English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

This article argues that an enlightening analysis of the complicated distribution of consonants in Slovak can be given by making use of present-day theories of syllable structure. In particular, it is shown that Slovak makes use of a variety of means to save extrasyllabic consonants. The analysis also lends support to the hypothesis of continuous syllabification, and to the distinction between three types of phonological rule: cyclic, postcyclic, and postlexical rules. In this article we investigate the various ways in which extrasyllabicity of consonants is resolved in Slovak. Three questions are central in our study: i. what kinds of mechanisms are used to resolve extrasyllabicity? ii. how is syllable structure assigned? iii. at what stage of the derivation does the resolution of extrasyllabicity take place? With regard to (i) we will demonstrate that Slovak draws generously from the repertoire of universally available mechanisms. In fact it exploits a variety of options: (1) a. Vowel insertion of two kinds: insertion of an entire vocalic structure (an X slot plus a melody) or insertion of an X slot over a floating segment): sections 2, 4, and 5. b. Syllabification of an unlicensed consonant: section 3. c. Rule of adjunction: section 3. d. Deletion of an extrasyllabic consonant: section 3. With regard to question (ii), we shall demonstrate that syllable structure is assigned continuously and persists throughout the whole derivation. This confirms the findings of Clements and Keyser (1983), Ito (1986), and Rubach and Booij (1988). Linguistics 30 (1992), 699-729 0024-3949/92/0030-0699 $2.00 © Walter de Gruyter Brought to you by | Universiteit Leiden / LUMC (Universiteit Leiden / LUMC) Authenticated | 172.16.1.226 Download Date | 5/3/12 2:36 PM 700 J. Rubach and G. E. Booij With regard to question (ii) we will see that the resolution of extrasyllabicity is different at different stages of the derivation. It is not possible to assume that extrasyllabic consonants are left untouched until the end of the derivation and that only then are the "rescue mechanisms" enumerated in (1) activated in order to ensure prosodic licensing and permit the segments to be realized phonetically. This follows, on the one hand, from rule interaction that involves the rescued segments (section 3) and, on the other hand, from the fact that the same type of extrasyllabic segment is rescued differently at different stages of the derivation. For instance, the stem-final / in the imperative /usidl/ is rescued by vowel insertion: usidl+i 'trap', whereas the / of /jabl/ and /dabl/ is made syllabic: jabl+k + o [jablko] 'apple', double [dabl] 'double game'. Furthermore, the / in /nies +1/ and /nis +1/, which is also stem-final, triggers ο insertion in Central Slovak but remains unprosodified and is consequently strayerased in East Slovak: niesol versus nis 'he carried'. Finally, the initial extrasyllabic / in Ipiet' 'stick' exploits adjunction as a rescue strategy. In sum, the resolution of extrasyllabicity is not a trivial matter. Indeed, we are dealing with a complex system of partly complementary and partly mutually exclusive rescue mechanisms. The task of disentangling this network of problems is facilitated by assuming the framework of lexical phonology, which permits us to resolve the ordering paradox in section 3, among others. In particular, we follow Booij and Rubach (1987), who have enriched the classic model of lexical phonology (Kiparsky 1982; Mohanan 1986) by recognizing a component of lexical postcyclic (word-level) rules as a full-fledged constituent of the grammar in addition to the standardly recognized components of lexical cyclic and postlexical rules. As we demonstrate, different rescue strategies operate in different components. While resolutions of extrasyllabicity are a central problem in this article, they are not the only theoretical issue that we consider. In section 5 we demonstrate that, counter to Ito's (1986) assumption, stray erasure does not apply until the late stages of the postlexical phonology or indeed, perhaps, at the end of phonology, which raises the question of whether stray erasure is necessary at all. This article is organized as follows. Section 1 introduces some background facts about Slovak. Section 2 presents the syllable structure algorithm and demonstrates that Slovak obeys the sonority sequencing generalization. This is essential as only then can we define extrasyllabicity. We establish that syllabification is cyclic and that it applies continuously. Extrasyllabicity is resolved by vocalizing a floating melody segment. In section 3 we use the concept of extrametricality in the analysis of sonorant syllabification. We observe that the derivation of syllabic consonants Brought to you by | Universiteit Leiden / LUMC (Universiteit Leiden / LUMC) Authenticated | 172.16.1.226 Download Date | 5/3/12 2:36 PM Extrasyllabicity in Slovak 701 displays an asymmetry in the treatment of initial versus medial and final consonants. The former are adjoined while the latter are syllabified. Section 4 presents a rule of ο insertion. This mechanism contrasts with the mechanisms mentioned earlier in that it is postcyclic rather than cyclic. In section 5 we look at the resolution of extrasyllabicity in the postlexical component. A summary of the conclusions is given in section 6.

Resolutions of extrasyllabicity in Slovak