Gradience in english syllabization and a revised concept of unmarked syllabization

8/14/2019 Gradience in english syllabization and a revised concept of unmarked syllabization

1/51


2/51

,..

ABSTRACT

AftE::r:} discussion of the general kinds cf c'J'idt:'nce that inay beused fo r syllabization, data from at least twenty-eight rules areadduced ;n favor of several principles of Erg! ish syJ labization. inevery instance but perhaps one, th e syllabi7ation is gradient, a) Jow-ing more consonants in a cluster to be syllabified with the hea;ieraccented c f two surrounding nuclei th e tempo increases. Theprinciples to which 1#1 is relevant are duly noted, and four temposrelevant to syllabization are distinguished. A number of minor issuesare disposed of, including the difference bct\oJeen phonological andphonetic syllabization. Problems in the use of assimi lations asevidence for syllabization are pin-pointed. It is proposed thatwhat is unmarked syllabization is relevant to the rhythm, in turndependent on th e kind of accentuation a language has, and that whatis unmarked in a language I ike Engl ish is to have cor.c;onants -- themore as th e tempo is faster - - be syllabified with a heavier, I-atherthan I ighter, adjacent nucleus. Thus both rhythm and tempo arerelevant to the concept of "unmarked syliabization." Even th e sizeof a consonantal cluster may influence t h ~ other factors, so that [ ~ l in eytra [ ' ~ k s t r a ] ~ a y be more l ikely to be syllabified with thepreceding accented nucleus than the [ t ] in t r icks ter , as indicatedby the aspiration test . Frequency of usage is also shown to affectsyllabization. Since four e3rly rules nresuppose the syllable-timeddefinition of "unmarked syllabization" in order to capture their~ e n e r a l izations, while th e other rules presuppose the other definit ;rm, it is proposed that rules preceding and inc.ludin9 the dCc.entrules presuppose th e unmarked rhythm and th e usual V-C(R)V sy l Jabizat ior ! that goes \vith that; a convention requires that, foll(J\"Jing therule intrOducing Engl Ish-l ike a c c ~ n t , phonological ru les pre.su!,;Jose the revised definition of "unmarked syllabization" tha t l lOCS

Lh t h ~ rhythm this kind of accent entai ls .

o Charles-Janes N. Bailey


3/51

GRADIENCE IN ENGLISH SYLLABIZATION AND A REVISEDCONCEPT OF UNMARKED SYLLABIZATION*

Charles-James N. BaileyTechnische Universitat Berl in

Structural I inguists frequently studied th e syllable and proclaimedi ts relevance fo r I inguistic analysis. While studies of the syllabletook on something of an underground cast in th e earl iest days of generative phonology, they have now come back into thei r own. Work previous to 1961 is well summarized in Hala (1961), and another good sum-mary is found in Kloster Jensen (1963). Writings which are previous tothese dates but are not cited in these works, or which have appearedsubsequently, and are known to th e present writer include: Barker(1922), Haugen and Twadell (1942), Hala (1962), FI i f le t (1962), Rosetti(1962, [1963]), Rischel (1963), Fry (1964), Malmberg (1965), Kozhevnikovand C h i s t o v i ~ h (1965), Sharp (1965), Anderson (1966), Lebrun (1966),Hoard (1966), Kohler (1966, 1967), Ladefoged (1967), Lehiste and Ivic(1967), Lindblom (1968), Bailey (1968a), Huggins (1968), Mulder (1968),Bondarko (1969), Fudge (1969),1 Brown (1969), Fudge and Brown (1969),Lehiste (1970), Pulgram (1970a,b), Kohler (1970), Rischel (1970),Hoard (1971), Bell (1971), MS, Vennemann (1972), Hooper (1972), NesslyMS, Karttunen MS, Rice MS, as well as other papers touching less directlyon th e subject, an unpubl ished talk by Stampe, and some forthcomingPh.D. theses. r omit mention of several important papers on rhythm,on syncope and anaptyxis, and the I ike in Engl ish, although these alsobear on the topic of syllabization. Fromkin (1966, 1968, 1971) andKim (1971) are relevant to our subject. Lebrun (1966) showed thatth e perception of syllabic structures is not uniform across languages,and offered a sound critique of O'Connor and Trim (1953), among others.

The present writer will be excused from omitting a discussion ofth e merits and demerits of these writers (except the few cited lateron) on the grounds that th e present analysis presupposes a gradientframework which is incommensurate with th e presuppositions of almostall other writers on th e subject. It is especially f i t t ing that agradient analysis of syllabization should appear in a volume dedicatedto Dwight Bol inger, who years before th e idea's tiMe had come bravedthe disdain of I inguistic orthodoxies to insist that gradience is anecessary aspect of prosodic analysis, especially where Engl ish isconcerned. 2

SYLLABIC BOUNDARIES are phonetic in a way that other boundariesare not. (Morpheme boundaries (1/ + //) are lexical facts, whi Ieinternal (/::/) and external (I / ) "Jord boundaries are derivationallyor syntactically generated.) SYLLABIZATION refers to the determination of and th e function of syllabic boundaries. Only accidentallydoes this term refer to th e number of syllables in an utterance -


4/51


5/51

Bailey - 3

phonological and phonetic transcriptions, for any given utterance in a language 1 ike Engl is h i t is important for a phonetic transcription to represent the onset of accent with t icks ([ ' , ] ) . This mode of representing the coincidence of sy l labization with the onset of accent would extend beyond particular utterances even to phonological transcriptions of th e language (at least in a given lect) if i t were true, as generally supposed up t i l l now, that there is a fixed place for the syllabic boundary in each Engl ish word. But th e old method of representing accent with acute and grave marks o v ~ r nuclear peaks for full and mid accentuation, respectively, seems more appropriate for phonological representations, if i t is true that there are variable and tempo-dependent but rule-governed locations of accent boundaries in languages with accentuation and rhythm I ike Engl ish. It should be clear that this comment does no t apply to phonetic representations, which are always utterance-specific.Before proceeding further, a few dist inct ions are in order.An OPEN (or UNCHECKED) syllable ends in a nuclear segment (a peakor diphthongal satel l i te ) , while a CLOSED (o r CHECKED) syllable

ends in a non-nuclear or consonantal segment. (Cf. also n. 27.)Note that af ter underlying sonorants have been changed (in someenvironments in some lects) to nuclear segments (peaks or satel l i tes)or have been deleted by th e appropriate rules, they lose the potentialfo r checking a syl lable. Contrast the closed syllable in school SS['skoUI] with the half-open syllable in NS [ ' skut : J , where thesyllable ends in a nuclear satel l i te , no t in a consonant. The underlying consonant I1III is changed to [+] in Mil ton, so that there isno internuclear cluster of consonants and [Q] is therefore possiblehere -- though i t is not possible af ter clustered [t) in Acton orWeston. But II 1# becomes the nuclear peak [+] in consul ta t ion[.khe'ts+'th"i san ] , where th e possibi l i ty of i ts closing the syllableis total ly ruled out. Parallel examples with I l r l l can be cited.There is carton ['khc,(a):tr.' ' k h , ~ C 1 t t ; l ) , where syllabic [,,1] follows unclustered [ t ) ; the [r] in laborious SS [la 'bo urIee ' bo.3"rlas] doesnot, and th e [.;1] or [a] in labor could not, close a syl lable. Thedeletion of the f i r s t nasal in some pronunciations of sentence[I ?QC,J precludes this segment from closing th e f i r s t syllable orfrom clustering with [ t ] to prevent [ ~ ] ; contrast Acton and Weston(above) .

The syllabization of consonants between nuclei is generally considered to be UNMARKED (universally more expected) where th e syllabicboundary (-) is located thus: V--{(R)V (where V is a vowel, C is anyconsonant, and R is any sonorant consonant; C must be an obstruentwhen R is present). Certain qual if ications have to be appended to sucha statement inasmuch as the syl lable- ini t ia l clusters [tn tm 'I jndl] , are unnatural, relatively unexpected, and therefore marked. Othersyllabizations than the unmarked one - - e.g. VC-(R)V and V C R ~ V -- haveto be MARKED syllabizat ions. The syllable FOREPART is the part of asyllable preceding the nuclear peak; th e AFTERPART follows the nuclear


6/51

segment(s) . The terms PRENUCLEAR a ~ d FOSINUCLEAR should be res t r i c tedto segments immediate ly p r e c e d i n ~ an d fo l lowing th e nucleus, r ~ s p e c t i v I y.

The sy l lab iza t ion o f ,) lang:;age ma y Dt.' changed a f te r th e 1"nQIJi19Cunder-goes milssive loss , inser t ioG, or rnetarht,;:; i" f IC1 . ;e l ; Cf ] " e , ;o f cons(,ndnts in the .1 f terp, l l ts of s.,-i lab les . 1 h i ~ c a l ~ 01


7/51

Ba i 1ey - 5and Latin bonum with standard Ital ian buono. One infers that [ ~ r ] in Latin petra (originally Greek) was a cluster ent i rely syllabifiedwith the following vowel because of th e changes seen in Ital ianp ie t ra .

Assimilation may, if used with particular caution, indicate principles of syllabization. Thus, German II xii is assimilated to [


8/51

(; - Sa i Ic y

even sonorant:> adjacent to I ( ~ " , - , ' lell , ' ICl 'd b o u ~ l d d r i f ' ; ) , as ~ : l : l l c' r, U ra i l t s fl. F;- [r h ~ : ' 'J i F P I r: /'\ T ! V :: S ; , .1 ' v d I i c! I 'I t' L t: I ' j () 'r ll . Lc .. ' I " \ C 1 \j dr, al i (' 11 i nthe ! 0 i c. i n Cj c f I[ , t .:: r n L. (. I " .J r ( I i rI" i', t I I 'J ,j r j c!.. j e . ~ > Q j t rig 1 ; sh t : . 9 I r r..' L', 1 d nd T" I C C ' ! ( J L I; . II I ,iJ Inore cievoicl :d [,,] in I r ebe l thar, in I O i ~ ' : : : J - - of fer \ !vrt Sliud evidence fo r sy l l ab iza t ion prec ise ly because such pheI>CJiTit'!ICl alt ' ;;roduced be I a,,-' the threshold o f consciousne led lJV j ~ ,

tho n q - de r i v ( d nuc le i 1nth e ;'j '": i_ d " t c' d fir sti 'I I 1a t! ' , ' () f e ; ',.' ; ,- i ,. ; ~ , ' ~ , a:1d c t the t r ad i t i ona l pronl : ' , ( , idt iY l o f 1. '" " ,J ' , ' ! (:11' .".,,1 1',

3 ' i l l C H ~ :,een, IF/ a f fec ts the s,ll hiz , ] t ic ' , hr,i,',t" U:: , j . , ! t"J ',I,I)f':', " t : ~ f ' ,Tost [ l "Oi l i torcd, lentc t , : , ~ , ( ) ) . L v " " " l ) ." ,1'f; l 'Li ' l 'I '


9/51

Bailey - 7derived nuclear peak in mayor. As fo r l iquids, th e lengthening rule of Middle Engl ish treated them I ike th e obstruents and nasals. Thus the pronunciations of carr iage and er ror , differing in their f i r s t syllables from car and or r , indicate a different syllabization of internuclear liquids before unaccented nuclei from what is found in the case of th e gl ides.

One further general principle ought to be mentioned before turning to th e detai ls of Engl ish syllabization. I t may seem evident from what has been already said about variable syllabizations, th e contrasting assumptions about syllabization required for earl ier and later phonological rules of Engl ish, the different pronunciations of a t ~ a l l and a - ta l l , and also the pecul iar i t ies of (e.g. Hawaiian) creol ized pronunciations of Engl ish that are discussedlater , that there are no fixed universal principles of syl labizat ion.This also seems evident from differences among languages, which arereflected, e.g . , in preferences for apocope over I iaison or viceversa. What has been said should be qualified, however, by theconsideration that there may be principles of sy l labization whichare universal but are related to and dependent on th e accentual andrhythmic principles of pronunciations with which they are associatedin given instances. Even granting this relativity of universalprinciples of syllabization to variable factors of rhythm, tempo,and th e l ike, i t wil I s t i l I have to be determined whether suchprinciples are compatible with th e resyllabizations in English andother languages which are described below after the discussion ofthe four principles of Engl ish syllabization. At any rate , therecan be no doubt that any such universal principles have to begradient, i .e . more or less applicable under conditions in whichmore or less of other factors are involved. These other factorsare mainly differences in th e degree of self-monitoring of a speakeror speakers -- reflected as tempo and styl i s t ic differences whichare amenable to a gradient framework such as presupposed in Bai ley(1974c).

In looking for principles of Engl ish syllabization, i t wil Ioften be profitable to apply evidence from the incontrovertiblesyllabization of monosyllabic words (where consonants are demonstrably syllable- init ial or syllable-final) to more complex andcontrovertible instances of non-nuclear segments within words.This evidence is especially trust\..;orthy. (But \t/hile it is eminentlyreasonable to assume that word-initial phenomena can be syl lableinit ial and that word-final phenomena can be syllable-final , i t willbe seen that some syllable-final consonantal clusters cannot occurword-finally in Engl ish.) Since word-initial heavy (underlyingvoiceless) occlusives are aspirated in Engl ish, aspirated internalconsonants may rightly be assumed to be syl lable- in i t ia l . Wherea t a l l is pronounced with [ ~ h ] ~ th e stop is syl lable- in i t ia l ; wherel I t / I is pronounced as [d] in this phrase, it is syllable-final .


10/51

8 ., I),., i 1t; y

f in sur-Ie tefnpos .:.: in;:dj [fJ or Ji 1 ~ 1 " \ ' i - _ ~ ; ~ t l ; ~ > ~ l [ L _ ' c.:. J 1.var ie t i es o f f,] ' , ' i i th d i f f e r i nq C;" , ' ,H i (J ' l ! " the eli ' t , {,hv:,c I t : r l ( ) t r ia \j r e e


11/51

Ba i ley - 9

same lects show unaccented [a] in th e f i rs t syllables of mis take , d i s tu rb , and destroy in comparable tempos. The unaspirated [+] in these words proves that the segment is not syl lable- in i t ia l , i .e . th e syllabic boundary precedes [s] .

Since 1#1 drops out in rapid tempos, syllabizations I ike m i ' s t ru s tdo no t invalidate the general ization that syllabic boundaries coincidewith 1#1 boundaries, at least for the principle governing syllabization before nuclei which are more heavily accented than the nucleuspreceding the consonants involved.Before stating th e principle, i t is necessary to point out that geminate or phonologically doubled (but phonetically long) consonants always overlap syllabic boundaries in Engl ish (e.g. m e a n ~

ness , i l ~ l e g a l , b o o k ~ c a s e ) , with the sale exception of geminates in some lects before inflectional -- e.g. f ac t s [ ' f ~ k k s ] [ [ ' h k : s ] ] , lifts [ ' I raf ts ] [ [ ' I raf :s ]] (see Bailey MS: chap. 4). In other words, phonetic geminates are treated 1ik e two separate consonants. Normally, clusters of two sonorants take the syllabic boundary between them, with the exception of morpheme-initial l'rw hy/. However, in principle Ib postconsonantal Iyl has an individual t rea t ment (see especially I l y ! ) .

The f i rs t or (a ) part of the f i r s t principle of Engl is h syllabization can be stated as follows, in view of evidence already cited andto be cited: 13

la ) P rovided that clusters which are not permitted word-init ially are excluded,14 more consonants are grouped with a following more-heavily accented nucleus than with a preceding lessheavily accented nucleus as the tempo increases and the pronunciation is less monitored; but 1#1 requires th e syllabic boundary to coincide with i t .Normally, at least the consonant i ~ ~ e d i a t e l y preceding a more heavilyaccented nucleus is syllabified with i t ; usually clusters of stopsplus I iquids or gl ides (except l i t! c i l l) a;-e treated th e same ,oJay,as in con ' t ro l , com'pla in , e 'qua t ion , and l l n ' g u i s t : c (ltJhere [')]before [ ~ ] is a problem, as noted later ; , l i n g ' u i s t i c It/auld be verymonitored, while l i n ' g u i s t i c \vould rarely be heard Itlith [n] (for[ ~ ] ) and only in the most rapid pronunciation).

Principle la is confirmed with a tes t available in th e outputsof ITI in lects where different outputs are heard before 12/. as ins igh and buy , and before II kll (not preceded by 1::1). as in psychand bike (more detai led discussion is found below). Note that ,psy-' chology and bi#cuspid have init ial syllables sounding I ike s igh andbuy in these diagnostic lects; th e folloltling [kli] is aspirated and


12/51

10 - Ba i 1el

fIr., ; """, , ' h ] ' [;,] bur ' i i : I qI c; "'J' ~ ' ; l c.thererore s y l l ab l e - i n i t i a l . . . . . . . ' ._ ' ,, ; , . . . . L..L '-" j, ',- .) 1"- j ")['J] .Examples o f the sy l la ' : , izat ior l o f conS0nar1ts r;rec:eded hy ar>

unaccented nucleus and fo l !m:t-d by Cl mid-ac P l e u (,ne d (C C ' C ' t 1 : , U j c ~ " [I ; . , } / ~ .. if. (Ii) + t ~ ~ , h , j l J; c o n t c n ~ ~ ~ ) } a t [ . ( : r'.r;-J" , 1; ~ ; ! - : ~ ~ : ' I . : ' ~ ; C J u L ' C:: i te j[ I ~ ) : ~ , , ' . ) ~ , t r ; ~ ; t ] , faster (':-l:r_u,'::"i r . TJ; d t : P " ~ C ! , _ ' " ; ' t r l t ~ l , 1" ' ' ' 1 ( ; [I t ~ H ; ~ ] , al legro ( 'd:.rnan",t r : t ] ~ o n the nasa l iza t ion (, f [ ' i i i the 'len to pronunc ia t ion , se e below); turpent ine [ I i ? : ~ ; f ; , t r , "J.

Pr inc ip le la and the other pr inc ip les ir:lply the wlif,;. Vclrious compl i cat ions requ i re separat ing the pr inc ip les govern ing the sy l lab iza t ion o f consonants in t i l ls environment before un9Lcented and befnremid-accented nuc le i . The inf luenCe of lit/ is. vas t l y less before U,-accented nuc le i than anywhere e lse , in f .Jct , sy l lab iza t ion : , 1ikr,highPncss and s ly#n0ss are res t r i c ted to the s lowest temposlS andthe most monitored sty les an d may therefore go unmentiont::d in p r i n ~ i p l ~ Ib and Ic - - which c r o s ~ in te rna l word boundar ies in severalinstances (mentioned below). Pr inc ip le Ib deals wi th the f i r s tconsonant i'1 a c lus te r fo l lowed b :In cl."1accented r " J ( i e ~ " " "hil...:: IedCodlc; more pa r t i cu la r l y with consonants r>recedi 9 t t la t ( the s,: 1 iar iLe,"t ie , ' :.f such ccn' ,onants may depend on tne f i ni31 CC'f1son,;;nt o f th.::c lu ' t eJ ) , r:ach o f these pr inc ip les ;r'iJY be eJ')]e to be ( ; c ~ t ' r a l izedfreJ'J the envi ronme'l l be.tween d ' ! lore acce;:tEd ar'd ;1 Ie"" cccnt'cdnucleus to the er lv i ionment bet'?Jcen ur>accellted nU,,1 i, :j, "' i l l1 besr::en.

The r i iscv,s ior ' o f pr inc ip le Ib mdy b' ; i " , t l , - : ;dl lccd,: i th u , r : : ; i ' ~ r a ~~ i o n o f c a p ~ r , ,u[(!.: lchcr, and maker , 'dl1t:'re U',,, in te r l lLc lcar ocelu i ' : ': 'are ' lot nurmcl i ly asp i ra ted , I ike [-',1 in l ( ; ; ~ l t o dCC. : ' , ' , . Thi


13/51

Ba i ley - 11

concerning the distinction in some lects between a less voiced [c ]in the noun ' rebel and a more fully voiced [b] in re 'be l leads toth e conclusion that ' r e b ~ e l is thus syl labif ied, since there is nodoubt that [b] in re 'be l is syl lable- in i t ia l .

Contrast with the aspirated [ph] in re 'prove and comlpare th eunaspirated [PJ in reprobate and comparable, lento [ ' k h e p ~ r e b + J , allegro ['kheprebt] (see below on the deletion of the nasal) . Theaspiration differences here correspond to different syllabizations.Only in very highly-monitored and art i f ic ial pronunciations dowe hear lip t 't


14/51

12 - Ba i le y

Tul), su r f and seTW' , and l i c k and ku, it is ind isputable thatpr inc ip le Ib has uppl ied to such in ternuc lear con;onants, (Secpr inc i r1e I I fo r in ternuc lear gl ides and 1 iqu ids. )

Simi la r conclusions C,1n be drawn fror:. th e evidence in Sledd(1966). where th e l i gh t \owels are retracted before grave C " ~ ' j ( ) ; , " : ' . t s( apic a 1sa n dUll P , 'i ,, 'in r jV ( : l ' and zl{-per, no less than in l i v e and rip one may thereforeconc I udc - - what makes th e changes more natura I , in any ca::eII tha t r i v ~ ' e r and z ipp -e r are sy l lab i f ied thus. This evidence i ~ ~ . however, less conclus ive than that which immediately preceded,since Sledd also found tha t th e amount o f th e re t rac t ion beforeI apica ls (especia l ly the 1 iqu ids) var ie d according to whether thE:fo l lowing unaccented nucleus was not f ronted or f ronted.1

Much bet ter evidence is avai lable from the diverse outputs o fITI and I ~ I in lects where th e outputs are d i f f e ren t in these tweenvi,.-onments: (1) Preceding heavy cor.sonants and II gil ("Jhere noI ~ / in tervenes, as in ,psy 'cho logy and ,b i ' cusp id ; see above):here standard 55 has rae] from IT/. and TW has [,,1] from ITI andfeu] from lu i ; e.g. life, type , sp i t e , 1. ike, mouth, and ahout .(2 ) Preceding a syl labie boundary or a l i g h t non-nuclear segmentother tha" /I g/l or (under certa fn cond i t ions) [0 ] f rorn II t i l ( forthe possib le reorder ings, d. Bai ley (1973)): here SS has [d] fro!",1"":'1, and TW has [oe] from /TI and [ ~ : o ] from lui; e.g . t ime, fJine,dr ive , r ide , r i s e , loud, down, and z'ouse, as wel l as ,psy'cho.loqyand , b i ' cusp i d . (Note tha t pin t has th e output o f t e , not thato f ne, since II nil is deleted before tautosyl l i3b ic heavy obstruent::;except fo r many speakers before antevocal ic l i t II , a ~ , in bant i lm; seebelow.) Since SS has [aeJ in th e f i r s t sy l lab les o f t iqF'r dndChrysler , it is c lear that the consonant immediately fol lovJing t l l isnucleus is tautosy l labic with it. Psychic has th e output o f pSyCh ,not tha t o f s igh . As fo r c lusters o f stops plus 91 ides and l i qu ids ,le t us consider th e examples ni trogen, eyel c (when th e f i r s t n u c : e ~ sis not [ I ] ) . and Michae l , where pronounced [ , maPl


15/51

Ba i 1ey - 13

nuclearized, which permits [t) to be syllabified with the f i rs tnucleus according to principle lb .

Note that in the prosodic environment under consideration underlying sequences of nasals plus heavy obstruents are both syllabifiedwith th e preceding nucleus. The nasal is deleted here, no less thanbefore tautosyllabic word-final heavy obstruents; cf. pencil withpence. The unaspirated internuclear stops in simple [ 'sIp+] andsinker ['sTka] must be syllable-final .

In one pronunciation of sentence, viz. [ 's ?Qs], the presence of th e syllabic nasal af ter a stop is possible because that stop is not clustered and can be syllable-final (contrast L o n ~ d o n [ 'landGn], where [1jI] is impossible).16 The reason that [t] is not clustered with the preceding II nH is that i t has been deleted (see the preceding paragraph). Note that th e nasal is deleted before heavy obstruents only if th e two consonants are tautosyllabic; therefore, the deletion does not take place in c o n ~ t a i n (where aspirated [th] has to be syl lable- in i t ia l ) : It is difficul t to find a convincing case where this operates across a word boundary (one t -enacious ?).

Another pronunciation of sentence, heard among older Americansand even young Texans, is [ 'ssniHs). Here H tH is deleted afterHnH in th e prosodic environment we are considering; cf. bantam,momentous, twenty. Since Hmp nkH are, as already shown, tautosyllabic in s.imple and s inker , one \>Jould expect that HntH aretautosyllabic in bantam, momentous, and twenty,and that HtH-dele t ionoccurs only where this segment is syllable-final . This is confirmedby the varying treatment of pinto , Toronto, centaur, e tc . , wherelento pronunciations have syllable- init ial [ th] , vJhile th e normalallegro pronunciation shows HtH (deleted or) changed to [dl; seebelow. Contrast center and mantel, which have undeleted [th] onlyin the most monitored style; cf . also the discussion of talentedbelow. The rule delet ing H t H followi ng H nH operates before anunaccented vowel in a following word; e.g. wan(t) i t .

The pronunciation in children's Engl ish and in some non-standardvarieties of adult Engl ish which has [+ ] fo'- H bH in Nartha andpanther, [v] fo r H ,VI in mother, brother, and father, as we II aschanges of pos tnuc Iear II t II to h I or /hI (e. g. turkle fo r tur t le)and of postnuclear Hpll to Ikl never occur (in the adult lects inquestion) at the beginning of a word or before a fully accentednucleus -- in short , never syl lable-ini t ial ly. Note that panfah(lipanther") is parallel to simple in respect to the tautosyllabicityof the nasal and th e following heavy obstruent. The present authorand his colleagues have recorded sl ips of the tongue or sloppy(fatigued) pronunciations like ..;hike fo r white , ClPClrt. for apart , andso on. 17 Such changes are no t 1imited to Engl ish. If they occur inthe internuclear environment, the consonant affected has to besyllable-fin;)l .
http:///reader/full/impossible).16http:///reader/full/impossible).16


16/51

14 - Ba i ley

As i l l ready noted in connect ion with at' , t11 ;)nd "/"", ; ~ ; h S5 [ ' < . , L ~ .. I'the (Ct ld i t ions are r i gh t fo r dele t ing I'J/. (That it i /::1, ratherthan II ni l , that has been deleted is ev ident frorr th(; SS c l - - ' ; : H ' ~ l C c f i i /to laI I , wh i ch occurs before I fJ , but not oefore I / . Sec d 1ltlq_'.l! he! r J, :::,.,r'that these s e g ~ e n t s standing between unaccented nucle i arc ~ y l : ~ ~ I ~ ' ; n : t i a l and sy l l ab le - f i na l , respec t ive ly . The evicience f P.lr:c..;:, .

. __ .._ -_ .... - - -


17/51

Ba i 1ey - 15

then, supports the appl ication of principle Ib to the syllabizationof consonants between unaccented nuclei, whi Ie the evidence ofmul t ip le seems (see below) to violate principle Ib , though only inlento tempo. The application of principle Ib to consonants betweenunaccented nuclei is also violated by the fact that in the speechof most Engl ish-speakers -- but perhaps not all - - syllabic nasalsmay not follow stops preceded by an unaccented vowel. This suggeststhat such stops are syllabified with the following lan/ . The writerhas found many speakers who can have [ ~ ] in b u l l ( e ) t i n , pur ( i ) tan ,and ske l (e ) ton if the parenthesized nucleus is deleted in rapidtempo, which means that II t i l is syllabified with the precedingheavily accented nucleus; on th e other hand, no speakers have beenfound who have [ ~ ] in res ( i )dent or comp(e) tent when the parenthesized nuclei are deleted, fo r even then Id l and I t I (following Ip/)have to be syllabified with the fo l lowing nucleus. However, thefacts are not clear enough to be sure that no speakers permit [Q]af ter a weakly accented (unaccented) nucleus. In fact, some seem todo just that , especially in rapid tempos, in which event this phenomenon forms no counterevidence to the application of principle Ibto consonants between unaccented nuclei. Most of the other evidencesupports the appl ication of Ib to consonants between unaccented nuclei.

The f i rs t item of such evidence is the change of II t i l to [d] (o r pErhaps a tap) between unaccented nuclei, just as in other environments that principle Ib appl ie s to. Examples are heard in format ive , lucra t ive , a b i l i t y , Raf f e r t y ['r-iffadI 'ra::fG"di], s imple ton [' 5 1p+dan], patented ['pha?tlild1d], carpenter ['kro,:crpda]. Various l inguists have noticed a difference between th e output of II t i l in atom and in format ive , etc. The present writer , fo r example, feelsthat the output of II t i l between unaccented nuclei and in t a l en ted(see below) and allegro pinto - - as perhaps also in vol tage andWalter - - is more I ikely to qual ify as a ta p in his speech than th e[d ] in atom.

While th e aspiration tes t shov's syllable- init ial [kh prJ inth e lento pronunciations of moniker and mUlt ip le ['''1.\+:daph+], i tis syl lable-f inal [0] and [k] without aspiration that are heard inthe allegro pronunciations. This difference could be resolved bytwo different orderings of p r i n ~ i p l e Ib (which specifies th e syllabization of postnuclear consonants) and of Ic (which specifies th esyllabization of prenuclear consonants before u n a ~ c e n t e d nuclei; seebelow) in different tempos. In lento tempo, with Ib before Ic, Icwould apply to syllabify a single obstruent between unaccented nucleiwith the following one. In allegro tempo, with Ic before Ib , Ib '.vouldsyllabify the obstruent with the preceding nucleus. The allegroordering is presumably th e unmarked one.Let us now examine c o n s o n a n t ~ ;n clusters -- other than the f i rs tsuch clustered consonant -- in environments preceding unaccented

nuclei -- the domain of principle Ic .


18/51

16 - Bailey

The aspiration test shows aspirated syllable- init ial stopsbefore the unaccented nuclei in th e lento pronunciations of act ive,pept ic , whisper, muster, e las t i c , Alaska, and whiskey; but innormal allegro tempo, those stops are unaspirated and syllablef inal, i .e . th e syllabic boundary follows them. This situation isthe mirror-image of principle la . There is no direct evidence forthe syllabization of the sonorants preceding the unaccented nucleiin nitroqen, matron, cyc l ic , lucrat ive , apron, sequence, andspeculate ['spc:ky+,I[it?]. It may be thought antecedently unlikelythat clusters ending in sonorant consonants could be syllable-finalsince English does not permit them at th e end of words. Nevertheless, i t is worth noting several phenomena. First , speakers whopalatal iz e apical stops before tautosyllabic II rll in train anddrain seem to do this also in mattrc.ss , puntr'l, VC'stT'I, and fact-,IrSecondly, the palatalizations in cul ture [ l r ~ h I \ t : Y';;}J, verdure['v3:d Za], and tenure ['thc,ra] imply the tautosyllabicity ofIty dy ny/. Note that Id ny syl are palatal ized only if tautosyllabic -- in allegro [ 'gIdZ,Ia:] . but not in lento Good,year; insen ior , but not in Spanada [.spen'\r: .:da]; in the noun associate ar>uthe allegro verb associate [ a ' s o u ~ , l i t ] , but not always in th e lentcverb associ ,ate; in menu ['me,re] when the final nucleus is unaccentebut not in men,u [ ' m ~ n l y ~ u J (cf. sinew).

A 1ike tautosyllabicity of all gl ides with a preceding consonanwhen the following nucleus is unaccented seems corroborated by gl idedeletion in this environment; e.g. Dur(h)am (contrast Birminq,h3.m) ,ve(h) ic le (contrast ve 'h icular) , phil(h)armonic (where the secondnucleus is unaccented; contrast phil ,harmonic) , shcp(h)erd, fore ( h k ,'11 , (= wi l l ) , 'd (= WOUld), Green (w)ich. to(w)ard. qun(wha)le.penins(y)ula , cons(y)ulate , ins (y )u la te , carb(y)urctor , cord(l.j)u!'o:;,Mich(y)ael - - in semistandard poP(y)ular, merc(y)ury, man(,})ufacturrcalc(y)ulate , dep(y)uty - - and in nonstandard Ed(w)arri, awk(ltl)ad,back(w)ards, 'a s (= was), som(ewh)at, and lJan(i)el. (tJote also theabsence of Iyl before I i i in folia'./C, marri;]qu, etc. if ' standardpronunciation. in the British pronunciation of f iguro, and in c r i t t '1creature. )

Evidence from diverse phonetic outputs of underlying 11!j11 andof 1,1 in certain lects may now be invoked. In lects in I"Jhich I i t i /is diphthongized word-init ially and after syllable- init ial 1111/ inlu te . but not after clustered 11,11 in f lu te . af f luen t is ['cri!y',:),;(when th e second syllable is unaccented; see below for ' a , f f l u ( ) ~ t ) . This precludes placing the sy l labie boundary before [ f ] ; i t may prec(or follow [11. so far as this evidence indicates. The tT l test s h o \ ~ othat in lent/) tempo ninety S5 [ 'naand has had 11,..,-11 tautosyllabicwith the f i r s t nucleus at some stage, for th e nucleus is th e one hearin p in t . not th e one heard in pine. For the reorderinSI of the phc",(,logical rules that produce [ ' ,anI] in allegro tempo, c ~ . Bailey ( l ( ' ~ ' ~

Both th e output of IT I and th e deletion of II -II in ninet:! inr i icthe tautosyllabicity of n ~ t n with the preceding nucleus in this pro
http:///reader/full/mattrc.sshttp:///reader/full/mattrc.ss


19/51

Ba i le y - 17

environment. (Rarely is ap ,po in t ' ee so syllabified, in which caseII t i l is dropped. Usually [th] is heard: ap,poin ' tec ' , ) The deletion of the nasal and the aspiration test confirm that th e syllabicboundary has to follow clusters of nasals plus heavy stops in cen t ra l ,amply , pantry , tantrum - - as i t presumably also does in commencement,dense ly , etc. The assimilation of II ni l to 1f)1 (proved by the nuclearchange, even though 1f)1 is deleted) in banquet and vanquish provethat the syllabic boundary follows th e velar stop. Whether i t precedes or follows II wll doubt lets depends on the tempo. The samecomment appl ies to [5] in brinksman. The change of ~ p ~ to I f I insome lects in panther shows that II ntl l are tautosyllabic wi th thepreceding nasal, and the same is doubtless true of a l l nasal-plusobstruent clusters where the obstruent is a heavy one.

As for biconsonantal clusters beginning with a nasal which are both preceded and followed by unaccented nuclei, see the discussion of ta len ted below. While the assimilation of II ni l to 1f)1 in angle ['a::1f)g+] and

anger [ 1 ~ I f ) g a ] and to Im l in conversat ion - - also in more complexcluster ings in congress , angler , angry - - indicates that II gil andI /v l l are syllabified with the preceding nasal and accented nucleuswhen they are followed by an unaccented nucleus, th e fact that [Q]is excluded in London indicates that [d ] is tautosyllabic with thefollowing nucleus and that the syllabization is Lon-don. Possibly

ndll clusters are different from other clusters of nasals plusobstruents; see th e syllabization, laun-dry , below. But noteim#b-etween; th i s , however, is an allegro sy l labization, where onemight expect Ilmbi/ to be syllabified with a preceding fully accentednucleus. Penguin, with and without the assimilation of II nil to If)/in allegro and lento tempos, respectively, shows that in th e cluster/Ingwll the post-nasal I /g l l has variable syllabization. But l ingualapparently never has [n]; cf. l i n ' gu i s t i c above. It may be thatall clusters of internuclear nasals plus J ight obstruents fo l lowedby unaccented vowels are usually divided in the middle (cf. L o n ~ d o n ) . and that some words contain lexical II f)11. It is most I ikely thatth e spell ing influences [f)-g] pronunciations.

There would be only a smal I problem \vith postulating syl lablefinal [mb f)cd clusters, although these cannot be ItJOrd-final; cf.bombardier with bom(b) and younger with Ijoun(g). It has alreadybeen seen that sonorant-final clusters can be tautosyllabic with apreceding accented nucleus when followed by an unaccented nucleus,even though such clusters are not permitted word-finally in English;c f . / I f r f l pr 51 sn 5m/1 in Afr i ca , ba f f l e r , Mithra, n i c e l y ,che s ( t )nu t , l i s ( t ) n e r , policeman. addition to what has alreadybeen said, several other considerations are in order. First , wordini t ial clusters not permitted in lento tempos are permitted in veryrapid tempos (cf. nn. 14 and 23). Secondly, while this seems lesstrue of word-final clusters in Engl ish, this may be because no vowel


20/51

18 - Ba i 1ey

follows them. After a l l , English vlOrds n,ay not end with [rj] (or Lltap) from II til even if a vowel precedes, unless a vowel alsofollows in the next word; e.g . .3 t lia l l . (I t should be noted thatth e clusters that may precede an unaccented nucleus need not be asextensive as those that may begin a word, though they may be , sofar as is known. The tes t using word-initial and word-finalclusters in determining Engl ish syllabization is most relevant . forreasons to be seen la ter , to the environments immediately precedi19and following accented syllables, respectively. The test is lessconclusive for consonants between unaccented nuclei.) But the mainpoint is that, if the evidence from phonological developments knownor strongly suspected to be correlated with syllabization indicatesa word-internal sy l labization that posits a cluster which cannot be found at th e beginning or end of a word (a s the case may be), then that evidence must be allowed to overrule the evidence from word-initial and word-final clustering. For we are not obI iged to say that internal clusterings have to be identical with those at the beginnings and ends of words, even in a given tempo. There are probably neurological reasons for this difference, bu t the present writer is not competent even to speculate on these.

The cluster Ilyl is different ly syllabified in the Southernand Northern States pronunciations of value and t i l l i o n : SS['vre-(I)ye 'br-(I)yanJ (the lateral is left out in normal allegrotempo). NS [ I v ~ t : - y e 'bf+:-yan], where th e syllable-final lateralhas become a diphthongal satel I i te. The NS syllabization is thenormal one. The SS syllabization is quite anomalous, and might beattributed to the fact that th e lateral is usually omitted. PrincipI fa below shows that internuclear Iv l goes with a following nucleus.The anomaly resolves i t se l f in th e ordering of the rules that generaIv l from H ~ H (the unaccented output of which is lye I after mostconsonants when 11'011 is in an operl syllable; see above) and fromprevocalic unaccented Iii; see Bailey (1973). Before /J is gPf1eratI I I is internuclear and obeys principle Iia below, which causes it t.have the unmarked syllabization in ' Ir-less" lects. In SS the generation of the 1;1 is not allowed to affect this syJ labization, showingthat the syllabization rule or convention precedes the generation ofIy l by the rules just mentioned (NS has the other order). and thatthe syllabization principle may not be an l'anYI':here" rule, as SCi>!E.:have maintained (though i t does affect epenthetic consonants, Itihichhave to be inserted in the correct syl lable) . For if the syilabization principle could operate anywhere and everywhere. Ilyl would norbe tautosyllabic , as in SS va lue and b i l l i on (when th e lateral hasnot been d e l ~ t e d ) . The NS ordering has Iyl generated before th eoperation of the rule that changes h: H to a nuclear satell i te whena non-nuclear segment follows. with th e result that th e lateral hasto be syllabified with the preceding nucleus in NS and presur,,)bly i ' ,


21/51


22/51

20 - Bai ley

1 j ( ; h t ~ ; , "Fu ld - l i yJ i t " (as though a t rade nar:e), Mildreci , i.Jand-"'JI!t.l" siJndwich, land r iq f l t s , and l aundry .

Differences among environments in which in terconsonantal l i t ;/always, more of ten than not , seldom, or never - - get deleted p r o ~ i d e evidence fo r s y l l a b i z a t i o n ~ in those e0vironnents. : The I i f f i i t ~ d (but probably re i iable) evidence suggests that th e facts are asfo l lows fo r many speake rs: Deletiol1 occurs ( in a l l but the mostmonitored and a r t i f i c i a l spel l ing pronunciat ions) in CtC, l de , r,-JCc lus ters when the l as t C is an obstruent , l a te ra l , or nasal , r e g a r d l c s ~o f the degree o f accentuat ion on th e fo l lowing nucleus. This mustbe qual i f ied by a few observat ions. The delet ion is much less l i ke lywhere the f i r s t two consonants are f t (as in s h i f t l e s s , let t l ->drd)than where they are k t (as in exac t l y ) , doubt less because [t J isreleased by many a f te r [ f ] , but not a f te r [ tJ , when I i : ! fo l lows. ; ;Although [t] is a lso unreleased fo l lowing [sJ when IN follovJ


23/51

Sa i ley - 21

th e syJlabizations g o l ~ d r i g h t s and t rus - twor thy occur. (See furtheron the clusters Ct ,w, Ct,r , ld ,w , l d , r , nd,w, and nd ,r under PrincipleI I I be Iow.)

The aspiration test confirms th e syllable- init ial status of [th ph] in ve s t r y , h i s t ' r y , mys t ' ry , f ac t ' r y , asp i r in , e tc . , in lento or monitored pronunciation. In rapid tempos unaspirated, and therefore syllable-final , [t p] are heard in these examples. We may summarize, f i rst for lento or monitored pronunciations.The syllabization of th e final segments of clusters of three or

four consonants in which the last consonant is a nasal, 1 iquid, orgl ide (consonants following deleted underlying nasals do not comeinto question here, of course) fo l lows th e fo l lowing principles:The last consonant in the cluster (the final sonorant) is syllabifiedwith a following unaccented nucleus in lento tempo, as in laundry .The preceding interconsonantal consonant is syllabified with the finalsonorant in lento tempo when that sonorant is (I) II r l l , as in laundry ,(2) II wll preceded by II ngll , as in sanguine , or 0) any sonorantfollowing a grave (i .e . labial or velar) obstruent, since graveconsonants do no t end clusters when they are preceded by an obstruent;e.g. Cos-grove, God- frey . (I t has already been observed that apicalobstruents can usually stand at th e end of word-final obstruentclusters, as in the verb inflections of Engl ish, but may no t clusterwith a fol lowing tautosyllabic lateral or nasal.) Turning now tounmonitored or allegro tempos, we find more complex syl lable-f inalclusterings than in lento tempo, at least where the interconsonantalconsonant is one that can cluster word-finally with the precedingconsonant and the final consonant of the cluster is a gl ide orliquid (exclusive of # 1# preceded by an apical stop). From whathas been said, one would syllabify rvemb-ley and ambulate ['a::mb-y+,I; it]thus in allegro tempo even though [ ~ l ] cannot end words in Engl ish.

It is qratifying to observe that even in lento ter:lpo CC-Csyllabization is more usual than C ~ C C when the preceding nucleusis more accented than th e one that follows. This encourages us togeneral ize that consonants following a more heavily accented nucleustend to be syllabified with i t , just as when they precede a moreheavily accented nucleus they tend to be syllabified with that.This tendency fo r a c o n s o n a ~ t to be syllabified with the heavieraccented nucleus increases - - i .e. spreads to consonants in th ecluster further removed from the one adjacent to the heavier accentednucleus -- as the tempo is stepped up. Consequently, th e principlesthat govern th e sy l labization of consonants in th e environment thatwe have been considering (principles Ib,c) form the mirror-image ofprinciple la. Such a general ization is a more comprehensive onethan th e indivijual principles and Itlill form th e basis later on fo ra revision in our understanding of what unmarked and marked syllabization are when the rhythm is accent-timed, rather than syllable timed .

....- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~ . - - .... ~ . - - - .... -


24/51

22 - Ba i 1ey

The sy l l ab iza t ion phcnornen.J ',:e r F ) : ' dC. The prt?5ent " , r i te r would sy l l ab i f y the foJlo,,:i;-)c l'iC'rds in Icntotcmr)o (and in d ic t ionary ent r ;es) tJ ' ;us: i : J C L ; ~ t , T , ' , !vt , l ,k ' j ' ~ l e t s " " " ' k t j , mons"-"t.rou:;, : x , - . . , . ; c u l ~ a t c , . : . ! j : ; / : _ - _ - ; ~ ~ ( ~ : ~ . i - , [ ! , : ' . / ) l'u[!'r--] ,;t\an d um-l:ragc. Note that I t I foi lov,s s{ l l . ) l ) le- f l" [:] in r , n ' ,but [-J a f t e r [t] is unrelated to ti'c e /:/ j , i : ' l : ' lL i C < . ~ : . TI>c 5 /1 : , , t , iz. ] t ic.ns j us t proposed agree ':J;th c lus ' ,e r i " ,h id ' co be fC1cJr:J d tthe beginnings and ~ n d 5 o f Engl is h " lords, : ; j I . k h ' t : ' / C r' , , ) f ~ "u t ) j c ; t(0 changes in a l leg ro tempo, '-'ihich in dict icndr ic : : ; :c


25/51

I t Sa i ley - 23I1 an English word (and th e provisos which except certain instancesof cluster-f inal sonoranb do not apply here). But i t Ifli II be

r e m e m b e ~ e d that in very rapid tempos a final sonorant may besyllabified with a preceding cluster unless the last sonorantis a lateral or nasal preceded by an apical stop. Note thatif the next-to-last consonant is a grave obstruent, i t Itlould notin any event be syllabified with a preceding consonant other thana nasal or lateral ([ t] and (CfJ being nuclear segments).

We thus see the variable syJlabization of II ~ / I in t r i c k s te rand monstrous (triconsonantal and quadriconsonantal clusters)paralleling the syllabization of I i t l / in capt ive , direc t ive ,product ive, recept ive , yeasty , f e s t ive , and c lus t er (where II t i lends a biconsonantal cluster) . These variable syllabizations arecorroborated by the aspiration tes t . (Even where [[gd]] and [l td]]are heard in act i ve and capt ive , the shortness of the precedingaccented nucleus, together with the fact that Engl ish clustersnormally involve only heavy obstruents, wil I cause the right outputto be heard. ~ h e s e comments apply equally to unaspirated ( ~ t ] and[pt]; here the ( t] could theoretically be interpreted either assyllable-final I I t i l or as syllable- init ial II (:11 .)

The variabil ity that has just been noted does not in i t sel fmean that syllabization principles are "anywhere" rules. This willbe true only if they are universals dependent on other prosodicphenomena. It will be seen that th e man.ner of syllabization changesafter the accent rules operate in their usual place in th e orderingof th e phonological rules of Engl ish. "Styl ist ic" or "sociol inguistic"RULE FEATURES like ( t tempo] (mean i ng that a ru l e i s more l ike I y tooperate as the tempo is faster) characterize some rules, and certainlyprinciples la and Ic . If the rule deleting I IU I shows l i t t l e orno variation in the cluster 1/ ~ + r l / when an unaccented nucleusfollows (as in ves t ry) , this may be due to several factors. Onesuch factor may be the place of the rule deleting interconsonantalapical stops, viz. between those rules assuming a syllable-timedC-C(R) syllabization and those rules presupposing the syllabizationof consonants around a heavier-accented nucleus.

If what has been said about consonants preceded by a fullyaccented nucleus and followed by an unaccented one is val id, onemay conclude that similar syllabizations would be expected betweenunaccented nuclei: lento mimic-T'j, t l 'aves- ty , stJcris-tlJ, t apes- t ry ,min i s - t ry , ar t i s - t ry , 'Kerens-k i , Coven-try; allegro mlmicr-y,tapest -ry , minist-rt j , a r t i s t - r y , I Kerensk-i . Covent-Tlj' The lentosyllabizat ions of tapes try , ministTl1, and ZlrtistTiI are the oneswhich account for th e unaccented penults of these words (see n. 31and p. 42), These syllabizations are all confirr1ed by the aspirationtes t . If palimpsest (when accented on the init ial syllable) isfound to have only the lento pronunciatiGn among non-specialists, thatis because i ts rareness and r e c h e r c h ~ meaning give it a very monitored


26/51

24 - Bailey

pronunciation for them. Special ists in paleography doubtless usethe al legro pronunciation oftener. We see ~ g a i n (cf. the discussiof Wisconsin earl ier) that frequency of usage, as well as rapidit '(of utterance, influences syl labizat ion.

Principle Ic, concerning th e 5yllabization of c


27/51

Ba i 1ey - 25

syllabization is totally dependent on accent and rhythD, which themselves go together.

Until now, th e discussion has been mainly concerned withestabl ishing th e principles fo r syllabifying obstruents and nasalsbefore fully accented nuclei and fo r syllabifying internuclearobstruents or consonantal clusters followed by unaccented nuclei.Principle I I, which concerns single internuclear sonorants, mainlygl ides and I iquids, may nm. be formulated. (ef . the data inBailey (1968a) and also see th e discussion of the resyllabizationof sononants la ter on.) It should be remembered that Engl is h UtJDER-LYING glides and I iquids are syllabified with a fo l lowing unaccentednucleus, if there is one (but see on 1#1 below); then, IN SOMEVARIETIES of th e language, these gl ides and I iquids are geminated,becoming satel l i tes of the preceding nuclear peaks. Note thegemination in NS s i l l y [ '5f t : i ] . The second point concerns (a)gl ides generated (as satel l i tes) from underlying heavy vowels and(b) syllabic sonorants generated out of sequences of unaccented vowel plus sonorant consonant. Mouse #mus# provides an example of (a); the output has [0]: [ ' m a O ~ 'm(0s]. To exernpl i fy (b), we have [ t ] from 1011 in lcqal (cr. l e 'qa l i t IJ ) and [ t ] from 1;:)11 in du,d [ 'd'I 'lt:] (c f . du,J/ i t l / ) . Note the qcmin


28/51

26 - Ba i 1ey

In " r - l ess " Engl ish, parts (b ) Clnd (a ) of pr inc ip le I I di". t inre.g. 55 coye r , lento [ 'kh::Jea], a l legro [ ' ~ r : : J e o : ] , froP' lav:'l('l l " ~ ' -' I rPya ] ; mire from Maya [ ' m d ~ i a ] ; i 'JlJer from b'HiOU ['L3-V;:-'']' In 5SFdrano ia does not rhyme wi t h lar..'yer, La Jo l l a , or Montor;: ] , in cont\, l i th th e uni form N5 sy l lab izat ion in a l l four. Such exarr;ples ,>hCvith,ly borrO\'\Ied \'\Iords fron1 fore ign l a n 9 u d 9 1 C ' ~ . Older 55-speakers : : ,y l labi fy lOl /d1 . rc,IFl1 (and even emplo, iu) I ik elawyer , though younger speaker::, sy l l ab i f y th e f i r s t tv J ( J i tems la croil. This di f ference is symptomatic o f a di f ference in underly ingphonological representat ions, the older speakers have !/r..;


29/51

i

'I ish,

ast

e.' ,. t

r

Ba i 1ey - 27

b icyc l e sounds 1 ike i c i c l e , with init ial [a 8 ]). It would have tobe a ~ e r y monitored tempo for [a ] to appear in hypo, psycho , i kon ,and cr i se s , at least in standard pronunciation; no 1#1 occurs inthese words. Usually, [ae ] is heard and indicates the syllabizations hyp,o , psychlo , and c r i s , e s (I ike c r i s i s ) .

Somewhat comparable to th e preceding is th e change of la l to [ ~ 1 ] before tautosyllabic (and other consonants) among many speakers of Southern States Eng I ish: la sso is norma II y [I Ia;1 5 I ] , not [I l


30/51

28 - Ba i ley

show [rJCJI]' That IrJl is constant in Fr:mc'J ( a ~ , indicated by the \ /0change in SS [ ' fr i i : lk ,oU]) is perhalls due to a phonological repreSt'nt ion with INI, viz . Franc#a. However, the wri ter has not iced tha twhat have been cal led lento t reatments above are rare in foreign wol ike Congo (see also K l imeko , Nankh1g belmv, an d Bf'nga.l , Ranqonr:subsequent ly ) . The reason for th i s are not c l e a r . Betor.;; /1 apreceding II nil is deleted with accompanying nasal izat io ' l of thepreceding vowel in al l esro tempo, which h evidence that the tVIOcon son ant s are tau to s Y Jab ic. j n a I leg rot C 1'1 po - - \'1 fl ic h i 5 a Isoconfirmed by the unasp i ra ted [k]: H:mcock, Dunk i r k , ,",'D.nking, ] " lnca.(when the second sy l lab le is mid-accented) . C r o n k ~ t 0 , K l i m ~ n k o , tru.bronco, condord; Bancrof t , Banquo, concrt;>te; un#couth, inf icor" . , . tCiX.In lento tempos one hears [n,kh] here. Fo r some speakers the a l l eq lt reatment may be more usual \-,rhen the spe l l jn g is link" than wher, i tis l ine." With the foregoing is to be compared the assimi la t ion of# n# to Iml in rainbow and henpecked in rapid pronuncia t ion .

Leaving as ide in ternuclear g l ides and l i qu ids , i t would be pos::to avoid for 'mulating a spec i f ic pr inc ip le I I I , s t a t i n ~ l insteiJd a r:1etpr inc ip le tha t between a preceding fu l ly accented nucleus and a fo l lowing mid-accented one pr inc ip le la,b is ordered before Ic in a l l e stempo, while the opposi te o rder ing prevai l s in l en tc tempo. This werequire rewording pr inc ip les Ib,c to apply before (equal ly or) lessheav i ly accented n u c l e i , instead of sir1ply before unaccented ones;an d an add i t iona l proviso would have to s t ipula te that Ii:I af f ec t s tsyl labiza t ion when the next nucleus is mid-accented. The largergenera l i za t ion , as already observed, is that consonants tend to cluswith more heavily accented nuclei than .,.Jith less heavily accented enand more consonants do th is as the tempo increases . It is clear thamid-accented sy l lab les are t rea ted iTlore l ike unaccented sy l l ab les ina l leg ro pronunciat ion and more l ike fu l ly accented syl lahles in lent,pronuncia t ion .

When s ingle underlying gl ides or ! iquids precede mid-accentednuclei an d are preceded by fu l ly accented nuc le i . p r inc ip le I ia applbut a f t e r heavy nuclei o ther than 1-:::'/ ! lI - ful " SS does not t r ea t II r l ldi f ferent ly from the " r - I e s s" 5S t rea tment ; e .g , r,t ' ' ' 'C' [ " ' ! , r ] .However, "r - fu l" NS an d ( " r - le s s" ) BRP haVe gemlndtion a f t e r a ll heanuclei ; e .g . ['hfCl",rolJ). After " r - f u l " 55 has gerl inat ion, a I,',c h l Q r j ~ 0 and Clo rox ; a f t e r other heavy nucle i , as jus t said , geninat io n is absent : ze I ro, Ne I ro, Xt:: I P ) X . p } ; ~ l I L F ; '1 , Ca I " ' , +- i , r , ' .I '1 j . rex , rru ,ro , bu, reau . Al l lec ts in the Sc'uthern Sta les syl labi fyJ e , l l o , ka , yak . bou i l l on ['Lt!l1 lyL""] thus. But if j f f l follmJs theI iquid o r gl ide and a mid-accented Ilucleus fol lovis th.Jl , the I i..Juidor gl ide is sy l lab i f ied with a ~ r e c e d i n g fu l ly accented nucleus, asin mail ,order. Cornpare also t e l l , ' ; ou (with lTid"accented :Iou) ondte ' - l l l j ou (where you is unaccented), The tr .3nscrif)tioll of / i f ro dfew I ines above shows that neutra l izat ion of the nucleus preceding/ ' r /, occurs ""here geminat:on of the l a t t e r hLls occu .. red.

~ J j t h the exception of the special treatl',cr:1 cf ir itt ' rnllclea ' / / "'viC f ind the same lec ta l d iv is ion h e r ~ ' as ;,r,t 'f, eli ' . 'i


31/51

e

" ,

Ba i ley - 29

follows: "N-Iess ll lects generally prefer la (where Ift l , however, has some,weight) or Ic, while Ilr-ful l ' lects and others 1 ike them generally prefer Ib (where 1#1 has vir tual ly no influence). This could also be reduced to an ordering metaprinciple, but the different orderings would depend on lectal differences, rather than tempo differences.

Principle Ib appl ies also before mid-accented nuclei.The final principle is less simple than i t may seem at f i r s t

glance: IV) Between any nuclear segment and a following nuclear peak there exists a syllabic boundary.

The matter is straightforward enough when there is 1#/ present, as in pray#er (lone who praysl), pay#er, s tay#cr , lay#er; contrast prayer, pa ir /pare , s tare , l a i r . The /#1 drops out in rapid pronunciation. In normal tempo, the second unaccented nucleus of f l u i d , poet (cf. f l u i d i t y , poe t i c ) becomes a nuclear satel I i te of the preceding accented vowel (d . Bailey (1973, in It,hich event there is no syllabic boundary between the two nuclear elements. When these words have drawled dissylabic pronunciations, [w] automatically intervenes and is syllabified according to principle lib, being a geminate consonant. Cf. f ue l , allegro [Ifyu t : ] , lento [lfuuV/+]. The presence or absence of [w] also te l ls th e analyst whether tower, towel , t ruer , fewer are dissyllabic or whether they are monosyllabic (I ike sour , cowl , poor, and cure ) . And so with lower and similar cases. (Geminate Iy/ is heard only rarely in overly drawled pronunciations of ayer , payer , etc.)

It is often diff icul t to know whether th e segment spelled IIi"is [I] or [y] - - or some other palatal -- in premium, l ab i a l , mania,rega l ia , and the l ike. But given such a determination, i t followsthat a syllabic boundary stands immediately af ter [ i ] , but not after[y] -- where principle IV does not apply. (See above for [ i ' ; ] inrega l ia , comparably syllabified with what was found for value andb i l l i on . ) It will usually be easier to set t le the matter when anaccented nucleus follows than when an unaccented nucleus followsth e potential hiatus; cf. th e verb assoc ia te (with mid-accented finalsyllable) with the noun assoc i i l t c (.,.lith unaccented final syllable) .

Note that a I t I boundary plays a role in lento speech, eventhough this drops out in rapid utterance. Syllabic [t] is heardin bo t t l c i l r , but not in bo t t l e+r . It will be clear from earl ierdiscussion that a syllabic boundary always separates a nuclear froma non-nuclear geminate as in c a l c u l a t e [ I ~ r t : ' { t , . ;c ] and c o l l i de[ ~ f , t f i a r j ] . Note further that geminate [.,.,] is perhaps clearer ineva lua te before mid-accented -a te than in cvaluat i t ' c before unaccented- .Jt- .


32/51

- - - - - ----------------- -------------------

30 - Ba i 1ey

CONCLUSIONS

Having stated the overa l l pr inc ip les o f Engl ish syl1abi7atio' - l ,the discuss ion may now turn to the problems inherent in I"ihat t,J':'been said and th e theore t ica l c o n c l u s i l i l ~ s vhich can be dcdl'cedfrom the discussion. Since s o ~ e issues connected with speci f icissues have already been deal t with above, these n e ~ d n2t berepeated here unless they bear on larger conclus ions.

I t has been pointed out that syl lab iza t ion depends on accent.Since th e basic ingredient o f Engl is h accent is length (it i ~ ) combined with pi tch in most in tonat iona l pat terns ; sep Bailey MS:chap. 10), accent and rhythm go hand in hand, Acccn t SC{ ' i IS todetermine rhythm, and cer ta in ly (as noted several t imes above)it determines sy l lab iza t ion , e i ther d i rec t l y or through themediat ion o f rhythm. Two th ings make the las t surmise seem1 i ke ly : ( I ) Di f fe rent sy l lab iza t ions are tempo-dependent - tempo being c lose ly a l l le d wi th rhythm. (2) I t has been not icedtha t in th e operat ion o f pr inc ip le Ic , th e la rger th e c l u ~ t e r . the more I i ke ly more consonants are to c lus ter with the heavie r accented nucleus. A th i rd point is that Hawai ia n creole and othercreol ized pronunciat ions o f Engl is h lacking th e Engl ish type o faccent and rhythm prefer what above has been cal le d unmarkedsyl1i:lb,ization as much as possib le and conscq'Je:tt ly lack a numbero f Engl is h ru les presupposing the other sy l lab iza t ion . Amongthese are th e change o f sy l lab le- f ina l 111!/ to Ll betweenvowels and th e dele t ion o f I l t !1 in cente r , etc. HE also lackssy l lab ic sonorants, presumably because th e [ t ] {a l l fJays unaspiratedIn HE; cf. n. 28) in button has th e unmarked sy l lab iza t ion .

At severa I po i nts above, it h.::ls been sugges te d t t,a t I angudCjf'Swith accents 1 ike Engl ish require a new def in i t ion of narkcd Andu ~ m a r k e d sy l lab iza t ion - - that these terms should be d ~ p e n d e n t on d i f f e ren t (accentuations and) rhythms. If th is ~ u g g e s t i o n wereadopted, unmarked sy l lab iza t ion ....ould c lus ter as milny c ! ) n s ( ; r ~ a n t s as are permit ted word - i n i t i a l l y or I"Jord-f inally around a moreheav i I y accented nue I eus in preference to a les ; , h:av i I y accentedone, and th e unmarking would increase (where c lusters arc involvcrl)a" th e tempo increased. This would be in accord \ ' I i th "Ihat isothe::r\'Jisc known about unmarking - - that it i nV-ee l c ; J " th e tel'-poincreases and th e monitor ing o f one's s:Jct::ch ( 1 eL f t . < J ; c5 , (Theolder understanding o f unmarked syl labizClt iur1. appropr iate tosy l lab le- t imed rhythm, vlOuld con f l i c t ItJith th is univer' al inpr inc ip le Ic , though not la . ) The ef fec t o f syl la l) ; ly l I1 ' ) conson-ant s Hi th a preced i ng accented nuc 1eus is enhanced i t t he fo I !0 , , ing nucleus is Ufli lccented; c f . n. 26.

I f th is suggestion to redef ine UNrARKfD SYILtGIZAT!CN fo r.](,cerlt-t imed rhythm is accepted, then si[1g1e i.Jr,d f ,l/ir1


33/51


34/51

32 - Ba i ley

unaccented syllables -- but which lack dccent-timed rhythm, theunmarked syllabization is V-C(R)V (provided that if R is presentC is an obstruent, and provided clusters l ike tl, dm, and probablys r and others are no t tautosyl1abic); other syllabizations aremarked. In languages havinq accent-timed rhythm I ike Enyl ish,th e unmarked syllabization has at least one consonant clustered\vith th e heavier of two adjacent accents; where /;:/ IJ r e(;1udes u , i ~ in lento tempo, a marked syllabization can resul t . flere ten,p:lenters , since the faster the tempo the more consonants hav" t, rc d " s i [ 1 l i l d ~ o r / rule changes occur in very rapid tempos before fully accented nucleiin defiance of either definit ion of unmarked sy l labization, whichshould increase in rapid tempos (a s noted earl l e I ) . One suchchange is that of internuclear syllable-final 11./1 to [JJ ina t a l l and t au to logy in rapid pronunciation. ~ n o t h e r is th e delet ion of II t i l in An(t} 'ar(c}tica. . Sti l l another is the assimi1at iOIof II nil in rapidly pronounced one [ ' \ ~ : , r : ; ] ' :;Iernent. Bor'ela1, F-.u'l i n tgv i s t i c s - - as wel1 as possibly in angier , Si, and ..,mJE:!,should th e usual syllabization heard in vcs t n / and r ' , I : ! t r ! reallyoccur here. Note moreover that in very rapid ternrC! C'VCI' II n:llno t Jssimilated in ordinary tempos -- is assimi latcci to I ~ I inic e !'.'3mcone by young children. The solution to this di jenl l'/11 bil.JtICr;i';Cd r o ~ p , : d in very rapid tempos. It i


35/51

Ba i ley - 33

cross syllabic boundaries; e.g. the retroflexion of I t I in Mal-rose in English, or the assimilation of all vovlels in a word to ' the rounding of a given vowel in its base (in vowelharmony languages; cf. nn. 3. 18). In ob ' s erve (whose [z] contrasts with [5] in conserve) , voice-assimilation crosses a syllabic boundary. Note further th e backward assimilation of syllabic IQI to heterosyllabic Ipl in open and happen, yielding [rp] in their pronunciations: ['OU prp IhiPrp].

Linguistic theory probably needs to be furnished with a metaprinciple that phonological rules ordinarily do not cross syllabicboundaries; that where a language has general ized a rule to crosssuch boundaries under I imited or general conditions, the rulemust be specifically marked as a transyllabic rule under th erelevant conditions. What is clear is that unless assimilatoryphenomena are handled with great finesse th e unwary analyst willbe led astray by the evidence they offer .There seems to be no valid use for the term AMBISYLLABIC,employed by some writers to denote a segment syllabified withboth preceding and following nuclei. Except fo r phoneticallylong, but phonologically geminate, segments, this does not seemto occur, consonants going with one vowel or the other . If used,

th e term might be redefined to refer to consonants which can goei ther way, depending on the tempo -- although they are defini telysyllabified in one direction or the other in a given tempo.At this point, there are to be considered th e earl ier phonological rules of Engl ish requiring the syllable-timed definit ionof unmarked syllabization, and the later rules that require our newaccent-timed definit ion of unmarked syllabization -- and which infact were employed to establ ish i t . 3G A number of early rulesut iI i ze the concept of WEAK CLUSTER and STRONG CLUSTER. 31 (I) Theaccent rules place the accent on certain syllables only if theycontain heavy nuclei or end in strong clusters, e.g. the finalsyllables in la 'mer. t , ulsurp , ca lvor t (but not in ' e d i t , i n ' t e r p r e t ,

de l t ermine , and ' cance l , where the final cluster is a weak one;see Chomsky and Halle (1968),69). (2 ) Heavy underlying vowelsare lightened before most heavy clusters containing no I t I (seen. 31 for beas t , etc .) . (3) The rule that changes 11711 to /J Iand eventually to a compound nucleus is contingent on the tautosy ' labici ty of given segments preceding and following. (4) Therule that assimilates underlying velars and palatal izes the l ightone (fl g i l ) before underlying non-low front vowels (e.g. regen t ,e l e c t r i c i t y ; cf. r ega l , e l e c t r i c ) , while no t requiring the conceptof strong or weak clusters, will clearly be more natural if thevelar is tautosyJ labic with the following vm'lel -- in I"hat wouldbe an unmarked syllabization if the language were syllable-timed.(5) To avoid deleting /+/ in calmat ive and pa. lmar l l , as in calm andFJ.lm, i t is necessary to treat IlrJI as hetercsyllobic (syllabletimed syllabization).32
http:///reader/full/syllabization).32http:///reader/full/syllabization).32


36/51

In fac t (c f . Vennemann (1972)), such ru le5 can be s impl i f iedto capture h igher general izat ions i f the concepts of open andclosed sy l lab izat ions are subst i tu ted for those o f weak and strongc lus te rs . 33

Later ru les require ,he new def in i t i on o f sy l lab iza t ion . lheIJreceding discussion has commented on l6 ) th e pa la ta l izat ion ofap ica ls fo l lowed by tautosyl1abic 1' ./ and 0) th e ru le de le t i r ,ginterconsonantal ap ica l stops, where only th e s i tuat ion precedingH rH fo l lowed by an unaccented nucleus v io lates th e general izat ionthat interconsonantal apical stops are 5yl l ab i f ied with a precedingfu l l y accented nucleus - - ind icat ing a preference fo r th e newunderstanding o f sy l lab iza t ion in languages havinq accent-t imedrhythm. Other ru les already (except 22, 27, 28 below) discusspdwhich operate only if th is last-ment ioned view of sy l lab izat ionis presupposed are: (8) th e change o f sy l lab le - f ina l in ternuclearII t i l to [d]; (9) th e delet ion o f sy l l ab le - f i na l II t i l follo>'lI'in9II ni l ; (10) th e delet ion o f a nasal before i'l tautosy l lab ic heavyobst ruent ; ( I I ) th e aspi rat ing o f sy l lab le i n i t i a l occ lus ives;(12) th e change o f /T I to 55 [3] and o f IT ----:1 to T\oI [ ] Itihensy l lab le - f ina l or when fo l lowed by I ight consonants other thanI lg / l ; (13) the ass imi la t ion of II nil to fol lowing tautosy l lab icobstruents; (14) the change in some lec ts o f postnuclear Hpto / f vi and (IS) th e sporadic change of sy l lab le - f ina l H tU to/';J kl and of II pl l to Ik l (which is hardly a general ru le ) ; (16)th e I im i ta t ion o f sy l lab ic nasals a f te r stops to those that areheterosy l lab ic ; (17) th e l ec t -spec i f i c change o f in te rnuc leargl ides and l i qu ids to nuclear sa te l l i t es ; (18 ,19 ,20) vOltJelneut ra l i za t ions , vowel - ret rac t ions, and th e changes o f accentedIUJI ar/ to [+: :r 3:] in pul l , pul ley , cur , currl) v;hich depend onth e tau tosy l lab ic i t y o f the vowel and fo l lowing I iquid and do notoccur where th is condi t ion does not obta in; (21) diphthongizat ions,such as th e change o f lei! to [(;1] in ] (1, ' ; . ' ,0, It/hich dcper-,d on th etau tosy l ln [ , i c i t y of th e follol,-,ing consonant in prc)nunciat ions i i,which th e changes occur ; (22) th e delet ion in some lec ts o f postnuclear Ie 01 if fol lowed by ( tautosy l iab ic ) 1+ a;, t.s in [ni l ,t i . :e , cmd , but not - - in lec ts having the ' i r - less" s/ l1abizat inno f in t , : rnuclear l iqu ids - - in bo i l ing , t i l i n g , ai 1 d :;o::ing; (23)th e delet ion of sy l lab le - f ina l gl ides, as in . [(:nelle_ui,Durham, John' l , deputy, carburetor , m , : . u 1 U F i ~ ~ t u C ( ; ( ee above); (24)the reciprocal lengthening o f nucle i and sk) r ten ina of heavy tuutosy l lab ic obstruents fo l lowing then,; (25) the di, !h thongizat ion 0 ',e.g. Ie 01 to I ' , i QUI, in which th e gl ide is syl ld ' :J i f ied \vith thepreceding nuclear peak; and (26) the palata l izat ion o f velarsbetween a preceding accented f ront vowel and d fo l l o ~ i n g mid orback nucleus, as in rt 'gal and l iq,L)T, C'f //,< II a f te r tautosy l lab icI ls l l or before tautosy l lab ic /11/1, and th e paliJtJl izaricn o fapica ls before ta l l tosy l lab ic i i i (contra t, ..JO p r " n u n l - i a t i o n ~ ofj118t l Ie t , s ineh ' , .71t?nu). There is also (27) th e rule if I H.:1lvi.iii ,inc!sporadical ly elsewher-e that changes 1/:: T i! tc ' r l ' F i ' j ' l Lec , befof t '


37/51

Ba i 1ey - 35

11,11 (which II rll is deleted in HE; since HE has syllable-timed rhythm' and syllabizat ion, as well as It I fo r II LII bathroom is [ I ba I t Sum] ) .

Finally, (28) various Ilr-ful" lects change h.:1 to [::J] in the syllable-final environment; cf. the word-final nucleus of Panama, ma, pa, Arkansas, etc. For such speakers, the change occurs in both syllables of pawpaw (ultimately from papaya) and in the f i rs t syllable of pra l ine . The syllabization of th e l a t ter is clearly ' p ra , l i ne in the lects under consideration. Since the change never occurs in fa ther (which once had 1].:1, even though today th e underlying representation for th e lects in question may contain # 0 # ) , i t is obvious that the syllabization of this last word is: f a t h ~ e r .

In languages having different preferred syllabizations, assimilation may work in opposite direct ions (cf . n. 28). In Engl ish observer , # 5# is assimilated to the voicing of th e preceding Ilb/l . becoming Iz/; bu t in French observer , 11t,11 is assimilated to the voicing of the following # 5 # , becoming Ip/.34 The only logical way to account for the different syllabizations presupposed by the phonological rules of Engl is h seems toassume that when the accent rules determine the place of th e accent,they may also determine the kind of accent. The accent rules andrules preceding the accent rules assume th e neutralor unmarked(syllable-timed) rhythm; those following the accent rules observe

the convention that syllabization is subject to the generalization that consonants tend to cluster around more heavi Iy accentednuclei, rather than around less heavi Iy accented ones. If exhaustiveresearch shows that th e four rules mentioned above which presumethe syllable-timed accentuation al I precede th e accent rules -or in th e case of the accentuation of heavy syllables, coincide withthem -- then this proposal should be adopted. For the rules whichpresume th e accent-timed syllabization indisputably fo l low th eaccentuation rules. The writer is confident that the proposal willhold up in th e test ing.

To conclude, i t may be helpful to point out that I t le havedistinguished by their effects at least four overall tempo differences: (1) th e very monitored or drawled tempo ~ l i t h syl labletimed rhythm and in which lei affects principle Ib and variouslate rules are blocked;3S (2) moderately lento tempo; (3) normalallegro tempo; (4) very rapid tempos in It/hich ltil is deleted andcertain assimilations cross syllabic boundaries or occur withresults not found in other tempos. In the technical language ofphonology, the phenomena mentioned under (4) are to be characterizedas RULE-GENERALIZATIONS; these are expected to begin in th e mostrapid pronunciations (see Bailey (1974c)).


38/51

36 - Ba i 1ey

FOOTNOTES

*Part o f th is wr i t ing was prepared as part of the researchef fo r ts o f the Sociol ingui ' . ; t ic Proaram


39/51

f 1 i!iBa i ley - 37

~ y l l a b i c boundaries, as in vowel-harmony languages, where vowels following the f i rs t vowel of the base have to agree in rounding with the rounding of that f i rs t vowel. Furthermore, while the environment u u would prove l i t t le about the sy l labization of a consonant bet;een these vowels, so far as [round] would offer evidence, the evidence of the environments i u and u i may show that an intermediate consonant may syllabify-with the f i rs t or with the second nucleus. Under fixed prosodic conditions, rounding in one of these environments would provide evidence for syllabization if rounding were absent in the other. Some other writers experimenting with syllabization have inval idated their work, at least fo r speakers of Engl ish, by ignoring the prosodic factor; contrast expected [I fCL; I fo.: I fa : I fa ] wi th [I fo.: f ~ e I fG.: f -e ] , where accent affects syllabization, as wil I be clar if ied in detail below.

41f in some language a base form i k l i should have a redupl icatedderivative ikli-li, one might infer a syllabic boundary between [k]and [I] in the base. But if the derived form were ikli-kli, thenthe syllabic boundary would be presumed to stand immediately before[k].Sin other languages, i t is the heaviness of th e final syllable,that is what determines accentual phenomena. Cf. Hawaiian WaikikT with Maklk i , and classical Greek [oikoi] "homes" with [6 i kO-i 6 i koi:] "at home" (where the t i lde indicates a fal l ing, or at least

not rising tone). See Lehiste (1970:156-159) for inferences about syllabization from accentuation in Estonian.

6Assimilation and other natural rules (Bailey (1974c areincreasingly I ikely to operate as a speaker's speech is less monitoredi .e . more hasty, fatigued, or affected by emotional stress .7This accords with what is known as Verner's Law in the historyof the Germanic languages; e.g. Old Engl ish C ' ~ a : p "I said" (in which

[p ] is from earl ier "' t following the earl ier accent) and cweden(perfect part iciple; where [d] is from earl ier "'d followed by theoriginal accent).8Cf. Swedish, where a consonant is geminated (phonologically

doubled, phonetically lengthened) af ter a short vowel, thus creatingan alternation between V:C and VC: structures of constant syllabicsize.9The deletion is regular in all lects of English except in themost monitored tempo when interconsonantal II :11 stands before anObstruent, la teral , or nasal; e.g. was( t )e paper , l a s ( t ) minute ,

l c f ( t ) corner, cos ( t ) l y , exac(t}l! j , beas( t ) l y . In th e sane preconsonantal environments, I i d l preceded by any lateral or I l r l l issimilarly treated; and Ct, Id , nd are also treated al ike when I lwll


40/51

38 - Bai ley

or I l r l l fo l lows. See deta i l s la ter on. Such dele t ions are inhio i tedby IH I in th e slower tempos in vlhich 1;;1 is not d(:leted (sec be 10";) ;e .g . pass#ed by, c,tr.;1+;nq, J : , , : , t t ~ . . tdc>lrTi1:; :See BJ i le y MS: chap. 6. Cf. L,at t ' : ' l j (n . , t lEc t r I : 'd l j " ' / l CL ' ) 'b3t t (e ) r+y (n . , a cr ime) , and t ' a t t ( r . : ~ / (ad j . "bd t te r - l j L , ; " ) . LOI,t,-.,[ t ] in r;: id+th with [d ] in Hid! ; th.

13The main purpor t o f t h is pr inc ip le \-J.jS stated i f Hoard ( 1 ~ 1 7 1 1 , Dut without gradient var ia t ion . I t i. , n(:ces


41/51

;ci

t

'3

Ba i ley - 39

syncope in s (e )cure , f (a) t igue , etc. Given the obvious monosyllabicityof such forms, i t is clear that the aspiration test should not be usedwithout great care and sophistication.

15As a matter of fact, i t is evidence from the boundaries that allows I inguists to specify relative tempos, rather than the other way around. Boundaries and tempos go together, the former providing symptomatic evidence for the la t ter .

161t should be noted that th e [Id] cluster found in SS golden [lgoUldan] rules out a fol lowing syllabic nasal, whereas this is permitted in NS ['go+:dt;l], where the lateral is a nuclear satell i te , which cannot form a consonantal cluster with the following [d]. (See below on [ I t ] . )

171n th e position immediately fo l lowing a tautosyl labic nucleus,changes of ff pff to [k] are attested in sloppy pronunciations ofs t r i pe , type , and tape. Parallel evidence of changes of II t i l or II pllto Ik l in this position and of /I kll or II pll to I ~ I in the prenuclearposition is available from other languages -- e.g. a child 's pronun-ciation of Mandarin Chinese ku t "bone" as tuk (Hsieh (1972: 89,and the change between Greek 8kop( t i c ) and Lat in spec (u la t e ) . Cf. th echild 's I t ought I taw a puddy- ta t . The metatheses in languagesof the Philippine Islands i l lustrate similar changes. In the lan-guage of NATURAL PHONOLOGY, the raison d'etre of such changes is toproduce feature unmarkings (see Bailey (1974c: Appendix A); theexpected places of art iculat ion for obstruents other than sibilantsare different in the postnuclear position of a syllable than in mostother environments). See also Bailey (1970). In Bailey (1974c) i tis made clear that in the author 's view (a ) apical consonants (otherthan fricatives) are most natural before a tautosyllabic vowel andfollowing a consonant immediately preceded by a tautosyl labic nucleus,(b) that velars are preferred immediately after a tautosyllabic nucleusand preceding a consonant (especially [r]) immediately followed by atautosyllabic vowel, and (c) that labials have an intermediatedegree of naturalness in both environments. (See the referenceconcerning palatals and for fr icatives.) A natural sequence wouldbe: KTVKT, where K represents a velar (preferably a fr icat ive whena stop follows) and T an apical. This arrangement strongly suggeststh e truth of th e view of Kozhevnikov and Chistovich, among others ,that complex clusters assume deleted vowels in an original CVCVCVsequence. The facts of children's and adults' acquisition of newclusters seem to support this view also.

19The resyl labization view, though undoubtedly legitimate insome cases, is very problematic in Of] guard, R a ~ g o o n , B e ~ g a l , l i ~ -gUis t i c s , and one ['",t,m] moment, where th e following nucleus isfully accented. It is known that some assimilations may cross wordboundaries; e.g. h o r ~ e shoe, j u ~ 1 ye t . Cf. further examples below.


42/51

40 - Ba i ley

19See n. 9. Note that apica l stops preceded by a vm"el , sonorant ,or stop are unreleased before 1#:. "" / , as in ricrht one, v,'cr.t;!worth,

rightl iward, red#wing, night#rat te , and Land;}rov', ' r , but fT'ay be releasedbefore Irl r l , as in Edward, ",:ladw';'n, n.itro,andHl;:h!::'x. Cf. also n. 21 .No one would quest ion that the ord inary sy l lab izv t ion is [ : ' : ~ _ r ) inact r igh t an d [ v - t ~ ] in o a ~ , ' i t n : ( ; [; (: )- , , ] in scld once and [ , ~ : ; ] in small drink; or [n(r j)-I:] in end well and ["1-:::;r] in one drop. (Ina l l such cases the sy l lab ic boundary precedes a f u l l y accented or midaccented sy l lab le . ) When a speaker has deleted the first nasal o fi (n )k l i ng and i (n ) s t an t , the sy l lab izat ion i s indubi tab ly i (n)k- l ingand i(n)s"-tiJIlt in len to tempo, as indicated by the unaspi ra ted [k ]in the former word an d the as p i rated [T h] in the 1a t t e r ; t he a I Iegrosy l lab iza t ions , as wi l l be c lea r from what is being sa id here, asi ( n ) k l ~ i n g and (w i th unaspi rated [ ~ ] ) j (I l)st-af l t .

? 0 . Actua l l y , in terconsonantal 1 1 ' p , ~ / 1 are also deleted in :-rf:musan d asthma, if they actua l l y ex is t in the under ly ing representa t ionso f these words. Some in terconsonantal consonant has to ex is t inis thmus to prevent the change o f U sU to [z] a t the re levant poin tin the ru les (cf. the change in plasma; cont ras t [ ) in p las t i c ) .

7.lNote that preboundary [ t ] preceded by a vOI,el is unreleased in night#rate (see n. 19) , an d it is not sy l lab i f ied ' : I i th the fo l lowing [,]; cont ras t released II " I I , sy l lab i f ied vi i th [ r ] in n i t ~ i c and Nye#trai t . Being unreleased (a s pointed out in Bai ley MS: chap. 4) is the pre lude to being deleted.

22ngl is h II st l l i s t reated as a non-c lus ter or 'tJeak c lus te r vJhere no boundar ies i n tervene. Note that 11"811 is not "lade l i gh t in beast ( in bes t i a l the I i ghten ing o f th i s vo,.lel is du e to the fo l lowing sy l l a b l e s ) . Heavy nuc le i occur also in pos t , m08t, cndst . T0ds t , boas t , case , yeas t , on e pronunc ia t ion o f t T ~ l s t , e tc . The change o f II lUI to /U I may occur before // t i l -- nc less than before a s ing le consonant - - when a vowel fo l lows; c f . Houston, Eustace.

23Note that Engl ish permi ts \ "o rd - in i t ia l /I " prl l , but not I l v r :)rll (but cf . n. 14). Even though \ lJord- in i t ia l II ;:1::1 f , j b' l l are to lera ted (but not usua l l y I lb l Y'I v i / I ) , th e s y l l a b i z a t i ~ n pr inc ip les stated in Ib and Ic see!";) '1everthelcss to be cor rec t . In the Southern States U sl srU are perwi t ted w o r d - i n i t i a l l y , but not 1/ Sl s"II: in the Northern States , \ .o rd- in i t ia l /1 , I >11 are to lera ted but not II srl l nor , except in ru r 10rous pseudo Yidd ish wo r d s, II sI II .

t l(>vertheless pr inc ip les Ib and Ie do not usua l l y sy l l a b i f y 1/ '31' i l /1 , e t c . , together between nuc le i . Note that where a nasal is dele ted before a tautosy l1ab ic heavy obst ruent - - inc luding al I such obstruents in c lus ters preceding unaccented nuc le i - - the remaining consonants are sy l l a b i f i e d by pr inc ip les al rcvdv provided, as if the nasal had never been there; e.(l. d r ; ) c h ~ ' ( ) r and i ( n ) k ~ l i n r r (\f/ith unaspi rated [k]; c f . n. 19).


43/51

1II Ba i ley - 4124"R-fu]l' lects in which the output of II r l l is a vibrant aresyllabified with the same principles as "r- less" lects. "r - ful"and "r- less" SS lects are similarly syllabified with respect tointernuclear sonorants other than h rh fo l lowed by an unaccentednucleus, but in "r-ful ll SS internuclear II r l l before unaccentednuclei is treated as in other (e.g. NS) "r-ful" lects . For internuclear II r l l followed by a mid-accented nucleus in IIr-ful" SS(treated as in "r-Iess 'SS), see principle III below. PrincipleIia has to be modified fo r (lIr-less") BRP where I l r l l is concerned.Here It/I is disregarded following heavy nuclei, where II r l l alwaysis syllabified with the preceding nucleus (as in "r - ful" lects)and then geminated. An example is found in n. 25.25Contrast the neutralized accented nucleus in BRP fury [ ' t y o ~ r I

Ifyo8rr ' fy3:r I ] with SS ['fLiUrI], where II r l l is no t geminated.See n. 24. The neutral izations in seriOUS, period, Mary, marry,merry, Murray, forest , t ro l ley , sa i l ing , se l l ing , etc. occur onlywhere (I) a speaker geminates internuclear 1 iquids AND (2) thisrule precedes the neutral ization rule. A speaker may have rule(I) without neutral ization where the rules are in the other order.

26Mid-accent is ultimately gradient, as in full accent, becauseof the effects of intonation; see Bailey MS: chapter 10. Thereforethe I ikelihood of any given syllabization or another in principlesla and I lIb is further graded for th e degree of heaviness of afull or mid accent. Note that the change of II t i l to [d] inallegro tempo in the environment heard in motto, e tc . , which isdiscussed in the following lines can also occur in allegro hot ,house,especially if Ih l is deleted here, as often in allegro speech beforeless than fully accented nuclei.271n a ternary view of syllabic openness, the mid value, [x open]

could designate syllables ending in nuclear satell i tes; e.g. boy['b;)e], t e l l [ ' th+:], abhor [ 8 b ' h J ~ ] ("r- less" [ao'h;):]) .28Bailey (1974c: n. 24) discusses a number of prosodic phenomenawhich seem to go hand-in-hand. One language type has syllable-timedrhythm and a preference for th e syl labization of consonants with thefollowing nucleus, as well as a number of other prosodic characteris

t ics; the other group has a preference for the other syllabizationand a different set of al lied prosodic character is t ics .29There may be supermarked syllabizations ([M syllabization]);these would be those commented on in nn. 14, 23. This would be

expected in a system (preferred by the present writer) in which allfeatures are ternary-valued.3GThe relative earliness or lateness of the rules discussedhere is -- with the exception of the accent rules -- demonstratedin Bai ley (1973).


44/51

42 - Ba i ley

31A weak cluster contains a stor) plus a gl ide or I iquid, withthe exclusion of It I 01 dn : ~ / . Apparently heavy stops plusff Iff are weak clusters (cf. the change of ff ~ f f in E u c l i d , dup l i -c3 te , e tc . ) , while I ight stops form heavy clusters with a followingla teral (e

Documents

Gradience in english syllabization and a revised concept of unmarked syllabization