Shortcomings of the Sonority Sequencing Principle29(4) C 2l r w p t k m nC 1a. p + + – – – – – –t – + + – – – – –k + + + – – – – –b + + – – – – – –d – + + – – – – –g + + + – – – – –f + + – – – – – –T – + + – – – – –b. s + – + + + + + +In the previous section we placed English in the group of languages whichallow only rising-sonority clusters word-initially (#TR). The data in (4a)confirm this preliminary classification. Thus, a typical word-initial clusterin English is comprised of an obstruent followed by a sonorant. Inother words, the first position is occupied by a plosive or a fricative, whilethe second one by a sonorant. Note that a cluster with the oppositeorder of consonants can never begin a word in English; *[rt-], *[lg-] or*[wd-] are totally ruled out from the language. Furthermore, it must benoted that some of the potential combinations of a plosive and a sonorantare banned. Firstly, the sonorant is never nasal. There are no sequencesof the *[tm-], *[pn-], *[gN-] type attested in the language. Secondly,while the velar plosives can precede almost any of the available sonorants,i.e. [l r w], the remaining classes of plosives are much more constrained.Thus, after the coronals [t d] the liquid [l] is impossible, similarlyafter the labials [p b], the labio-velar semivowel [w] is not admitted.17 It must be clarified that the liquid which is disallowed after coronalsis itself coronal, while after the labial plosive it is the labial semivowelthat is not possible. The most problematic sequences, however, arethose represented in (4b). They violate the constraint on the increasingsonorityprofile in initial clusters. In addition, they are peculiar in thatthey are the only examples of three-consonant sequences. 18 Puttingaside the problem of /sC/ sequences, a general constraint on the wordinitialconsonant clusters in English can be formulated — they consist of17As was pointed out to me by Piotr Ruszkiewicz, word-initial [gl] and [kl] clustersare sometimes replaced by homorganic [dl] and [tl] ones in contemporary English.Moreover, there is a number of borrowings from Welsh which contain a homorganic [Tl-]cluster, alternating with [hl-], e.g. Lleyn [TliÉn] ~ [hliÉn]. In the present study, such formsare regarded as marginal.18The peculiar behaviour of /s/ in consonant clusters was discussed in a cross-linguisticanalysis by K aye (1992).
30 The frameworkobstruents followed by non-homorganic, non-nasal sonorants. Note, however,that such a constraint does not try to explain why things are theway they are, in other words, why in English only #TR clusters are allowedinitially, while #RT clusters are banned, or why [tl] cannot starta word but is perfectly possible in the word-medial position.What is crucial for our discussion, however, is the fact that Englishwithout exception lacks word-initial #RT clusters. Surprisingly enough,the lack of such clusters hardly ever bothered anyone. Quite conversely,their lack positively confirmed the legitimacy of the Sonority SequencingPrinciple. This is not to say that the problematic initial consonantclusters, i.e. #RT, which violate SSP were not recognised and discussedin the literature. There are plenty of studies concerned with such problematicclusters, for example, in Polish or Czech, not to mention in languagesoutside the Indo-European family. However, the existence of suchclusters in certain languages has always been treated as some sort ofmisbehaviour as far as SSP is concerned. Phonologists have tried to ‘cure’#RT sequences in various ways; sonorants in such clusters were proposedto belong to appendices or to be extrasyllabic; they were conjoinedto some higher prosodic units like Foot or Phonological Word. What isinteresting, however, is that it has always been the #RT clusters whichhave had to be accounted for somehow. This situation may be explainedeasily if we realise that it was SSP which played the major role in thesyllabification and phonotactic studies.One of the languages in question here is Polish, which violates anyversion of SSP. It has long been noted that this language abounds withheavy clusters of various sonority profiles. Moreover, the examples areso frequent that they cannot be swept away as exceptions. In order toexplain Polish consonantal sequences, various stipulations have beenintroduced and heavy machinery has been applied. Quite often such solutionsare language-specific, i.e., they are needed only for the Polishsituation, e.g. the bi-partite structure of Polish onsets (Kury³owicz1952) or word-internal extrasyllabicity (Rubach and Booij 1990a,Rubach 1996, 1997a, b). Complex initial sequences like [drgn-], [tkn-],[fstr-] of drgn¹æ ‘shudder’, tkn¹æ ‘touch’ and wstrêt ‘repulsion’ respectively,have always been a good testing ground for different theoretical frameworks(Kury³owicz 1952, Rubach and Booij 1990a, 1990b,Gussmann 1991, Bethin 1992, Gussmann 1997, Gussmannand Kaye 1993, Gussmann and Cyran 1998, Rowicka 1999a,Cyran and Gussmann 1999, Cyran 2003, Scheer 2004). However,such clusters have proved problematic for most of the analyses.Any scientific theory which wants to be regarded as serious shouldask meaningful questions. Two such questions are why in most of the
- 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: 28 The frameworkIn general, we can
- 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 and 126:
124 Bogus clusters, syllabic conson
- Page 127 and 128:
126 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