Sonorant conspiracy125agent and forces the preceding nasal to acquire the same place of articulation.Admittedly, this kind of explanation is not possible in the Strict CVmodel advocated in this study. Recall that in the latter model the inter-constituentgovernment along with the intra-constituent governmentare totally dispensed with. In other words, coda-onset sequences andbranching onsets do not exist. From the above it follows that partial geminates,similarly to other consonant clusters, are separated by the emptynucleus. The latter fact precludes any kind of relationship betweenthe partial geminates, which apparently constitutes a problem for the strictCV model. Note that it is not possible to explain why obstruents shouldimpose the place of articulation on the preceding nasals. Both consonantsare separate onsets which do not hold any governing relation; they areeven not adjacent. The inadequacy of the Strict CV approach to explainthe phenomenon in question is one of the reasons why Scheer (2003)poses a challenge to the traditional view on the partial geminates. Morespecifically, Scheer (2003) explores the idea that it is not the obstruentwhich enforces the place specification on the preceding sonorant. Quite thecontrary, it is the sonorant which is an active member of the partial geminatecluster and it takes what it needs from the following obstruent. Thereason behind the active status of sonorants lies in the fact that in suchclusters they appear in a weak position. Specifically, according to the lenitiontheory, that is, the Coda Mirror, the nasal in finger, for instance, appearsbefore an empty nuclear position and this position is identifiedwith the lenition site (17a). The following obstruent, on the other hand,occurs after a governed empty nucleus and before a vowel, and this isa typical strong position. The representation of finger in the Strict CVmodel is given in (17) below.(17) a. PG b. PGC|fV|IC|NV|PC|gV|«C|fV|ICVCV|«NPgThe empty nucleus separating the nasal from the plosive is properly governedby the following vowel. Since internal empty governed nuclei cannotdispense government or licensing, it means that the nasal in (17) isneither governed nor licensed. Thus, it follows that the nasal appears ina weak position. The most common response of segments to this unfavourableposition is the loss of the melodic material, i.e. lenition. Interestinglyenough, in weak positions sonorants, unlike obstruents, have the
126 Bogus clusters, syllabic consonants and vowel syncope. . .ability to spread and dock on to a neighbouring position. In this way theygain the stability required to avoid lenition. As depicted in (17b) the nasalcan reach the following plosive and dock on to its place of articulation. Inconsequence, they end up as a partial geminate cluster. Such structures,as pointed out by Scheer (2003), are generally recognised as more stable,geminates being the most stable structures of all. See Kenstowiczand Pyle (1973), Schein and Steriade (1986), McCarthy (1986),Honeybone (2002).Summing up, the general picture emerging from Scheer’s (2003)proposal is that it is a sonorant that is the agent, while an obstruentbehaves like a patient. This is, in fact, a welcome situation as sonorantsin the Strict CV model play an active role in other structures like in, forexample, Infrasegmental Government (see Chapter One). Furthermore,in the vast majority of cases the nasal assimilates to the following obstruentas depicted in (17); there are, however, rare cases like German(see section 2.2 above) where the nasal assimilates to a preceding obstruent,e.g. offen [/Of«n] > [/Of ®µ] ‘open’. The phenomenon in question hasbeen described and analysed in the Strict CV framework by Scheer(2003). Thus, in what follows we shall discuss the solution to progressivenasal assimilation in German offered by him. As will be shown in thefollowing sections, this proposal can be used to explain not only syllabicconsonants but also bogus clusters and vowel syncope, in this way yieldingthe promised common link between all three phenomena.In order to provide positive evidence for the assumption mentionedabove, i.e. that sonorants in weak positions become active, Scheer(2003) analyses various phenomena in different languages. He presentsthe solution to the behaviour, i.e. lenition, of nasals in final codas (insouthern dialects of French, in Somali and Polish), as well as the genesisof nasal vowels in French, Portuguese and Slavic. He also gives the exampleof progressive nasal assimilation and syllabic consonants in German.Since, however, this chapter deals mostly with syllabic consonants, inthe remainder of this section we shall concentrate only on the latter.Homorganic nasal plus obstruent clusters are a well-documented,cross-linguistic phenomenon (Gussmann 2002). As mentioned above,the direction of assimilation is granted a universal status, i.e. an obstruentimposes its place of articulation on the preceding nasal. There are,however, rare cases where an obstruent is followed by a sonorant, e.g.German. What is important here is the fact that the result in both scenariosis identical, that is, a nasal acquires the place of articulation of theneighbouring obstruent. Note that the reverse homorganic clusters areproblematic for GP as it is the nasal that follows an obstruent. As mentionedabove, in the GP model nasals are not complex enough to govern
- Page 2 and 3:
Polish and EnglishConsonantal Clust
- Page 4 and 5:
Artur KijakPolish and EnglishConson
- Page 6 and 7:
ContentsPreface . . . . . . . . . .
- Page 8 and 9:
PrefaceThe phonotactic peculiaritie
- Page 10 and 11:
Preface92000), Ploch (1999), van de
- Page 12:
List of abbreviationsBrODIdim.FODge
- Page 15 and 16:
14 The frameworkemploying the simpl
- Page 17 and 18:
16 The frameworksion in section 3 b
- Page 19 and 20:
18 The frameworkmodel is able to ha
- Page 21 and 22:
20 The frameworkhanan 1986). Thus,
- Page 23 and 24:
22 The frameworkare not derived at
- Page 25 and 26:
24 The frameworkWhat is interesting
- Page 27 and 28:
26 The frameworklateral relations,
- Page 29 and 30:
28 The frameworkIn general, we can
- Page 31 and 32:
30 The frameworkobstruents followed
- Page 33 and 34:
32 The frameworkLet us look more de
- Page 35 and 36:
34 The framework(7) PGO N O N O N O
- Page 37 and 38:
36 The frameworkby all sounds. Thus
- Page 39 and 40:
38 The frameworkexist. What is a Br
- Page 41 and 42:
40The frameworkLowenstamm’s (1999
- Page 43 and 44:
42 The frameworksky and Halle’s (
- Page 45 and 46:
44 The phonological nature of the b
- Page 47 and 48:
46 The phonological nature of the b
- Page 49 and 50:
48 The phonological nature of the b
- Page 51 and 52:
50 The phonological nature of the b
- Page 53 and 54:
52 The phonological nature of the b
- Page 55 and 56:
54 The phonological nature of the b
- Page 57 and 58:
56 The phonological nature of the b
- Page 59 and 60:
58 The phonological nature of the b
- Page 61 and 62:
60 The phonological nature of the b
- Page 63 and 64:
62 The phonological nature of the b
- Page 65 and 66:
64 The phonological nature of the b
- Page 67 and 68:
66 The phonological nature of the b
- Page 69 and 70:
68 The phonological nature of the b
- Page 71 and 72:
70 The phonological nature of the b
- Page 73 and 74:
72 The phonological nature of the b
- Page 75 and 76: 74 The phonological nature of the b
- Page 77 and 78: 76 The phonological nature of the b
- Page 79 and 80: 78 The phonological nature of the b
- Page 81 and 82: 80 The phonological nature of the b
- Page 83 and 84: 82 The phonological nature of the b
- Page 85 and 86: 84 The phonological nature of the b
- Page 87 and 88: 86 The phonological nature of the b
- Page 89 and 90: 88 The phonological nature of the b
- Page 91 and 92: 90 The phonological nature of the b
- Page 93 and 94: 92 The phonological nature of the b
- Page 95 and 96: 94 The phonological nature of the b
- Page 97 and 98: 96 The phonological nature of the b
- Page 99 and 100: 98 The phonological nature of the b
- Page 101 and 102: III. Bogus clusters, syllabic conso
- Page 103 and 104: 102 Bogus clusters, syllabic conson
- Page 105 and 106: 104 Bogus clusters, syllabic conson
- Page 107 and 108: 106 Bogus clusters, syllabic conson
- Page 109 and 110: 108 Bogus clusters, syllabic conson
- Page 111 and 112: 110 Bogus clusters, syllabic conson
- Page 113 and 114: 112 Bogus clusters, syllabic conson
- Page 115 and 116: 114 Bogus clusters, syllabic conson
- Page 117 and 118: 116 Bogus clusters, syllabic conson
- Page 119 and 120: 118 Bogus clusters, syllabic conson
- Page 121 and 122: 120 Bogus clusters, syllabic conson
- Page 123 and 124: 122 Bogus clusters, syllabic conson
- Page 125: 124 Bogus clusters, syllabic conson
- Page 129 and 130: 128 Bogus clusters, syllabic conson
- Page 131 and 132: 130 Bogus clusters, syllabic conson
- Page 133 and 134: 132 Bogus clusters, syllabic conson
- Page 135 and 136: 134 Bogus clusters, syllabic conson
- Page 137 and 138: 136 Bogus clusters, syllabic conson
- Page 139 and 140: 138 Bogus clusters, syllabic conson
- Page 141 and 142: 140 Bogus clusters, syllabic conson
- Page 143 and 144: 142 Bogus clusters, syllabic conson
- Page 145 and 146: 144 Bogus clusters, syllabic conson
- Page 147 and 148: 146 Bogus clusters, syllabic conson
- Page 149 and 150: 148 Bogus clusters, syllabic conson
- Page 151 and 152: 150 Bogus clusters, syllabic conson
- Page 153 and 154: 152 Conclusionnisms available in th
- Page 155 and 156: 154 ReferencesBotma, B. (2004) Phon
- Page 157 and 158: 156 ReferencesGussmann, E. (1998) D
- Page 159 and 160: 158 ReferencesPawelec, P. (1989) Cy
- Page 161 and 162: 160 ReferencesScheer, T. (1997) Vow
- Page 164 and 165: Author indexAbercrombie, David 103A
- Page 166 and 167: Artur KijakGrupy spó³g³oskowe w
- Page 168 and 169: Zusammenfassung167für alle anderen