13.07.2015 Views

Untitled

Untitled

Untitled

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

Bogus clusters and vowel syncope115c.rocketingmonitorgossiping[ ® rkItIN][ ® mnIt«][ ® gsIpIN]menacingopacityballoting[ ® men«sIN][« ® pÏs«ti][ ® bÏl«tIN]The data presented in (9) is interesting for at least two reasons. Firstly,the examples pinpoint the fact that a syncope-prone schwa can be suppressednot only between two consonants which resemble a possible branchingonset (9a), but also between consonants which are not a potentialbranching onset (9b). Additionally, the forms in (9c) demonstrate the factthat syncope is unable to appear between two obstruents. Secondly, theforms in (9b) contribute to the refutation of the traditional analysis consistingin resyllabification (Harris 1994:186). 9 Note further that GPcannot interpret the resulting clusters in (9b) as either branching onsetsor coda-onset sequences. Thus, they are ascribed a different representation:that of a cluster separated by the empty governed nucleus. H a r -r i s (1994) concludes the discussion by pointing out that consonants occurringin a syncope-related bogus cluster are not adjacent simply becausethere is a lexically present schwa which separates both consonants.The schwa is suppressed by the following vowel through Proper Government.Although ‘static’ bogus clusters are not broken up by the alternatingvowel, they are represented in the same fashion. In short, both ‘static’and ‘dynamic’ bogus clusters are separated by the empty governednucleus (10).(10) a. PG b. PGONONONONONONONON||||||||||||||||xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx||||||||||||||def«n«tPÏtPl«sP9Harris (1994:183) points out that the epenthetic solution is impossible as well.Very briefly, the appearance of the same bogus cluster in two different words where onlyone of them alternates with a vowel makes the epenthetic solution inapplicable. Forexample, a bogus cluster [dl] can be found in maudlin [ ® mOÉdlIn] and pedalling [ ® pedlIN]with the difference that the latter, unlike the former, alternates with the schwa [ ® ped«lIN].It means that a rule which inserts a schwa in pedalling should also put one in maudlinwhich is, however, not the case.8*

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!