Untitled

3.6. Towards a solutionThree-consonant sequences79In the present section it will be demonstrated that Scheer’s (2004)proposal to represent trapped consonants as right-branching structurescan be modified in such a way as to cover the forms with unvocalisedprefix vowels.Kijak (2003b), building on Szigetvári’s (1999) idea of howto represent branching onsets, proposes to depict trapped consonantsin Polish as left-branching structures. 25 Note that this move automaticallyequates syllabic consonants with trapped ones. This equation alsoresembles Rowicka’s (1999a, 2003) proposal to represent trappedconsonants and their syllabic peers in other Slavic languages as rightbranchingstructures. In other words, it has been suggested that eventhough Polish does not possess syllabic consonants it uses their structureto represent trapped consonants. However, in the face of all thefacts presented in the previous two sections, Kijak’s (2003b) proposalmust be abandoned. Syllabic and trapped consonants are two differententities with disparate characteristics which call for two differentrepresentations. Moreover, the prefixation in Polish indicates thattrapped consonants cannot be left-branching as in that case they wouldinvariably govern the preceding prefix vowel (36), just as in the Czechcase.(36)* PG(C V) C|rV 1|oC|zV 2e??C|dV 3PCrV 4PC|gV 5|aC|t¡‚V 6|PIn (36) the [r] which is trapped spreads to the preceding nucleus V 3, andbecause it is not empty V 3can dispense government which strikes thenucleus to the left — the prefix vowel V 2, hence the latter remains unvocalisedand we arrive at the ungrammatical form *[rozdrgat¡‚].As has already been mentioned in the course of our previous discussion,syllabic and trapped consonants are two different structures responsiblefor opposite results in phonological processing. Thus, bearing25Recently, Szigetvári’s (1999) proposal to represent English branching onsetsin the same manner as syllabic consonants has been criticised by Blaho (2001, 2002).