails CONT.44. Theoretical ImplicationsIn this section, 1 examine two theoretical implications which follow from the empiricalfacts presented in this chapter. The first concerns the debate on whether or not there is adistinction between metrical foot and morphological foot. The second concerns the status ofPARSE-seg in the formalization of reduplicative and truncative processes in Optimality Theory.4.4.1. Metrical Foot versus Morphological Foot: Foot structure in non-stress systemsFoot structure is present in non-stress systems. This is demonstrated by the facts ofreduplication and truncation presented in this chapter. The implicit question that has not yet beenanswered concerns the nature of the foot type utilized by the non-stress languages presented: whatkind of foot is present in these languages, a metrical foot or a morphological foot?There is no straightforward answer to this question. Clearly, if the metrical vs.morphological distinction is based on whether or not a language is stress-based, foot structure inthe languages under examination cannot pass as metrical. On the other hand, if, as argued inCrowhurst (1991), the presence or absence of heads is the crucial parameter for distinguishing ametrical foot from a morphological foot, then foot structure must be of the metrical type in thelanguages considered here: the foot is binary and headed in Yoruba, Ibibio and Qwon-Afa. Thedata presented in this chapter, therefore does not support the proposal that metrical foot is differentfrom morphological foot (Poser 1990, Inkelas 1989, Crowhurst 1991, Bagemibl 1993).1644.4.2. Reduplication and Truncation in Optimality Theory: the Status of PARSEReduplication and truncation share two characteristics. First, there is usually an input-output relation between a given base and the reduplicant or truncative. Second, the two processesmay be prosodically conditioned, as demonstrated in this chapter. Even though the two processesare alike in these respects, they differ on two other counts. These differences again are related tothe input-output relation and the output shape of the reduplicant or truncative. First, inreduplication, the base is almost always present in the output, and the reduplicant is attached to thebase as additional morphological component which is partially or totally identical to the base. Thereverse is true of truncation. Truncation entails the reduction of a given base; thus, the base is onlypartially realised in the output form. This leads to the second point of divergence which concernsthe shape of the templatic forms: reduplicants and truncatives. Reduplicants may either beprosodically constrained or not. In cases where the reduplicant is prosodically governed,reduplication could be partial, while reduplication which is morphologically conditioned iscomplete or total in nature. Truncation on the other hand, can only be partial or prosodicallygoverned; nothing like total truncation (a case comparable to total reduplication) has beenencountered in phonology.The theory of Prosodic Morphology, couched within an Optimality Theoretic framework(M&P 1993, 1994) formalizes the process of reduplication by the variable ranking of prosodicconstituents (if reduplication is proosdically governed) and MAX. For example, if prosody isranked above MAX, the result is partial reduplication; on the other hand, if MAX dominatesprosody, the result is total reduplication. M&P (1994) particularly discuss the status of PARsE-segfor the account of reduplication, and argue that what the non-total templatically (that isprosodically constrained reduplication) constrained reduplicant disobeys is MAX. MAX is violatedbecause the segmental content of the base is not fully realised in the copy. Under this view,reduplication does not entail violations of PARsE-seg, because the base is always present in theoutput.165Clearly, the opposite holds of truncation: the base is only partially realised in the outputform. Segmental materials which cannot fit into the prosodic template are not realisedphonetically. This property suggests that PARSE-seg violations are incurred in truncation. Ineffect, the formal characterization of truncation, unlike that of reduplication, shows that PARSEseg interacts with other constraints governing the process of truncation. In particular, the prosodictruncative must outrank PARSE-seg, such that only the materials which are needed to ff1 thetemplate will be parsed; left-over segments will remain unparsed in the phonology.4.5. SummaryIn this chapter, I have presented evidence for foot structure in non-stress systems and haveshown that the foot in the languages examined are binary and headed. Both trochaic and iambicfoot types are attested. Evidence for this is provided either by (a) syllable well-formednessrequirement (as in Standard Yoruba where only CVs are potential heads), (b) weight restrictions(as in Ibibio and QwQn-Afa where heavy syllables (CVV) are potential heads) or (C) sonorityconstraints (as in Ibibio where the head versus non-head distinction is sometimes determined bysonority restriction on segments within the foot). These properties are summarized in the tableshown below:166Standard Yoruba Syllables (CV) areheads1. Heavy syllablesare potential heads2. The first stopconsonant in aCVCV word is neverweakened to africative but thesecond stopconsonant is alwaysweakenedHeavy Syllables areheadsThibioALIGN-HEADL2. HEAD aALTGN-L([-cont], Ft),PARSE-F167CHAPTER 5The Prosodic Word in Benue-Congo: Minimality and Maximality Effects5. 1. IntroductionThe prosodic word plays a central role in prosodic morphology (McCarthy & Prince,1986, 1993a M&P hereafter) in that it defines the domain of several phenomena in phonology andmorphology. Standardly, the umnarked minimal prosodic word (PrWd) is characterized as abinary foot. This is so since the PrWd immediately dominates the foot in the prosodic hierarchy,and as has been extensively argued, foot structure markedness requires that every foot be binaryeither at the moraic or syllabic level (Prince 1980, M&P 1986, Hayes 1991, Hewitt 1994). Withinthe last decade, a significant body of research has been documented as evidence illustrating theimportance of the minimal prosodic word. Some of these processes are reduplication, truncation,prominence assignment, tonal processes, augmentative epenthesis, blockage of deletion, definingthe prosodic shape of morphological constituents such as roots, stems, and derived vs. underivedwords.While this view of minimality has explained a lot of facts cross-linguistically, twoempirical domains still remain unexplained. First, in most languages of Benue-Congo, minimalityrequires the presence of a syllable in every lexical item. Foot binarity effects are attested, but areusually restricted to the constituency of nouns or verbal stems. Second, it has been noted inlanguage acquisition literature that children\u00E2\u0080\u0099s early words are systematically truncated to a singlesyllable and that binary footed words emerge at later stages of acquisition (Demuth 1994, 1995,Fikkert 1994, Ingram 1978, Ingram & Fee 1982, Fee, in press). Within a conventional approachwhere the well-formedness of a minimal prosodic word is dependent upon foot binarity, theprosodic shape of nouns and verbal stems would easily be explained as an instantiation of footbinarity, while the forms which obey the minimal syllable requirement would be treated as lexicaflymarked exceptions (ItO 1990). In the same fashion, one of the standard ways of explaining whyCV words are salient at the onset of word production in children\u00E2\u0080\u0099s early words is to assume thatthis stage is the default stage, a stage which does not require the setting of the binary footparameter (Fikkert 1994). Fikkert, for example, assumes that phonological words surface in childlanguage only when binary footed words emerge. Under this approach, the early stage where CVwords are productively produced is discounted as a phonological one. What this approach fails toexplain is why children do not generate a \u00E2\u0080\u009Cwild grammar\u00E2\u0080\u009D in the production of words at this stage.That is, if the early stage is not phonologically governed, why do children not simply randomlyproduce any kind of structure instead of the consistently produced CV forms? The CV stagefurther challenges the uniqueness of the assumption that the minimal word is always binary footed:if Universal Grammar uniquely supplies foot binarity as the sole constraint governing theexpression of the minimal word, why do children not produce binary footed words at the earlystage of acquisition?Instead of treating CV words either as lexical exceptions or prephonological words in thecase of early children\u00E2\u0080\u0099s words, these forms are explained if we assume that the weilformedness of aminimal word follows from the interaction of two universal constraints: properheadedness andfootbinarity (Qla 1995). Following ItO and Mester (1992), the principle of properheadedness requiresthat every word must contain at least one foot, every foot at least one syllable, every syllable atleast one nucleus, every nucleus at least one mora (given the moraic model adopted here). On theother hand, the markedness principle on foot structure requires every foot to be binary, either at themoraic or syllabic level (Prince 1980). This view of minimality allows for two instantiations ofprosodic words. In one pattern, minimal words are expressed as a single syllable, i.e. amonosyllabic foot by properheadedness. In the other pattern, minimality is expressed via footbinarity, in which case, words must contain two moras or two syllables.In Optimality Theory, the variable ranking of these two constraints yield four types ofgrammar: 1, where Ft-Bin and PROP-HEAD are undominated, the minimal word is properly headed169and binary footed (Axininca-Campa, Gokana, Idoma); 2, where PROP-HEAD outranks Ft-Bin, theminimal word surfaces as a sub-binary properly headed foot (Yoruba, Ebira); 3, where Ft-Binoutranks PROP-HEAD, the prosodic shape of the minimal word is a head-less binary foot(Japanese); 4, where Ft-Bin and PROP-HEAD are crucially dominated by PARSE, the minimal wordwould neither be governed by Ft-Bin nor PROP-HEAD. The principal factor in such a case wouldbe the satisfaction of prosodic licensing which requires the parsing of phonological constituentsinto higher prosodic structure. Such cases, although predicted to be possible grammars by thetheory, have not been reported in the literature. The relative ranldng of faithfulness constraintssuch as LEX (RT, NUqt, ji) and PARSE (for cases involving child language) with Ft-Bin and PROP-HEAD determines the surface realisation of minimal words. The relative ranking of PARSE andLEX may either block or trigger augmentation to satisfy Ft-Bin or PROP-HEAD or both.I also explore the hypothesis that there is a maximal prosodic word. The existence of amaximal prosodic word is proposed to account for the upper limit restriction placed on morphemes:no morpheme in Bella Coola or Yoruba may exceed four moras or two feet (Bagemihi 1993, Ola1995). The hypothesis that the two feet restriction is prosodically conditioned is supported byseveral templatically conditioned processes which are stated as two feet: Japanese hypocoristics(Poser 1990), mimetics (Ito & Mester 1989, Poser 1990), loanword abbreviations (Ito 1990),secret language forms (Tateishi 1989, Poser 1990); Ponapean reduplication (M&P 1986: 28);English Echo words (M&P 1986: 63); Dyirbal ergative suffixation (M&P 1990:237); Yorubahypocoristics (QIa 1995).By implication, then, the prosodic word is either minimally expressed as a single foot ormaximally instantiated as two bipodic foot. This chapter presents empirical evidence from BenueCongo languages illustrating both minimality and maximality effects at the level of the prosodicword. I begin by briefly reviewing the evidence for the proposal that a minimal word is a binaryfoot and present empirical evidence from Gokana and Idoma in support of this view. Next,evidence is presented from Yoruba and Ebira to show that the crucial minimal condition is that asyllable be present in every word, foot binarity is only required for nouns. These data are170accounted for by the variable ranking of Properheacledness and Foot binarity in Optimality Theory(P&S 1993, M&P 1993). In light of the findings from these languages, early children\u00E2\u0080\u0099s wordswhich are systematically expressed as CV cross-linguistically even in languages where adult wordsare minimally binary footed are revisited, and are explained as the phonological expression ofProperheadedness. The discussion then shifts to the maximal prosodic word which is expressed astwo feet. Two types of evidence are presented. First, morphological evidence is presented from themaximum size of roots across languages. Second, templatic evidence is presented fromprefixation, hypocoristics and clefted nouns in Yoruba.5.2. The Minimal Prosodic Word: the interaction of properheadedness and foot binarityIn this section, I wish to establish three points. First, minimality is a consequence of twouniversal constraints: Properheadedness and Foot binarity. Across the languages to be examined,the minimal word is either a monosyllabic foot (in Yoruba and Ebira) or a binary foot (in Idomaand Gokana). Second, the early word stage where children productively produce CV words, thatis, the so-called \u00E2\u0080\u009Csub-minimal word\u00E2\u0080\u009D stage, is analyzed as a stage where the satisfaction ofProperheadedness is exhibited. Third, the cross-linguistic expression of the minimal word followsfrom the variable ranking of Properheadedness and Foot binarity in Optimality Theory.5.2.1. The minimal Prosodic word: Evidence in favour of foot binarityConsider the standard definition of the minimal word (M&P 1986, 1993a).(1) The minimal word hypothesis M&P (1993a: 44):The prosodic hierarchy and foot binarity, taken together, derive the notion minimal word... anyinstance of the category prosodic word (PrWd) must contain at least one foot. By foot binarity,171every foot must be bimoraic or disyllabic.(2)(a) PrWd (b) PrWd (c) * PrWdF F F.t t 0By the hypothesis in (1), the PrWds in (2a&2b) are well-fonned, whereas the one in (2c) is ififormed. A range of phonological processes provide evidence for the importance of the binaryfooted minimal word cross-linguistically. Some are given below in (3):(3) The function of the minimal word in prosodic phonology and morphology:a. defines the prosodic shape of a reduplicant (as in Diyari, Yidin, M&P 1993a, 1994)b. defines the domain of prominence assignment (as in Diyari M&P 1993a, 1994).c. defines the prosodic shape of a truncative (as in Japanese Ito 1990).d. defines the prosodic shape of morphological categories, viz, root, stem. (as in LarchM&P 1993a, etc).e. triggers augmentative epenthesis (as in Axininca Campa, Lardil, M&P 1993a).f. blocks deletion if the output would be a subminimal form (Lardil M&P l993a, SwahiliPark 1995).To show how the minimal word hypothesis in (1) conditions one of the processes in (3),consider Axininca Campa augmentative epenthesis (M&P 1993a).(4) Axininca Campa (M&P 1993a, epenthetic materials are bolded)a. Bare Root Augmented form Glossp pAA feedna naTA carry172b. Root + infinitive suffix Non-augmented formp - aanct\u00E2\u0080\u0099i p - aanctina - aancti na - T aanchiAccording to (M&P 1993a), C and CV roots are always augmented to CAA and CVTA (4a) inAxininca Campa. However, when a suffix is present as in (4b), nothing happens. Their analysis ofthese facts appeals to the notion of minimality given in (1): a minimal word must be bimoraic orbisyllabic. The input forms in (4a) are deviant because they fall below this minimal sizerequirement, hence, the obligatoriness of augmentation.A similar pattern is found in Gokana, a Benue-Congo language of Nigeria. In Gokana,Arekamhe (1972) observes that CV and V morphemes are realised with epenthetic glottal stopsmorpheme-initially before a V, and in morpheme-final position after phonetically short vowels.Representational examples appear in (5).(5) Glottal epenthesis in Gokana (from Arekanthe 1972)a. CV Morphemes Gloss b.V Morphemes Glossk\u00C3\u00A9 [ke?] egg ii [?ii?] deathz6 [z6?] fetish [Th?] carvedii [d\u00C3\u00BC?] come [??] moonb\u00C3\u00A1 [b\u00C3\u00A1?] hand \u00C3\u00BC [?i1?] diegil [g\u00C3\u00BC?J mountain [??] drinkt\u00C3\u00A3 [t\u00C3\u00A2?] finish a [?\u00C3\u00A2?] heIn contrast, neither CVV nor CVC morphemes require glottal epenthesis as illustrated below.173(6) a. CVV Morphemes Gloss b. CVC Morphemes Glossgl\u00C3\u00A1 hair zib steallao cow lom animalgbei sunshine p3b bigk\u00C3\u00B3O friend vIl grassph penis z\u00C3\u00B3b dancev\u00C3\u00B4\u00C3\u00B4 five tup twentyAt first glance, one may be tempted to attribute the augmentation of CV and V words in (5) toCVC by proposing that the glottal epenthesis is constrained by syllable structure requirements inGokana. As argued, in chapter 3 following Hyman (1990), however, only the ONSET is requiredfor syllabification in Gokana, coda consonants are not, as evidenced by syllable (CV) reduplicationreported in chapter 3. If the unmarked syllable in Gokana is a CV, what then is the motivation forthe insertion of an epenthetic glottal consonant? Why would a language create a marked syllablestructure? I propose that the epenthesis of the moraic coda [?] is motivated by the minimal binaryfoot condition. So, Gokana, like Axininca Campa places a requirement on words that every wordbe expressed minimally as bimoraic. CV and V morphemes do not meet this requirement and arethus forced to augment to a binary foot (CVC) by glottal epenthesis.Park (1995) documents a lot of evidence in favour of the minimal word hypothesis in (1)in Swahili, a Bantu language. One representative argument is presented below. In Swahilideclarative and imperative sentences, monosyllabic verbs require the presence of the infinitivemarker [ku] even when an infinitival meaning is not intended. Disyllabic or longer verbal stems, onthe other hand, have no such requirement:174(7) Declarative Imperativea. Ni-na- [icu laj [1w la] Chakula!I am eating Eat food!*Njna- [la] *[ Ia] Chakula!b. Ni-na- [kaa] [Soma] Kitabu!I am sitting Read the book!*Njna- [ku kaaj *[ku soma] kitabu!c. Ni-na - [Andika] bama [Andika] bama!I am writing a letter Write a letter!*Njna-[(ij J] *[kij andika] bama!The difference between the behavior of monosyllabic verbs (7a) and longer verbal stems (Th,c) isexplained if the hypothesis is adopted that a word is minimally expressed as binary foot.Monosyllabic verbs do not satisfy this condition, hence need supporting morphemes to meet thewell-formedness requirement. This assumption accounts for why the monosyllabic infinitivemarker [ku] is required to augment the subminimal monosyllabic verbs in (7a) to disyllabic formsto satisfy foot binarity. Disyllabic or longer verbal stem do not require [ku] because they alreadysatisfy the minimal condition, and thus constitute prosodic constituents of their own.In Idoma,1 as in Swahili, monosyllabic verbs never occur in isolation. Thus, theyobligatorily take the infinitive prefix [olin the declarative forms as illustrated below:(8) Idoma Monosyllabic Verbs: infinitive prefix is requiredUnderlying form Surface form Glossa. 11 \u00C3\u00B3- 11 to eatb. w\u00C3\u00A2-w\u00C3\u00A0 to comec. j3-j togod. he to shootThe Idoma forms cited here were kindly provided by Mathias Ogo Abata.175The tonal and harmonic realization of the prefix as can be seen in (data 8) is dependent upon thetone and harmonic value of the root: if the root has a high tone the prefix also bears the same tone(8a), if on the other hand, the root bears a low tone, the prefix also surfaces with a low tone (8b-d).In terms of the harmonic representation, if the harmonic value of the root is advanced, the prefix isalso advanced (8 a), if retracted, the prefix is also retracted (8b-d). These properties suggest thatthe root and prefix form a harmonic domain prosodically defined as a binary foot.This prefix, however is no longer required when the imperative marker [mg] is suffixed tothe verb. As shown in (9), after suffixation, the prefix is optional.(9) Imperative form: infinitive prefix is optionalUnderlying form Imperative form Gloss11 (O) 11 - m eat!w\u00C3\u00A2 ()w\u00C3\u00A0-m come!j () j - m go!he () he - m shoot!These two observations suggest that there is a bimoraic minimality requirement on words in Idoma.The prefix is required in (8) because it allows the verb to satisfy foot binarity. On the other hand,in (9), the presence of the prefix is no longer required since the verb and the suffix together make aprosodic bimoraic word. The notion of minimality thus enables us to explain why the prefix isrequired in one context and optional in another context.So far, evidence has been presented from Benue-Congo in support of the minimal wordhypothesis which states that words are well-formed if they contain two syllables or two moras.However, in several other languages, monosyllabic words occur in abundance and are notaugmented to two syllables or two moras as one might expect given the minimal word hypothesis in(1). Two examples of such languages, Yoruba and Ebira, are presented in the following section.1765.2.2. The minimal Prosodic Word: Evidence in favour of properheadedness5.2.2.1. Standard YorubaThe syllable type CV in Standard Yoruba is productively utilized in a variety of ways. Forexample, (i) the smallest root is a CV, the canonical verbal form, (ii) polysyllabic loan verbstruncate to the initial CV and the resulting form signifies action carried out secretly (iii) CV, butneither V nor a tone-bearing nasal reduplicates with a prosodic template that is expressed as asyllable, and (iv) consonantal deletion is possible in a word if and only if there is at least one CVremaining in it. Within standard Prosodic Morphology (McCarthy and Prince 1986, 1993a, M&Phereafter), the behavior of the CV in Yoruba would be explained as resulting from minimalityconstraints. However, this explanation is problematic for the theory of minimality: universally, aminimal word has been proposed to be a binary foot (bimoraic or bisyllabic as defined in 1).According to this proposal, every word of Yoruba ought to obey categorial binarizy, a requirementthat would rule out the CV patterns described above. These processes are described in thesubsections below.5.2.2.1.1. Intransitive imperativesThe first argument for the minimal CV requirement in Yoruba comes from the structuralrepresentation of verbs. In general, verbs in Yoruba are canonically CV and iniransitives functionas imperatives without any form of augmentation:177(10) Verb Imperative Glossbi *bii vomit, vomit!ba ba *baa hide, hide!l\u00C3\u00A7 19 *199 go, go!su su *pj defecate, defecate!Since a CV is standardly assumed to be subminimal, one might expect the CV imperatives toaugment to a bimoraic or bisyllabic foot as is the case in Axininca Campa, Gokana, Swahili andIdoma. That is what one might naturally expect for Yoruba given its epenthetic vowel [i](Puileyblank 1988) which is productively used in loan word restructuring as the following datashows:(11) English Loan Restructuring in YorubaEnglish Yoruba Glosskum k\u00C3\u00B3Om\u00C3\u00BC Combpli:s polIisi Policesku:1 sikd\u00C3\u00BCl\u00C3\u00B1 Schoolsleit sil\u00C3\u00A9\u00C3\u00A8ti SlateBut as the forms in (8) show, imperatives are not increased by [ij epenthesis to CVV or VCV tosatisfy foot binarity.2Igala, a close relative of Yoruba patterns differently on this count: all words, vebs andnouns, are minimally VCV. Thus Yoruba cognate or near-cognate verbs in Igala surface with aninitial dummy infinitive marker [\u00C3\u00A9l, enabling monosyllabic verbs to augment to VCV as illustrated2Verbs could be emphasized by the suffixation of the following emphatic morphemes: k\u00C3\u00A7, mid-toned o ora low tone. In cases involving low tone suffixation, the final vowel of the verb is lengthened to provide ananchor for tonal linking. For example, l\u00C3\u00A7 \u00E2\u0080\u0094+ lo k\u00C3\u00A7I lo of lo- go\u00E2\u0080\u0099 \u00E2\u0080\u0094 go!. This process is not conditionedby minimality effects however since longer forms and sentences are emphatically expressed similarly: sr&w nibi \u00E2\u0080\u0094 s&r w nibi k\u00C3\u00A7I sr& w& nibi-o/ sr\u00C3\u00A9 w nlbi-i \u00E2\u0080\u0094+ \u00E2\u0080\u0098come here quickly!\u00E2\u0080\u0099.178in the following data (Armstrong 1965):(12) Yoruba Glossd3e *1..d3c *d38..1 \u00C3\u00A9-d3e eatmu *1mu *mui \u00C3\u00A9-mo drink,fe *1fe *fei \u00C3\u00A9-ce dolo *i1o *lo1 \u00C3\u00A9-ld goBy comparing the two languages, we see that Yoruba, unlike Igala, disallows any form ofincrementation in the data in (12). Yet, these words are licit. Given the well-formedness of CVverbs in Yoruba, I conclude that monomoraic syllable imperatives function as independent wordsin Yoruba just as the bimoraic forms function as independent words in Igala.35.2.2.1.2. Loan verb truncationThe productive truncation pattern in the loan vocabulary presented in chapter 3 providesthe second argument for the requirement that a word be minimally monosyllabic. As a reminder,the shortening process reduces polysyllabic consonant-initial English loan verbs to the leftmost CVand truncates vowel-initial loans to the leftmost V. This process applies in conjunction with [hiepenthesis, in the case of vowel-initial loans to allow the V to augment to the minimal CV.43Armstrong does not discuss sychronic alternations involving these forms.4As shown in the starred examples in (13) there are segmental materials which could satisfy the templaticrequirement in the base/input of truncation, e.g., *g\u00E2\u0080\u0099i I *li. However, these forms are ruled out by otherdominant constraints such as the left alignment which requires that the leftmost materials of the input becontained in the output of truncation. A candidate output such as *gj is disallowed by the no-skipping overconstraint (Contiguity, M&P 1993a). See Qla (1995c) for a detailed analysis of truncation in Yoruba.179(13) Full Form Truncated Form GlosspI p to passp6nIbiI p to pump\u00C3\u00A9iifi he *\u00C3\u00A9/*\u00C3\u00A9\u00C3\u00B1l*fi to envyg\u00E2\u0080\u0099ifi h/*/*gi/*iI tobeuglyThe loan verb truncation facts provide strong evidence for the minimal CV size requirement. Onthe assumption that minimality favours either a bimoraic or bisyllabic word over a CV word, alanguage should not productively create words that violate the standard minimal size. Assumingthat the occurrence of CV words is prosodically motivated, the suggestion is that a CV is a licitword in Standard Yoruba.5.2.2.1.3. Ideophone reduplicationAwoyale (1974, 1989) describes a reduplication process in Yoruba which copies the finalCV in ideophones giving the reduplicated form the meaning \u00E2\u0080\u009Clight intensity (of shape or action)\u00E2\u0080\u009D.Representative data appear in (14):5Reduplication patterns mvolvmg ideophones are interesting given the accompanying tonal effects. Forexample, in expressing \u00E2\u0080\u0098even intensity\u00E2\u0080\u0099 the forms in (14) undergo total reduplication of tone and melody:rgd-rbg&i, gbrii-gbni, gb&y&i-gbyii. In contrast, when reduplication denotes uneveness of shape,sound or action, only the melody is totally copied, tone is not. In this case, the reduplicant receives mid toneby default (Akinlabi 1985, Pulleyblank 1986): r5gd5-rogodo, gbth-gb\u00C3\u00A7m, gbyii-gbayau.180(14) Reduplicated forma. rgd rgd-i \u00E2\u0080\u0098round and big\u00E2\u0080\u0099 \u00E2\u0080\u0094> mt.b. gb\u00C3\u00A8th gbem-g *gbern..rfl \u00E2\u0080\u0098heavy and soft\u00E2\u0080\u0099 \u00E2\u0080\u0094+ mt*gbm *gbjj.gbc. gbtyii *gbyjii *gbyj4i *gbyji.yu \u00E2\u0080\u0098open and loose\u00E2\u0080\u0099*gby\u00C3\u00A2iI.hu *gbyy\u00C3\u00A2 *gbyiI..y\u00C3\u00A2iINotice in (14) that only a CV reduplicates; neither a vowel nor a tone-bearing nasal does. Anexplanation for the reduplication pattern is obtained under the assumption that the reduplicant is asuffixal minimal word: a. On this view, the well-formedness of reduplication in (14a,b) could thenbe explained since the reduplicant is a licit minimum. On the other hand, reduplication fails in(14c) for various reasons: in *gbayjj the reduplicant is V, a subminimal form; *gbyi..hiIwhich contains an epenthetic [hi is ruled out because epenthesis is only enforced in a word whichdoes not contain a a (as shown in loan verb truncation in (13)). However, since the base ofreduplication already contains a a, V is not augmented to CV by epenthesis in the reduplicant.6This process provides the third source of evidence for the minimal prosodic word.5.2.2.1.4. Consonantal deletionThe fourth argument for the CV minimal tquirement comes from consonant deletion.Two basic types are used as illustration: (i) sonorant deletion (Akinlabi 1991), and (ii) deletion byidentity (Oyelaran 1971, Pulleyblank 1988). Each deletion is triggered intervocalically. Considerthese processess below.6A form like *gb&yiyi is rendered illicit by the no-skipping over constraint (CONTIGUITY, M&P1993a), while *gby.y is unacceptable because the rightmost vowel of the base Jul is not contained inthe reduplicant (an ANCHORING violation).1815.2.2.1.4.1. Optional intervocalic sonorant deletionAkinlabi (1991) discusses an optional intervocalic sonorant deletion process. As seen in(15), deletion targets glides and [ri.(15) Full Form Glide deletion Deletion of Fri Glossa. ewiir eur\u00C3\u00A7 ewiI *eue goatw\u00C3\u00B3re \u00C3\u00B3re *\u00C3\u00A26e luck charmniwo nio 6wo *6o brimstone treeb. On on *j header\u00C3\u00B1p\u00C3\u00A8 e\u00C3\u00A8p sandIrgber1 gben or \u00C3\u00A1gbe\u00C3\u00A9 name of a cityNotice in these examples that deletion is permitted subject to the availability of at least one CV inthe word. Thus, in (15a) either one of the two consonants may delete optionally, one at a time.Both cannot delete at the same time. If they do as in the starred forms, the resulting output isungrammatical. The last example in (15b: Irgben \u00E2\u0080\u0094> \u00C3\u00A2gbe\u00C3\u00A9) shows that it is simply not thecase that two sonorants cannot delete at the same time: they do if there is a CV left in the word.Again, this is explained if we assume that the minimal size condition in Standard Yoruba requiresthe presence of a syllable (CV) in every word. Thus, even though the standard bimoraic minimumrequirement is satisfied in the illicit output of deletion in (15), such forms are still unacceptable. Alicit word is obtained only if it contains at least a CV.1825.2.2.1.4.2. Consonantal deletion by identityConsider the forms in (16) where the first of two identical consonants in the word deletesintervocalically (Oyelaran 1971, Pufleyblank 1988):(16) Full Form Truncated Form Glossagogo aago *aao *agoo bellsiis6 \u00C3\u00A9s6 \u00C3\u00A96 \u00E2\u0080\u0098siiI traditional form of bankingegungun eegun *eeim *egurnjn boneotutu 6ti *6i t\u00C3\u00B3iI chifio\u00C3\u00B1rfin o\u00C3\u00B4rin *fl *o\u00C3\u00B1lin sunIn the forms resulting from identical consonant deletion, the output of deletion is weilformedbecause it contains a CV. The second and rightmost consonant is never deleted because of the CVminimality restriction.8In sum, the data presented above provide strong arguments for the claim that a CV isrequired in every word to satisfy the minimal size requirement. Neither V nor VV can fulfill thiscondition. Obligatorily, a word must contain one CV in Standard Yoruba. The question that arisesis whether the minimal binary foot size condition of M&P (1986, 1993a) holds of every language.If so, how does a CV satisfy foot binarity given that binarity is expected to hold of prosodiccategories?One way of ensuring that a CV obeys categorial binarity is to assume that an onset is avalid prosodic constituent (Davis 1985, etc). From this perspective, it could then be argued that7Following deletion, the leftmost vowel spreads rightwards to the adjacent vowel resulting in along vowel. See Pulleyblank (1988) for details.81n general, the CV is preferably expressed at the right edge of the foot. This property as analyzed inchapter 4, follows from ALIGN-HEAD-R. More on the interaction of the minimum condition and the right-edge alignment condition later in this section.183both the onset and the nuclear-mora together satisfy the binary foot condition. This assumptionmakes a prediction that the onset should function freely as a prosodic constituent just like moras.However, this prediction is not borne out for Yoruba. Apart from syllabification in which an onsetis obligatorily required (Qia 1993), it plays no independent role elsewhere in the language. Incontrast, moras (nuclear and non-nuclear) function independently as prosodic units, tone-bearingunits and weight-bearing units (QIa 1994b). Yoruba thus provides evidence for the standardassumption within moraic theory that the onset is not a prosodic constituent; if it were, it shouldexhibit independent characteristics usually associated with authentic constituents. The positiontaken here is this: since the onset is not required independently of syllabification, it would be ad hocto accord it the same independent prosodic status accorded to moras just to make a CV conform tothe standard minimal binary foot requirement.Quite apart from the moraic theoretic considerations that rule out the onset as a prosodicconstituent, Ondo, a dialect of Yoruba poses a problem for the assumption that the onset and thenuclear-mora are possible prosodic constituents which foot binarity requirement may select: asargued in chapter 3, onsets are not required for syllabification in Ondo, thus, a minimal word isexpressed either as CV or V:(17) Standard Yoruba Ondo Yoruba GlossIi I seeen [] walk19 19 gof\u00C3\u00B4 fO jumpUnder an approach where the onset is treated as prosodic constituent, only CV words would satisfycategorial binarity in Ondo, onsetless syllable words would not and the well-formedness of bothforms is unexplained.184To get around the problem that confronts a proposal that accords an onset consonant thestatus of a prosodic constituent, one could adopt a deconstructionist approach to foot binarity(Hewitt 1994). Hewitt proposes that Foot Binarity may be viewed in Optimality Theory as afamily of constraints which can be decomposed into three different constraints holding at variouslevels within the foot: Foot-Binp., Foot-BinNji and Foot-Bino. Although Hewitt does not treat theroot node as a prosodic constituent, one could extend his analysis to capture foot binarity at thelevel of the root node, just to preserve the standard assumption that a word must contain twophonological units below the foot: after all, the root node (though not \u00E2\u0080\u009Cprosodic\u00E2\u0080\u009D) is considered tobe a phonological unit. This assumption would enable a CV to satisfy foot binarity (Ft-Bin Rt).This would incur four difficulties, however. First, it makes a prediction that any two root nodes -CV, VC, CC, or VV should suffice to satisfy foot binarity. This prediction is not borne out inYoruba: only a CV is an acceptable minimum, other forms *VC, *(, *\u00E2\u0080\u0098fT are unacceptable. Thesecond problem which this account faces is the cross-linguistic evidence that binary foot templatesare preferably stated in terms of moras, nucleus or syllable, never in terms of root nodes. This is asystematic gap which is completely unexpected under the assumption that foot binarity isextendable to the root node in this specific case. Third, it predicts that two root nodes are requiredto fulfill the binary condition imposed on the minimal word at the expense of other well-formednessconstraints. One such constraint is the Obligatory Contour Principle (OCP, Leben 1973, McCarthy1986, Odden 1986, Yip 1988). Forexample, Ft-Bin Rt requires the projection of two distinct rootnodes in a CV containing a glide + high vowel sequence. On the assumption that glides and theircorresponding high vowels differ structurally but not featurally (Guerssel 1986, among others), thetwo root node requirement would yield an OCP violation in this configuration. Such a conditionwould be surprising given cross-linguistic evidence that languages prefer to obey the OCP ratherthan violate it.9 Fourth, this analysis cannot explain why Ondo allows words either with one ortwo root nodes (V or CV) to be well-formed.9McCarthy (1986) and Yip (1988) presents the OCP as a principle which languages must respect, a non-violable constraint in Optimality Theoretic tenns. In Odden (1986), languages prefer to obey the OCP butmay violate it if need be. By this latter view, the OCP is a rankable constraint which in essence is violable.185A more promising explanation for the CV minimal condition is offered by theproperheadedness constraint of Ito and Mester (1992). Properheadedness requires that every wordmust contain at least one foot, every foot at least one syllable, every syllable at least one mora. InJapanese, for example, the interaction of properheadedness andfoot binarity derives the minimumbimoraic word (ItO 1990). Adapted to Yoruba, the obligatoriness of a CV in every word isproposed to follow from properheadedness. By properheadedness, at least a syllable must bepresent in every word. 10 The expression of properheadedness is dependent upon the syllablestructure of a given language. If ONS is required for syllabification as is the case in StandardYoruba (Qla 1993), properheadedness would be expressed as a CV (1 8a). However, if ONS isoutranked and violable a minimal word is properly headed if it contains either a CV or V (18a,b; asis the case in Ondo Yoruba). The structure assumed for properheadedness is given below:(18) Yoruba minimal size condition: Properheadednessa b.PrWd PrWdFt Fta aNUCC V VThe notions of ranking and violability are crucial for the analysis of Yoruba. Prior to OT,a language such as Yoruba which allows CV minimal size condition is predicted to be non-existent:the universal minimal word condition requires at least two moras. OT, however, predicts the10The possibility of a Catalexis analysis (Kiparsky 1991, etc) was raised by Alan Prince. Under this view,one would have to assume that there is an empty prosodic constituent (j.t, NUC or a) at the edge of amonosyllabic word which enables it to conform to the standard bimoraic or bisyllabic minimum:Two arguments militate against such a view. First, if the above representation were the correct one forYoruba, the empty prosodic position ought to be filled with epenthetic materials; /b.! in onset position andhi in the moraic position. Thus, a form like Ic should surface as *lohi. But in fact, no such thing occurs.Second, a catalexis analysis cannot account for why l\u00C3\u00A7 is well-formed while V-only words are not as shownby the facts of consonant deletion (wtir \u00E2\u0080\u0094 \u00E2\u0080\u0094 W\u00C3\u00B3 *i).186existence of Yoruba: phonological and templatic constraints are in principle violable, the minimalbimoraic constraint inclusive. For Yoruba, the basic constraint is Properheadedness (Ito andMester 1992):(19) PROP-HEAD: Every prosodic word must contain one footEvery foot must contain one syllableEvery syllable must contain one nucleusEvery nucleus must contain one moraBecause CV words are never augmented to a binary foot, the faithfulness constraints whichprohibits the insertion of phonological consitutents, LEX-i.t (LEXj.t),11 and LEX-NUCp. arecrucially ranked higher that Ft-Bin. Here is the ranldng which derives the CV minimal size:(20) PROP-HEAD, LEX-NUCp>> Ft-Bin.Given the constraint ranking in (20), any output candidate that satisfies the undominated and highlyranked constraints is evaluated as optimal even if it violates lowly ranked Ft-Bin.\u00E2\u0080\u00992 Thus, thisranking predicts that given a CV input, the optimal output would be a CV. This output wouldsatisfy properheadedness and augmentation to Ft-Bin would be prohibited by REC-NUC which ismore highly ranked than Ft-Bin. Tableau (20) demonstrates this:11For simplicity, violations of LEXi and LEX-NUC1iare represented as LEX-NUCp. violation.12Ft-Bin will be expressed either as Ft-BiuNUC1or Ft-Bina, not as Ft-Bini which if allowed would berealized as a word consisting of two nasals, a prohibited configuration in Yoruba. If we adopt thehypothesis that nasals are moraic, not syllabic as argued in chapter 2 and in Qia (1994b), then the observedasymmetry between licit CV words and unattested *N.only words are explained187(21) II PROP-HEAD I LEX-NUqL Ft-BinV\u00E2\u0080\u0099a. w *b waa *,The optimal candidate in (a) obeys all the top-ranking constraints though it violates lowly-rankedFt-Bin. Candidate (b) does not emerge as the winner despite the fact that it respects PROP-HEADand Ft-Bin. In particular, (b) is ruled out because it obeys Ft-Bin at the expense of violating top-ranked LEX-NUCj.t.Assuming that PROP-HEAD is undominated in Yoruba, one can now account for whysonorant deletion does not apply across the board to yield vowel-only words in binary footed (orlarger forms) words in Standard Yoruba. Before dealing with the overall process of sonorantdeletion such as (ew\u00C3\u00B3r\u00C3\u00A9 -. e\u00C3\u00B3r\u00C3\u00A9 ewiI *e(e), let us review the analysis of [rj deletion proposed inchapter 4. Recall from our previous discussion that the constraints governing intervocalic [rJdeletion are *OCp..PCE and *PLPLCEIS *()(p.pCE prevents vowels with identical featuresfrom flanking unclerspecifed [r}, while *PIACELESS forces the spreading of place features frommoras of vowels whose features are specified to those of vowels which are unspecified for placefeatures. This process as earlier mentioned, applies only when there is another consonant in theword as illustrated by comparing the following forms (aragberl -4 \u00C3\u00A0\u00C3\u00A1gbe\u00C3\u00A9, or\u00C3\u00B3\u00C3\u00B1 - o\u00C3\u00B3\u00C3\u00B1 *()(5 vs.on \u00E2\u0080\u0094 *01). As demonstrated earlier, this shows that the Properheadedness constraint dominates*OCp PLACE, *PLACELES NUCj.t>> *WCOR[rJ, *pff{I(22) PROP-HEAD>> *()rp PLACE, *p(Jj NUqI >>*MJCOR[r], *p/, Ft-BinTableau (22) demonstrates the interaction of the ranked constraints.(23) Ion PROP-HEAD *()(p PLACE I *PLACEL5S I M/COR[r] I *)JJfl I Ft-Bina.oI 1*! ..:::::::::....:.:........:.::::::::.. :.::::::::.:Vbori I * *188In (a), the drive to satisfy the highly-ranked PROP-HEAD forces the optimal candidate to violatelowly-ranked *MJCOR[rJ and *pfHI. Even though candidate (b) satisfies these two constraints andFt-Bin, it is still less optimal because it violates top-ranked PROP-HEAD. Compare the illicitnessof the VV form in (22) with the well-formedness of I\u00C3\u00A0r\u00C3\u00A1gbeiIl which surfaces as /\u00C3\u00A2\u00C3\u00A1gbe\u00C3\u00A9/:(24) /\u00C3\u00A0ragberil PROP-HEAD I *()p P1 ..\u00E2\u0080\u00A2\C\u00E2\u0080\u0099F *PIACFLFSS I M/COR[r] *p/f{J Ft-Bina. \u00C3\u00A0r\u00C3\u00A1gberi * ** I_*b. \u00C3\u00A0\u00C3\u00A1gberi *c. ar\u00C3\u00A1gbel * I_*d. \u00C3\u00A0agbe\u00C3\u00A9All the forms in (24) are possible.\u00E2\u0080\u00993 But the interesting form that I wish to consider here is (24d), aform that fully satisfies *COp,Jr Why is (23a: *o\u00E2\u0080\u0099,) an impossible output? Why is (24b: \u00C3\u00A0agbe\u00C3\u00A9)well-formed? The answer to this question is found by simply considering evaluating thecandidates based on the established ranking of PROP-HEAD and other lowly ranked constraints. In(23a), undominated PROP-HEAD propels the violation of *WCOR[r] whereas in (24d), theobedience of *MJCOR[r] is possible because of the presence of a syllable in the word, PROP-HEADis thus respected in the output.Now, let us turn to the analysis of alternating forms which either appear with [rJ or a glidecorresponding in featural properties to the following high vowel (ewiir \u00E2\u0080\u0094 e\u00C3\u00B3r - ewi *elIe). Ina form where [ri is present, glide formation is not required, in a form where [rj is deleted on theother hand, glide formation is obligatory: a syllable must be present in the word. I propose thatglide formation is triggered by the need to satisfy PROP-HEAD. So, just as *JWCOR[r] isdominated by PROP-HEAD, the constraint governing glide formation is obviously dominated byPROP-HEAD.Assuming following Guerssel (1986) that high vowels and glides differ only in terms of\u00E2\u0080\u00983Optionality in OT has been characterized as effects following from (a) constraints which arecrucially unranked (Blake 1993), (b) the effect of having different input forms for the sameprocess (Grimshaw 1994).189their structural characterization, and given the OCP restrictions on identity and adjacency ofmelodic representation, I assume that the glide-high vowel sequence in (ewir- cur\u00C3\u00A9-. ew6\u00C3\u00A9*eiIe) is represented as one root node which is linked to two different syllable positions, the onset(root node as defined by the ALIGN-L constraint) and the nuclear-mora. As an onset consonant,this root node links directly to the syllable node, whereas as a vowel, the root node is dominated bya nuclear-mora:(25) Representation of identical glide-vowel seciuencea= RT=[HI]When the path between a feature and a prosodic anchor is not a lexical property, a LEx-PATH-Fviolation is incured. The creation of a path between a high vowel and a glide in the alternatingforms in Yoruba violates LEX-PATH-Ft (he constraint governing the well-formedness of associationlines between features and prosodic anchors, Archangeli & Pulleyblank 1994, Ito, Mester &Padgett 1993).(26) LEX-PATh-F: For any path between an F-element a, and some anchor , if a isassociated to in the output, then, a is associated to f3 in theinput.The ranking and tableau that implement this analysis are given below.190(27) PROP-HEAD>> *M/COR[rl, LEX-PAThFFull form: /ewtIr\u00C3\u00A9l - PROP-HEAD *WCOR[rJ j LEX-PATHF IIa.e *!Jb.euIe *Fc. ewde *This shows that foot binarity is respected within some domain, namely the domain of the noun:(29) Nouns are minimally binary footedThe robust expression of nouns in Standard Yoruba is VCV. The question is why are nouns soexpressed? Why can\u00E2\u0080\u0099t they be freely realised as either VV, CVV or VCV? The fact that a CV isobligatorily present in every word is proposed to follow from Properheadedness. Why is the CVrequired at the right edge of the word?It is well-known that heads of words in languages prefer to occur at a particular edge. Asshown for Japanese, heads occur at the left edge of the word (Ito and Mester 1992). In Yoruba, theThe optimal candidates in (27) are forms where PROP-HEAD is obeyed. Candidate (a) failsbecause it violates PROP-HEAD, a high-ranking constraint.The claim in OT that a lowly ranked constraint is functional in a grammar is supported bynoun canonicity. Canonical nouns are expressed as VCV as shown by the representative datagiven below:(28) Noun Glossaso clothosii monthomo childal night191situation is reversed: heads occur at the right-edge of the word. CV words maximally satisfy thisrequirement. They contain one head and are properly aligned. Now if we adopt the hypothesis thatthe head of a word prefers to occur at the right-edge, then a simple explanation emerges as to whynouns are realised as VCV not as CVV. Formalized within Generalized Alignment (M&P 1993b),this condition as defined earlier in chapter 4 and repeated below for referential convenience:(30) ALIGNHEAD (HEAD, R; Ft, R):the head of a foot must be aligned with the right edge of a footHowever, as shown in (27), a few VV nouns exist. In all, they are thirteen in number.Apart from the fact that this set is not as robust as the VCV-type nouns, they are also specialbecause the rightmost V is always [high]. In addition, this class exhibits a unique property in thatthey are freely realised as VV or VCV.14 Whenever they are expressed as VCV, the onset caneither be a glide corresponding featurally to the rightmost high vowel or a [hi if the high vowel isspecified for [nasal].\u00E2\u0080\u00995(31) VV Form Glide FormationForms with [hi Glossaun awun ahun tortoise/miserem eyIn \u00C3\u00A7h\u00E2\u0080\u0099in palmnutsin Iy\u00E2\u0080\u0099in Ibm herecottonThe question is, how does one account for this alternation? There are two possible ways ofexplaining it. First, it could be argued to be a deletion process by which either (i) the place node of14Judgements vary among speakers on the VV realisation of the forms in (31). In general, the VCV formsare highly preferred by most speakers of Standard Yoruba. In fact, some speakers do not use the VVvariants at all. Speakers of Qyo dialect, a dialect which permits a pervasive rule of deletion, bothconsonantal and vocalic (Awobuluyi 1981), however, tend to lean towards the free VV--VCV variation. ForStandard Yoruba, I propose following Awobuluyi (1981) that only the VCV forms are permitted.15A sonorant which is tautosyllabic to a nasalized vowel becomes nasalized e.g., /yi5n/ \u00E2\u0080\u0094 [ii] \u00E2\u0080\u0098to bepregnant\u00E2\u0080\u0099 (Oyelaran 1971, Pulleyblank 1988).192the glide or (ii) its root node delinks intervocalically when the right flanking vowel is a homorganic[high] vowel. When the place node is deleted, the root node remains and is interpreted as voicelessfricative [hi. When deletion targets the root node on the other hand, the glide is removed from therepresentation resulting in a VV output. Call this the Deletion Hypothesis. Second, the alternationcould be analysed as a leftward high vowel spread triggered in a VV sequence. This creates anonset glide to meet the Properheadedness requirement. Alternatively, an epenthetic [hi couldsurface in the onset position if a nasal specification is present in the syllable containing theepenthetic consonant. 16,17 Call this the Spreading/Epenthesis Hypothesis.In analysing these glide vowel alternations, these two hypotheses were considered inAkinlabi (1991). 18 He argued for the deletion hypothesis. However, the evidence adduced fromother consonantal deletion processes in Standard Yoruba points in the other direction: Cs areimmune to deletion if it would yield a violation of Properheadedness (as shown by the deletionpattern in (a) optional sonorant deletion, and (b) consonant deletion by identity. Hence, evidencefrom the language suggests that the spreading hypothesis is the more plausible of the twohypotheses since that would enable the satisfaction of Properheadedness. Further, since [hiepenthesis is independently attested elsewhere in the language (loan verb truncation), it seemsplausible to assume that this is an available option for respecting Properheadedness.Assuming that glide formation follows from ranking PROP-HEAD above LExPATHF, casesin which the VV forms are realised as VGV (aim\u00E2\u0080\u0094 awun \u00E2\u0080\u0098tortois&, Oil \u00E2\u0080\u0094 Owil \u00E2\u0080\u0098cotton\u00E2\u0080\u0099) arestraightfowardly accounted for by invoking this ranking as depicted in these two tableaux wherethe optimal forms obey PROP-HEAD by violating LEX-PATHF.16The fact that nasality conditions IhI epenthesis seems plausible in view of the fact that nasalized vowelsin the language prefer to occur in a , i.e., a CV configuration. Hence, although it is impossible to findnative words begining with a nasalized vowel *cv, c-initial words may contain nasalized vowels, e.g. r&n\u00E2\u0080\u0098sew/send\u00E2\u0080\u0099, tuntun \u00E2\u0080\u0098new\u00E2\u0080\u0099. Note that 1W epenthesis is further motivated by Properheadedness.17The interaction of nasality and aspiration is also attested in some Igbo dialects. The motivation for thisinteraction is unclear at present.18The second hypothesis suggested here, i.e., spreading/epenthetic is slightly different from the one offeredby Akinlabi (1991). In the original version, 1W is specified as underlying while the glides are derived byspreading the root nodes of the high vowels to the underlying 1W.193(32) PRoP-HEAD >> LExPATH-F(33 PROP-HEAD >> LExPAm-FFull form: /awuiiJ PROP-HEAD LEX-PATHFa.aun *!b. awun j_*As mentioned in the previous discussion, VV forms, whose rightmost high vowels arenasalized exhibit a unique property which their non-nasalized counterparts do not have: if therightmost high vowel is specified for [nasal], an epenthetic [hi may appear in the onset position sothat the vowel can syllabify to satisfy PROP-HEAD, [hi epenthesis is probited when nasality isabsent (aun \u00E2\u0080\u0094 awun \u00E2\u0080\u0094 ahun \u00E2\u0080\u0098tortoise\u00E2\u0080\u0099, Oil \u00E2\u0080\u0094 Owd *Ohil \u00E2\u0080\u0098cotton\u00E2\u0080\u0099). In other words, the presence ofnasality correlates with the presence of aspiration and vice versa, a nasal aspiration co-occurrencerestriction. For the present purposes, the informally characterization of this phenomenon which Ishall adopt here is stated as follows:\u00E2\u0080\u00999(34) Nasal/Aspiration: If [+glottis], then [nasal]Since this condition applies in the domain of the syllable created to satisfy PROP-HEAD, it is statedas [Nas/Asp]a. For [Nas/Asp]a to be satisfied, a root node [h] which was not present in the inputsurfaces in the output, a LEX-RT violation. This shows that PROP-HEAD and [Nas/Asp]adominate LEx-RT.\u00E2\u0080\u00989A detailed examination of this process is a major topic, which is outside the scope of thepresent work.Full form: IOwiiI J PROP-HEAD [ LEX-PATHFa.OdVbOwil ii *194(35) PROP-HEAD, [Nas/Asp]a>> LEXPATH-F, LEx-RTI IOwdI PROP-HEAD j [Nas/Asp}a 1 LEX-PATHF j LEX-RTVa.\u00C3\u00B4wLi *b.Ohii *! *In (35), the optimal candidate is the form that violates lowly-ranked LEx-PATHF, the candidate thatviolates lower-ranked LEX-RT, in contrast, is rejected because it does not meet the structuraldescription for the insertion of [hi: the nuclear-mora of this syllable is non-nasalized. A violationof the same constaint, LEX-RT is permited if the appropriate structural context is satisfied as thefollowing tableau shows:(36 PROP-HEAD, [Nas/Asp]a>> LEXPATH-F, LEX-RTFull form: Iawu\u00C3\u00B1l h PROP-HEAD I [Nas/Aspja LEX-PATHF LEX-RTVa ahun *b. awun *In (36), [hI epenthesis is licit in candidate (a) because the syllable containing this segment isnasalized, while candidate (b), a form that disobeys LEx-PATHF is also a possible optimal formbecause the constraint is lower-ranked. The critical constraint for the well-formedness of theseforms is the satisfaction of higher-ranked PROP-HEAD.The findings presented above may be summarized as follows. Yoruba imposes a uniqueminimal size condition on every word: each word must contain a CV, regardless of its number ofVs. This well-formedness condition follows from Properheadedness. Since a head (i.e., a) iscommonly realised at the right edge of the word, I have proposed the Right-headedness constraint.Evidence for this proposal was adduced from the canonical shape of nouns and distributives.Placed within the standard notion of minimality which requires that minimal words be binaryfooted, Yoruba is clearly deviant. The basic requirement is the CV minimal size condition whichcuts across all categories: verbs, nouns and ideophones. All other conditions then follow. Thus, thecondition that nouns be obligatorily binary footed is optimal if only the CV condition is also195satisfied.The obligatoriness of PROP-HEAD is obtained in OT by ranking: PROP-HEAD isundominated in Yoruba. Other constraints such as *WCOR[r], LEx-RT, LEXPATHF are lowerranked and may be violated under pressure to satisfy PROP-HEAD as evident from the followingprocesses: (i) [hi is epenthesized to augment a V initial polysyllabic loan verb to CV, (ii) therightmost high vowel in a VV sequence spreads to the prenuclear position creating a glide onset;alternatively, when the rightmost V is nasalized, [hJ is epenthesized into the onset position, (iii) [rJdeletion is prohibited in a context where it would otherwise be expected to apply. Compared withProperheadedness, Ft-Bin is lowly-ranked. This is so since CV words are not compelled toaugment to Ft-Bin in Yoruba, as is reported for languages such as Axininca Campa, Gokana,Swahili and Idoma for example.5.2.2.2. EbiraLike Yoruba, verbs in Ebira (Standard Ebira: Adive 1989, Jatto 1994 and Igara: Adigun1970) have a canonical CV shape and function as imperatives with no form of augmentation:(37) Ebira imperatives (from Jatto 1994:61)Verb Glossii eat, eat!pa beg, beg!t\u00C3\u00AA hide, hide!rju enter, enter!Notice that the lack of incrementation to VCV (as we saw in Igala 9) or to CVV or CVC (asdemonstrated in Axininca Campa 4a and Gokana) is not prevented by the absence of an epentheticvowel in the language: like Yoruba, Ebira has an epenthetic vowel [ij which features prominently196in the loan vocabulary for word restructuring. The following examples attest to this fact (Aclive1989, Jatto 1994; epenthetic vowels are underlined; as in Yoruba and Qwon-Afa, epentheticvowels surface as [ii or [uJ depending on the back value of adjacent segments):(38) Ebira loan restructuring (from Aclive 1989, Jatto 1994)English Ebira Glosskoum ikdOm\u00C3\u00BC Combpnii:s iporuisi Policesku:l 1sikthi Schoolsleit isir\u00C3\u00A9\u00C3\u00A8fi SlateIn (38), epenthesis is constrained by phonology and morphology. The phonology of Ebiradisfavors consonant clusters as well as closed syllables. Thus, when words having such structuresare borrowed from English, they are restructured by epenthesis to fit into the canonical CV syllablestructure of Ebira. Ebira has another morphological property which is quite pervasive in theBenue-Congo family: the requirement that nouns begin with a vowel. This property propels theinsertion of epenthetic [\u00E2\u0080\u0098I in the word-initial position as evident from the data in (38). If epenthesisresults from the requirements of prosody (Ito 1989), the epenthetic process in (38) must beprosodically governed. The prosodic constituent that is filled up with vocalic features in (38) is thenuclear-mora which is syllabified with a preceding consonant, if any. Otherwise, the mora, being aprosodic licenser (Zec 1988, etc.) guarantees the phonetic interpretation of unsyllabified onsetlessVs. The loan word restructing facts provide evidence that FILL (syllable (or prosodic) positionsmust be filled with an underlying segment) is violable in Ebira when an empty prosodic position ispresent in the lexical entry.Thus, we see from the loan phonology that an epenthetic vowel exists in Ebira. But as seenfrom the monomoraic imperatives in (37), they never augment to CVV by vowel epenthesis or evenby vowel lengthening because there is no prosodic motivation for such incrementation. Given that197the CV verbs in (37) are well-formed in spite of the fact that they do not augment to a binary foot,one is led to conclude that they are licit words in Ebira. The Ebira data is explained if we adopt theview that Properheadedness plays a role in defining the minimal size of words. Once this view isadopted, the fact that monosyllabic verbs function as imperative without incrementation followslogically. The ranking that accounts for this data is exactly like that established for Yoruba:(39) PROP-HEAD, LExNUCp.>> Ft-Binf Candidates PROP-HEAD LEX-NUqL Ft-Bin IVa.n *b.rii *!In (b), the candidate is rejected because it violates higher ranked LEx-NUq.t. to satisfy lower-ranked Ft-Bin, while the form in (a) spares the same violation by violating Ft-Bin. Having obeyedhigher ranked PROP-HEAD, it emerges as the optimal form.As argued in M&P (1986), patterns of truncation provide insightful evidence for the notionof minimal word. Specifically, truncation applies to forms that would not yield words which arebelow the minimal size, but is blocked in cases which would result in subminimal words. Forexample, in Lardil, an Australian language, truncation applies to three or more moras (40a)whereas the same process is prevented from applying in disyllabic words (40b):(40) Lardil Truncation (from M&P 1993a)Inflected Unintlected Glossa. mayara-n mayar rainbowkarikari-n karikar butter-fishb. mela-n mela *mel seawite-n wite *wit interiorThis set of data is explained in M&P (1996, 1993a) as an instantiation of word minimality which198requires the presence of at least two moras in ever word in Larch. The non-application oftruncation in (40b), then, is accounted for since deletion in this case would yield subminimalwords.Let us test this hypothesis in Ebira. In Ebira, when two vowels occur at morphemeboundary, a hiatus environment is formed. If the two vowels are non-high, the first vowel is eitherdeleted or assimilated to the second vowel to resolve the hiatus. However, if the first vowel is high,it does not delete, instead, it loses its tone and surfaces as a glide on the preceeding consonant.Consider these processes in the following examples involving a sequence of a CV verb and afollowing VCV nominal object:(41) Vowel Hiatus resolution in Ebiraa. Deletion:Vowel hiatus context Output (after vowel deletion) Glossd6 + ozi d\u00C3\u00B3zI get the childto + oh\u00C3\u00A1 toh\u00C3\u00A1 arrange the spearsr\u00C3\u00A9 + evd r\u00C3\u00A9vd see a goatn\u00C3\u00A1 + Ob\u00C3\u00B3 n\u00C3\u00B3b\u00C3\u00B3 sell a ropeb. Glide formation:Vowel hiatus context_______________________hl + \u00C3\u00AAcehi + ohtti +do + \u00C3\u00A3z\u00C3\u00A2In (41), the resolution of vowel hiatus either by vowel deletion or glide formation is naturallyexpected since the output forms conform to the standard bimoraic minimal size. However, if theOutput (glide formation) Glosshi\u00C3\u00A8c\u00C3\u00A8hi\u00C3\u00B3hitwvz:d\u00E2\u0080\u009D\u00E2\u0080\u0099\u00C3\u00A3z\u00C3\u00A3buy winecall childbeat goatchase goat199bimoraic/bisyllabic minimal condition is operative in Ebira, one would expect glide formation to beblocked in morpheme sequences consisting of two vowels. This expectation is not fulfilled: thesame process applies between a CV verb and the third person singular pronoun object, a V, asshown below:(42) Vowel hiatus context Output (glide formation) Glossm + 0 nio skinitvu + 0 VWO mould ithl + o hio buyittil + o beatitIn (42), the CV-V input yields a CGV output. The high vowel which was originally moraic, as isobviously the case because it bears tone (Hyman 1985, Pulleyblank 1994), loses its tone and mornand surfaces as a glide. This results in a subminimal form by the standard definition of minimalword (1): words are minimally bimoraic or bisyllabic. However, these words are well-formed andso it seems safe to conclude that they are licit prosodic constituents of their own as wasdemonstrated for Yoruba in the previous section.Again, once we say that Properheadedness is the crucial condition for meeting minimalityin Ebira, the fact that glide formation applies to polysyllabic as well as bisyllabic words follownicely: in all of these forms, Properheadedness is satisfied fully. Since the output forms in (42) areCGV not CVV, this shows that PROP-HEAD outranks Ft-Bin. To account for the vowel hiatusresolution data involving glide formation, I assume the following: 1, I assume following Rosenthall(1994) that glide formation in CGV sequence (where the second consonant is secondarilyarticulated as a glide) entails the obedience of PARSE-HI (PLACE), but results in a violation ofPARSERO0T since the high vowel no longer surfaces as an independent segment in the output formconstraints; and, 2, that NVH prevents vowel hiatus across morpheme sequences:200(43) a. NVH: Vowel Hiatus (sequences of unidentical vowels) is prohibitedb. PARSE-HI (PLACE): HI-Place Features must be parsedc. PARSE-ROOT: Roots must be parsedThese constraints are ranked with PROP-HEAD and Ft-Bin as follows:\u00E2\u0080\u0098Ia. v:gr RT> RTPL PL PLV Uc. vo:The form in (b) satisfies lower-ranked Ft-Bin, PARSE-RT and PARSE-HI at the expense of higherranked NVH and is rejected for that reason. Candidate (c) is rejected because it violates PARSE-HI, a highly ranked constraint. Candidate (a) avoids violations of the same constraints byCandidates(44) PROP-HEAD, NVH, PARSE-HI>> PARSE-ROOT, Ft-BinPROP-HEAD I NVH PARSE-HI PARSE-RT I Ft-Binb. vuo: *!///RT RTPL PL PLV U* **,201disobeying Ft-Bin and PARSE-RT and surfaces as the winner; its well-formedness is taken care ofby undominated PROP-HEAD which it obeys.One should ask if foot binarity plays a role in Ebira. Like Yoruba nouns, Ebira nouns areminimally VCV. Shorter nouns are not found in the language. Examples are given below:(45) Ebira Nouns:Noun Gloss\u00C3\u00A0d\u00C3\u00A1 Father3t\u00C3\u00A4 FriendOk\u00C3\u00A0 Food of yam flour\u00C3\u00A0m\u00C3\u00BC CapThe minimal requirement on nouns is explained if we assume that the constraint NounFt-Bin isoperative in Ebira. This constraint ensures that no noun falls below the minimal two morarequirement. It is worth asking if the sole requirement for noun minimality is the binary footcondition or whether the satisfaction of PROP-HEAD is additionally required. As recorded byAdigun (1970) a few VV nouns are attested in Ebira, but they generally alternate as VCV:(46) VV- VCV alternation in Ebira and IgaraVV form VCV form Glossal aji Heart\u00C3\u00A9ji HairTenoji ThreadObserve in (46) that the rightmost vowel is always a high vowel and note too that the consonant inthe VCV form is a glide corresponding in featural properties to the high vowel. The alternating202forms are accounted for if as claimed earlier, PROP-HEAD is undominated in this language: asyllable must be present in every word. What the above data suggests is that the preferred shape ofa syllable in Ebira, as in Standard Yoruba, is CV. Thus, we can extend the Standard Yoruba typeanalysis to the data above to account for the alternating pairs. The required constraint ranking is:PROP-HEAD>> LEXPATh-F(47) PROP-HEAD>> LExPATH-F/ail \u00E2\u0080\u0098heart\u00E2\u0080\u0099 U PROP-HEAD I LEXPATH-Fa.aI *!Vb. aji *In the following subsection, I extend the analysis of the minimal CV condition in Yorubaand Ebira to account for the very first stage in word acquisition, a hitherto recalcitrant data for thestandard analysis of prosodic minimality.5.2.2.3. Markedness and the acquisition of the prosodic wordIt is well-established in the language acquisition literature that children\u00E2\u0080\u0099s early words aretruncated in form. Such words are systematically expressed as CV, the unmarked form ofsyllables. In English, for example, four stages of production are identified as follows (No data iscited in Demuth 1995).(48) Stages of language acquisition in English (Demuth 1994, Ingram 1978)Stage 1: Core syllables -CV- are produced (No vowel distinctions)Stage 2: disyllabic forms - binary feet- appearStage 3: words larger than disyllabic forms appearStage 4: the target form emergesIn Dutch too, children also produce the unmarked form of syllables, that is CV, at the203onset of language acquisition. Thus, a word containing two or more vowels in the adult form isshortened to a CV in child language:(49) Stage I (Dutch, data from Demuth 1995)Child Adult Targeta. [ka:], [kDl Ikla:r/b. [da:], [do] Ida:r/c. [ti:], [ti] IditlFikkert (1994) classifies this as the default stage which does not require the setting of the binaryfoot parameter. For Fikkert, CV words are not phonological words because they do not satisfy footbinarity.In Yoruba, children\u00E2\u0080\u0099s early words appear to be predominantly CV: canonical CV verbsremain unchanged, canonical VCV nouns and larger nouns are truncated to the rightmost CV in theword (Data based on my own research):(50) Stage 1 - CV: verbs and nounsChild Adult target Glosswti w\u00C3\u00A1 come (LD at 1.3-1.4)yo 10 goe teethml omi waterta Okuta stonet\u00C3\u00A8 g\u00C3\u00AAd\u00C3\u00AA banana/plantainFrom the above, it is plausible that the cross-linguistic characterization of the unmarkedminimal word in child language is a core syllable CV. How is this stage to be accounted for?204There are two proposals in the literature. The first approach is that of Fikkert (1994) whodoes not regard the CV stage as a phonological one. She treats it as a default stage, a stage wherethe child is still unsure of how to set the binary foot parameter. For Fikkert, phonological wordsemerge when bimoraic and bisyllabic words appear in child language. Essentially, then, the CVstage is dismissed as a stage which is not phonologically constrained. Some questions arise for thisanalysis. Why are the words produced by children at the earliest stages consistently andpredominantly expressed as CV? Why do children not make errors in producing such forms?Specifically, if word production is not phonologically constrained at the CV stage, why can\u00E2\u0080\u0099tchildren generate \u00E2\u0080\u009Cwild grammars\u00E2\u0080\u009D at the onset of word production? Assuming that UniversalGrammar supplies the language learner with the unmarked values even without exposure to data,why is it that children learning English and Dutch do not begin word production at the (C)VCVstage even after exposure to the adult grammar in which words are minimally binary footed (Ito1990, Fee to appear, Fikkert 1994)? The child data in Yoruba is equally startling: why are nounstruncated to a CV in Yoruba in spite of the fact that nouns are minimally VCV in the adultgrammar? There is no straightforward explanation for these questions in an approach thatdisregards the CV stage as phonological: the CV stage is just a default stage which is notconstrained by any principle of UG.The second explanation is offered by Demuth (1995). Demuth proposes that the CV stageis governed by the phonological principles. Indeed, this is a natural conclusion since words are notrandomly produced at this stage. This is not a novel idea; it just confirms the view proposed byJackobson (1968) and Ingram (1978, 1989b) that the child\u00E2\u0080\u0099s first words is a product of phonology.Specifically Demuth appeals to the principles of syllabification in accounting for the expression ofwords at this stage: early children\u00E2\u0080\u0099s grammars allow for the emergence of unmarked syllables.Even though the CV stage is an instantiation of phonological principles in Demuth\u00E2\u0080\u0099s account, shecalls it a \u00E2\u0080\u009Csub-minimal\u00E2\u0080\u009D stage. Like Fikkert, she assumes that minimal words are produced when(C)VCV words surface, an attempt to preserve the standard definition of the minimal word. Sheoffers three possible explanations for the existence of the \u00E2\u0080\u009Csub-minimal\u00E2\u0080\u009D stage. The three analyses205are summarized below:(51) Possible accounts of the CV stage (Demuth 1995):a. Avoiding the problem of setting binary foot parameter (trochaic or iambic)b. Avoiding a violation of syllable markedness constraint such as NO-CODA (e.g. inlanguages with closed syllables where the coda consonant counts as moraic forminimality)c. Prosodic word is left unspecified for foot binarity (Prosodic Word immediatelydominates syllable in violation of exhaustivity)These three proposals incur difficulties, each of a different nature. First, of the two types of footstructures attested in natural languages, the trochaic foot is standardly assumed to be the defaulttype (Hayes 1985, 1991) and should be available to Universal Grammar. If so, the trochaic footshould be available to children at the early stage of acquisition making it possible for the earlyemergence of binary footed words. Second, the obedience of the NO-CODA constraint proposalneither explains why children acquiring a language like Yoruba which does not have codaconsonants truncates VCV or VCVCV nouns to a CV nor why vowel length is not retained inchildren\u00E2\u0080\u0099s words in languages with length distinction (in English and Dutch). Third, the binary footunderspecification account does not work either because if the unmarked foot is binary, it shouldbe salient in the production of children\u00E2\u0080\u0099s words rather than be underspecified.The above problems are particularly avoided if we assume that PROP-HEAD is aconstraint governing minimality: CV words are the phonological expression of Properheadedness.If PROP-HEAD and Foot Binarity are available to Universal Grammar for the spellout of wordwell-formedness, then children have an option of expressing the minimal word as a syllable byPROP-HEAD or a binary foot by Foot Binarity. Evidence from child data so far show that childrenprefer to launch into the phonological world of word production through PROP-HEAD, footbinarity is utilized at a later stage. At the PROP-HEAD stage, PARSE-seg violations are incurred206since the adult full form which constitutes the input for the child\u00E2\u0080\u0099s phonology is not present in theoutput. Further, the fact that there is no pressure to augment CV words either to CVV, VCV orCVC, this constitutes evidence that LEX-NUqi, LEXp. and LEX-RT outrank Ft-Bin. In OptimalityTheory framework, this is expressed by ranking PROP-HEAD above Ft-Bin and PARsE-seg:(52) The CV Stage: PROP-HEAD, LEX-NUqL, LEXI. and LEx-RT are undominatedPROP-HEAD, LEX-NUqL, LEXI, LEX-RT>> Ft-Bin, PARSE-segIn languages where Foot Binarity plays a role in minimality, the ranldng shifts over time as thechild attains further stages of acquisition to promote Ft-Bin to a higher level in the rankinghierarchy. In English and Dutch, Foot Binarity and PROP-HEAD become equally ranked as in theadult grammar, while in Yoruba, Foot Binarity become relevant only for nouns.5.2.2. 4. Typological Rankings: Properheadedness and Foot BinarityAssuming that PROP-HEAD and Foot Binarity are the two constraints required for thephonological characterization of the minimal word, four logical language typologies are obtainedvia ranking. First, in a situation where both constraints are undominated, the minimal word mustcontain a syllable as well as two tokens of either the morn or syllable (PROP-HEAD, Ft-Bin: e.g.Gokana, Idoma and Igala). Second, if Properheadedness oulranks Foot Binarity, the minimal wordwill be spelt out as a monosyllabic syllable (PROP-HEAD >> Ft-Bin: e.g. Yoruba, Ebira, theunmarked minimal word in child language). Third, if Foot Binarity outranks Properheadedness,then the minimal word surfaces as a binary footed word with no crucial reference to syllablestructure (Ft-Bin>> PROP-HEAD: e.g. Japanese). The fourth typology entails a scenario where afaithfulness constraint, such as PARSE-Seg for example, outranks Properheadedness and FootBinarity, then, the minimal word may not be prosodically conditioned by either PROP-HEAD or FtBin. To my knowledge, such languages have not been discussed in the literature. The various207typologies documented in this chapter are illustrated in the following table.(53) Typological Ranking of Properheadedness and Foot BinarityLanguage Minimal Word Constraint Rankinga. Gokana Binary foot (CVC or CVV) PROP-HEAD, Ft-Bin areundominated. Bothconstraints outrank LEXRTb. Idoma Binary foot (VCV or CVCV) PROP-HEAD, Ft-Bin areundominatedc. Yoruba Monosyllabic Foot (CV) PRoP-HEAD, LExNUq.t>>LExRT>> LEXPATH-F,Ft-Bind. Ebira Monosyllabic Foot (CV) PROP-HEAD, LEXNUqI>> LEXPATH-F, Ft-Bine. Child language: the unmarked Monosyllabic Foot (CV) PROP-HEAD LEX-NUqI,word in the first stage of acquisition LEXp. and LEx-RT>>Ft-Bin, PARSE-segf. Not attested No fixed prosodic shape PARSE-Seg >> PROP-HEADFt-Bin5.3. Maximal Prosodic Word and BinarityIn this section, the hypothesis is explored that there is a maximal restriction imposed on theprosodic shape of a prosodic word (Bagemihi 1993, Ito & Mester 1992). Three observations arepresented as evidence in support -of this proposal. First, in many languages of Benue-Congo(Kakanda, Ebira, Yoruba, Idoma), the size of roots is somewhat limited: a root cannot exceed foursyllables. Second, in Yoruba, the number of prefixes which can be attached to a root is restrictedto four syllables. Third, dimunitives and clefted nouns are productively formed in Yoruba byreduplicating words consisting of two syllables. The above facts are accounted for if we assumethat the quadrisyflabic maximal restriction imposed on roots in Benue-Congo is prosodicallyconstrained: it is a maximal prosodic word defined in prosodic terms as two bipodic feet.2085.3.1. Maximal Prosodic Word effects across Benue-CongoThe idea that binarity operates at the level of Word was first proposed in 1t6 and Mester(1992) where it was shown that word binarity in Japanese is computed at two prosodic levels: thesyllable and the foot. According to this hypothesis, the minimal binary word is a bisyllabic footand the maximal is two feet. 20 A series of processes are shown to utilize this template:hypocoristics (Poser 1990), mimetics (Ito and Mester 1990), loanword abbreviation (ItO 1990, ItOand Mester 1992), and secret language forms (Tateishi 1989, Poser 1990). Other languages whichare reported to utilize a two feet template for various processes include Ponapean and English(M&P 1986).Bagemihl (1993) also reports that in Bella Coola, a Salish language, the shape of roots isconstrained both minimally and maximally. Descriptively, in Bella Coola, roots are minimally CVor CC and are maximally CVCVCVC or CVCCVCV:(54) Bella Coola (data from Bagemihl 1993)a. Minimal root: CV or CC *C *1Word Glossfastk\u00E2\u0080\u0099p to cut with scissorsc\u00E2\u0080\u0099n index fmgerxrn to bite201n Japanese, minimal word binarity is computed differently from Word binarity. The fonner requires abimoraic Ftqi (Ito 1990), and the latter, a minimal Fta and a maximal FF template (ItO & Mester 1992).209b. Maximal root: CVCCVCV or CVCVCVCWord Glossk\u00E2\u0080\u0099aq?ak1la a man\u00E2\u0080\u0099s namesita :xsu catfishk\u00E2\u0080\u0099anawil bow of boatstapltrn bat (animal)Bagemihi accounts for the restriction described above within prosodic morphology by appealing tothe notion of prosodic minimality and maximality. For Bagemihl, in Beila Coola, the minimalword is a binary foot while the maximal word is a bipoclic foot. The assumption that a maximalprosodic constraint governs the shape of underived roots correctly accounts for why the largestform of roots cannot exceed four moras.Word binarity restrictions are also attested in languages of Benue-Congo. Across manylanguages of Benue-Congo, there is a maximum limit on the size of roots: no morpheme exceedsfour syllables. For example, Oyebade (1988: 149) observes that in Kakanda, the shape ofunderived lexical items ranges from mono- to quari-syilabic forms:Most lexical items in Kakanda are either monosyllabic or disyllabic...there are a few trisyllabic and quadrisyllabic lexical items in the languagewhich are seemingly neither derived nor compound words..Examples are given below:210(55) Kakanda (data from Oyebade 1988)a. Monosyllabic words glossbecomeflu flykiseeb. Disyllabic wordsale rainewusun\u00C3\u00A0r\u00C3\u00B3 tonguec. Trisyllabic words Gloss\u00C3\u00A8kOkpi heartatiiv\u00C3\u00A0 earriik\u00C3\u00B3tsi bigd. uadrisyllabic wordsabtitOrji clawegbikII penisegTn GodA similar restriction is observed to hold of Ebira. According to Adive (1989:13), mostwords consists of one to four syllables as shown in the following data.(56) Ebira (data from Adive 1989)a. Monosyllabic inssr\u00C3\u00A9 seesi look forh3 ask211b. DisyllabicOb\u00C3\u00A0 vultureedo antelopeokd firewoodc. Trisvllabicdhepo a kind of yam\u00C3\u00A1ros\u00C3\u00A0 walnutirehI housed. Ouadrisvllabic\u00C3\u00A2t\u00C3\u00A3\u00C3\u00A1hO ankleet\u00C3\u00A9\u00C3\u00A8si floor\u00E2\u0080\u0098IhThIn\u00C3\u00A8 antsThe same restriction is found in Yoruba: monomorphemic words are minimallymonosyllabic (CV) and maximally quadrisyllabic (C (VCV)) (CVCV):(57) Yorubaa. CV words Glossw\u00C3\u00A1 comed3e eatt3 urinateb. VCV wordstie houseoba kingegb\u00C3\u00B4 wound212(CWCVCV\u00C3\u00AAr\u00C3\u00AAk\u00C3\u00A9 cheekg\u00C3\u00A8d\u00C3\u00AA banana/plantaingb\u00C3\u00A2gede open yardd. (CWCVCVCV wordsfiirufti sky or spacegbliim a type of fruitgbaragada wide and openAlso, in Idoma, underived lexical items are minimally VCV and maximally CVCVCVCV.Representative data are given below:(58) Iclomaa. VCV Gloss\u00C3\u00B3- 11 to eat\u00C3\u00B4-w\u00C3\u00A0 to come\u00C3\u00A8wO ashestib\u00C3\u00BC locust bean basketb. V(C\u00E2\u0080\u0099)VCVajin tooth3d31d well\u00C3\u00A2d\u00C3\u00A0ba shoeOogb\u00C3\u00A0 vomitc. V(CWCVCV\u00C3\u00A8ikipti stomachlkin\u00C3\u00A1bo tortoise\u00C3\u00B4kr\u00C3\u00B3b\u00E2\u0080\u0099i\u00C3\u00A2 friend213The data presented in (55-5 8) can be summarized as follows: in many languages of Benue-Congo(Kakanda, Ebira, Yoruba, Idoma), the largest unclerived morpheme is represented as four syllables.This observation raises two questions: 1, why should there be a restriction on the largestmorpheme in a language? 2, why is the maximum size expressed as four syllables instead of threeor five syllables?. As regards the first question, given that there is such a thing as a minimumprosodic restriction, by logical extension, a maximal prosodic restriction could exist. Thus, amaximum limit is a natural phenomenon which natural languages should exhibit The secondquestion concerning the expression of the maximal word as four syllables can be tackled in twodifferent ways. First, one can stipulate that the maximal word is just a sequence of four syllables.Apart from the fact that this description does not explain anything, it is difficult to see theconnection between the phonological expression of the maximal word as four syllables and anyprinciple of phonology: no phonological process relies on the number four for application. Secondand alternatively, if we appeal to the principle of binarity (an important principle in linguistictheory), we can group the four syllables in twos into foot structure. This grouping gives us asequence of two feet. As a result, the maximal word can be formulated in prosodic terms asfollows: a maximal prosodic word is a bipodic foot (following Bagemihl 1993).The second phenomenon which utilizes the two feet template is hypocoristic forms. AHHML tonal melody comes with this template and hypocorated names are expressed with it. Informing hypocoristics in Yoruba,21 first, a shortened VCV or CVCV name is reduplicated.Second, the tonal melody links to the vowels of the reduplicated name. As shown by the starredforms, larger hypocoristics are illicit:21Hypoconstics are generally used as pet names, but may also be used satirically (Bamgboe 1986).214(59) Base HvpocoristicsQl-n\u00E2\u0080\u0099ik\u00C3\u00A8 6l-ol or nik\u00C3\u00A9-mk *61k\u00C3\u00A9o1anjkAy-bmi y-ay or bm-bamI *y6bmayobamiOld-d\u00C3\u00A9l\u00C3\u00A9 \u00C3\u00B3lii-ol\u00C3\u00BC or d\u00C3\u00A9l\u00C3\u00A9 -del\u00C3\u00A8 *\u00C3\u00B3ltid\u00C3\u00A9l\u00C3\u00A9oludel\u00C3\u00A8Oy\u00C3\u00A8-b\u00C3\u00A1y \u00C3\u00B3y\u00C3\u00A9-oy\u00C3\u00A8 or b\u00C3\u00A1y-bay *\u00C3\u00B3y\u00C3\u00A9b\u00C3\u00A1y\u00C3\u00B3..oyebayOHypocoristic formation is also observed in Personal Praise names. First, some backgroundinformation. Personal Praise names are formed by prefixing a low-toned a\u00E2\u0080\u0099 (sometimes 1) to acollocation of two monosyllabic verbs (Oyetade 1991):(60) Yoruba personal praise names: prf-v-v-\u00C3\u00A2bi \u00E2\u0080\u0098prf + s\u00C3\u00A2 \u00E2\u0080\u0098to select\u00E2\u0080\u0099 - bI \u00E2\u0080\u0098give birth\u00E2\u0080\u0099one whose birth was carefully selected\u00E2\u0080\u0099-knbi \u00E2\u0080\u0098prf +ka\u00C3\u00B1 \u00E2\u0080\u0098to select\u00E2\u0080\u0099 - bi \u00E2\u0080\u0098give birth\u00E2\u0080\u0099\u00E2\u0080\u0098one that is purposefully given birth to\u00E2\u0080\u0099\u00C3\u00A2-j\u00C3\u00A7-k \u00E2\u0080\u0098prf + collective + to pet\u00E2\u0080\u009D\u00E2\u0080\u0098one who is collectively petted\u00E2\u0080\u0099\u00C3\u00A0-bI-k \u00E2\u0080\u0098prf+ give birth + to pet\u00E2\u0080\u0099\u00E2\u0080\u0098one who is born to be petted\u00E2\u0080\u0099To derive hypocoristics from Praise names, the rightmost foot reduplicates to satisfy the two footmaximal condition. The HHML tonal melody then maps strictly to the vowels contained in the twofeet. Crucially, the initial vowel of the name must be excluded. The illicitness of the forms wherethe initial V is incorporated into the template shows that the maximal restriction cannot be violated:215(61) Hvpocoristics\u00C3\u00A2-sIbi-sb1 sabi-sb1- sab\u00E2\u0080\u0099i\u00C3\u00A2-ldsnbi-knb1 kanli *kn- kanII\u00C3\u00A0-j\u00C3\u00A7-k \u00C3\u00A0-jk j\u00C3\u00A7k *\u00C3\u00A1j\u00C3\u00B3k\u00C3\u00A9 j\u00C3\u00A7k\u00C3\u00A0-bI-k\u00C3\u00A9 \u00C3\u00A0-blk\u00C3\u00A9 bike *bik\u00C3\u00A9 bikeThe restriction placed on the hypocoristic tonal melody suggests that the rightmost two feet, whichexcludes the prefix, form a seperate domain from the one which includes the prefix. I propose thatthe domain of hypocoristics is a prosodic domain, while the entire word which includes the prefix,consitutes a morphological domain, hence, not prosodically governed:(62) Hypocorated Personal Praise Name22WdPrWd/NucThe fact that binarity holds at the level of the Prosodic word accords with Hewitt\u00E2\u0080\u0099s (1994)idea that binarity is decomposable into units. Hewitt demonstrates this idea with foot binarity. Heproposes that binarity is established at different levels contained within the foot: Ft-BinJ.t, FtBinNUC and Ft-Bins. If we extend this to the Prosodic Word level, the following inventoryemerges:22This structure assumes the weak layering hypothesis of Ito and Mester (1992) which allows thedirect parsing of unfooted prosodic constituents to PrWd. In Optimality Theory, unsyllabified and unfootedconstituents violate PARSENUCIr and PARSEG.216(63) Categorial BinarityPrWd-Bin Ft tfllfl, max (I)Ft-Bincy nun, maxFt-BinNUC (NUC NUC)Ft-Bini nun, maA more formal expression of the categorial binarity constraint is given below:(64) Categorial Binaritv (Bin-Cat)a is strictly binary at level f3 if23:(i)(3E i,N,a,Ft,PrWd(ii) a contains two uniform units of 13(iii) a is minimally two(iv) a is maximally twoBy strict layering (Selkirk 1984), a constituent selects two members of each unit which itimmediately dominates. For example, PrWd-Bin Ft rfllfl, max wifi select two feet (FF) to satisfybinarity. By weak layering (ItO and Mester (992), on the other hand, PrWd-Bin Ft mi, max mayeither be stated as two feet (FF) or a Foot and a syllable.However, categorial binarity as expressed in (63) and (64) does not explain the puzzleposed by the realization of binarity of the maximal prosodic word. Categorial binarity imposes thecondition of two uniform categories on a prosodic constituent such that the expression of binarityat the Prosodic Word level is pegged down to two feet. But why can any smaller category such as.t, NUC or a not be added to the two feet? In particular, what permits the grouping of Ft-a as a230ne might ask if binarity at o is ever expressed at when is a i. The answer to this question is notstraightforward. For instance, if light diphthongs are represented as two root nodes linked to a single mora,then that might constitute some evidence for binarity at the moraic level. But, if by *C0MPLEx,monothongs are preferred over diphthongs, then, binarity below the mora will always be preferentiallyviolable.217constituent under PrWd? Why is the same grouping unacceptable with FFa? The answer to thisquestion is provided by Ito and Mester (1992). They argue that the addition of extra categoriesalbeit smaller than the foot in size is fflicit because such a configuration would give rise to aternary branching structure. In other words, binarity holds of prosodic word branchingness as well.Thus, in the unmarked case, the most harmonic branching structure is binary branching. Thisexplains why binarity at the word level in both Japanese and Yoruba strictly requires a binarybranching structure. A formal expression of structural binarity is stated below:(65) Structural Binaritv (Bin-Br)a is strictly binary at level I if:(i)3E L,N,a,Ft,Wd(ii) cx immediately dominates two of 1(iii) cx\u00E2\u0080\u0099s branching node is minimally two(iv) a\u00E2\u0080\u0099s branching node is maximally twoBy (65), the maximal prosodic word in (66a) is well-formed since it immediately dominates twofeet whereas the forms in (66b-66e) are unacceptable because prosodic word immediatelydominates three constituents.(66) Illicit Maximal Prosodic Words:(a) PrWd (b) * PrWd (c) * PrWdF F F F(d) * PrWd (e) * PrWd (f)*prWdF\u00E2\u0080\u0099 F\u00E2\u0080\u009D FhFThe next tableau to be considered presents the analysis of hypocoristic names. First, the218alignment constraints which regulate the proper alignment of the maximal word.(67) Maximal Word Alignment Constraints: undominated and unviolable(a) Hypocoristic template = PrWd-Bin Ftmax (FF)(b) ALIGN (Prwdmax, L, Ft, L):The left-edge of a maximal PrWd corresponds with a foot\u00E2\u0080\u0099s left edge(c) ALIGN (Prwdmax, R, Ft, R):The right-edge of a maximal PrWd corresponds with a foot\u00E2\u0080\u0099s right-edgeBy the constraints in (67), the optimal Prwdmax is this:(68) Maximal Prosodic WordPrWdF FFollowing Pulleyblank\u00E2\u0080\u0099s (1994) proposal that tonal spreading is an alignment basedprocess, the realisation of the HHML tonal melody associated with the hypocoristics template maybe accounted for by the following Alignment constraints:(69) Hypocoristics Tonal Alignment Constraintsa. ALIGN-H-LEFT (H, L; PrWdmax, L): The left edge of a high tone is aligned with theleft edge of a maximal prosodic wordb. ALIGN-H-RIGHT (H,R;Ft,R): The right edge of a high tone is aligned with theright edge of a binary footc. ALIGN-L-RIGHT (L,R;PrWdmax,R): The right edge of a high tone is aligned with theright edge of a maximal prosodic word219d. LEX-PATH-F: For any path between an F-element a, and someanchor , if a is associated to [ in the output,then, a is associated to in the input.e. Ft-Bin: a foot is binary at the moraic or syllabic levelThe alignment constraints must be obeyed by a well-formed hypocoristic form. This means thatthese alignment constraints are undominated. In contrast LEX-PATH-F is lowly ranked, thisguarantees the appearance of tonal spreading. Consider (70).220ALIGN-H-L, ALIGN-H-R, ALIGN-L-R, Ft-Bin >> LEX-P(70) ALIGN-H-L ALIGN-H-R ALIGN-L-R Ft-Bin [ LEX-PVa.i-sbi-sabiWdPrWd\u00E2\u0080\u0099T/L II H La s\u00C3\u00A1bI sabib. *! ***-sbi-sa1IWdPrWdiNtJ.LLI LL7 IH Ls\u00C3\u00A4bI sa b Ic. \u00C3\u00A0-\u00C3\u00A1bl-\u00C3\u00A0b ****!WdPrWdFtFtNUCLJ\u00E2\u0080\u0099 \u00E2\u0080\u0098c7 \u00E2\u0080\u009Cc7I H La sb sablRepresentation (a), is selected as the optimal form because it fully satisfies all the higher rankedconstraints. It violates LEX-PATH under pressure from the dominating constraints, so it incursminimal penality. In contrast, (b) whose prefixal vowel is parsed into the hypocoristic template (byvirtue of the fact that the H-tone of the template is realised on it) violates Ft-Bin, an undominatedconstraint and is immediately ejected. Sub-optimal (C) is rejected because it fatally violates LEX221PATH. I assume that the intial mora of the right-most foot receives a mid tone by default(Akinlabi 1985, Pulleyblank 1986).Another argument for the two feet maximal prosodic word comes from defied nouns innegated sentences in Yoruba. In this structure, a clefted noun can only be reduplicated if itmaximally has two syllables, otherwise reduplication does not apply. Consider these examples:(71) Clefted Nouns (the unreduplicated base is underlined in the underlying form):Reduplicated Form Unclefted Forma. aya-aya r\u00C3\u00A8d, Old k\u00C3\u00B4 f\u00C3\u00A9) Old kO f\u00C3\u00A9b. omo-omo (r\u00C3\u00A8\u00C3\u00A9, Old k\u00C3\u00B4 bi) Old kO bI omoc. Iwe-iwe r\u00C3\u00A8\u00C3\u00A9, Old kO k\u00C3\u00A0) Old kO ka Iw\u00C3\u00A9d. iydn-iydn (red, Old kO gdn) Old kO gun iy\u00C3\u00A1e. k\u00C3\u00B3kO-k\u00C3\u00B3kO (r\u00C3\u00A8\u00C3\u00A9, Old kO je) Old k\u00C3\u00B4 je k\u00C3\u00B3kOf. fil\u00C3\u00A0-fil\u00C3\u00A0 (red, Old kO dd) Old k\u00C3\u00A3 d\u00C3\u00A9that are larger than two syllables do notUnreduplicated Clefted Form___________a. ly\u00C3\u00A0w\u00C3\u00B3 (r\u00C3\u00A8\u00C3\u00A9, Old kO f\u00C3\u00A9)_____iyaw\u00C3\u00B34y\u00C3\u00A2w\u00C3\u00B3 red, Old kO f\u00C3\u00A9)b. agbado (r\u00C3\u00A8\u00C3\u00A9, Old kO je)*agbado.agbado (r\u00C3\u00A8\u00C3\u00A9, Old k\u00C3\u00B4 je)GlossIt is wife that Olurefused to marryIt is a child that Olurefused to give birth toIt is a book that Olurefused to readIt is pounded yam thatOlu refused to poundIt is coco-yam that Olurefused to eatIt is a cap that Olurefused to wearNouns(72)reduplicate:Unclefted Form GlossOld IcO fd Iyaw\u00C3\u00B3Old kO je4It is a wife that Olu didrefused to marryIt is corn that Olu didrefused to eat222The interesting forms to compare in (71) and (72) are the (a) forms, and Iyawo, both formstranslate into \u00E2\u0080\u0098wife\u00E2\u0080\u0099. In (71), we see that gy is reduplicated whereas in (72) \u00E2\u0080\u0098iy\u00C3\u00A2wo does notreduplicate: why? Obviously, this asymmetry cannot be a consequence of semantics because bothforms have the same meaning - \u00E2\u0080\u0098wife\u00E2\u0080\u0099. However, if we take a closer look at the prosodic shape ofboth nouns, a difference emerges: has two moras, while Iy\u00C3\u00A0wo has three moras. When theseforms reduplicate, aya-aya yields four moras while the moras i * Iy\u00C3\u00A0wo\u00E2\u0080\u0094iy\u00C3\u00A0wd totals up to six.If we assume that this process is constrained by the maximal prosodic word requirement, then theobservation follows straightforwardly: aya-aya conforms to the two feet maximal prosodic wordshape while the two feet limitation isolates * \u00E2\u0080\u0098iy\u00C3\u00A2wo4y\u00C3\u00A0w\u00C3\u00B3 as a possible form.The final argument for the maximal prosodic word comes from prefixation: in Yoruba,prefixes never exceed four syllables. At this point, some background information about themorphology of the language is required. Yoruba is a highly prefixing language. Except for somecases involving suffixal reduplication (cf. Awoyale 1974, 1989, Akinlabi 1986), words areproductively derived by prefixation. A lot of discussion exists in the literature on prefixation, wordformation and the different constraints that govern the order in which prefixes attach to roots (seeAwoyale 1974, Akinlabi and Oyebade 1986, Akinlabi 1986, Oyelaran 1987, Pulleyblank andAkinlabi 1988, Owolabi 1995 among others).24 The interesting fact observed for prefixation(modulo the strata ordering constraints in Akinlabi and Oyebade 1986, Akinlabi 1986) in Yorubais the following: an X-number of prefixes is allowed to attach to root Y as long as the overall outputstring of prefixes is not more than four syllables, i.e., CVCVCVCV. Consider the derived formsgiven below (Rt = root, prf= prefix, prefixes are underlined in the output).2524Prefixes differ with respect to the selection of syntactic base. For example, b-nh the possessor prefixselects a nominal base while the agentive prefixes Ia, /3i select either a verb or a verb phrase dependingon the subcategorizational properties of the predicate. See Pulleyblank and Akinlabi (1988) for discussion.25The analysis of the morphological composition of the prefix IonJ\u00E2\u0080\u009Downer or possesor of x\u00E2\u0080\u009D varies in theliterature. In Akinlabi and Oyebade (1986) and Akinlabi (1986), it is treated as two morphemes b-nilwhich is decomposed into \u00E2\u0080\u009CPronoun + Verb\u00E2\u0080\u009D. In Oyelaran (1987), it is treated as a single morpheme. Iassume the former analysis without attempting to provide any justification. Note however that even if thelatter is assumed, the point made regarding the constraint on the output of prefixation still holds. A furtherpoint to note is that when b-ni] is prefixed to a noun with a non-high vowel initial, the processes of voweldeletion and assimilation are triggered. First, the final (nasalized) vowel of b-nil deletes and lvi isdenasalized as soon as it is adjacent to the initial (non-high) oral vowel of the noun surfacing as Ill. Second,223(73) lthw\u00C3\u00A9 Rt \u00E2\u0080\u0098to write! to write a book\u00E2\u0080\u0099a. a - lthw\u00C3\u00A9 (lprf-Rt)\u00E2\u0080\u0094 althw\u00C3\u00A9\u00E2\u0080\u0098one who writes\u00E2\u0080\u0099b. o - ni - a -kw\u00C3\u00A9 (3 prf-Rt)\u00E2\u0080\u0094 al-kw\u00E2\u0080\u0098educated person\u00E2\u0080\u0099c. o-n1-o-n1-a-kw\u00C3\u00A9 (6prf-Rt)\u00E2\u0080\u0094* al-kw\u00C3\u00A9\u00E2\u0080\u0098that of the educatedd. ti - o - ni - o - ni - a - kw\u00C3\u00A9 (6prf-Rt)\u00E2\u0080\u0094 tall-kw\u00C3\u00A9\u00E2\u0080\u0098that of the educatede. o - ni - ti- o - ni - a - kw\u00C3\u00A9 (6 prf-Rt) -4 on1tal-kw\u00C3\u00A9\u00E2\u0080\u0098that of the educated\u00E2\u0080\u0099f. ti - o - ni - ii - o - ni - a - kw\u00C3\u00A9 (7prf-Rt) \u00E2\u0080\u0094+ ton1tal-kw\u00C3\u00A9\u00E2\u0080\u0098that of the educated\u00E2\u0080\u0099g. o - ni - ti - o - ni - ti - o - ni - a - kw\u00C3\u00A9\u00E2\u0080\u0094> on1ton1tal-kw\u00C3\u00A9In the well-formed output of prefixation, observe that the shape of prefixes ranges from one vowel(V) to four syllables (CVCVCVCV).26 The ill-formed output, in contrast exceed the four syllablelimit. Given the classic assumption in morphology that morphological processes are expressed inpurely morphological terms (for example, prefix the agentive marker to the verb), the maximal foursyllable restriction is surprising.Qiasope Oyelaran (personal communication) suggests that the markedness orunacceptability of (73h) follows from two things. First, the extension of prefixation in these formsfollowing the n \u00E2\u0080\u0094* I denasalization, the initial vowel of to-ni/ assimilates to the initial vowel of thenoun: o-ni akw\u00E2\u0080\u0094\u00C3\u00B7 o 1 akw\u00E2\u0080\u0094* alkw& For a detailed discussion of this phenomenon see Oyelaran(1971) and Pulleyblank (1988).26When two vowels are in hiatus in Yoruba, the process of vowel deletion may be triggered to resolve thehiatus. This process applies in prefixation to reduce the input vowels in the output. The reader is referedto the existing robust literature on Yoruba vowel deletion (see for example, Ward 1952, Rowlands 1954,Abraham 1958, Siertsema 1959, Bamgbose 1966, 1989, Courtenay 1968, Oyelaran 1971, Akinlabi andOyebade 1987, Pulleyblank 1988, Qia 1991, among others) for a full discussion of this process.224does not add any meaning to the word. So, it is redundant to continue extending the number ofprefixes attached to the root. Second, is the factor of processing: the longer the string of prefixes,the longer the word. As the word becomes larger, the task of processing becomes more difficult forthe speaker. Consequently, it is natural to expect a restriction to hold of derived forms. Withrespect to the first point, notice that there is no distinct difference in meaning in the forms in (73c-g). The only difference being that the referent of nominalization becomes more indefinite as theprefixation is expanded. The interesting question though is why such redundancy should beacceptable up to a maximum of four syllables (two feet)?In prosodic morphology, the four syllable upper limit is captured in prosodic terms as asequence of two feet, the maximal prosodic word as suggested in this chapter. This assumptionexplains why the forms with four syllable string of prefixes are well-formed (73 a-f) and why theform that contains more than four syllables unacceptable (73g).27To summarize: In this section, I have proposed that there is a prosodic category - themaximal prosodic word which is expressed as a bipoclic feet. This assumption explains whycertain restrictions hold of morphological categories and certain phonological processes in BenueCongo: the maximal upper limit restriction on the shape of roots (Kakanda, Ebira, Yoruba, Idoma),the maximal upper limit on the size of prefixes (Yoruba) hypocoristic formatives and clefted nouns(Yoruba).27Given that the maximal prosodic limit is imposed on roots and prefixes, an interesting question arises onthe representation of the output of prefixation: when the maximal prefixal shape is combined with themaximal root, does the output form a phonological or morphological domain? In the interim, I suggest thatthe output forms a morphological domain. To assume the alternative answer, (i.e., the assumption that theoutput of prefixation is phonologically constrained) amounts to motivating a prosodic constituent above theprosodic word. Since the focus of this work is limited to the prosodic word, such an inquiry is reserved forfurther research.22554. Summary of typological rankingsIn this chapter, I have presented evidence from Benue-Congo languages illustrating variousminimality and maximality effects at the level of the prosodic word. I have shown that minimalityis not uniquely instantiated by foot binarity, properheadedness, as argued is another constraintwhich governs the phonological realisation of the minimal word. This proposal, couched withinOptimality Theory framework, is shown to account for the cross-linguistic variation in thecharacterization of the minimal word: in Gokana and Idoma, foot binarity and propetheadednessare undominated, whereas in Yoruba and Ebira, properheadedness outranks foot binarity since thepresence of a monosyllabic foot is required in every word. The notion of properheadedness hasalso been used to account for the CV stage in child language: if properheadedness is a constraintavailable to Universal Grammar, children should be able to exploit it actively in word production.I also explored the hypothesis that natural languages impose a maximal limit on the size ofthe prosodic word. The maximal prosodic word realised as two bipodic feet has been shown toplay a crucial role in a number of phenomena in Benue-Congo: the maximal size of roots, themaximal size of affixes, hypocoristics and clefted nouns all rely fundamentally on this prosodicshape.The constraints motivated in this chapter, along with the empirical domain which theycover are summarized in the following tableau226(74) Constraints govering the minimal and maximal realisation of the prosodic worda. Prosodic Word (minimality)Language Generalization Constraints and Rankings1, Prosodic requirement: ProperheadednessFoot Binarity2. Faithfulness: LEX-NUcj.t,LEXJILEX-RT, PARS E-segGokana A word minimally contains PROP-HEAD, FOOT-BIN>> LEx-RTtwo moras ans a syllableIdoma A word minimally contains PROP-HEAD, FOOT-BINtwo moras and a syllableYoruba A syllable must be present PROP-HEAD, LEx-NUcJt>> LEX-RT>>in every word FOOT-BIN, LEX-PATH-FEbira A syllable must be present PROP-HEAD,LEX-NUqt>> FOOT-BINin every word LEX-PATH-FChild language Every word shortened to a PROP-HEAD LEx-NUcJI, LEXI LEX-RT>>syllable FOOT-BIN PARSE-segNot attested No fixed prosodic shape PARSE-seg >> PROP-HEAD, FOOT-BINb. Prosodic Word (maximality)Language Generalization Constraint and Ranking:PrWd-Bin-FtKakanda A root is maximally guadrisyllabic UndominatedEbira A root is maximally guadrisyllabic UndominatedIdoma A root is maximally UndominatedguadrisyllabicYoruba a. A root is maximally quadrisyllabic Undominatedb. Dimunitives are quadrisyllabicc. Clefted Nouns are quadrisyllabicd. Prefixes are maximally gadrisyllabic227Bibliography and ReferencesAbimbola, Wande and Qiasope Oyelaran (1975) Consonant elision in Yoruba. AfricanLanguage Studies XVI: 39-60.Abraham, R. C. (1958) Dictionary ofModern Yoruba. London: Hodder and Stoughton.Abraham, R. C. (1951) The Idoma Language. London: Hodder and Stoughton.Adetunji, Oluk\u00C3\u00A7mi (1988) Agbey\u00C3\u00A7wo Sintaasi QrQ-OrukQ Ninu Eka-Ede Ondo, Long Essay,University of form.Adive, J.R. (1989) The Verb Piece in Ebira, SIL, University of Texas, Avlington.Akinlabi, Akinbiyi (1985) Tonal Unclerspecification and Yoruba Tone. Doctoral Dissertation,University of Ibadan.Akinlabi, Aldnbiyi and Francis Oyebade (1986) \u00E2\u0080\u009CLexical and Post-Lexical Rule application: voweldeletion in Yomba,\u00E2\u0080\u009D Journal of West African Languages XVII, 2: 23-42.Aidniabi, Akinbiyi (1986) Issues in the Development of Lexical Strata for Yoruba. paper presentedat the 16th Colloquium on african languages and Linguistics, Rijksuniversiteit Te Leiden,September 1-3, 1986.Akinlabi, Akinbiyi (1993) \u00E2\u0080\u009CSupraglottal Deletion in Yoruba Glides,\u00E2\u0080\u009D Proceedings of WCCFL X.Akinlabi, Akinbiyi (1993) Underspecification and the Phonology of Yoruba Id,\u00E2\u0080\u009D LinguisticInquiry 24, 139-160.Akinlabi, Akinbiyi and Eno Urua (1992) \u00E2\u0080\u009CProsodic Targets and Vocalic Specification in IbibioVerbs,\u00E2\u0080\u009D WCCFL 11.Archangeli, Diana and Douglas Pulleyblank (1994) Grounded Phonology.Arekamhe, Dele (1972) Aspects of the Phonology of Gokana, BA Long Essay, University ofIbadan.Armstrong, Robert (1983) The Idomoid Language Sub-family of the Benue and Cross RiverValleys, TWAL, 13.1: 91-149.Awoyale, J. O.Y. (1974) Studies in the syntax and semantics of Yoruba Nominalizations.Doctoral Dissertation, University of Illinois at Urbana - Champaign.Awoyale, Yiwola. (1989) Reduplication and the Status of Ideophones in Yoruba.Journal of West African Languages XIX, 15-34.Bagemihi, Bruce (1991) Syllable Structure in Bella Coola, Linguistic Inquiry 22. 4:589-646.Bagemihl, Bruce (1993) Maximality in Bella Coola. ms. University of British Columbia.Bamgboe, Ay\u00C3\u00A7 (1986) Yoruba: A language in transition, J.F. Qdunjo Memorial LecturesSeriesLasBendor-Samuel, John ed. (1989) The Niger-Congo Languages, University Press ofAmerica.Clements George N. and Samuel Jay Keyser (1983) CV Phonology. Cambridge MIT Press.Davis, Stuart. (1985) Syllable weight in some Australian languages. BLS 11: 398-407.Davis, Stuart. (1988) Syllable Onsets as a factor in stress rules. Phonology 5. 1: 1-19.Demuth, Katherine (1995) Markedness and the Development of Prosodic Structure. To appear inNELS 25.Downing, Laura (1993) Unsyllabified Vowels in Aranda. To appear in CLS 29.Downing, Laura (1994) SiSwati Verbal Reduplication. To appear in NELS 24.Downing, Laura (1995) On The Extraprosodicity of Onsetless Syllables, ms., University ofPennsylvania.Egbokhare, Francis (1990) \u00E2\u0080\u009CReduplication as Repition: AnAccount of the Process in Imai,Research in African Languages and Linguistics,\u00E2\u0080\u009D 1.1: 73-84.Fee, Jane (1994) The Minimal Word Constraint in Early Child Phonology, ms., University ofHalifax.Fikkert, Paula (1994) On the Acquisition of Prosodic Structure, Dordrecht: HollandAcademic Graphics.Folarin, Yetunde (1987) Lexical Phonology of Yoruba Nouns and Verbs, Doctoral Dissertation,University of Kansas, Lawrence.Guerssel, Mohamed (1986) Glides in Berber and Syllabicity. Linguistic Inquiry 17. 1-12.Hayes, Bruce (1989) Compensatory Lengthening in Moraic Phonology, Linguistic Inquiry 20.25 3-305.Hewitt, Mark (1994) Deconstructing foot Binarity. ms., University of British Columbia.Hyman, Larry (1985) A Theory of Phonological Weight. Dordretch: Foris.Hyman, Larry (1990) \u00E2\u0080\u009CNon-exhaustive Syllabification: evidence from Nigeriaand Cameroon,\u00E2\u0080\u009D CLS 26: 2, 175-196.Hyman, Larry (1992) \u00E2\u0080\u009CMoraic Mismatches in Bantu,\u00E2\u0080\u009D Phonology Yearbook 9. 2: 255-266.Ingram, David (1978) \u00E2\u0080\u009CThe Role of the Syllable in Phonological Development,\u00E2\u0080\u009D Syllablesand Segments, Bell, A. & J.B. Hooper eds., North-Holland Publishing Company.Ingram, David (1989b) Issues in Learnabiity and Phonological Theory, ms., University ofBritish Columbia.Inkelas, Sharon. (1989) Prosodic Constituency in the Lexicon, Doctoral Dissertation, StanfordUniversity.Ito, Junko (1989) \u00E2\u0080\u009CA Prosodic Theory of Epenthesis,\u00E2\u0080\u009D Natural language and Linguistic Theory7: 217-259.229Ito, Junko (1986) Syllable Theory in Prosodic Phonology. Doctoral Dissertation, University ofMasachussetts, Amherst.ItO, Junko (1990) \u00E2\u0080\u0098Prosodic Minimality in Japanese,\u00E2\u0080\u009D CLS 26, 213-239.ItO, Junko and Armin Mester (1992) Weak Layering and Word Binarity. ms. University ofCalifornia, Santa Cruz.Jatto, Tunde (1994) Phonological and Morphological Aspects of Ebira, BA Long Essay,University of Ibadan.Kaye, Jonathan (1990) \u00E2\u0080\u009CCoda Licensing,\u00E2\u0080\u009D Phonology 7, 301-330.Kaye, Jonathan (1989) Phonology: A Cognitive View, Lawrence Eribaum Associates Publishers,Hilisdale, New Jersey.Kiparsky, Paul (1991) Catalexis. ms., Stanford University.Levin, Juliette (1985) A Metrical Theory of Syllabcity. MIT Doctoral Dissertation.Liberman, Mark and Alan Prince (1977) \u00E2\u0080\u009COn Stress and Linguistic Rythm,\u00E2\u0080\u009D Linguistic Inquiry8.3: 249-336.McCarthy John (1986) \u00E2\u0080\u009COCP Effects: germination and Antigemination,\u00E2\u0080\u009D Linguistic Inquiry 17,207-263.McCarthy John and Alan Prince (1986) Prosodic Morphology. ms. University of Massachusetts,Amhest & Brandeis University.McCarthy John and Alan Prince (1990) \u00E2\u0080\u009CProsodic Morphology and Templatic Morphology,\u00E2\u0080\u009D In M.Eid & J McCarthy, eds., Perspectives on Arabic Linguistics II. Amsterdam: JohnBenjamins, 1-54.McCarthy John and Alan Prince (l993a) Prosodic Morphology I: Constraint Interaction andSatisfaction. ms., University of Massachusetts, Amhest & Rutgers University.McCarthy John and Alan Prince (1993b) Generalized Alignment, ms., University ofMassachusetts, Amliest & Rutgers University.McCarthy John and Alan Prince (1994) \u00E2\u0080\u009CThe Emergence of the Unmarked Optimality in ProsodicMorphology,\u00E2\u0080\u009D to appear in NELS.Odden, David (1986) \u00E2\u0080\u009CAnti Antigemination and the OCP,\u00E2\u0080\u009D Linguistic Inquiry 19. 3: 451-475.Oduy\u00C3\u00A7ye, Modup\u00C3\u00A7 (1970) Yoruba Names. Ibadan: Daystar Press.Qia, Qianike (1993a) Non-exhaustive Syllabification in Yoruba, paper presented at the 24thAnnual Conference in African Linguistics, The Ohio State University, Columbus, July 23-25, 1993.Qia, Qlanike (1995) \u00E2\u0080\u009CProperheadedness and Binarity: Prosodic Words in Yoruba,\u00E2\u0080\u009D TheoreticalApproaches To African Linguistics, A. Akinlabi (ed) 273-293.230Qia, Qianike (1994a) Minimality and Maximality in Yoruba: An Optimality Account, paperpresented at the 25th Annual Conference in African Linguistics, Rutgers University, NJ,March 25-27, 1994.Qia, Qianike (1994b) Moraic Mismatches: Evidence for the Nuclear Moraic Model, paperpresented at the Canadian Linguistics Association Conference, University of Calgary,Calgary, June 3-6, 1994.Qia, Qlanik\u00C3\u00A7 (1994c) The Cutting Word Edge in Yoruba, paper presented at the CanadianLinguistics Association Conference, UQAM, June 2-6, 1995.Ogunpolu, Tunde (1973) A Preliminary Study of the Segmental Phonemes of llaj\u00C3\u00A7 Dialect andStandard Yoruba, Postgraduate Diploma Essay, University of Ibadan.Oyebade, Francis (1988) Issues in the Phonology of Kakanda Language: An AutosegmentalPerspective, Doctoral Dissertation, University of formOyelaran, Qlasope (1971) Yoruba Phonology. Doctoral Dissertation, Stanford.Oyelaran, Qiasope. 1990. \u00E2\u0080\u009CTheoretical Implications of the Sources of the Syllabic Nasal inYoruba,\u00E2\u0080\u009D Research in Yoruba Language and Literature 1, 7-19.Oyetade, Akintunde (1991) Tones in Yoruba Personal Praise Names. Oriki AbISO. Research inYoruba Language and Literature, 1: 55-64.Paraclis, Carole (1988) \u00E2\u0080\u009COn Constraints and Repair Strategies,\u00E2\u0080\u009D The Linguistic Review 6,71-97.Prince, Alan (1980) \u00E2\u0080\u009CA Metrical Theory of Estonian Quantity,\u00E2\u0080\u009D Linguistic Inquiry 11.3: 511-562.Prince Alan and Paul Smolensky. (1993) Optimality Theory: constraint interaction andsatisfaction. ms., Rutgers University and University of Colorado at Boulder.Pufleyblank, Douglas (1986) Tone in Lexical Phonology. Dordrecht: Reidel.Pulleyblank Douglas and Aldnbiyi Akinlabi (1988) Phrasal Morphology in Yoruba. Lingua 74,141-166.Pufleyblank, Douglas (1988) \u00E2\u0080\u009CVocalic Underspecification in Yoruba,\u00E2\u0080\u009D Linguistic Inquiry 19,233-270.Pulleyblank, Douglas (1994) \u00E2\u0080\u009CUnderlying Mora Structure,\u00E2\u0080\u009D Linguistic Inquiry 25.3: 344-353.Selkirk, Elisabeth (1980) \u00E2\u0080\u009CThe role of prosodic categories in English word stress,\u00E2\u0080\u009D LinguisticInquiry 11. 563-605.Shaw, Patricia (1992) \u00E2\u0080\u009CTemplatic Evidence for the Syllable Nucleus,\u00E2\u0080\u009D NELS 23 Amherst: GLSAShaw, Patricia (1993) \u00E2\u0080\u009CThe Prosodic Constituency of Minor Syllables,\u00E2\u0080\u009D Proceedings of WCCFL12.Shaw, Patricia (1995) Minimality and Markedness, paper presented at Workshop in ProsodicMorphology, Rijks Universiteit Utrecht, Nederland, June 1994.Steriade, Donca (1991) \u00E2\u0080\u009CMoras and Other Slots,\u00E2\u0080\u009D To appear in the Proceedings of the231Formal Linguistics Society ofMid America, Madisson.Yip, Moira (1988) \u00E2\u0080\u009CThe Obligatory Contour Principle and Phonological Rules: A loss of identity,\u00E2\u0080\u009DLinguistic Inquiiy 19, 1: 65-100.Zec, Draga (1988) Sonority Consiraints on Prosodic Structure. Doctoral Dissertation, StanfordUniversity.232"@en . "Thesis/Dissertation"@en . "1995-11"@en . "10.14288/1.0088372"@en . "eng"@en . "Linguistics"@en . "Vancouver : University of British Columbia Library"@en . "University of British Columbia"@en . "For non-commercial purposes only, such as research, private study and education. Additional conditions apply, see Terms of Use https://open.library.ubc.ca/terms_of_use."@en . "Graduate"@en . "Optimality in Benue-Congo prosodic phonology and morphology"@en . "Text"@en . "http://hdl.handle.net/2429/7539"@en .