Compensatory Lengthening in Moraic Phonology (B. Hayes) PDF

Compensatory Lengthening in Moraic Phonology
Author(s): Bruce Hayes

Source: Linguistic Inquiry, Vol. 20, No. 2 (Spring, 1989), pp. 253-306
Published by: The MIT Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4178626 .
Accessed: 15/06/2014 15:58
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
The MIT Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Linguistic Inquiry.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 195.34.79.223 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 15:58:33 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Bruce Hayes Compensatory Lengthening in
Moraic Phonology
1. Introduction: The Prosodic Tier

The structureof the CV tier and its formaldescendentshas been a matterof much debate
in phonological theory. The original CV tier proposed by McCarthy (1979) has been
retained to the present by some researchers, but has also been challenged by other
theories of prosodictier structure.Levin (1985)and Lowenstammand Kaye (1986)have
proposed to replace the symbols C and V with a uniform sequence of elements, rep-
resented here as Xs. The elements of this "X tier" are distinguishedfrom each other
by their organizationinto a fairlyrich syllable structure,which includes a nucleus node:
(1) a. CV Theory
Cv Cvv CVC
I1I
t a
IV I11
t a t a t
[tal [ta: [tat]
b. X Theory
Cr Cu= Syllable
A A
/ O = Onset
/R /R /R R = Rhyme
/1| /l| /L?\ N = Nucleus
ON ON ONC C = Coda
XX xxx xxx
I
t a
IV
t a
111
t a t
[tal [ta ] [tat]
Many people have providedme with helpfulcommentson earlierversions of this work. In particular,I
wouldlike to thankG. N. Clements,A. Cohn,M. Hammond,H. Hock, L. Hyman,P. Keating,M. Kenstowicz,
A. Lahiri, I. Lehiste, B. Levergood, J. McCarthy,A. Mester, K. Michelson, D. Minkova, D. Perlmutter,
A. Prince, D. Steriade,L. Wetzels, and two anonymousreviewersfor LinguisticInquiry.
Linguistic Inquiry, Volume 20, Number 2, Spring 1989

253-306
? 1989 by The Massachusetts Institute of Technology 253

254 BRUCE HAYES
Both CV theory and X theory can be characterizedas segmental theories of the prosodic
tier: the number of prosodic elements in an utterance corresponds intuitively to the
numberof segments it contains.
Hyman (1984; 1985)and McCarthyand Prince(forthcoming)have suggesteda more
radicalproposal. The prosodic tier they favor has just one kind of unit, as in X theory,
but instead of representinga segment, this unit representsthe traditionalnotion of mora.
The mora has a dual role in this theory. First, it represents the well-known contrast
between light and heavy syllables: a light syllable has one mora, a heavy syllable two.
Second, the mora counts as a phonologicalposition:just as in earlier theories, a long
segment is normallyrepresentedas being doubly linked. In the version of moraictheory
I adopt here, the schematic syllables under (1) would be represented as in (2), where
p. = mora:
(2) a. u b. uf c. v
= [ta] = [ta:] = [tat]

/
ta ta ta t
Moraic theory is not a segmentaltheory, as there is no level at which segment count is

depicted. McCarthyand Princetake this as an advantageof the theory, in that there are
no known phonologicalprocesses that count segments, althoughmany processes count
moras or syllables.
In this article I argue that the proposals of Hyman, McCarthy, and Prince for a
moraic theory of segment structure are supported by typological observations about
compensatorylengthening.I will make three basic points.
First, compensatorylengthening(hereafterCL) is subject to prosodic constraints:
segments that undergodeletion yield CL only if they occupy particularpositions within
the syllable. Moreover, the choice of the nearby segment that lengthens to compensate
for deletion is also limited. Such constraintsshow that CL is guidedby a prosodicframe
encompassing the relevant segments; the structure of the prosodic frame determines
which segments may triggerCL when deleted, and which segments may lengthen com-
pensatorily.
Second, moraictheoryis well suitedfor the formaldescriptionof the prosodicframe,
but segmentalprosodic theories (X theory and CV theory) are not. In fact, when such
theories are beefed up sufficientlyto handle the full range of CL types, they reduce to
something like the claim that any segment can lengthen to compensate for the loss of
any other segment. This claim goes against a large body of evidence.
Third, as de Chene and Anderson (1979) originallysuggested, the prosodic frame
that governs CL is partly language-specific. In particular,only languages that have a
syllable weight distinction allow CL. This fact also distinguishesthe various theories:
moraic theory posits partlylanguage-specificprosodic structures,which vary according

COMPENSATORY LENGTHENING IN MORAIC PHONOLOGY 255
to a language's criterion of syllable weight. In contrast, segmental prosodic theories

assign the same structureto the same sequence (for the relevant purposes) in all lan-
guages. The moraic theory thus captures a cross-linguisticdistinction missed by seg-
mental prosodic theories.
This articleis organizedas follows. I first outlinea specific version of moraictheory.
Next, I show how simple cases of CL are accounted for by moraic and by segmental
prosodic theories. I then discuss more unusualcases of CL and point out the expansions
that they requirein the power of segmentalprosodic theories. This somewhat detailed
section is crucial to the argument:the aspects of CL that I propose to explain through
the notion of prosodic frame might also be explained by limitingthe possible melody-
to-skeleton associations permittedin segmentalprosodic theories. What I will show is
that no such limitationsare tenable.
With this done, I give the central argument:the typology of CL demonstratesthat
it takes place within a prosodic frame of the kind provided in moraic theory, and the
segmental prosodic theories are unable to account for the same facts. Further, I show
that the segmentalprosodic theories are unableto account for the correlationof CL with
language-specificcriteriaof syllable weight.
In the remainingsections I discuss some additionalissues in moraictheory, examine
earlier work, and summarizethe results.
For convenience, in what follows I will use X theory as the representativeof all
segmental prosodic theories. The argumentsagainst X theory can be translated into
argumentsagainst CV theory without difficulty.
2. MoraicPhonology
An importantaspect of both Hyman's (1985)and McCarthyand Prince's (forthcoming)
work is the claim that the moraicstructureof languagescan vary. For instance, in some
languages (such as Latin) CVV and CVC syllables count as heavy and CV as light;
whereas in others (such as Lardil)only CVV is heavy and both CVC and CV are light.
The claim of moraic theory is that these languages differ in their rules for assigning
moraic structure;CVC is assigned two moras in Latin and one mora in Lardil.
Languages that exhibit a syllable weight distinction typically also have a vowel
length distinction, and vice versa. This is to be expected in a moraic theory, since the
same formalconfiguration,bimoraicsyllables, is used to representboth. We would not
expect the correlationto be absolute, however: a few languagesallow heavy syllables
but do not permit a vowel to occupy two moras (see below); and a language could in
principlehave long vowels but happento lack phonologicalrules that diagnosea syllable
weight distinction.
The existence of language-particularmoraic structureis an importantpart of the
theory: it predicts that in the absence of additionaladjustmentrules, the same criterion
of syllableweight will be relevantthroughoutthe phonologyof a singlelanguage(Hyman
(1985, 12)). Thus, in Latin (Allen (1973)) CVC counts as heavy for multiple rules and

256 BRUCE HAYES
constraints(for instance, stress, metrics, and Iambic Shortening).In contrast, in Lardil

several rules (truncation,augmentation,reduplication)count CVC as light (Hale (1973),
Wilkinson(1988)).
Although isolated problemsexist, the idea of language-particularmoraic structure
seems well motivated. Contraryto the (implicit)predictionof SPE (Chomskyand Halle
(1968)),a typical phonologyis not a randomcollection of possible rules but an integrated
system. By factoringout moraic structureas an overall property of a language's pho-
nology, we come closer to a theory that describes phonologicalsystems ratherthanjust
rule collections. As we will see, the matterof language-particular
phonologicalstructure
becomes particularlyclear in reference to CL.
2.]. Underlying Forms and Rules

An explicit moraic theory must characterize the ways in which individuallanguages
assign moraic structureand where possible also develop principles that are invariant
across languages.
Languagesdiffer in the extent to which moraic structureis phonologicallycontras-
tive. Below I discuss the moraic structuresthat must occur in underlyingforms for at
least some languages,notingthatin otherlanguagesthe same structuresmay be derivable
by rule. My account follows in certain respects the proposals of van der Hulst (1984,
68-73).
In languages with contrastive vowel length, long vowels have two moras, short
vowels one. I assume that this is reflected directly in underlyingforms:
(3) a. R b. .
V = Ii,! ! = ,i,
i1
It is often assumed that syllabicity is not representedon the segmentaltier. If this

is the case, we must face the fact that there are languages in which glides and short
vowels contrast (see Guerssel (1986)for Berber, Harris (1987)for Spanish, and Hayes
and Abad (forthcoming)for Ilokano). This contrast can be representedif we adapt an
idea of Guerssel's and assign no mora at all to an underlyingglide, as in (4):
(4) =ly
The basic principle assumed is that segments receive the same number of moras un-
derlyinglythat, in the absence of additionalrules, they will bear on the surface.
This principlecan be extended to consonants. Ordinaryshort consonants are rep-
resented as underlyinglymoraless, giving them the same underlyingstructureas glides:
(5) = /n!
n

The claim is that short consonants will not bear a moraunless assigned one by rule (see
below).
Geminatesalmost always bear a mora;for example, a sequence like [anna]has three
moras, versus two for [ana]. To distinguishgeminatesfrom single consonants, I assign
them a single mora underlyingly:
(6) p.
= /nn/
n
The surfacedoublelinkingof a geminateis derivedby the rules of syllabificationoutlined
below and is not present in underlyingforms, as in segmentalprosodic theories.
The remainingcase is a consonant linked underlyinglyto two moras:
(7) p .i
n
V
This configurationis rare, but it does appear in Kimatuumbi(Odden (1981)), which
permits long syllabic [m,n,,pp, and in Gokana(Hyman (1985, 42)), which has [mm].
The structuresoutlinedin (3)-(7) receive their explicit interpretationwhen they are
grouped into syllables by a syllabificationalgorithm. Syllabificationhas attracted so-
phisticatedtheoreticalattention(see, for example, Steriade(1982), Dell and Elmedlaoui
(1985), and Ito (1986)),and the followingis intendedonly as a cursoryaccount. I suggest
that syllabificationconsists of the following: (a) selection of certain sonorous moraic
segments, on a language-specificbasis, for dominationby a syllable node; (b) adjunction
of onset consonantsto the syllable node, and of coda consonantsto the precedingmora.
Adjunctionis subject to language-specificconditions on syllable well-formednessand
the division of intervocalic clusters. The following schematic derivationsillustratethe
procedure:
(8) a. cr cF b.
, ,1 17'.
ta ta ta ta ta ta
c. (x d.
at at at ant ant ant
I assume that an underlyinggeminate(one mora)or long syllabic consonant (two moras)

258 BRUCE HAYES
has its consonantmelody "flopped" onto a followingvowel-initialsyllable. This creates

an onset (hence a preferredsyllable structure)without disruptingmoraic value:
(9) a. cr (x ( b. ur cr or or
I' 'I,; I'^ S\:
II
ana
I ana
I I I anaI, I n a n
1.f I
a na
([anna]) ([n,,na])
It can be seen that the proposed underlyingform for a geminateis not so abstractas it
mightfirst seem, since the underlyingformdepicts the surfacemoraicvalue. The general
principleis that contrastivemora count, not length per se, is representedunderlyingly.
Moraic consonants sometimes occur without an adjacent vowel, as in the case of
syllabic nasals (for instance, [nta]). Such moraic consonants can have the same under-
lying representationas geminates, the difference being that the flopping process of (9)
is inapplicable,so that the consonant bears only one link on the surface and serves as
the nucleus of a separatesyllable. The existence of the floppingprocess describedunder
(9) is supportedby the patterningof syllabicnasals in Gokana(Hyman(1985,41)), where
it accounts for actual alternations such as [mi] 'inside' - [mimi]'inside this', from
l 'mi-/l.
The next ingredientof the analysis is the set of language-specificrules that supply
"weight by position"-in other words, render closed syllables heavy in certain lan-
guages. The basic idea is that certain coda consonants are given a mora when they are
adjoinedto the syllable, by the following rule schema:
(10) Weightby Position
IL jL where u dominates only F
Following earlier work, I assume that prevocalic consonants must be parsed as non-
moraic onset elements, and thus can never receive weight by position. The Weight by
Position rule is illustratedin (11) with schematicforms for a languagein which all closed
syllables count as heavy.
The schemejust outlinedis the most typical case for languagesin which CVC counts
as heavy. We must also account for languageslike Lardil,where CVC is light. I assume
that such languageshave no Weightby Position rule, so that the final consonantis made
a daughterof the final mora. Hyman (1985, 8) points out that in some languagesonly a
subset of the consonants make their syllable heavy when they occur in coda position.
This can be describedby placing restrictionson ,3 in the language-particularversion of
the Weight by Position rule.

(11) a. b. c. d.
I' M 8 It ,a
p- 11 , underlyingforms
atta apta a pta a t a
Cr a .
Cr
,
a CX ,
( cT Crassignment
* . I
* 1%,
I I I I / I III
a t a
aa apta a pta
CT cr C r cr a a cr adjunction:
I "I prevocalic consonants
1t''1 1 ''1 V '1 1 '

ata apta a pta a t a
cr cr ~~~~~~adjunction:
[f ^ by Position
~~~~~~Weight
I . Ij
a pt a
(n
or f (x adjunction:
, %
"',, remainingsegments
a pta a t a
[ata] [apta] [a:pta] [atta]
Weightby Positionis formulatedto producesyllableswith a maximumof two moras.

This is a strongclaim;it says that distinctionsof syllable weight are at most binary. The
claim is probablytoo strong, and I will returnto this issue later in the article.
This completes the set of rules for assigning moraic structure. Note that the full
variety of underlyingforms is relevant only for languagesthat employ moraic structure
contrastively; in fact, many languages need not include moras in underlyingforms at
all. If (a) the distributionof high vowels and glides is predictable,(b) there is no vowel
lengthcontrast,and (c) there are no geminates,then underlyingforms may consist simply
of segmental strings, with all moras inserted by rule.
My proposal differs somewhatfrom those of Hyman and of McCarthyand Prince.
The mainargumentfor my analysisis that it providesthe simplestdescriptionof possible
contrasts in mora count. The three-way contrast in the vocoid series IyI - li - li:l is
representedas the distinctionbetween zero, one, and two moras, which is the same as
the surface mora count of these segments. The three-way contrast among consonants

260 BRUCE HAYES
shown in (5)-(7) is also representedas a zero - one - two contrastin mora count, again
reflecting surface form. By adoptingthese underlyingforms, I believe that most of the
criticisms of moraicphonology made by Odden (1986b)can be answered satisfactorily.
My proposalis also to be preferred,I believe, to accounts that place actual syllable
structure(ratherthanjust moraicstructure)in underlyingforms. The reason is that there
are apparentlyno cases in which the division of consonantsinto syllables is underlyingly
contrastive, as for example in /a.bla/ versus /ab.la/. A theory that includes full syllable
structuresin underlyingforms predicts that these could exist. My claim is that there is
no such thing as contrastive syllabification,only contrastive mora structure.
To summarizeso far, I assume that moras appearin underlyingrepresentation,to
representlengthand syllabicitycontrasts.Morascan also be createdby language-specific
versions of the Weightby Position rule. Otherthan that, nonmoraicsegments are simply
adjoinedto the appropriateposition: the morafor syllable-finalconsonants and the syl-
lable for syllable-initialconsonants.The representationsthatresultappearto be adequate
for the two tasks that moraic theory must carry out: representationof segment length
and of syllable weight.1
3. CompensatoryLengtheningin X Theoryand MoraicTheory

Compensatorylengtheningcan be defined as the lengtheningof a segment triggeredby
the deletion or shorteningof a nearby segment. Here is a simple example, taken from
Ingria(1980).In Latinthe segmentIs!was deletedbefore anteriorsonorants(it apparently
went throughan intermediatestage of [z]; I ignore this and other complications).When
the deleted Is! followed a vowel, the vowel became long, as shown in (12):
(12)a. s 0/ [+sonl
L+ antj
b. *kasnus > ka:nus 'gray'
*kosmis > ko:mis 'courteous'
*fideslia - fide:lia 'pot'
A strictly lineartheory of phonology, such as that proposed in SPE, has difflculties
in describingthis change. The /kasnus/ -* [ka:nus]case can be described using trans-
formationalnotation, as in (13):
(13)a. Vs +son
[+ ant]
1 2 3 -*113
b. /kasnus/ -> kaanus = [ka:nus]
However, this rule turns out not to cover all the relevant cases, because word-initial
Is! also deleted before anteriorsonorants:
I Discussion of furtherissues in moraicphonologynot directlyrelatedto CL appearsin the Appendix.

(14) *smereo: -> mereo: 'deserve-i sg.-pres.'

*snurus > nurus 'daughter-in-law'
*slu:brikus > lu:brikus 'slippery'
Rule (13a) fails to predict this. The problem that a linear phonological theory faces is
to formulatea rule that deletes Is!, compensatorilylengthens a preceding vowel, yet is
also able to delete Is!when no vowel precedes it. Thereis no clear solutionto the problem
in linear theory.2
Both X theory and moraic theory are able to overcome this difficulty.
3.1. X Theory
In X theory, the centralinsightis that the deletion of Is! must take place on the segmental
tier only. This leaves an empty X slot on the prosodic tier. If we then assume a rule
that spreadsa vowel melody onto a followingtautosyllabicempty X position, we derive
a long vowel. Note that in the derivationof (15c), I have suppressedthe Rhyme node,
a practice I will follow throughoutto save space.
(15) a. Isl Deletion

s 0 +, soni
r (segmentaltier only)
[+ant]
b. Compensatory Lengthening
X X']ISY where X' is an unaffiliatedprosodic position
c. Example: *kasnus -* ka:nus

cr a cr (J a cr
/I\ //N A1\ A\

ONCONC
A
ON
14\
ONCONC ONC
111111 111111 IN II
xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx
II I Il-l kIlI
k a s nu s
IlI Il- k[I,a nI uIIs
a nus
In (15c) the output form has undergonereadjustmentof its syllable structure, so that
the newly created long vowel is syllabifiedas a long nucleus rather than as a nucleus
2 A diehardlinearistmightwrite two rules: one lengtheningvowels before Is! + [+ ant, + son] clusters
and anotherdeletingIs! before [ + ant, + son]. This is clearlyundesirable,because (a) vowels typicallydo not
lengthen before clusters, (b) the appearanceof the same Is! + [+ ant, + son] cluster in both rules is highly
suspicious, and (c) the lengtheningis not depicted as compensatory(that is, the lengthenedvowel does not
take up the time vacated by the Is!). Those not convinced by these problemsshould consult Odden(1981),
where it is shown that the same two-rulestrategyappliedto Kimatuumbiwould fail on empiricalgrounds.

262 BRUCE HAYES
+ coda sequence. The assumptionbehind this, following McCarthy(1979) and others,

is that syllabificationapplies throughoutthe derivationto adjust the ill-formedoutputs
of rules. This assumptionwill be importantin what follows.
For the cases in Latinwhere Is!deletes initially,I assume a conventionthatis widely
supportedin the literature:stray elements that are not filled by rule are deleted. This
allows Is! to disappearword-initiallywithout a phonetic trace:
(16) a. C f b. crc. cr
o
A /\ A A\ A A\
ONONC ONONC ONONC
x xx x xx x xx x xx xx xx x
s n u r u s n u r u s n u r u s
This argumentfor X theory is due to Ingria(1980).He expresses it in a differentnotation,

which I have translatedfor consistency.
3.2. Moraic Theory

The moraic account of the Latin facts would be essentially the same as in X theory: the
Is! deletes only on the segmentaltier, as in (17a). If a mora is stranded, it is filled by
spreadingfrom an immediatelyprecedingvowel by the rule stated in (17b).
(17) a. Isl Deletion

s-01 + sonl (segmentaltier only)
[+antj
b. CompensatoryLengthening
VL' where p' is a segmentallyunaffiliatedmora
c. C cr (J (J (J C
/kr*/t\L,4P V/?\ / [ka:nus]

/NF=
ka s nu s ka nu s ka nu
The assignmentof a mora to the coda consonant/s! is well motivated:CVC syllables in

Latin behave as heavy for purposes of stress, metrics, and other phenomena.
If the /s! is word-initial,it has no moraic value. Because of this, /s! Deletion word-
initially does not strandanything,and nothingfurtherhappens.

(18) oC r a cr
/11 /1K'~1-/1I /1I = [nurus]

snuru s nuru s
Note that moraic theory provides a somewhat neater account of the CL process.
We need not stipulatethat vowel melodies spread only onto syllable-finalempty posi-
tions, because it is only in syllable-finalposition that an empty position is created-this
is independentlymotivated by the fact that only syllable-finalconsonants make their
syllable heavy. This point will be made in more forceful terms later on.
To summarize:both X theory and moraic theory can provide an adequateaccount
of Latin CL, as well as a large numberof parallelcases. Thus both are a clear improve-
ment over a linear model of phonology. The crucialprinciplecommon to both theories,
which will be importantlater, is the following:for CL to occur, deletion must create an
empty prosodic position (X or 4).
3.3. On the Status of Compensatory Lengthening Conventions

In both (15b) and (17b) the CL process is stated as though it were a language-specific
phonological rule. This is unsatisfactory,as one would like to make CL an automatic
consequence of the deletion. For this reason, Ingria(1980), Steriade (1982), and others
have suggested universalconventions that yield CL as an automaticresult.
The difficulty with this is that some languages (for instance, Finnish) lack CL en-
tirely, even though long vowels are possible and the relevant deletion processes exist.
Further, certain other languages(for instance, Lesbian and ThessalianGreek; Steriade
(1982), Wetzels (1986))fill an empty syllable-finalposition not by lengtheningthe vowel
but by spreadingthe following consonant leftward to create a geminate. In Tiberian
Hebrew (Lowenstamm and Kaye (1986)) the situation is more complex: empty coda
positions are filled by geminationin the normal case, but by vowel lengtheningwhen
the followingconsonantbelongsto the class of gutturals,which do not permitgemination.
On the other hand, there are facts suggestingthat it would be wrong to characterize
CL as a language-particular phonologicalrule, orderedamongthe otherrules. The reason
is that in a numberof languages(for instance, Ancient Greek (Steriade(1982), Wetzels
(1986)), Turkish(Sezer (1986)), and Latin (Bichakjian(1986)))several distinct deletion
rules lead to CL. If CL is a rule, and if we are to analyze the system without loss of
generality, then CL must be orderedafter all the deletion rules that triggerit. But this
impliesthat emptyelementspersistthroughmuchof the derivation(fromthe first deletion
rule up to the CL rule), a claim that is unsupportedby the evidence and leads to con-
siderable excess descriptivepower (Dresher (1985)). The more reasonableassumption,
then, is that CL occurs immediatelyfollowing every deletion rule. This implies that CL
cannot be an ordinary,linearly orderedphonologicalrule.

264 BRUCE HAYES
The correct view, I believe, is that CL rules such as (17b) form part of the sylla-
bificationprinciples of individuallanguages. That is, the way in which empty prosodic
positions are providedwith segmentalcontent formspartof syllabification.The syllable-
formingrules for an individuallanguagemay specify that empty prosodic positions are
syllabified by spreadingfrom the preceding vowel (as in Latin and most dialects of
Ancient Greek);or from the following consonant (as in Lesbian and ThessalianGreek);
or not at all (as in Finnish);or even variably, dependingon whether the following con-
sonant is allowed as a geminate, as in TiberianHebrew.
AttributingCL to syllabificationprovides a plausible account of two facts. First,
as McCarthy (1979) has argued, syllabificationrules apply whenever their structural
description is met. Second, syllabificationrules are language-specific, within certain
universally determinedlimits. These two properties are what we want to attributeto
CL: typically, it is pervasivewithinan individuallanguage,but the mechanismthat yields
it is not universal.
It may be asked why a spreadingoperationshouldbe includedin the syllabification
mechanisms. A plausible account of this is providedby Ito's (1986) notion of Prosodic
Licensing: phonologicalmaterialmust be incorporatedinto the next higherlevel of pro-
sodic structure;otherwise, it is deleted by StrayErasure(Steriade(1982),Harris(1983)).
A naturalextension of this principlewould state that higher-levelphonologicalelements,
such as moras, are also subjectto Stray Erasureif they fail to dominateany lower-level
element. The spreadingoperationsembodiedin language-specificCL conventions form
part of the syllabificationalgorithmbecause they have the effect of licensing empty
moras.
A final note: even in a languagewhose syllabificationprinciplesinclude a CL con-
vention, CL is not the inevitableresult of consonantloss in the environmentof vowels,
even in languagesthat have phonemic vowel length. For example, Sezer (1986) shows
that some, but not all, of the consonantdeletionrules of Turkishlead to CL. An adequate
theory of CL must allow for the phenomenon,but not requireit. This is in fact straight-
forwardin multitieredtheories, because rules of deletion can be stated in more than one
way. If consonant loss is expressed as deletion of an entire segment complex, including
the associated element on the prosodic tier (X or ii), then there will be no CL, because
there will be no strandedelement. In what follows I will focus on rules in which deletion
takes place on the segmental tier only, so that CL is possible. However, it should be
kept in mind that the occurrenceof CL is not a necessary predictionof the theory.
4. Three FurtherCompensatoryLengtheningTypes
A valid theory of the prosodic tier should make correct typological predictions. In the
area of CL, we want to specify what kinds of CL are characteristicallyfound across
languages,and which are unattestedor rare.There are two approachesthat we can take.
One is to allow the representationsto do the work: the possible relinkings and re-
arrangementsof the segmentaltier with respect to the prosodic tier are assumed to be

essentially free (subject to general principles such as the ban on crossed association
lines), and the CL types predicted not to exist are the ones that the representations
cannot generate. This is the approachI will take for moraic theory in what follows.
The other approachis to provide explicit constraintson what can link to what. For
example, de Chene (1987),workingin a CV framework,suggests that to the extent that
a single segment can link to the sequence CV at all, the result is interpretednot as a
long segment but as a sequence; for example, /il linked to CV depicts [yi], not [i:].
The goal of this section is to show that the latter approachfaces severe empirical
problems. There exist CL types that, althoughreasonablywell attested cross-linguist-
ically, requirequite peculiarrearrangementsof segmentalassociationlines when treated
in X theory or similarframeworks.The picture that emerges is that very little can be
said about what can associate to what in a segmentalprosodic theory. This result is a
necessary preliminaryto the section that follows, which presents the centraltypological
arguments.
4.1. Double Flop

The mechanismof CL that I will call doubleflop was first employed for the description
of Ancient Greek in independentwork by Steriade (1982) and Wetzels (1986). Later,
Hock (1986) located cases of double flop in other languages. I will focus my summary
on Steriade's and Wetzels's accounts of Greek.
Variousconsonantdeletions in the dialects of Ancient Greek gave rise to CL. What
is strikingabout some of these is that the vowel that lengthenedwas not adjacentto the
consonant that deleted. For example, in East Ionic and other dialects deletion of lw!
lengthened the vowel that preceded the lw! across an interveningconsonant:
(19) *woikos oikos 'house'
*newos neos 'new'
but *odwos o:dos 'threshold'
To account for this aberrantcase, it initially seems plausible to posit an intermediate
stage in which the lw! metathesizedwith the precedingconsonant before deleting, as in
odwos -> owdos -> o:dos. Both Steriade and Wetzels show that this is untenable: not
only is the hypotheticalintermediatestage unattested in the written record, but in ad-
dition lw! that originallyoccupied syllable-finalposition did not delete: awlaks 'furrow'.
The solution that Steriade and Wetzels propose is statable only in a multitiered
theory: when postconsonantallw! deletes, the precedingconsonant shifts its association
to fill the vacated X slot. This process creates a new empty position, which is filled by
spreadingof the precedingvowel segment, in a doubleflop maneuver(see (20)). Wetzels
and Steriadenote that the same basic patternwas found in other CL processes of Greek:
deletion of /hI and /y/ also lengthened preceding nonadjacentvowels and can be ac-
counted for only by the mechanismof double flop.

266 BRUCE HAYES
(20) cx or (x C
N A4 N N IA IA
NCONC NC NC N ONC N ONC
I III I > I I I I--->
I I I 1-|>
K- I II = [o:dos]
o dwo s o d o s o d o s o d o s
Moraictheory also countenancesdouble flops. In the example in (20) the Id!would
first receive weight by position, since CVC is a heavy syllable in Greek. When the /wl
deletes, the Id!resyllabifies, eliminatingthe highly markedsyllablejuncture od.os. The
resyllabificationempties a mora and allows the precedingvowel to lengthen:
(21)) u a C a ar or
N N N
[o:dos]
ItIt /11 1-~ 1t 11 1- 1 l'
.'1 V1
odwo s odos o do s o do s
Under both theories, the mechanismof double flop allows for nonlocal CL, in which
the deleting and compensatingsegments are nonadjacent.The possibility of double flop
substantiallyincreases the power of prosodic theories, in a way that will be crucial to
the argumentbelow.
4.2. CL by Vowel Loss

The pattern here is VCV -* V:C0; that is, a vowel is droppedwith CL of the vowel of
the preceding syllable. As Hock (1986) shows, this phenomenon is attested in many
languages. To illustrateit, I will discuss an example from Middle English.
A well-knownMiddleEnglishsoundchange, the subjectof a largebody of scholarly
work, is said to have taken the form "Lengthen stressed vowels in open syllables."
Interestingly,this turns out not to be the proper characterizationof the rule. Minkova
(1982) took the trouble to collect all the forms of early Middle English that could have
undergonethe rule, and found that lengtheningof stressed vowels in open syllables is
actually only a sporadicphenomenon.The real generalization,which holds true for 97%
of the relevant cases, is that a stressed penult in an open syllable lengthenedjust in case
a word-finalschwa was dropped, as in [talb] -> [ta:l], ModernEnglish tale. Minkova's
discovery demandsa rethinkingof formal accounts of the process.
Two facts are relevant. First, an account positing the sequence of changes [talb]
[tal] -- [ta:l] is untenable, because words that originallyhad the syllable structureof
[tal] did not lengthen.In otherwords, lengtheningwas genuinelycompensatory.Second,
MiddleEnglishresemblesAncientGreekin that CL is caused by the deletionof a segment
that is not adjacent to the vowel that lengthens. An intermediatemetathesis stage is
unlikely, being unattestedin the recordboth for MiddleEnglishandfor all knownparallel

examples. Thus the mechanismneeded is some kind of double flop: only this will create
an empty position for the stressed vowel to spread onto.
But when we implement this suggestion in X theory, we get an odd result: the
consonant renderedword-finalby Schwa Drop must flop onto an X position previously
syllabified as a nucleus. The stressed vowel segment must then spread onto an X slot
previously syllabifiedas an onset:
(22) a. cr uf Input
ON ON
l l l l
t a I a
Il l
xxx
Alx
b. (nSchwa Drop
tl Nl
O
t a I
c. r Flop
ON C
II /
t a I
d. C Spreading
ON C
I NI
t al
The adjustments of syllable structure shown in (22) require comment. I will assume
that the loss of the vowel segment caused by Schwa Drop renders the entire second
syllable ill-formed, so that the entire syllable structure is eliminated. An explicit con-
vention to accomplish this is proposed below. The remaining adjustments of syllable
structure follow from the assumption made above that syllabification is an everywhere
process.

268 BRUCE HAYES
The crucial point of the Middle English case for X theory is the expansion of the
possible melody-to-skeletonreassociationsthat it requires.In particular,the theory must
allow consonant segments to flop from positions originallysyllabified as onsets to po-
sitions originallysyllabifiedas nuclei; and it must allow vowel segments to spreadonto
X slots that were originallysyllabifiedas onsets. The negative consequences of these
changes will be made clear below.
For purposesof comparison,I will also propose a moraicanalysis of MiddleEnglish
CL. Just like the X theoryaccount, my analysiswill rely on the assumptionthatdelinking
of a vowel segmentimpliesloss of syllablestructure.Since this principlewill be important
later on, I restate it as follows:
(23) Parasitic Delinking
Syllable structureis deleted when the syllable contains no overt nuclear seg-
ment.
I believe this to be a plausibleassumption,given that there are no well-formedsyllables
in any languagethat lack an overt nuclear segment on the surface. The nuclear vowel
is the only element of the syllable that is obligatoryin all languages, and it forms the
core to which other segments are syllabifiedby adjunction.
The crucial consequence of ParasiticDelinkingis that when a vowel delinks from
a mora, the mora becomes completely free, and may acquire an unexpected new as-
sociation. For Middle English, the effect of ParasiticDelinkingon the output of Schwa
Drop is as follows:
(24) cr C Input
ta al
CT CT ~Schwa Drop
t al
CT ~~~~Parasitic
Delinking
t aI
Once we have a stray mora, it is straightforward to get vowel length by linking it to the
preceding vowel melody:

(25) a. CompensatoryLengthening(MiddleEnglish)
Fill empty moras by spreadingfrom the left.
b. C uf
jA~ A""
ta l ta l
The end result derives from resyllabificationof the strandedfinal [1]:
(26) a
= [ta:l]
ta 1
Note that the occurrence of CL prior to the syllabificationof /l/ is a consequence of
Ito's (1986) principle that syllable structure(indeed, all prosodic structure)is created
maximally.
The Middle English case is not unique; see section 5.1.6 for nine other cases in
which the same phenomenonis found. There are two aspects of vowel loss CL that turn
up in the other examples. First, the vowel that lengthens is always in the syllable that
immediatelyprecedes the vowel that is deleted, never in the following syllable. Second,
the lengtheningis frequently, though not always, confined to open syllables. Both of
these patternswill be accounted for below.
4.3. CLfrom Glide Formation

A frequentkind of CL process lengthensa vowel when an immediatelyprecedingvowel
becomes a glide, as in ia!-l [ya:]. Such cases are relatively straightforwardundereither
X theory or moraic theory. Here I will discuss two differentCL processes triggeredby
glide formation,in which the segmentthat lengthensis to the left ratherthan to the right
of the newly created glide.
4.3.1. Ilokano. Ilokano is a Philippinelanguagespoken in Northern Luzon and many
other locations. The datahere were gatheredfromnative speakerswho come fromLaoag
and currently live in Los Angeles. Further informationon Ilokano phonology can be
found in Vanoverbergh(1955),Constantino(1971),and Hayes and Abad (forthcoming).3
Ilokano has a fair amount of dialect variation, and I am not certain whether the CL
process described below is widespreadin the language.
Some background:Syllables in Ilokano have the maximal form C3VC'. Syllable-
final clusters are confined to recent borrowings. Syllable-initialclusters are of strictly
3 Specialthanksto MayAbad, who both servedas consultantandgathereda substantialbody of recorded
data from other speakers.

270 BRUCE HAYES
rising sonority, with triple clusters occurring almost exclusively in borrowed words.
Sequences of the form VCCV are normallydivided into syllables as VC.CV, even for
clusters such as /bl/ that familiarEuropeanlanguagesdivide as V.CCV. CVC syllables
count as heavy in the Ilokano stress pattern.
Otherthan pronominalenclitics, Ilokano has only two suffixes, -an and -en. These
have multipleuses, often formingcircumfixesin combinationwith prefixes. Most Ilokano
stems have at least one -an or -en form.
The vowels of this dialect are lil, /eI, Ia/, /o/, and IuI; the contrast between the last
two is marginal.Stems may end with a consonant or with one of the vowels /i, e, a,
o/. Vowel sequences created by the suffixationof -an or -en to /a/-final stems are split
up by an epenthetic [?]. When a stem ends in lii, he!, or ho!,a vowel sequence created
by suffixationis usually resolved by convertingthe stem-finalvowel to a glide: hi!and
he!become !y!, and Iohbecomes Iw!.
The interestof the glideformationruleis thatit often triggersCL (thatis, gemination)
of the precedingconsonant. This CL is subject to a gradientrequirementthat the con-
sonantundergoingit shouldbe of low sonority.The followingchartsummarizesthe data:
(27) a. Single Obstruents: Usually Geminate
luto 'to cook' luttw-en 'cook-goal focus'
lutw-en
?aso 'dog' pag-?assw-ain, 'place where dogs
pag-?asw-an are raised'
?apo 'grandfather, kina-?appw-ain, 'leadership
leader' kina-?apw-an qualities'
bagi 'body, self baggy-en, 'to have as one's
bagy-en own'
?ataike 'to attack' pag-?atakky-an, 'place where an
pag-?ataky-an attack takes place'
b. Single Nasals and 1ll:Sporadically Geminate
(optionality,possibly lexical variation)
damo 'the first time' damw-en, 'to be new to
?dammw-en something'
?alino 'to have sensitive na-?alinw-an, 'to become
teeth' ?na-?alinnw-ain sensitive'
?aligo6 'wild boar' pag-?aligw-ain, 'place where boars
?pag-?aliUUw-an are found'
bale 'value' balyan, 'to change'
?bally-an
c. [r, 2,w,y]: Never Geminate
2ari 'leader' pag-?ary-an 'place of
leadership'
karo 'intense' karw-an 'to intensify'

?ayo 'to cheer up' ?ayw-en 'cheer up-goal

focus'
babawi 'regret' babawy-en 'regret-goalfocus'
d. Consonant Clusters: Neither Member Geminates
sakdo 'to fetch water' pag-sakdw-an 'place where water
is fetched'
?akrko 'arch' ?arkw-an 'to arch'
subli 'to return' pag-subly-an 'place that one
returnsto'
?aklo 'ladle' ?aklw-ain 'to ladle out-goal
focus'
?arjrf 'smellinglike fish' na-?aijryan 'to be made to
smell like fish'
It is crucial to my argumentthat consonants do not generally become geminates
before glides; that is, the lengtheningis genuinelycompensatory.This point is made by
the following examples, which are never heard with gemination:
(28) botelya 'bottle' wetwet 'tight as a door'
yagyag 'to harangue' ?ag-wad-wadag 'is flingingaside'
yekyek 'coughingsound' ?ag-wak-waikas 'is getting rid of
radw'ar 'to graduate' wagwag 'to shake (tr.)'
As before, let us consider what needs to be done with X theory and moraic theory
to handle the data. In X theory, glide formationrules are most straightforwardlystated
as changes in syllable structure. Here, a nuclear X in prenuclearposition would be
resyllabifiedas an onset:
(29) N 0
l l
x -* N
L -cons -cons
-low [-low J
However, such an account would be inadequatefor Ilokano, because it removes the
possibility of CL. That is, once an input form like (30a) is converted to (30b), the glide
derived from a vowel becomes indistinguishablefrom an underlyingglide, as in (30c):
(30) a. or cr o b. a c. cr
A
ONON
A r\
NC
/A\
ONCONC ONCONC
I II I+II
x x xx
111111 11111
x x xx x gx x x xx x x x x
b a gi enb a gien i ag iag

272 BRUCE HAYES
Since /bagi + en/ surfaces as [baggyen]'to have as one's own' and lyagyag!as [yagyag]
'to harangue',rule (29) is inadequate.
Another possibility is to flop the consonant segment onto the following X slot,
reinterpretingthe partiallydislodged vowel segment as a glide:
(31) r a C ua
A/
ONO N NC
N A\A
N CO N C
I I I I + II I I I I = [baggyen]
x x xx xx x xx xx x
b a g i e n b a g i e n
Althoughthis derives the correct result in this particularform, it is untenablein light of
other facts about Ilokano phonology. In particular,the distributionof nonlow vowels is
such that one must allow Glide Formationto apply to a vowel even when no consonant
precedes it (Hayes and Abad (forthcoming)).The situationis thus parallelto what Ingria
(1980) describes for Latin (section 3.1), and the argumentis the same: to avoid stating
Glide Formationtwice in the grammar,we must express CL as the fillingof a slot vacated
by Glide Formation.
In X theory, this can be done by invoking a double flop. Suppose that Glide For-
mation consists of flopping the melody of a nonlow vowel onto the X slot of a vowel
on its right, by the following rule:
(32) Glide Formation
NN N
II I
xx xx
I ,~/
[-low] [+ high]
For glides not preceded by consonants, the strandedX slot will delete without further
effect. In the central cases like /bagi + en/ the rule will apply as follows:
(33) a C c CA f
OONONNC
N ON N C N ()N NCC
N
x x xx xx x xx x xx
I I I I + I I -> I I I , 1 I
b a g i e n b a g i e n
This first flop creates an empty X slot, and the syllable structuredominating/gi/ dis-
appearsby ParasiticDelinking(23). We can then derive CL by spreadingthe immediately
preceding consonant onto the empty X, as follows:

(34) a. Compensatory Lengthening (X Theory)

XX' a= [-son]: usually applies
[, a = 1 or [+ nas]: sporadicallyapplies
ax a r,y,w,2: inapplicable
b. Application of CL c. Syllabification
C (J cr a
ON
A N NC
AN AT
ONCONC
11 1I1 111111
II1 I
b a g i e n
I IV/
b a g
I
e n =[baggyen]
This grinds out the facts, but at a cost: the long segment /gg/ occupies X slots that
in the originalform were syllabified as onset + nucleus. The significance of this ex-
pansion in the inventory of reassociations allowed under X theory will become clear
below.
To complete the X theory analysis, we must accountfor the cases of (27d), in which
the vowel undergoingGlide Formationis preceded by a consonant cluster, and no CL
occurs. This follows fromfairly standardassumptions.For example, if we take the stem
badko 'bench', add the suffix -an, and apply the rules stated above, we arrive at the
configurationof (35b):
(35) a. uf C a Input
ON CO N NC
XXXXX + XX
b a g k o an
b. cr Glide Formation,CL
/1\
ONC ONC
AT
I II II I
I I I
b a
VA I
k u a n
ij
Here the consonantIk/ has undergoneCL, just like the /g/ of /bagi/ in (34b). But the first
X slot linked to Ik! cannot be syllabified,because Ilokano tolerates neither *[baljk]nor
*[kkwan]as possible syllables. Thus the convention of Stray Erasure (Steriade (1982),
Harris (1983))will apply to (35b), yielding the correct result, [baijkwan]:

274 BRUCE HAYES
(36) a (x Stray Erasure
ONC ONC
III
IxxI I xx1x
Il l / I
b a i ku a n = [baijkwan]
Consider now a moraic account of Ilokano CL. Here again, the crucial element is
ParasiticDelinking,triggeredby Glide Formation.I interpretthe latterrule as a delinking
operation:the stem-finalvowel is disassociated from its mora, and by later processes
is shifted over one slot to become a glide onset of the following syllable.
(37) Glide Formation
IL ~L
+ I
[-low] (x
An applicationof the rule to our earlier case, /bagi + en/, is shown in (38). The
output of the rule is immediatelysubmittedto ParasiticDelinking.
(38) c an (r Input
bagi en
cr i C Glide Formation
bagi en
a Cr ParasiticDelinking
N
bagi en
Recall further the assumption that syllabification of stray elements takes place
throughoutthe phonologicalderivation.Since [gyen]is a well-formedsyllablein Ilokano,
the syllabificationprincipleswill adjointhe stranded/gi/ sequence to the following syl-
lable to yield (39):

(39) cr or Syllabification
ba gien
We are now in a position to describe the CL, because we have a strandedmora

that is accessible to the Igi. The CL process can be written as in (40a); it applies to
/bagi + en/ as in (40b):
(40) a. Compensatory Lengthening (Moraic Version)

Fill empty moras by spreadingfrom the right.
b. u cr
ba gien
The mora filled by spreadingis syllabifiedwith the preceding vowel; note that [bag] is
a well-formed syllable in Ilokano. The output obeys the general principleproposed by
Ito (1986) that syllable structureis created maximally.
It remains to handle the various additionalcomplicationsin the rule. The absence
of CL in the cases like /bagko + an/ -* [baijkwan]follows from the same account given
for X theory: the first half of the geminate [kk] cannot be syllabifiedand is deleted by
Stray Erasure. The other fact to be addressed is the variabilityof CL, based on the
sonority of the consonantto be geminated:highly sonorous consonants ([r,?,w,y]) never
lengthen;[1]andnasals sometimeslengthen;andobstruentsusuallylengthen.My strategy
here is to allow the rule to apply blindly to all consonants, then trim back the excess
with the following rule:
(41) Degemination
ar
p. where G = glide ([- cons, + high])

a = variable(see below)
G
Obligatory: where a has the sonority of Inror greater
Usually applies: where oahas the sonority of 11/or a nasal
Sporadicallyapplies: where a has the sonority of /s! or less
A schematic derivationwould be: karo-an becomes karrwanby CL, then karwan by

Degemination. The crucial point is that Degeminationis needed in the phonology of

276 BRUCE HAYES
Ilokano anyway, in order to remove underlyinggeminates that come to stand before a

glide. An example here would be (42):
(42) punno punnwan,punwa-n 'to fill'
The Degeminationrule looks complex, but it makes sense in light of a finding of
Murray and Vennemann (1983). Based on data from Germanic and other languages,
Murrayand Vennemannpropose the following general law of preferredsyllable struc-
ture:
(43) Syllable Contact Law (Murrayand Vennemann(1983))
A syllablecontact of the formC1LAC2is favoredto the extent thatthe sonority
of Cl exceeds that of C2.
The Degeminationrule of Ilokano is a clear instance of the law: it resolves complex
consonant clusters (for instance, [rrw]),with the proviso that bad syllable contacts, such
as p],j[w, not be created.
4.3.2. ManagerialLengtheningin English. The moraicanalysis of Ilokanopredicts the
existence of another kind of CL. Consider the following intermediaterepresentation,
from (39):
(44) ur u
/bagi + en/ >
ba gi e n
In Ilokano the stray mora that was created by Glide Formationis filled by spreading
from the followingconsonant. But there is no reason why spreadingcould not take place
from the preceding vowel, producing[ba:gyen].According to the theory, it is an idio-
syncrasy of Ilokano that spreadingtakes place from the consonant.
A case can be made that the other possibility, spreadingfrom the vowel, arose in
another language, namely Middle English. The relevant rule is the one whose modern
descendent applies in words like managerial, Newtonian, and Canadian:
(45) Managerial Lengthening (adapted from SPE, 181)
r VV hy,
]Cor i lv
L-high- V - stressl
That is, a nonhighvowel in an open syllable lengthens before prevocalic stressless li/.
This statement of the modern rule, though accurate, provides no account of just why
vowels should lengthen in this environment. In fact, for reasons to be made clear, I
believe that the present rule is synchronicallyarbitrary.But the historicalprecursorof
(45) can be described as an instance of CL.
Jespersen's (1909, 140-141) descriptionof the historicalfacts is revealing: "When

a consonant is followed by two [adjacent]weak vowels in originallyseparate syllables,

the precedingstressed vowel is long." The word "originally"is importanthere, because
as Jespersenalso points out (pp. 277-278), the earlier[iV] sequences had usuallybecome
[yV] by the early ModernEnglishperiod. Currentpronunciationswith [iV] reflect a later
reversion to the original vocalic forms, as is argued on synchronic grounds in Hayes
(1982, 267-268). Luick (1907)presents evidence that the shift of [iV] to [yV] was roughly
simultaneouswith the first appearanceof Managerial Lengtheningin the grammar.
My suggestionis that the shift from [iV] to [yV] was not just simultaneouswith the
originalversion of ManagerialLengtheningbut in fact caused it, via a form of CL much
like that of Ilokano. The mechanism is outlined as follows, with a derivationfor the
historical precursorof patience:
(46) cr a r patience (originalform)
pasi ns
a r
CGlide Formation,ParasiticDelinking
pas
IN
/1.1 ons
Cr ar Syllabification
/.IN
p a si3 ns
C- o CompensatoryLengthening
pa si 3 ns (= [pa:syans],ModernEnglish [peys3ns])
Evidence to supportthis account is providedby Jespersen, who notes the following

(p. 141): "Words like companion with short /a! are no exceptions to [the] rule . . . as
this lil was not a separate syllable in O[ld] F[rench]:/ni/, /nj/ represents OF palatal n
.... Thus also in onion [Anjon] . poniard [p3nj3d] . Spaniard . spaniel and with OF
palatal I . . . battalion [bLt]j;n] . valiant [vxe1jnt]." Jespersen's observation fits per-
fectly with the above account: if these words always had glides, they could not undergo
Glide Formation;thus, no mora was made availableto the preceding syllable.

278 BRUCE HAYES
The X theory account of the same facts would parallel the X theory account of
Ilokano:
(47) a. a o cr Input
ONONNC
IIIIIN
XXXXXXX
p a s 1 ns
b. u cf Glide Formation
ON NC
II IN
lII I
p a s 1 3 n s
Ii
c. ur u Flop of Is!
ON NC
II I I
p a s 1 3 n s
d. c Spreadof/la
ON ONC
I N I IN
I l A/. I I
p a s i 3 n s
Here again a consonant flops from onset to nucleus position and a vowel spreads onto
the former onset X.
4.4. Summary So Far

The purpose of this section has been to show that the set of possible relinkings that X
theory must allow to describe the instances of CL in the world' s languages is considerably
less constrained than has previously been supposed. In particular, to handle the case of
Ilokano, X theory must allow long segments to be linked to X slots that originally were
syllabified as onset + nucleus, as in (34b). Further, it must allow onset consonants to

flop onto X positions originally syllabified as nuclei, as in vowel loss cases (22c) and
Middle English Glide Formation(47c). Finally, the latter two types show that X theory
must allow vowels to lengthenby spreadingonto former onset positions ((22d), (47d)).
Such extensions have serious consequences, in thatthey subvertthe mainprinciples
that have previously constrainedthe power of X theory: (a) double linkingsto onset +
nucleus, if they exist, do not represent length; (b) length-creatingoperations involve
only spreadingonto rhyme positions. With these gone, the theory comes close to main-
taining that any segment can lengthen to compensatefor the deletion of any other.
In contrast,moraictheorycan treatthe phenomenapresentedin this section without
substantial expansions in its descriptive power: the essential mechanism is Parasitic
Delinking, which appearsto be needed in any event by X theory as well (see (22)).
5. The Argumentfrom Typology

In this section I present the central argument:I describe two substantialasymmetries
in the cross-linguisticbehaviorof CL and arguethatthese asymmetriessupportthe claim
that CL is governed by a "prosodic frame" of the type posited in moraic theory. X
theory, weakened in its explanatorypower by the results of the preceding section, is
unable to explain the same facts.
5.1. A Typology of CL
In the following paragraphsI list an inventory of CL rule types I have culled from the
literature.The typology bears a largedebt to Hock's (1986)wide-rangingsurvey, as well
as to de Chene and Anderson (1979). For the rarertypes, I list a numberof instances
with citations.
5.1.1 . "Classical." ClassicalCL is the lengtheningof a vowel triggeredby the dropping
of a following coda consonant. Schematically,it looks like this:
(48) a. a sta b. a s t # c. a s # (input)
a: 0 t a a: 0t # a: 0 # (output)
From Hock (1986), de Chene and Anderson (1979), and my own search I have located
38 rules of this type from 26 languages;I assume from this that the phenomenonis not
at all rare.
5.1.2. Progressive and Regressive TotalAssimilation of Consonants. Total assimilation
of consonants is not always viewed as CL, though in a prosodic theory it is formally
equivalent to it. Here are schematic examples:
(49)a. as ta b. ast a
a s: 0a a0t: a
I have not botheredto collect cases of this sort, since the phenomenonis so well attested.

280 BRUCE HAYES
5.1.3. Glide Formation. In cases of CL triggeredby Glide Formationthe empty pho-

nologicalposition is createdby shorteningratherthan deletion. The best-knownpattern,
which is widespreadamongBantulanguages(see, for example, Odden (1981), Clements
(1986)), works as follows:
(50) t i a
t y a:
Other instances of this sort are found in Japanese (Poser (1986)), Old Icelandic (Hock
(1986)), and Old English (Wrightand Wright(1925)).Glide Formationcan also lengthen
the precedingconsonant, as in Ilokano (51a), or the vowel of the precedingsyllable, as
in English Managerial Lengthening(Sib):
(51)a. ak ia b. e ria
ak: ya e: rya
5.1.4. Prenasalization. CL triggeredby prenasalizationis also widespread in Bantu
languages(Odden(1981), Clements(1986)).In (52) [ib] representsa prenasalizedstop:
(52) a m ba
a: 0 mb a
5.1.5. Double Flop. CL throughdouble flop is illustratedin (53):
(53) o d w o
o: d 0 o
The variousdialectsof AncientGreekprovidefour instancesof this sort (see section

4.1; also Steriade (1982), Wetzels (1986), and Hock (1986)). Hock (1986) notes the ex-
istence of this phenomenonin Akkadianandin Persian.The changein Old Englishfound
in forms like holhes > ho:les 'hole-gen.' (Campbell(1959, 104-105)) may also fall under
this heading.
5.1.6. Vowel Loss. CL throughvowel loss is illustratedin (54):
(54) a l #
a: 10#
This case is describedundersection 4.2 for MiddleEnglish. CL throughvowel loss
is surprisinglycommon. Hock (1986) points out examples in Balto-Slavic, Hungarian,
JutlandDanish, Korean, various dialects of German,and the Slavic languages (for the
latter see also Timberlake(1983a,b)).The same process occurs in Friulian,analyzed in
Repetti (1987). CL of this type is clearly a synchronic rule of Yapese (Jensen (1977));
and Estonian (discussed below) also falls in this category.
5.1.7. Inverse CL. In cases of inverse CL a vowel deletes or shortens,with concomitant

lengtheningof the following consonant. This occurredin the history of Luganda((55a),
Clements (1986))and as a sporadicphenomenonin Pali ((55b), Hock (1986, 441)).

(55) a. a i ka b. a: ka
akka akka
A similarprocess occurs when the vowel that deletes is the only vowel of its syllable:
(56) a. il a b. p i l a
lla plla
This occurredin Luganda(Clements(1986)),in Idoma (Abraham(1951),Hyman(1985)),
and in Ga (Trutenau(1972))andis foundas a fast speech rulein French(Rialland(1986)).
5.1.8. Summary. The result of this survey is that CL constitutes a formallydiverse set
of phenomena. However, both X theory and moraic theory are sufficientlypowerfulto
derive all the cases noted above. For the nonobviouscases, I have given derivationsin
section 4, and the remainingcases are straightforward.The greatest interest in the ty-
pology of CL lies in what appearsnot to exist.
5.2. Two Asymmetries

This section presents two asymmetriesin the typology of CL, where CL in one con-
figurationoccurs, but its mirror-imagecounterpartdoes not.
5.2.1. Onset Deletion. AlthoughCL from loss of coda consonantsis very common, its
opposite, CL from loss of onset consonants, appearsnot to occur. This has been pointed
out by Donegan and Stampe (1982), by Hyman (1984), and by McCarthyand Prince
(forthcoming).Possible cases of this sort include the following:
(57)a. #s a b. osa c. o sa
#0 a: o0a: o: 0a
d. #sla e. #sta
#s0a: #0ta:
The existence of an asymmetryis stronglysupportedby cases in which a consonant
can delete from either onset or coda position, but triggersCL only when deleted from
the coda. Sezer (1986, 231-232) presents an example from Turkish: an optional rule
deleting/v/ before labial segmentsinduces CL with coda lvl but not with onset lvi. Thus
savmak 'to get rid of may be realized as [sa:mak],but davul 'drum'yields [daul], not
*[da:ul].Similarexamplesmay be foundfor deletionof several other segmentsin Turkish
(Sezer (1986, 229-230, 231, 248));for deletion of P/?in Persian;for the loss of laryngeals
in Indo-European(Hock (1986));andfor /r/-lossin Onondaga(Woodbury(1981)).Ancient
Greek lwl Deletion (Steriade(1982), Wetzels (1986))forms a slightlydifferentcase: this
rule triggeredCL only when a precedingcoda consonantwas availablefor double flop;
otherwise, lw! was lost from onset position without CL.
There is an interestingcase presentedin the literaturethat claims CL for a case of
onset deletion: Michelson's (1986)account of CL in Onondaga,an Iroquoianlanguage.
The facts here are worth reviewing.

282 BRUCE HAYES
According to Woodbury (1981), who reviewed the historical documents, before

about 1750Onondagahad an Inrsegmentin its phonemicinventory.This segmentdeleted
in all positions priorto 1852. Intervocalically,the Inrdeleted without CL, as one would
expect. Ir!before a consonantdeleted with CL of the precedingvowel. WhenInrfollowed
a consonant, the modernlanguageshows [CV:] where earlier stages had [CrV].4How-
ever, as the writtenrecordshows, there was no directtransitionbetween the two stages.
Rather, an interveningsound change broke up obstruent-/r/clusters with an epenthetic
[e]: [CrV]-- [CerV].Later the [r] was dropped.The sequence [e + V] that resultedfrom
[CerV] coalesced to [V:], giving the present form of the language.
In her synchronic account of the alternationsresultingfrom these developments,
Michelsoncollapses the two stages of epenthesisand coalescence, expressingthe length-
ening of the vowel as direct compensationfor the loss of the In. More precisely, she
representsInrsynchronicallyas an empty C position (Clementsand Keyser (1983)),since
all evidence for its earlierphonetic qualityhas disappeared.The basic mechanismlooks
like this:
(58) (x
CC' V
[- cons]
Though I cannot rule this out as a possible synchronicanalysis, a clear alternative

is available, that of formulatingthe synchronicaccount to recapitulatehistory. That is,
we could insert an epenthetic vowel between consonants and empty C positions, then
assimilate this vowel to the vowel that follows across the empty C:
(59) CC'V CVC'V CVC'V
a (x cx
The empty C would delete by the generalprincipleapplyingto unaffiliatedelements, as

in other analyses involving empty consonants.
The same process can be expressed moraically, provided we assume, following
Hyman (1985, 58), that empty consonants are underspecifiedsegmentalmatricesrather
than prosodic positions. For example, in the theory of Clements(1985), we would posit
that empty consonants are bare Root nodes.5 The process works as in (60), where 3, a,
4 The exact environmentfor lengtheninghere is apparentlyaftera nonlaryngealconsonant,with sporadic

lengtheningafter /hi. Thanksto K. Michelsonfor clarifyingthis and other aspects of Onondagato me.
S Space does not permitarguingthe point in detail, but I would claim that the extensive literatureon
empty consonantshas not shown that emptyconsonantsare necessarilyemptyprosodicpositions;rather,the
argumentssupportthe moregeneralnotionof a fully underspecifiedsegment,which couldjust as well occupy
the segmentalratherthan the prosodictier.

and [ ] are the segmental tier representationsfor a consonant, a vowel, and a fully
underspecifiedsegment, respectively:
(60) cr (x cr CT
No matter how it is expressed, an analysis that recapitulatesthe historical devel-

opments does not seem appreciablymore complex than Michelson's. Crucially,it does
not involve CL triggeredby onset deletion. I conclude thatalthoughMichelson'saccount
is intriguing,it does not force us to abandonan otherwise valid cross-linguisticgener-
alization.
A more difficultcase is that of the Samothrakidialect of Modem Greek, as analyzed
by Newton (1972, 76-81). Like Onondaga,Samothrakiexhibits loss of onset Inr,with
apparentCL of the followingvowel. This may simplybe a counterexampleto the claimed
generalization.However, there is an alternativepossibility-namely, that the apparent
CL was as in Onondagathe result of epenthesis, intervocalic Inrloss, then merger of
[VV] to [V:]. If the epenthesis took the form of vowel copying, the route taken would
be [CrVi] -* [CVirVi] -* [CVi:].
The facts supportingthis conjectureare as follows. (a) Irlwas in fact lost intervo-
calically in Samothraki,without vowel lengthening.Since there would be no motivation
for epenthesis in a VCV sequence, this is what we would expect. (b) OriginalVrC
sequences show up as ViC. Newton suggeststhatthe li is an originallyepentheticvowel,
with the development [VrC] -- [VriC] [ViC]. This supports the idea that prior to
deleting, Inrin Samothrakitriggeredepenthesis processes. (c) Most Modern Greek di-
alects have no vowel length distinction.Samothrakiappearsto have acquiredphonemic
vowel length from the developmentsinvolvingInr.De Chene (1979)presents substantial
typological evidence that vowel length distinctions hardly ever arise from CL; by far
the most common source for new phonemiclong vowels is intervocalicconsonant loss,
with subsequent mergerof /VV/ to IV:l. If we assume the epenthesis account, the Sa-
mothrakifacts appearconsiderablymore naturalfrom a typological viewpoint.
I conclude from this that althoughfurtherdata are needed, the Samothrakifacts are
not necessarily an insuperableproblemfor the argumentto be made here.6
5.2.2. Mirror-Image Vowel Loss. The other asymmetry that can be observed in the
typology of CL concerns CL through vowel loss: in all known cases the vowel that
6 Davis (1985)points out a possible case of CL from onset loss in Maasai. However, as B. Levergood
has pointed out (personalcommunication),the relevantexamplesalso involve the conversionof a preceding
vowel to a glide. An adequateanalysis is possible in which CL is the result of Glide Formation,not onset
loss.

284 BRUCE HAYES
lengthens is in the syllable to the left of the vowel that deletes. Left-to-rightCL, which
would appearas in (61), appearsnot to exist:
(61) #al a
#0 1 a:
I know of no candidatecounterexamples.
5.3. Assessing the Two Theories against the Typology

Assuming these asymmetriesare valid, we can address their implicationsfor X theory
and moraic theory.
5.3.1. The Onset Deletion Asymmetry. CL through onset deletion can be derived in X
theory, as the following sample derivationshows:
(62) a. cr A I (c Input forms: Isal, !osa/, !osai

A IA IA
ON NON NON
I I I II II I
Xx x xx xx x
#
I I I II I II
s a o s a o s a
b. cf af cr C cf Is]0
ON NON NON
Xx x xx xx x
# a o a 0 a
c. CompensatoryLengthening
N NN N
A
x x x xx
lA N
xx x
I
# a o a o a - [a:], [oa:], [o:a]
The crucialpart of the derivationis (62c), where spreadingonto a formeronset position

creates length. The only mechanism in X theory to exclude this possibility is to add
constraints concerning what linkages are possible, and which ones count as length-
creating. In section 4, however, I arguedthat such constraintsare untenable:in partic-
ular, sequences formerly syllabified as onset + nucleus may appear as surface long
segments, and vowels may spreadonto formeronset segments to create length.

In contrast, moraic theory correctly excludes CL from onset deletion, as both

Hyman (1984)and McCarthyand Prince (forthcoming)point out. This follows from two
basic principles:(a) in any prosodic theory, CL occurs only if deletion creates an empty
prosodic position; (b) moraic theory does not assign prosodic positions to onset con-
sonants. This is illustratedin (63):
(63) a. C Input forms: lsal, /osa/
1/
#s a osa
b. s
#a oa
No element is strandedin these derivations, so no CL may take place.

Note the crucial ingredientof this account: onset consonants never receive their
own mora. This claim is independentlymotivated,because as is shown by other sources
of evidence (for example, stress and quantitativemetrics), onset consonants never con-
tribute to the weight of their syllable.
The predictions of moraic theory can be expressed more generally as a "conser-
vation law":
(64) Moraic Conservation
CL processes conserve mora count.
For purposes of (64), CL processes are defined as those involvinglengtheningand dele-
tion or shorteningas a single phonologicalprocess. Examinationof the existing cases
(section 5.1) shows that they all exhibit moraicconservation,thoughin strikinglyvaried
ways. CL from onset deletion is predictednot to occur, because such a process would
increasethe moracount of the stringby one. Because of MoraicConservation,the moraic
theory can maintaina maximallysimple theory of CL: the representationsthemselves
do all the work, since any rearrangementof segments with respect to moras will auto-
matically conserve mora count.
It is worth consideringMoraic Conservationin broader terms. In moraic theory,
the prosodic tier plays a dual role: it allows length to be represented, and it forms the
lowest relevant level of prosodic structure,servingas the basic unit for syllable weight,
stress assignment, and tone. The essential claim of the theory is that segment length is
not mere double association, as in X theory, but instead is closely bound up with the
representationof prosody-that is, moraic structure provides a prosodic frame that
guides the action of compensatoryprocesses. The validity of this claim is borne out by

286 BRUCE HAYES
the principle of Moraic Conservation, and by the inertness of onsets: onsets are not
representedprosodicallyand hence are excluded from compensatoryprocesses.
Moraic Conservationmight in principlebe derivable under X theory, if we could
stipulate the following: the number of weight-bearingXs remains constant through a
derivation. But a look at the derivationsgiven above shows that this would be a highly
arbitrarystipulation,for the following reason: in the course of a derivation,X slots can
be converted from weight-bearingto non-weight-bearingstatus and vice versa. It is
purely an accident under the theory that once we reach the end of the derivation, the
numberof weight-bearingXs is the same as when we started.
5.3.2. The VowelLoss Asymmetry. The other asymmetryin CL concerns vowel loss:
deletion of a vowel can lengthen the vowel of the syllable to the right, but not to the
left. As before, X theory incorrectly derives this result, via the mechanism of double
flop:
(65) a. ( cr b. a c. cr d. a
I A A A A
NON ON 0 N 0 N
III-> I I| I I- I =[la:]
x xx x xx x xx xx x
IIIa 11 \sxI lxxi
# # la # la #1 a
Here again, the only way to exclude these derivationswould be to add principlesto the
theory that would constrain the inventory of possible linkages and reassociations. As
before, however, such constraintsare unlikelyto hold, given the evidence of section 4.
In particular,the floppingof a consonant segment onto a formernucleus position (as in
(65c)) has precedentsboth in the actual vowel loss cases (section 5.1.6) and in the glide
formationcases (section 4.3); and the representationof a long segmentas double linking
to a formeronset + nucleus sequence in (65d) has a precedent in the Ilokano case (see
(34b)).
Moraic theory derives vowel loss cases using ParasiticDelinking. For Middle En-
glish, this disassociates the ll/ of /talb!from its mora, thus renderingthe moraaccessible
to spreadingfrom /a! ((24)-(26)). But this mechanismis not symmetrical.If a vowel on
the left is deleted, then ParasiticDelinkingis not applicable:
(66) C cr cr
I I I
#ala # la
Since the /I/ remainslinked, it is impossiblefor the following/a! to spreadleftward, due
to the ban on crossing association lines.

In most cases of initial vowel deletion, the strandedmora would simply float and
later be deleted by Stray Erasure. Notice, however, that where exotic distributionsof
geminatesare allowed, there is anotherpossibility:the l/l could spreadleftward,creating
a geminate, whose moraic position would fall in a separate syllable. The examples of
(56) instantiateprecisely this scenario.
To make the comparisonfair, we shouldalso considerthe possibility of CL through
double flop. For moraic theory, CL is excluded here by the basic principle noted in
section 3.2: CL may only occur when a prosodic element is stranded. Once we have
finished the first flop, as in (67), there is no strandedelement:
(67)
a a
The lll may syllabify as the onset of the following syllable (again see (56)), but it is not
possible for the vowel /a/ to lengthen.
CL throughvowel loss is also subject to a numberof other typological tendencies.
As noted in section 4.2, vowel loss cases typically are confined to words in which the
vowel to be lengthenedis in an open syllable. This is predictedby the theory. If we try
a derivationparallelto (24)-(26) in which the precedingsyllable is closed, the following
configurationresults:
(68) (x Cr u
ta l pa ta l p
Here the /a/ cannotlengthenbecause of the ban on crossingassociationlines. In principle

the ll/ could lengthen, but two factors militateagainstthis: trimoraicsyllables are rare,
and consonants linked to two moras in the same syllable are likewise unusual. In Es-
tonian, both of the aberrantconfigurationsare permitted,and we actuallydo find length-
ening of the consonant correspondingto ll/ in (68). Murk (ms.) notes historical cases
like Proto-West-Finnic*kujlma-> Estonian kill:m 'cold-nom. sg.', and Prince (1980,
549) provides synchronicinstances such as /ontisa/-> [an:tsa]'happy-gen.sg.'. Estonian
is discussed furtherbelow.
CL throughvowel loss is particularlyinterestingwhen it occurs in a tone language.
Hock (1986, 437-438) notes that in such cases the syllablethat is compensatorilylength-
ened often receives a contour tone, derived from the tones of the original disyllabic
sequence. As Hock observes, this is just what we would expect, if we adopt the view
(proposedby Hyman (1985))that it is the morato which tones are associated. The basic

288 BRUCE HAYES
mechanismis shown schematicallyin (69). Tones shouldbe imaginedon a separatetier,

projectinginto the page.
(69) cr
uC CT
p p p p pa
H L H L H L H L H L
([pala]) ([pa:l])
The occurrence of tone shift as a correlateof CL suggests that CL throughvowel loss

really does involve the migrationof a mora from one syllable to another.
5.3.3. Summary. We originallyconsidered two strategies for developing a predictive
theory of CL. In X theory and its variants,explicit constraintsare imposed on what can
link to what, and on what double linkages representlength. In contrast, moraic theory
lets the representationsthemselves do the work: CL is impossible in locations where
the theory posits no prosodic position.
I have tried to show that the strategyadoptedby moraictheory is more successful.
In moraic theory, the central generalizationof Moraic Conservationfollows directly
from the representationsthemselves: no stipulationsabout possible linkingsare needed.
In contrast, the X theory strategy of stipulatingpossible linkages is complex and arbi-
trary, and in fact seems to be unworkable:the cases of section 4 indicate that any
constraints on possible linkings that could successfully predict Moraic Conservation
would rule out actually attested cases of CL as well.
Althoughthe moraictheory does not stipulateany principlesof linking,it is subject
to the generalprohibitionon crossed associationlines. This accounts for the asymmetry
in CL throughvowel loss, as well as other typological observationsabout this kind of
CL. This forms a second argumentin favor of the moraic theory.
6. Language-SpecificMoraicStructureand CL
De Chene and Anderson (1979) make the following cross-linguistic observation: CL
appears to be possible only in languagesthat have a preexistingvowel length contrast.
Their generalizationis importantfor two reasons. First, as they note, it argues strongly
against purely mechanicalphonetic accounts of the phenomenon. Second, the task of
accountingfor it imposes a strongcriterionof adequacyon theories of the prosodic tier.
De Chene and Andersonsuggest that their observationis to be explainedby placing
a structure-preservingrequirementon the phonologizationof phonetic change: only if
a language already possesses branchingsyllable nuclei7 can it reinterpretan ongoing
7 De Cheneand Andersonuse the termspeak and nucleusfor what in more recentworkhave been called
nucleus and rhyme,respectively;I use the latterterminologyhere.

phonetic changeas a truephonologicalCL rule, with phonemiclong vowels in the output.

For example, the schematicform (70b) shows a phoneticallyweakened syllable-final[s],
depicted as [A]. The phonetic diphthong[aA] can be phonologically reinterpretedas
long [a:] (as in (70c)) only if the languageallows branchingnuclei.
(70) a. a
O /NC
NC
I I I
pas = [pas]
b. cr Phonetic Weakening
A\
ON C
p a A =[paA]
c. cr Phonologization
A
ON
I N
XXX
IV
pa = [pa:]
This notion of structure preservation can also be appealed to in a moraic theory,

with slightly different predictions emerging. Recall the claim that moraic structure is in
part language-specific. That is, in languages that lack syllable weight distinctions as well
as phonemic vowel length distinctions, all syllables receive just one mora, so that a
syllable like /pas/ would be represented as follows:
(71) cr
pas
If the lsl of this syllable is deleted, no mora will be stranded, and CL will not occur. By
parallel reasoning, CL is a logical possibility in all languages that have bimoraic syllables.
For this reason, moraictheory and de Chene and Anderson's nucleus theory make
differentpredictions. For CL to occur, the nucleus theory requiresthe preexistence of
phonemic long vowels, whereas the moraic theory requires the preexistence of heavy
syllables. The difference between the theories is in practice subtle, for the following

290 BRUCE HAYES
reason: the languagesthat have a vowel length contrast and the languagesthat have a
distinction of syllable weight appearto be largely coextensive.
To distinguishthe theories, we need to find the rare languages that lack a vowel
length distinctionbut nonetheless have a distinctionbetween monomoraicand bimoraic
syllables, where the latterwould take the form CVC. Such a distinctionwould be evident
from stress rules or other prosodic phenomena. In two such languages I know of, we
find CL, in accordancewith the predictionsof moraictheory.
Ilokano has no phonemic vowel length contrast; all surface vowel length is pre-
dictable. However, the Ilokano stress system does refer to syllable quantity,that is, to
the distinction between CV and CVC syllables; for details, see Vanoverbergh(1955).
Ilokano has a productive process of reduplication,which copies initial CoVC-. When
applied to stems that begin with /COV?. . ./, this process would be expected to place
/?/ in syllable-finalposition. However, /?/ is not allowedsyllable-finally,andwhat surfaces
in these cases is a long vowel. For example, from the stem da Pit 'sew' we get [da:da?it]
'is sewing'.
The most likely historicalorigin of this patternis a CL rule of the following sort:
(72) V ?-* V: / ]syl
Although internal evidence suggests that CL has been reanalyzed as a phenomenon
internalto the reduplicationsystem (see Hayes and Abad (forthcoming)),the basic point
remains:a languagethat lacks a vowel lengthcontrast,but has a syllableweight contrast,
can create surface long vowels througha process essentially equivalentto CL.
The other relevant case is provided by Hock (1986, 453), who observes that An-
dalusian Spanish innovated vowel length throughthe weakeningand loss of word-final
/s/. The relevance of a syllable weight contrast (CVC vs. CV) in the stress system of
Spanish is well known (Harris (1983)).8
The upshot of this discussionis that in the rarecases where a languagehas a syllable
weight contrast without a vowel length contrast, the weight contrast alone appears to
be sufficientfor CL. I take this as evidence that it is the moraic structureof a language,
and not its vowel inventory, that determines whether CL may occur. De Chene and
Anderson's nucleus-basedproposal comes close to accountingfor the facts; but this is
due to the substantialoverlap of the set of syllable weight languages with the set of
vowel length languages.
This point is significantin evaluatingmoraictheory and X theory. In X theory, CVC
syllables in all languageshave the same structureon the prosodic tier, namely, XXX.
Whether a language has a syllable weight distinction makes no difference to the rep-
resentation.In contrast, moraictheory representsCVC variably,dependingon whether
8 Roca (1988),citingborrowedformssuch as WashingtonandR6binson,claimsthat quantityis irrelevant

to Spanish stress. However, as Roca admits (p. 418), these borrowingsare unassimilatedand tend to be
regularized(Washingt6n).Moreover,the generalizationsbased on syllable weight hold for the vast bulk of
the Spanish vocabulary,and made-upforms that violate them are judged as ill-formedby native speakers
(Harris(1983, 10-11)).

the language has a weight distinction. The preconditionsfor CL noted above indicate
that the prosodic structureof the syllable does indeed vary on a language-particular
basis, favoringthe moraictheory over X theory and its variants.
7. Trimoraic Syllables
I have postponed to this point the question of whether the maximumnumberof moras
per syllable is always two. We are now in a position to address this matter.
Syllable weight is usually viewed as a binary opposition; this would be expressed
in moraic theory as an upper limit of two moras per syllable. No matter how many
consonantswe appendto CVCor CVV, they are simplyadjoinedto the last mora,making
the syllable no heavier. A two-moralimit makes interestingpredictions. For instance,
consonant loss in a doubly closed syllable should not result in CL. The disappearing
consonant shares a mora with another consonant, so that its deletion fails to strand a
mora (see McCarthyand Prince (forthcoming)):
(73) a cr (x U
/ --> R
1fN
su l tn i
I1 su ItIn i
Some sketchy data from Harms (1968) suggest that this outcome can in fact arise.
In Komi Izma, an Altaic language,underlying/sul.ta.li/ becomes [su:tali] 'I stood up',
with CL from loss of /I/. But /sult.ni/ (in (73)) becomes [sutni] 'to stand up', with no
CL. This differencefollows immediatelyif we assume that Komi imposes an upperlimit
of two moras per syllable.
Despite this, I believe that a good case can be made that trimoraicsyllables do exist,
at least in some languages.The argumentsare as follows.
First, cases can be found in which CL does arise in doubly closed syllables. Most
of these are in word-finalposition, where the right results can be obtained through
judicious use of extrametricalconsonants. But in Proto-Germanic,the loss of [g] before
[x] gave rise to CL even in nonfinaldoubly closed syllables (Wrightand Wright(1925)),
as in *Oauxta --> Oa:xta, ModernEnglish thought. Such a change is not derivableunless
we suppose that the syllable Oayxwas trimoraic.The derivationwould be as follows:
(74) U U U U cr
Oa jxta Oa xta Oa xta

Second, the distinctions of syllable weight referred to by stress rules sometimes
require us to posit trimoraicsyllables. Pandey (ms.) shows that in a dialect of Hindi
superheavy syllables (CVVC, CVCC) are consistently treated differentlyfrom heavy

292 BRUCE HAYES
syllables (CVV, CVC);roughly,superheavysyllablespatternlike heavy-lightsequences,

no matter where they occur in a word. Van der Hulst (1984) likewise argues for the
relevance of trimoraicsyllables in stress assignmentin Dutch.
Third,a case for trimoraicsyllables can be madefrom Persianquantitativemetrics.
In this system light syllables correspond to a short metrical position (-l) and heavy
syllables to eithera long metricalposition (I-I)or two shorts(/- -/). Superheavysyllables
(CVVC and CVCC) are scanned as I- -/). If we make the usual assumptionsfor quan-
titative metrics (I-Icorrespondsto two moras, /-l to one), then the superheavysyllables
must count as trimoraic.Interestingly,the "ultraheavy"CVVCC syllables of Persian
are scanned as /- -l as well, suggestingthat an upper limit of three moras is in effect.
The proposed moraicstructureof Persiansyllables is summarizedunder (75). For fuller
discussion, see Elwell-Sutton(1976)and Hayes (1979).
(75) a. Light b. Heavy c. Superheavy d. Ultraheavy

(J ~ ~~
ar (J ar(
4
v/V / I
be tta baed ta bd s t da st
Finally, the existence of trimoraicsyllables is supportedby languagesthat have a
three-way vowel length distinction. Since in moraic theory vowel length is represented
by the number of moras linked to a vowel, a IV/-/V:/-/V:: / opposition requires that
/V:: / appearin a trimoraicsyllable. Three-wayvowel length contrasts are found in Es-
tonian (Lehiste (1966), Prince (1980), Murk (ms.)), as well as in various Germanand
Danish dialects (Hock (1986)). Historically, they all appearto have arisen via CL-in
particular,through vowel loss in the following syllable. Hock presents the following
historical derivations for the three-way distinction in the Dithmarschen/Stavenhagen
dialect of German:
(76) a. 'speak-2 sg.' b. 'speak-I pl.' c. 'speak-I sg.'
*sprikst *sprekn *spreko Originalforms
spre:kn spre:ko V V: / ]y
spre::k Schwa loss with Cl
sprekst spre:kn spre::k Modernforms
The shift from spre:kdto spre::k would be treated as follows by the mechanisms of
section 4.2:
(77) a cr u
spr e k a spr e k spr e k spr e k

To summarize,the existence of trimoraicsyllables is supportedby CL in doubly

closed syllables, by Hindi and Dutch stress, by Persian metrics, and by triple vowel
length distinctions. The overridinggeneralizationseems to be that althoughonset con-
sonants cannot make weight, coda segments can, even when this boosts the mora pop-
ulation of the syllable above two.
8. Earlier Accounts of CL
8.1. Hock (1986)
To my knowledge the first wide-rangingstudy of the relevance of moras to CL is that
of Hock (1986), and the debt of this article to his is substantial.In this section I discuss
the specifics of Hock's account.
Hock's idea is to adopt a moraictier, but to retaina segmentalprosodic tier as well,
for which he employs CV theory. The following derivation, adapted from Hock's ex-
ample (39), shows how he would derive a case of CL from vowel loss:
(78) CT r f cf cr
CVCV CVCV CVC

II I| I I |I I J = [bo:b]
b o b u b o b0 b o b
[L ~L VL VL IL L
ThoughI agree with the spiritof Hock's proposal, the actual mechanismis subject
to two objections. First, it appearsthat Hock's accountmultipliesentities unnecessarily,
since we do not need a segmentalprosodic tier if we have a moraic tier. Second, since
Hock's theory includes the largest amount of theoretical apparatus, it is capable of
derivingthe largestnumberof possible outcomes-and thus makes the weakest andleast
interestingempiricalpredictions.For example,it allows for bimoraicshortvowels, mono-
moraiclong vowels, and moraiconset consonants. Given this, I feel that Hock's theory
should not be adopted unless furtherdata are presented that force us to do so.
8.2. Metrical CL
In section 7 1 suggestedthatoverlongvowels necessitate trimoraicsyllables. This account
must be considered in comparisonwith a cogent alternative-namely, the metricalap-
proach to overlength originallyproposed for Estonian by Prince (1980). The core of
Prince'sproposalis this: a metricalfoot has some minimumphoneticduration.Normally,
this durationis distributedover two syllables, but in the case of overlength there is a
monosyllabic foot, so that all of the durationis awarded to a single syllable. It is the
interactionof this additionalmetricallybased durationand a normalbinaryvowel length
distinctionthat yields the surface three-wayopposition:

294 BRUCE HAYES
(79) a. Short b. Long c. Overlong

[CV CV]F [CVVCV]F [CVVIFCV
More recently Minkova(1985) and Prince (1987) have proposed that CL itself can
be metricalratherthan moraic:a segment is lost, but the durationalcontent of the foot
it occupied is preserved. In this section I will present some reasons for favoring the
moraic over the metricalapproach.
8.2.1. Scope of the Theories. As Prince(1987)observes, the metricalaccountis unlikely

to be a complete theory of CL. In particular,many CL varieties (see sections 5.1.1,
5.1.3, 5.1.4, 5.1.5) are foundin languagesthat lack stress and thus arguablylack metrical
structure.The vowel loss type (section 5.1.6) is indeed usuallyfound in stress languages
and usually affects only stressed vowels, as the metricalaccountpredicts. In Hungarian,
however, the vowels affected by CL are not always stressed (Kalman(1972)), making
a metricalaccount dubious. Note that the characteristicappearanceof vowel loss cases
in stress languages is to be expected in any event: vowel loss happens more often in
stress languages,anda stressedvowel is typologicallymorelikely thana stressless vowel
to reinforce itself by pickingup a stray mora.
8.2.2. Overlength Contrasts in Monosyllables. An apparent advantage of the metrical

account is that it predicts correctly that all Estonian monosyllables should have over-
length, since a monosyllabicword is necessarilya monosyllabicfoot (Prince(1980, 535)).
The moraic account makes no such prediction. But this argumentcuts both ways, be-
cause it involves a language-particular fact of Estonian. The Germandialects with over-
length freely contrastlong and overlong vowels in monosyllables:comparehu:s 'house-
nom.' with hu::s 'house-dat.', where the latter is historically descended from *hu:sa
(data from Dithmarschen/Stavenhagen,Hock (1986)).If it is an advantagethat the met-
rical account inexorablyplaces overlengthon Estonian monosyllables, then surely it is
a great disadvantagethat it necessarily places overlength on all monosyllables in the
Germandialects, contraryto fact. The Estoniandata may simply reflect an earliernear-
prohibitionon monosyllablesat the stage priorto the vowel loss that created overlength
(Murk(ms.)). The moraicaccount shouldbe favored, since it makes overlengthon mono-
syllables a contingentfact, not a necessary one.
8.2.3. Gemination Alternations in Estonian. One aspect of Estonian phonology is con-

siderably simplifiedunder a moraic account. Prince (1980)notes the following pattern:
when the morphologicalgradealternationinvolves a shiftbetween syllablesin the second
and thirddegrees of quantity(Q2 and Q3), Q2 syllables show a loss of geminationunder
certain circumstances.This loss rendersthem prosodicallyequivalentto other Q2 forms
that lack geminatesunderlyingly:

(80) Loss of Geminationand Loss of OverlengthOnly

Overlength
Strong Grade WeakGrade Strong Grade WeakGrade
(Q3) (Q2) (Q3) (Q2)
a. paa:t:ti paati kaa:lu kaalu
'boat-ill. sg.' 'gen. sg.' 'weight-part.sg.' 'gen. sg.'
b. poi:s:si poisi tei:se teise
'boy-part.sg.' 'gen. sg.' 'other-ill. sg.' 'gen. sg.'
c. tark:ka tarka tan:ki tanki
'wise-part. sg.' 'gen. sg.' 'tongs-part.sg.' 'gen. sg.'
Loss of geminationis not a general concomitantof the weak grade. When a strong
grade geminate is preceded by just a single short vowel in its syllable, then it persists
in the weak grade form:
(81) Strong (Q3): pat:tu 'sin-part.sg.'

Weak (Q2): pattu 'gen. sg.' (*patu)
For this reason Prince adds a phonologicalrule to remove the overlengthin the weak
grade in the appropriateenvironments.The rule refers to the metricalfoot (F) and is
stated as follows:
(82) Prosodic Degemination (Prince (1980, 539))

CiCi > Ci / [F ... V [ + seg] V ...]
My claim is that under a moraic analysis, this fairly complex rule is not necessary.
Under the most straightforwardmoraicinterpretationof the facts, the loss of gemination
is a directconsequenceof the shiftin syllablequantity.I adoptthe followingassumptions:
syllables in Q3 have three moras, syllables in Q2 have two moras, and syllables in Qi
(only CV is possible) have one mora. For certain syllables this means that the segments
groupmore than one to a mora, but for any given syllabletype enoughmorasare present
to represent the possible length contrasts.
For those morphologicalenvironmentsin which the grade alternationis manifested
by overlength, I posit the following rule:
(83) To go from strong grade to weak grade, remove the third mora.
This is simply the moraic expression of the quantity shift, correspondingto Prince's
"Basic Grade Principle" (1980, 538). The advantageof expressing the rule moraically
is that it automaticallyeliminatesgeminationin the appropriateforms, as the following
derivations show:

296 BRUCE HAYES
(84) a. Gemination Lost

(r CF cr cr CF
r (
F/
/FFAF vs. W
1VT
pa ti pa t i ka lu ka I u
[paa:t:ti] [paati] [kaa:lu] [kaalu]
ff C cr er C (Jr a CF
a
1>F1t
/T---> v s. >F/
---A/
po i s i po i s i te i se teise
[poi:s:si] [poisi] [tei:se] [teise]
(J CF cr ff 9 (
>A t L/4L Avs.

--->
ta r k a ta rka tan k i tank i

[tark:ka] [tarka] [tan:ki] [tanki]
b. Gemination Retained
pa t u pa t u
[pat:tu] [pattu]
The ability to derive the patternof geminationloss as an automaticconsequence of the

loss of overlength seems a clear advantageof the moraic analysis.
The analysis may appearto derive its advantageby ignoringthe phonetic facts. For
example, the [aa:] of kaa:lu is linked to three moras, whereas the [aa:] of [paa:t:ti]is
linked to two. Similarly,the [t:t] of [pat:tu]is linked to two moras, the [t:t] of [paa:t:ti]
to one. But the phonetic facts may be closer to what the moraic analysis predicts than
to what the standardtranscriptionsays. Ojamaa's (1976) comparative measurements
show the following results, among others:
(85) [aa:] in [kaa:ta] (3 moras) 243 msec

[aa:] in [kaa:t:ta] (2 moras) 183 msec
[aa] in [kaata] (2 moras) 196 msec

[t:t] in [kat:ta] (2 moras + onset) 221 msec

[t:t] in [kaa:t:ta] (1 mora + onset) 202 msec
[tt] in [katta] (1 mora + onset) 151 msec
[s:] in [kas:ta]: (2 moras) 131 msec
[s:] in [kaa:s:ta] (1 mora) 72 msec
[s] in [kasta] (1 mora) 98 msec
The general picture that emerges from Ojamaa'sdata is that althoughno account lets
us read durationsdirectlyoff the phonologicalrepresentation,the moraictheory comes
somewhat closer to the phonetic facts than the traditionaltranscriptionsdo. The same
conclusion can be drawnfrom Lehiste's (1966)consonant durationmeasurements.
8.2.4. Summary. The argumentsof this section were as follows: the moraic theory
provides a betteraccountof the loss of geminationin Estonian,and also a more adequate
account of the Germancases, where the crucial predictionof the metricaltheory con-
cerning monosyllablesfails. Further,the metricaltheory is not comprehensiveenough
to encompass all cases of CL, in that some arise in a mannercompletely independent
of stress and thus of metricalstructure.
It is easy to imaginedata that would decide conclusively between the metricaland
moraic accounts. In a languagewhere feet are labeled ws, the metricaltheory predicts
that loss of stressless vowels could lengthen the vowel to the right of the vowel that
deletes. The moraic theory is indifferentto metrical structureand derives right-to-left
CL for ws languagesin the same way that it does for sw stress languages.Unfortunately,
I know of no ws languagesin which CL is triggeredby vowel loss, and thus I cannot
test these predictions.
9. Conclusions
The central claim I have arguedfor is that CL is not a randomcollection of temporal
compensationsfor segmentloss. Rather,it operatesin lawfulfashion, respectingprosodic
structurein a way that is correctlycharacterizedby moraictheory. There are two crucial
phenomena:(a) CL does not compensate for segments lost from onset position. Since
onset consonantsdo not makeweight, they are not assignedprosodicpositions in moraic
theory, and thus do not induce temporalcompensationwhen they are lost. (b) CL is
confined to languagesthat have a syllable weight contrast. Moraic theory explains this
by making prosodic structurepartly language specific: only languages with a syllable
weight distinctionhave bimoraicsyllables; hence, only such languagescan have CL.
X theory (as well as its variants)is singularlyunsuitedto describingthese patterns.
It assigns the same prosodic structureto identical sequences across languages, irres-
pective of the presence or absence of a syllable weight contrast. Thus it is unable to
explain why CL occurs only when there is a preexisting syllable weight distinction.
Moreover, X theory assigns every segment in the string its own prosodic position, in-
cluding onset segments. It thus fails to explain why onset segments do not induce tem-

298 BRUCE HAYES
poral compensationwhen they are lost. One might attemptto recover the missing pre-
diction by placing constraintson what segments may associate with what positions in
the syllable. As I have tried to show, however, when X theory is applied to the more
exotic types of CL, such constraintsprove to be untenable;the situation comes close
to one in which anything can link to anything. Once this is admitted, the claim of X
theory is essentially that any segmentcan lengthento compensatefor the disappearance
of any other segment. This is clearly the wrong predictionto make.
I have also discussed a less well studied type of CL, in which the loss of a vowel
leads to CL in the preceding syllable. The proposed mechanism for this is Parasitic
Delinking,whereby vowel loss induces loss of syllable structure,renderinga stray mora
accessible to the precedingsyllable. This mechanismmakes a generalprediction:when
a strandedmoramoves to a differentsyllableon the surface, such movementmust always
be to the left, since rightwardmovement would violate the ban on crossed association
lines. All the cases of transsyllabicmovementI have found so far (the vowel loss cases,
Ilokano, and ManagerialLengthening)involve movement to the left.
Finally, I have suggested that a number of phenomena support the existence of
trimoraicsyllables. In the best-studiedcase, Estonian,it appearsthat a trimoraicaccount
offers substantialadvantagesover the alternativemetricalanalysis.
Appendix:FurtherIssues in MoraicTheory
The main body of this article focuses on issues of CL. However, moraic theory has
many consequences elsewhere in phonology, and a fair comparisonof theories requires
us to consider whether there are any significantresults that can be obtainedunder seg-
mental prosodic theories that cannot be obtainedundermoraictheory. My own view is
that this is not the case, and I will try to supportthis view in the following discussion.
Al. Onsets and Rhymes

The version of moraic theory I have adopted posits that the syllable contains no onset
or rhyme constituents, and it must thereforeprovide an alternativeaccount of the evi-
dence that has been presentedin the literaturein favor of onsets and rhymes. I believe
that although this evidence involves genuine and significant cross-linguisticgenerali-
zations, it is not necessarilybest interpretedas requiringonset/rhymeconstituency. The
three most significantargumentsare as follows.
First, the rhyme is supportedby its ability to express syllable weight distinctions,
as branchingversus nonbranching.This clearly does not distinguishbetween theories,
as moraic theory can express the same distinctionwith mora count.
A second argumentis discussed by Harris (1983) and Steriade (1988): many pho-
nological rules (such as English InrDropping,Cuban Spanish In! Velarization)are dif-
ficult to characterizein linear terms or with a structurelesssyllable but can be straight-
forwardlydescribed as applyingto segments within the rhyme. The observation seems
valid, but as Donca Steriade(personalcommunication)has suggestedto me, the relevant

distinctions can be reconstructedin moraictheory. If we assume that onset consonants

depend directlyfromthe syllablenode (McCarthyand Prince(forthcoming)),ratherthan
from the first mora (Hyman (1985)), then the notion of "rhyme-internalsegment" can
be reformulatedas "segment dominatedby pL."Steriade points out that this offers an
additionaltheory-internaladvantage:we can state that in the unmarkedcase association
of moras and segments is one-to-one.
A third argumentfor onsets and rhymes is based on the fact that cooccurrence
restrictions on segments within the syllable are typically confined to onset-internalse-
quences and rhyme-internalsequences; that is, in the normalcase a well-formedonset
plus a well-formedrhyme equals a well-formedsyllable. Thoughthis is not a universal,
it is defended as a strong tendency by Fudge (1987).
This generalizationcan also be characterizedwithout the use of the rhyme: such
constraintscharacteristicallyare constraintson total syllable weight, and thus are aptly
stated moraically.For example,in Hausaandmanyotherlanguagesthe possible syllables
are CV, CVV, and CVC; *CVVC and *CVCCare excluded. This could be described
as involving an upper limit on rhyme length of two segments. But it could equally be
characterizedas a limit of two moras per syllable and one segment per mora. Similarly,
the well-known English constraintthat allows /paynt/, but not */paymp/ and */payIJk/
(Fudge (1987, 369)), can also be stated moraically:the upperlimit on moras is two, and
only coronals may occur after the second segment of a mora.
It remainsto be seen whetherthereis a trueasymmetryin vowel-onset versus vowel-
coda dependencies, not based on weight, which would motivate onset and rhyme con-
stituents.
McCarthyand Prince(forthcoming)discuss these and other issues, such as language
games said to involve movement of the onset. In no case does there appearto be com-
pelling evidence for onset/rhymeconstituency. I differfrom McCarthyand Prince only
in explicitly rejectingthe possibility of groupingconsonants underonset or coda nodes.
Such nodes could in principlecount as prosodicpositions, which, as I have shown, must
be avoided.
A2. Contour Segments

Affricates and other contour segments are sequentialin featuralcontent but phonolog-
ically monosegmental. Segmental prosodic theories represent them as segment se-
quences linked to a single slot. For example, Clementsand Keyser (1983, 35) represent
the distinctionbetween Polish IciI 'whether' and Itsi/ 'three' as in (86):
(86) a. /ci/: C V b. /tsi/: C C V

AI
t 'si ~~III
t 's i
Since moraic theory posits no prosodic slots for onset segments, it is incompatiblewith
this account.

300 BRUCE HAYES
However, as McCarthyand Prince (forthcoming)point out, moraic theory is com-

patible with an alternativerepresentationfor affricatesproposed by Sagey (1986, 49-
52): an affricateinvolves sequentialbranchingfor the feature [continuant],within a tree
model of segmentstructureof the kindproposedin Clements(1985).Sagey andMcCarthy
and Prince argue that such a representationis to be preferredon independentgrounds
to the representationof (86a). I will not repeat their discussion here.
A3. lyil and Iwul

Under normalassumptions, syllables beginningwith /yi/ and /wu/ are not easy to rep-
resent under the version of moraic theory I am proposing. Although such syllables are
missing from many languages (Kawasaki (1982)), they are not so rare as to be exotic.
The most obvious way of representingsuch syllables in moraic theory would be as in
(87):
(87) a. a b. C
/i = /yi/ A//=Iwu/
uu
But the representationsof (87)violate the ObligatoryContourPrinciple(OCP),a principle

that, althoughcontroversial(Odden(1986a;1988)),does a greatdeal of work in nonlinear
phonology; see McCarthy(1986)and much other work.
Anotherpossibility, suggestedby McCarthyand Prince (forthcoming),is as in (88):
(88) a. C b. ur
1 u
The difficultywith this proposal,as Janeway(1987)has pointedout, is that it necessitates

placing actual syllable structure in underlyingforms, to distinguish /yi/ from lil and
/wu/ from /uI. As noted earlier, there is good reason to place only moraic structure,not
syllable structure,in underlyingforms, in order to derive the cross-linguisticgenerali-
zation that syllable division is always predictable. Adopting (88) would destroy this
prediction.
The best answer, I believe, is to adopt Hyman's (1985) suggestion that, at least in
some languages, glides differ from vowels in being [ + consonantal]ratherthan [ - con-
sonantal]. Such a featuraldifferencewould allow us to represent /yi/ and !wu/ without
violating the OCP:

(89) a. b.
/ I = /yil /=wu/
+ cons 1 - cons + cons 1 - cons
+ hi
son + hig hison + son
+ high + high + high + high
- back - back + back + back
etc. L etc. [ etc. L etc.
The (rathernumerous)languagesin which lyil and /wul are ill-formedrepresent/y! and

Iwl as [ - consonantal],thus rulingout /yi! and Iwu/ by the OCP.
Phonetic observation,at least of English, supportsHyman's suggestion. In the pro-
nunciationsof Englishye and woo I have observed, Iy/ and Iw! have considerablygreater
constrictionthan the followingvowel, suggestingthey are phonologicallyless sonorous.
In CentralAlaskan Yupik glides actually contrast with vowels when they occur in
coda position, as in surface minimalpairs such as (90) (Woodbury(1987, 687)):
(90) a. 'he was excellent at makingboats'
[aJijyali:yul1u:ni]
b. [aUiyaliyyulh:ni]'he was EXCELLENT at makingboats'
Coda consonants in this languageare arguablymora-bearing;hence the contrast can be
depicted only if glides and high vowels are featurallydistinct:
(91) a. (u
V = [i:yu]
- cons + cons - cons
+ son + son + son
+ high + high + high
- back] L-back] L +back
b. cr (
I I [iyyu]
~~~=
-cons +consl [-cons
+ son + son + son
+ high + high + high
- backL - back] L+ back]
As Hyman (1985)points out, in Semitic languagesglides may appearin consonantal

302 BRUCE HAYES
roots, most dramaticallyin the root Iy/ yayay 'to write the letter y' (McCarthy(1981,
396)). RepresentingSemitic glides as [A+consonantal]can solve the long-standingprob-
lem of how to indicate that they are to be mappedonto syllable-peripheralratherthan
nuclear positions.
To conclude: there is evidence that at least some glides are not the same thing as
nonsyllabichigh vowels, being featurallydistinctfrom them. A predictionof the moraic
theory adopted here is that the IyI and lwl of IyiI and /wul will normally pattern as
featurallydistinct from lil and Iu!, and not as nonsyllabicvowel segments.
A4. Syllable-Initial Geminates

The theory of moraicphonologyprovidesno straightforwardway to representa syllable-
initialgeminate.This is arguablythe rightpredictionto make on a typologicalbasis; the
great majority of geminates across languages are divided between syllables. For the
remainingcases, there are a numberof possible accounts. In many instances one can
argue that the first half of the geminateis actually a separate syllable, as in (92):
(92) yu
C
/u= [mma]
ma
This appears to be the correct representationfor Luganda, where the first half of a
geminate (even an obstruent)is tone-bearing(Clements (1986)). It also appears to be
correct for Ponapeian(McCarthyand Prince (forthcoming)).
Another possibility is that syllable-initialgeminates have two segmentalpositions,
as in (93):
(93)
vv a
This is a plausibleaccountfor Russian, where such geminatesarise throughthe deletion
of jer vowels. In some dialects of Russian (Jones and Ward(1969))syllable-initial[s,s,]
arises by simplificationof /sc/, which would yield the same structure.
This account violates the OCP, but this seems less reason to reject it than for (87).
The reason is that the OCP violations are derived by morphemeconcatenation or by
phonological rule, and are not underlying. The evidence in favor of the OCP seems
considerably strongerfor underlyingrepresentationsthan for derived forms.
A thirdpossibility is to allow a stray mora to occur extrasyllabically,as in (94):

(94) C
V.L = [mma]
ma
Such a configurationwould be expected to occur only word-initially,as word-peripheral
position is characteristicof extrasyllabicelements (Steriade(1982), Ito (1986)).Restric-
tion to word-initialposition does appearto be a typical propertyof syllable-initialgemi-
nates cross-linguistically.
The upshot is that moraictheory provides straightforwardrepresentationsfor gemi-
nates in their usual, intervocalicposition. The locations where the theory forces us to
considermore markedanalyticalalternativesare precisely the locationswhere geminates
are uncommonacross languages.
Both syllable-initialgeminatesand the case of /yi/ and /wu/ raise a generalquestion
about the evaluationof theories. In describingthese configurations,moraictheory faces
some awkwardnessin comparisonto segmental prosodic theories. Yet these configu-
rations are demonstrablymarked,being avoided in numerouslanguages. The compen-
sation for the descriptiveawkwardnessof moraic theory is that it can be interpretedas
directly reflectingthe markednessof the relevantconfigurations.In contrast, segmental
prosodic theory says nothingabout why so many languagesshould avoid IyiI, /wu/, and
syllable-initialgeminates.I believe that the abilityof moraictheory to account for wide-
spread patterns of markednessshould be given more weight in assessing the evidence
than any particularawkwardnessin the analysis of individuallanguages.
References
Abraham,R. C. (1951) TheIdoma Language, Idoma Native Administration,Nigeria.
Allen, W. S. (1973)Accent and Rhythm,CambridgeUniversity Press, Cambridge.
Bichakjian,B. (1986) "When Do LengthenedVowels Become Long? Evidence from Latin and
French," in L. Wetzels and E. Sezer, eds. (1986).
Campbell,A. (1959) Old English Grammar,OxfordUniversity Press, London.
Chomsky, N. and M. Halle (1968) The Sound Pattern of English, Harperand Row, New York.
Clements, G. N. (1985)"The Geometryof PhonologicalFeatures," Phonology Yearbook2, 225-
252.
Clements, G. N. (1986) "CompensatoryLengtheningand ConsonantGeminationin Luganda,"
in L. Wetzels and E. Sezer, eds. (1986).
Clements, G. N. and S. J. Keyser (1983)CV Phonology, MIT Press, Cambridge,Massachusetts.
Constantino,E. (1971)IlokanoReference Grammar,University of Hawaii Press, Honolulu.
de Chene, E. B. (1979)TheHistoricalPhonology of VowelLength, Doctoraldissertation,UCLA,
Los Angeles, California.
de Chene, E. B. (1987) "CompensatoryLengtheningas Assimilation," paper presented at the
1987meeting of the LinguisticSociety of America, San Francisco.
de Chene, E. B. and S. R. Anderson(1979) "CompensatoryLengthening,"Language 55, 505-
535.

304 BRUCE HAYES
Davis, S. (1985) Topics in Syllable Geometry,Doctoral dissertation,University of Arizona, Tuc-

son. [Forthcoming,GarlandPress, New York.]
Dell, F. and M. Elmedlaoui(1985)"SyllabicConsonantsand Syllabificationin ImdlawnTashlhiyt
Berber," Journal of African Languages and Linguistics 7, 105-130.
Donegan, P. and D. Stampe (1982) "The Syllable in Phonologicaland Prosodic Structure," in
A. Bell and J. Hooper, eds., Syllables and Segments, North-Holland,Amsterdam.
Dresher, E. (1985) "Constraintson Empty Positions in Tiered Phonology," ms., Departmentof
Linguistics, University of Toronto.
Elwell-Sutton,L. P. (1976) ThePersian Meters, CambridgeUniversity Press, Cambridge.
Fudge, E. C. (1987) "BranchingStructurewithin the Syllable," Journal of Linguistics 23, 359-
377.
Guerssel, M. (1986) "Glides in Berberand Syllabicity," LinguisticInquiry17, 1-12.
Hale, K. (1973) "Deep-SurfaceCanonicalDisparities in Relation to Analysis and Change," in
T. Sebeok, ed., Current Trends in Linguistics, vol. 11, Mouton, The Hague.
Harms, R. (1968) Introduction to Phonological Theory, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New
Jersey.
Harris, J. (1983) Syllable Structure and Stress in Spanish, MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Harris, J. (1987) "Sonority and Syllabificationin Spanish," ms., Departmentof Linguisticsand
Philosophy, MIT, Cambridge,Massachusetts.
Hayes, B. (1979) "The RhythmicStructureof PersianVerse," Edebiyat4, 193-242.
Hayes, B. (1982) "Extrametricalityand English Stress," LinguisticInquiry13, 227-276.
Hayes, B. and M. Abad (forthcoming)"Reduplicationand Syllabificationin Ilokano," to appear
in Lingua.
Hock, H. (1986) "CompensatoryLengthening:In Defense of the Concept 'Mora'," Folia Lin-
guistica 20, 431-460.
Hyman, L. (1984)"On the Weightlessnessof SyllableOnsets," in C. Brugmanand M. Macaulay,
eds., Proceedings of the Tenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, Uni-
versity of California,Berkeley.
Hyman, L. (1985) A Theory of Phonological Weight, Foris, Dordrecht.
Ingria,R. (1980)"CompensatoryLengtheningas a MetricalPhenomenon,"LinguisticInquiry11,
465-495.
Ito, J. (1986) Syllable Theory in Prosodic Phonology, Doctoral dissertation, University of Mas-
sachusetts, Amherst.
Janeway, R. (1987) "Lugandain MoraicTheory," ms., Departmentof Linguistics, UCLA, Los
Angeles, California.
Jensen, J. (1977) YapeseReference Grammar,University of Hawaii Press, Honolulu.
Jespersen, 0. (1909) A Modern English Grammar on Historical Principles, Part I: Sounds and
Spellings, George Allen & Unwin, London.
Jones, D. and D. Ward (1969) The Phonetics of Russian, CambridgeUniversity Press, Cam-
bridge.
Kalman, B. (1972) "HungarianHistoricalPhonology," in L. Benk6 and S. Imre, eds., The Hun-
garian Language, AkademiaiKiado, Budapest.
Kawasaki, H. (1982) An Acoustical Basis for Universal Constraints on Sound Sequences, Doctoral
dissertation,University of California,Berkeley.
Lehiste, I. (1966) Consonant Quantity and Phonological Units in Estonian, Mouton, The Hague.
Levin, J. (1985)A Metrical Theoryof Syllabicity,Doctoral dissertation,MIT, Cambridge,Mas-
sachusetts.
Lowenstamm, J. and J. Kaye (1986) "CompensatoryLengthening in Tiberian Hebrew," in
L. Wetzels and E. Sezer, eds. (1986).

Luick, K. (1907)"Beitragezur englischenGrammatikV: zur Quantitierungder romanischenLehn-

worter und den Quantitatsgesetzenuberhaupt,"Anglia 29, 1-55.
McCarthy, J. (1979) Formal Problems in Semitic Phonology and Morphology, Doctoral disser-
tation, MIT, Cambridge,Massachusetts. [Availablefrom Indiana University Linguistics
Club, Bloomington.]
McCarthy,J. (1981) "A ProsodicTheory of NonconcatenativeMorphology,"LinguisticInquiry
12, 373-418.
McCarthy,J. (1986)"OCPEffects: Geminationand Antigemination,"LinguisticInquiry17, 207-
263.
McCarthy,J. and A. Prince (forthcoming)"Prosodic Morphology," ms., University of Massa-
chusetts, Amherst, and BrandeisUniversity, Waltham,Massachusetts.
Michelson, K. (1986) "Ghost R's in Onondaga:An AutosegmentalAnalysis of *R-stems," in
Minkova, D. (1982)"The Environmentfor Open SyllableLengtheningin MiddleEnglish," Folia
Linguistica Historica, 3, 29-58.
Minkova,D. (1985)"Of Rhymeand Reason:Some Foot-GovernedQuantityChangesin English,"
in R. Eaton et al., eds., Papers from the Fourth International Conference on English His-
torical Linguistics, John Benjamins, Amsterdam.
Murk,H. (ms.) "The GradeAlternationSystem in EstonianMorphophonology,"ms., Department
of Linguistics, University of Toronto.
Murray,R. and T. Vennemann(1983) "Sound Changeand Syllable Structurein GermanicPho-
nology," Language 59, 514-528.
Newton, B. (1972) The Generative Interpretation of Dialect: A Study of Modern Greek Phonology,
CambridgeUniversity Press, Cambridge.
Odden, D. (1986a) "On the Role of the ObligatoryContourPrinciplein PhonologicalTheory,"
Language 62, 353-383.
Odden, D. (1986b)Review of Hyman (1985),Language 62, 669-673.
Odden, D. (1981) "A Nonlinear Approachto Vowel Length in Kimatuumbi,"ms., Ohio State
University, Columbus.
Odden, D. (1988) "Anti Antigeminationand the OCP," LinguisticInquiry 19, 451-475.
Ojamaa, K. (1976) Temporal Aspects of Phonological Quantity in Estonian, Doctoral dissertation,
University of Connecticut,Storrs.
Pandey, P. (ms.) "WordAccentuationin Hindi," ms., Departmentof Linguistics, South Gujarat
University, Surat, India.
Poser, W. (1986) "JapaneseEvidence Bearingon the CompensatoryLengtheningControversy,"
in L. Wetzels and E. Sezer, eds. (1986).
Prince, A. (1980) "A MetricalTheory for Estonian Quantity,"LinguisticInquiry 11, 511-562.
Prince, A. (1987) "Prosodic Constraintson CompensatoryLengthening,"paperpresentedat the
First Conference on LaboratoryPhonology, Columbus, Ohio. [To appear in conference
proceedings.]
Repetti, L. (ms.) "CompensatoryLengtheningin Friulian,"ms., Programin RomanceLinguistics,
UCLA, Los Angeles, California.
Rialland,A. (1986) "Schwa et syllabes en frangais,"in L. Wetzels and E. Sezer, eds. (1986).
Roca, I. (1988) "TheoreticalImplicationsof SpanishWord Stress," LinguisticInquiry 19, 393-
423.
Sagey, E. (1986) The Representation of Features and Relations in Nonlinear Phonology, Doctoral
dissertation,MIT, Cambridge,Massachusetts.
Sezer, E. (1986) "An AutosegmentalAnalysis of CompensatoryLengtheningin Turkish," in

306 BRUCE HAYES
Steriade, D. (1982) Greek Prosodies and the Nature of Syllabification, Doctoral dissertation, MIT,
Cambridge,Massachusetts.
Steriade, D. (1988)"Review Article:Clementsand Keyser, CV Phonology," Language 64, 118-
129.
Timberlake,A. (1983a)"CompensatoryLengtheningin Slavic, 1: Conditionsand Dialect Geog-
raphy," in D. Worthand V. Markov,eds., From Los Angeles to Kiev, Slavica, Columbus,
Ohio.
Timberlake,A. (1983b)"CompensatoryLengtheningin Slavic, 2: Phonetic Reconstruction,"in
M. Flier, ed., American Contributions to the Ninth International Congress of Slavists,
Slavica, Columbus,Ohio.
Trutenau,H. M. J. (1972) "Synchronic/DiachronicVariationof the Type /CV11V1/ - /C1V / in
the Ga Language," in Proceedings of the Seventh International Congress of Phonetic Sci-
ences, Montreal, Mouton, The Hague.
van der Hulst, H. (1984) Syllable Structure and Stress in Dutch, Foris, Dordrecht.
Vanoverbergh,M. (1955)Iloko Grammar,CellarBook Shop, Detroit.
Wetzels, L. (1986) "PhonologicalTimingin Ancient Greek," in L. Wetzels and E. Sezer, eds.
(1986).
Wetzels, L. and E. Sezer, eds. (1986) Studies in Compensatory Lengthening, Foris, Dordrecht.
Wilkinson,K. (1988)"ProsodicStructureand LardilPhonology,"LinguisticInquiry19, 325-334.
Woodbury,A. (1987) "MeaningfulPhonologicalProcesses: A Considerationof CentralAlaskan
Yupik Eskimo Prosody," Language 63, 685-740.
Woodbury, H. (1981) "The Loss of a Phoneme," International Journal of American Linguistics
47, 103-120.
Wright,J. andM. Wright(1925)OldEnglishGrammar,3rded., OxfordUniversityPress, London.
Department of Linguistics
UCLA
Los Angeles, California 90024-1543


Compensatory Lengthening in Moraic Phonology (B. Hayes) PDF

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Compensatory Lengthening in Moraic Phonology (B. Hayes) PDF

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Compensatory Lengthening in Moraic Phonology

Author(s): Bruce Hayes

This content downloaded from 195.34.79.223 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 15:58:33 PM

1. Introduction: The Prosodic Tier

Linguistic Inquiry, Volume 20, Number 2, Spring 1989

This content downloaded from 195.34.79.223 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 15:58:33 PM

= [ta] = [ta:] = [tat]

Moraic theory is not a segmentaltheory, as there is no level at which segment count is

This content downloaded from 195.34.79.223 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 15:58:33 PM

to a language's criterion of syllable weight. In contrast, segmental prosodic theories

This content downloaded from 195.34.79.223 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 15:58:33 PM

constraints(for instance, stress, metrics, and Iambic Shortening).In contrast, in Lardil

2.]. Underlying Forms and Rules

It is often assumed that syllabicity is not representedon the segmentaltier. If this

This content downloaded from 195.34.79.223 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 15:58:33 PM

at at at ant ant ant

I assume that an underlyinggeminate(one mora)or long syllabic consonant (two moras)

This content downloaded from 195.34.79.223 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 15:58:33 PM

has its consonantmelody "flopped" onto a followingvowel-initialsyllable. This creates

I' 'I,; I'^ S\:

(10) Weightby Position

IL jL where u dominates only F

This content downloaded from 195.34.79.223 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 15:58:33 PM

atta apta a pta a t a

1t''1 1 ''1 V '1 1 '

Weightby Positionis formulatedto producesyllableswith a maximumof two moras.

This content downloaded from 195.34.79.223 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 15:58:33 PM

3. CompensatoryLengtheningin X Theoryand MoraicTheory

I Discussion of furtherissues in moraicphonologynot directlyrelatedto CL appearsin the Appendix.

This content downloaded from 195.34.79.223 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 15:58:33 PM

(14) *smereo: -> mereo: 'deserve-i sg.-pres.'

(15) a. Isl Deletion

c. Example: *kasnus -* ka:nus

/I\ //N A1\ A\

This content downloaded from 195.34.79.223 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 15:58:33 PM

+ coda sequence. The assumptionbehind this, following McCarthy(1979) and others,

This argumentfor X theory is due to Ingria(1980).He expresses it in a differentnotation,

3.2. Moraic Theory

(17) a. Isl Deletion

/kr*/t\L,4P V/?\ / [ka:nus]

The assignmentof a mora to the coda consonant/s! is well motivated:CVC syllables in

This content downloaded from 195.34.79.223 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 15:58:33 PM

/11 /1K'~1-/1I /1I = [nurus]

3.3. On the Status of Compensatory Lengthening Conventions

This content downloaded from 195.34.79.223 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 15:58:33 PM

This content downloaded from 195.34.79.223 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 15:58:33 PM

4.1. Double Flop

This content downloaded from 195.34.79.223 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 15:58:33 PM

4.2. CL by Vowel Loss

This content downloaded from 195.34.79.223 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 15:58:33 PM

This content downloaded from 195.34.79.223 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 15:58:33 PM

This content downloaded from 195.34.79.223 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 15:58:33 PM

4.3. CLfrom Glide Formation

This content downloaded from 195.34.79.223 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 15:58:33 PM

This content downloaded from 195.34.79.223 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 15:58:33 PM

?ayo 'to cheer up' ?ayw-en 'cheer up-goal

b a gi enb a gien i ag iag

This content downloaded from 195.34.79.223 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 15:58:33 PM

This content downloaded from 195.34.79.223 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 15:58:33 PM

(34) a. Compensatory Lengthening (X Theory)

This content downloaded from 195.34.79.223 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 15:58:33 PM

(36) a (x Stray Erasure

This content downloaded from 195.34.79.223 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 15:58:33 PM

c. Example: kasnus - ka:nus