Untitled

Three-consonant sequences69(25) a. b.PWPWsssO|x|jRN|x|eCx|nx|trO|x|kR|N|x|aO|x|bRN|x|uC|x|prfor example, phonological word (PW). The same analysis was exploitedto explain voice neutralisation in (25b). In the latter example only thebilabial plosive /b/ belongs to a word-final coda (/br/ is banned from thecoda position due to the rising-sonority profile). This analysis was possibleonly on condition that the final [r] was assigned an extrasyllabic status.Extrasyllabicity of [r] explained two seemingly unrelated facts. Firstly,word-final devoicing of non-final /b/ and secondly the occurrenceof TR clusters word-finally. Similarly to (25a) the later rules integrateextrasyllabic consonants into the prosodic hierarchy. This solution hasbeen criticised for lack of restrictiveness (see Rowicka 1999a). It mustbe noted here that trapped sonorants have also proved problematic fora more recent phonological model, i.e. Optimality Theory (OT). The analysisof such clusters has in consequence led Rubach (1996, 1997a) topostulate at least two derivational levels within an originally non-derivationalframework. It is the transparent character of trapped sonorantswhich is a central argument for a modified OT, i.e. Derivational OptimalityTheory.As was pointed out to me by Eugeniusz Cyran, such clusters do notconstitute a problem for Government Phonology; just the opposite, theybring joy to phonologists as they exemplify the extreme point the theorycan reach. Very briefly, in GP trapped sonorants are interpreted as regularsecond members of branching onsets. This is the result of C h a -rette’s (1991, 1992) parametric variation concerning the ability of nucleito government license. The peculiarity and exceptionality of the Polishsituation lies in the fact that in this language the parameter which allowsempty nuclei to government license is set to ON. Consequently, wordslike brn¹æ ‘wade’, for example, are interpreted as the regular branchingonset followed by an empty nuclear position and another non-branching