on the role of margin phonotactics in colloquial bamana ... · nat lang linguist theory (2014)...

Nat Lang Linguist Theory (2014) 32:499–536DOI 10.1007/s11049-013-9208-6

On the role of margin phonotactics in ColloquialBamana complex syllables

Christopher R. Green · Stuart Davis ·Boubacar Diakite · Karen Baertsch

Received: 28 June 2010 / Accepted: 7 May 2012 / Published online: 26 October 2013© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Abstract Data from two closely related varieties of Bamana (Bambara), a Mandelanguage spoken in West Africa, reveal that these varieties differ significantly fromone another in terms of the syllable shapes they permit in their inventories. A com-parison of normative ‘standard’ Bamana and that spoken by a young cohort of indi-viduals in the Malian capital, Bamako, reveals that the latter colloquial variety hassynchronically developed complex CCV and CVC syllable shapes, while the norma-tive variety permits only maximal CV syllables. We posit that this development ofcomplex syllable shapes in Colloquial Bamana is a result of an overall drive towardsword minimization in the language and that the language’s chosen trajectory of min-imization is predicted and best analyzed in reference to the Split Margin Approachto the syllable (e.g., Baertsch 2002). This paper formalizes Colloquial Bamana in anoptimality-theoretic framework and details preferential vowel and consonant deletionpatterns that create complex syllable shapes, the role of syllable margin phonotacticsin driving these patterns, and other important phonological characteristics of the lan-guage that interact with and/or prevent minimization from occurring.

C.R. Green (B)Center for Advanced Study of Language, University of Maryland, 7005 52nd Avenue, College Park,MD 20742, USAe-mail: [email protected]

S. Davis · B. DiakiteIndiana University, 1021 E. Third Street, Memorial Hall 322, Bloomington, IN 47405, USA

S. Davise-mail: [email protected]

B. Diakitee-mail: [email protected]

K. BaertschDepartment of Linguistics, Southern Illinois University at Carbondale, Carbondale, IL 62901, USAe-mail: [email protected]

mailto:[email protected]




500 C.R. Green et al.

Keywords Syncope · Syllable structure · Split Margin Approach · OptimalityTheory

1 Introduction

The emergence of complex syllables in Colloquial Bamana has been discussed in re-cent work (e.g., Diakite 2006; Green and Diakite 2008; Green et al. 2012) in whichpatterns of deletion and minimization, as well as implications for syllable theory andsyllable typology have been preliminarily explored.1 These works have not yet pro-vided a complete look at complex syllable emergence in Colloquial Bamana wordsof the gamut of shapes and sizes, the systematicities of processes contributing to theemergence of such syllables, or instances in which complex syllables fail to be formedas otherwise predicted. These earlier works have, however, posited that a phonolog-ically more complex variety of Bamana, described thus far as Colloquial Bamana(henceforth CB), has emerged (or perhaps diverged) from a more phonologically con-servative and historically normative variety of the language, e.g., Standard Bamana(henceforth SB). These studies introduce data concerning the synchronic addition oftwo complex syllable types to the CB inventory, namely (1) CCV syllables containingcomplex onsets of rising sonority in which the first consonant of the onset is typicallyan obstruent and the second is a sonorant and (2) CVC syllables with singleton sono-rant codas.2 We illustrate below that complex syllables arise in CB primarily throughvowel syncope and, more specifically, via the preferential syncope of [+hi] vowels.Because SB generally permits only maximal CV syllables, the introduction of CVCand CCV complex syllables into the CB syllable inventory represents a significantchange to the phonology of the language.3 In this study, we motivate and formalizethe development of complex syllables in CB in an optimality theoretic framework andillustrate that syncope is driven largely by the interaction of markedness constraintson preferred syllable peaks (i.e., *PEAK[+hi] and *PEAK[-hi]) alongside a family ofindividual and conjoined margin constraints belonging to two complementary marginhierarchies, namely the M1 and M2 margin hierarchies, proposed in Baertsch (2002).We begin by adopting classic Optimality Theory (Prince and Smolensky 1993/2004)

1Portions of the data and analysis reported in this paper have been presented by the authors at variousconferences held in 2009 and 2010. Data were collected from elicitation sessions with two native speakersof Bamana in Bamako, Mali, in July–August 2010, and from the third author, who is also a native speakerof the language, in 2009–2010.2CCV syllables with nasal + liquid clusters have also been attested in some CB words.3The exception to this is a small number of words with NC unit segments (i.e., pre-nasalized stops) inword-initial position, vowel-initial borrowings, and emergent nasal codas arising upon the juxtapositionof phonemic nasal vowels and plosives resulting in NC sequences across a syllable boundary. To be clear,word-initial NC sequences are considered unit segments, rather than a sequence of a nasal + obstruentoccupying a complex onset (Bird 1977; Creissels 1989; Konatè and Vydrine 1989). These pre-nasalizedstops contrast with plain stops in word-initial position and are not found in other word positions. Basedupon these observations, in word-internal positions, we assume that a nasal + consonant sequence derivedby vowel deletion is separated by a syllable boundary. This follows from language internal evidence, aswell as general principles of sonority sequencing.

Margin phonotactics in Colloquial Bamana 501

as the basis of our analysis and indicate instances in which additional machinery isnecessary to address attested forms that are not well-captured by this instantiation ofthe framework.

By appealing to Baertsch’s M1 and M2 margin hierarchies and her Split Mar-gin Approach (SMA) to the syllable, we illustrate that the language-specific rank-ing of constraints contained in these margin hierarchies is responsible for yieldingthe consonant-consonant sequences permitted in syllable margins and in the syllablecontact sequences that result in CB. Furthermore, we show that the synchronic emer-gence of CCV and CVC syllables in CB is a development predicted by this model.In addition to showing the ability of these constraints (via their ranking relative toFAITH) to permit or prohibit certain sequences of consonants from co-occurring, weillustrate how the margin constraints at play in CB interact with constraints on sylla-ble markedness and segmental faithfulness in the constraint hierarchy that have thenet result of either facilitating minimization or preventing syncope from occurringaltogether.

The paper is organized as follows. Section 2 provides additional background onthe emergence of complex syllables in CB, an explanation of earlier work on the sub-ject, and the goal of the current paper to expand upon this earlier work. The sectionalso introduces the treatment of syncope in a standard optimality-theoretic frameworkdriven by the competition between constraints militating against peak markednessand those aiming to preserve segmental faithfulness. Section 3 discusses the SMA(Baertsch 2002), its predictions, and the role that the constraints in its dual hierar-chies play in driving the emergence of complex syllables of specific shapes and typesin CB. Section 4 proposes a role for metrical structure in explaining instances wherecomplex syllables do not emerge as otherwise expected in the language. Section 5offers discussion of syncope patterns that implicate the presence of prosodic struc-ture above the level of the syllable in this language. A brief conclusion follows inSect. 6.

2 Resolving SYNCOPE

The impetus driving the exploration into a formal mechanism to account for the syn-chronic emergence of complex syllables in CB arose in part from provocative datafirst reported in earlier descriptive work (e.g., Diakite 2006; Green and Diakite 2008).These earlier papers introduce and offer evidence supporting the derivation of CBfrom more phonologically conservative varieties of Bamana, for example StandardBamako Bamana or perhaps Ségou Bamana. While these studies only preliminarilyexplore vowel syncope, they discuss the importance of constraints on syllable phono-tactics in the application of the syncope process. It is this line of research that weexpand upon here. The aim of the current paper is to tease apart the mechanism un-derlying the cover constraints MINIMIZE-SYLLABLE and SYNCOPE that were pro-posed in Diakite (2006) and Baertsch and Davis (2009), respectively, and to offera formalization of this process in further detail. To begin our presentation of data,we first adopt a standard constituent-based model of the Bamana syllable and later


develop a detailed characterization of Bamana syllables in reference to Baertsch’s(2002) SMA in Sect. 3. Throughout the remainder of this paper, CB data are pro-vided alongside corresponding data reported from its presumed input, namely Stan-dard Urban Bamana (SB), in order to facilitate comparison between the two languagevarieties.

2.1 Basic syncope patterning

A comparison between SB and CB data reveals that the two language varieties differmost markedly from one another in that SB retains a maximal CV syllable template(taking into consideration the exceptions noted in footnote 3), while CB permits com-plex syllables of several types in its inventory. These differing syllable inventoriesyield, for example, a word of the shape CV.CV.CV in SB, while its CB correspondentmight be CCV.CV, CVC.CV, CV.CCV, or CV.CV.CV with no change. We assume thatthe non-syncopated form of a Bamana word is its lexical form and that SB serves asthe input to CB. We draw evidence for this assumption in that the non-reduced formof a word will surface in relevant constructions (e.g., compounds and other deriva-tives) when syncope cannot be accommodated for reasons of metrical structure (forexamples, see Green 2010). Also, the tonal patterns witnessed on syncopated CBforms are clearly derived from the non-syncopated SB input forms. While we do notelaborate on this, the tonal patterns of both SB and CB forms are indicated throughoutthe paper.4

For expository purposes, and positing syncope as a characteristic of CB, thedata in (1) from CB are representative of similarly constructed words in the lan-guage and demonstrate the language’s general preference to syncopate [+hi] vow-els (i.e., [i] and [u]) from a given word. This preference is clearly illustrated inwords containing vowels of multiple heights where [+hi] vowels are preferred fordeletion when their removal does not violate the phonotactics of the language. Wediscuss details of Bamana phonotactics in Sect. 3. That this preference for [+hi]vowel deletion is not just a tendency is illustrated in words where it would other-wise appear phonotactically possible to delete either a [+hi] or [-hi] vowel (e.g.,(1c–h)). Overall, a [-hi] vowel will never be chosen for deletion if an acceptable[+hi] vowel deletion target is available. We return to this point in later discus-sion.

4Given Richness of the Base (Prince and Smolensky 1993/2004), one might assume that the reduced (i.e.,syncopated) form of the word is its lexical representation. The problem with such an assumption is thatthe non-reduced form of the word can surface in compounds. For example, the CB word for ‘prayer’, [sel]corresponds to SB [seli]. However, when this word is part of a compound in CB, a full form surfaces, asin [seli+saa] ‘sacrificial sheep’. Further, CB words that display variation between two syncopated outputforms, as shown later in (30), can best be explained with a non-reduced input. Moreover, the tones on themoras of CB reduced forms reflect their tonal quality on the corresponding moras of the SB forms; suchwould just be a coincidence if the reduced forms were assumed to be the lexical representation. Thus,while input forms with complex onsets should be considered, there is strong evidence that existing CBlexical items have non-reduced SB forms as their underlying input.


(1) High Vowel Deletion5

Standard (SB) Colloquial (CB) Glossa. [ká.bí.lá] [ká.blá] *kbi.la ‘tribute’b. [sà.fí.nE] [sà.fnE] *sfa.nE ‘soap’

c. [sì.là.mE] [slà.mE] *sil.mE ‘Muslim’d. [dù.lO.kí] [dlO.kí] *dul.ki ‘shirt’

e. [dè.lì.kó] [dèl.kó] *dli.ko ‘habit’f. [fá.rı.má] [fár.má] *fri.mã ‘brave’g. [sá.nú.má] [sán.má] *snu.mã ‘holy’h. [bá.lí.kú] [bál.kú] *bli.ku ‘adult’

Important here is that one cannot presume that this trend towards minimization viasyncope is a simple manifestation of unstressed [+hi] vowel deletion. In (2), a [-hi]vowel is readily chosen for deletion in the absence of a [+hi] vowel deletion target,provided that its deletion can be phonotactically accommodated.

(2) [-hi] Vowel DeletionStandard (SB) Colloquial (CB) Gloss

a. [cá.pá.ló]6 [cá.pló] ‘millet beer’b. [nà.mà.sá] [nàm.sá] ‘banana’c. [ká.má.lé] [ká.mlé] ‘boyfriend’

Additional Bamana data show that vowels of any type can be syncopated, andmoreover, that vowels can be removed from any word position in the appropriatecircumstances. These facts taken together support the proposition that stress (orlack thereof) does not drive the selection of a particular type of vowel for dele-tion, nor is its presence or absence active in targeting vowels found in a particularword position for deletion. Indeed, Bamana has not been reported thus far in theliterature to exhibit stress. We find no evidence motivating the presence of stressor any role that it might have in the syncope process. Importantly, the markedness-based approach to syncope motivated in this paper is noticeably different from theo-ries of syncope that necessarily refer to metrical structure manifested as stress, e.g.,

5Syllable boundaries are indicated by a ‘.’. Syllabification of word-internal complex onsets has been de-termined based both upon the judgment of the third author who is, himself, a native Bamana speaker, andupon other language-internal evidence. We argue that word-internal obstruent + sonorant sequences aresyllabified as complex onsets with rising sonority. If one were to argue that these sequences are syllabifiedsuch that the obstruent occupies the coda position of a preceding syllable and that the sonorant occupiesthe onset of the following syllable, this would lead to a sonority rise across a syllable boundary. Such astate of affairs would therefore imply the presence of less marked, level sonority obstruent + obstruentsequences across a syllable boundary in the language, which, as the data in this paper and in Green (2010)illustrate, are not attested (e.g., sàbàtí ‘stable’ in SB surfaces faithfully in CB as sàbàtí, rather than *sba.tior *sab.ti.). Moreover, as mentioned above, obstruent + sonorant sequences occur in word initial position.Tones are indicated on all vowels in the SB and CB data and are drawn in large part from Bailleul (2007)for the former variety and the first author’s fieldwork for the latter variety. We refer the interested reader toan overview of a number of controversies in Bamana tonology discussed in Creissels (1992). Importantly,tone plays no limiting role in the syncope process.6In Bamana orthography, ‘c’ denotes the voiceless affricate [Ù], ‘j’ is the voiced affricated [dZ], and [j] isdenoted by ‘y’.


Gouskova (2003) and McCarthy (2008). These well-known theories of syncope, gen-erally speaking, attribute syncope processes to being conditioned by metrical factorssuch that metrically-weak (i.e., unstressed) positions are poor licensers of prominent(i.e., unreduced) vowels. Thus, unreduced vowels in metrically-weak positions aremarked relative to reduced vowels in these positions and are preferentially reducedor, in some instances, deleted altogether. While both approaches appeal to vocalicmarkedness as a factor in syncope, the process in Bamana cannot be attributed tometrical structure manifested as stress, as systematic correlates of stress are absentfrom the language. This is not to say that metrical structure is absent altogether fromBamana. As explored later in this paper (and in detailed discussion in Green 2010),metrical structure is proposed to play a role in Bamana phonology. More specifically,disyllabic foot structure is important in defining the domain for vowel and consonantdeletion in CB; further, deletion is prevented when the outcome would be an iambicsequence (i.e., a light syllable followed by a heavy one). Reference to such metricalstructures is not indicative of stress in Bamana, where it has been argued that promi-nence is manifested as phonological weight and secondarily by length. Prosodic feethave also been reported in Bamana to play a role in tonal melody assignment (e.g.,Leben 2002, 2003; Weidman and Rose 2006; Green 2010).

Under the view that SB words serve as inputs to CB, the data in (1) reveal two keycharacteristics of CB: (1) vowel deletion is preferred to the preservation of segmen-tal faithfulness, and (2) deletion of a [+hi] vowel is preferred to deletion of a [-hi]vowel. From the first of these characteristics, there is motivation to posit a criticalranking between a constraint militating against segmental deletion and one (or more)driving syncope. Drawing from the second characteristic, there is also motivation topropose a critical ranking between constraints militating against particular syllablepeaks. The first of these is formalized in the competition between MAX-IO and thecover constraint SYNCOPE, as in (5). This ranking drives vowel syncope. A reverseranking of these two constraints would result in the selection of the non-syncopatedoutput candidate, namely the outcome found in SB.

(3) MAX-IO (henceforth MAX)—segments in the input must have an output cor-respondent

(4) SYNCOPE—minimize the number of syllables in a word7

(5) SYNCOPE � MAX-IO

(6) /bálíkú/ → [bál.kú] ‘adult’

7It is possible to equate the SYNCOPE cover constraint discussed here with Zoll’s (1996) *STRUC(σ )constraint. However, while the two constraints, as they are defined, have a similar net effect, *STRUC(σ )is intended to militate against vowel epenthesis as a repair strategy, rather than to compel vowel syncope.SYNCOPE, here, is a cover constraint comprised of constituent constraints that do, indeed, compel vowelsyncope. The replacement of this cover constraint with constraints better defining its mechanism is a keymotivation in our analysis.


Having established that syncope is active as a process, we now begin to teaseapart the role of the SYNCOPE cover constraint by replacing it with two universally-motivated constraints whose combined effects better formalize the mechanism of thesyncope process itself. The two constraints employed are drawn from Prince andSmolensky’s (1993/2004) Peak Hierarchy (i.e., *P/t � *P/d � · · · *P/i � *P/a).The Peak Hierarchy formalizes the universal preference for syllable peaks to be ofhigh sonority. For our purposes, we have extracted the relevant *PEAK[+hi] (i.e.,*P/i) and *PEAK[-hi] (i.e., *P/a) constraints from the hierarchy. Rather than utilizingan overly powerful SYNCOPE cover constraint that would force minimization viavowel loss to occur, replacing this cover constraint with two universally motivatedconstraints on peak markedness better formalizes both their competition with oneanother (i.e., choosing preferred syncope targets) and with other relevant constraintsin the constraint hierarchy.8

Tableau (8) shows that while CB permits syllables with [+hi] and [-hi] peaks, itprefers to retain [-hi] peaks, as evidenced by the consistent deletion of [+hi] vowelswhere possible. The non-syncopated candidate (8a), containing an additional [+hi]vowel, is eliminated by the higher-ranking *PEAK[+hi] constraint in favor of thesyncopated winner.

(7) *PEAK [+hi]—incur a violation for each high vowel syllable peak*PEAK [+hi] � MAX


Although the removal of a [+hi] vowel is preferred in CB, [-hi] vowel deletion ispossible in instances where a [+hi] target is not available, provided that the phono-tactics of the languages are not compromised. (Further phonotactic details follow inSect. 3.) Additional data support the observation that CB is, indeed, driving towardsminimization. Display (11) illustrates [-hi] vowel syncope.9

(9) *PEAK [-hi]—incur a violation for each non-high vowel syllable peak

(10) *PEAK [-hi] � MAX

8To be clear, for expository purposes, we have chosen to employ *PEAK [+hi] and *PEAK[-hi] to representthe general competition between the removal of high vowels and non-high vowels. As discussed in Green(2010), however, in relevant instances, there is a preference to delete a mid vowel (i.e., [e,E,o,O]) ratherthan the low vowel [a]. This, too, follows from the universals inherent in the Peak Hierarchy and does notdetract from the generalizations discussed here.9In (11), we do not show the candidate [ca.pal], which would have iambic structure. As discussed inSect. 4.2, CB tends to avoid syncopated output forms with iambic structure. It is proposed in Green (2010)that word-final CVC syllables are heavy in CB. We typically will not show such candidates in our evalua-tion tableaux.


(11) /cápáló/ → [cá.pló] ‘millet beer’

Having motivated the relationship between the *PEAK constraints and MAX,tableau (13) motivates the critical ranking between these two constraints relative toone another. In sum, the critically-ranked *PEAK constraints effectively replace theSYNCOPE cover constraint.

(12) *PEAK [+hi] � *PEAK [-hi] � MAX


Similarly, words containing all [+hi] vowels, obeying phonotactics, also illustratethe drive towards minimization, with the non-syncopated candidate losing to the syn-copated winner by accumulating multiple *PEAK[+hi] violations. The word [mì.sí.rí]‘mosque’, for example, is [mì.srí] in CB.

Thus far, we have established the preference for various instantiations of syncopein CB but have not yet considered the finer details of the language’s phonotactics,and more specifically, the role played by syllable margin phonotactics in selectingpatterns of deletion in words of other shapes. For example, in instances where syn-cope would result in phonotactically impermissible sequences, minimization fails tooccur. The following section introduces the Split Margin Approach (SMA) to the syl-lable (Baertsch 2002) and discusses its application and implications for the observedsynchronic development of complex syllable shapes in CB.

3 The Split Margin Approach to the syllable

In this section, we discuss the SMA developed by Baertsch (2002). We illustrate thatthis model is a suitable and useful theoretical means by which to formalize the phono-tactics driving syncope patterning and ultimately the emergence of complex syllableshapes in CB. This model encodes a direct structural relationship between syllableconstituents, namely those located in different margin positions (i.e., the consonantsfound in syllable onsets and codas). Baertsch’s model frames the parallel relationshipbetween consonants found in “M1” and “M2” positions in reference to the rankingof constraints in two parallel margin hierarchies that are reminiscent of Prince andSmolensky’s (1993/2004) Margin Hierarchy, shown in (14). In a SMA syllable, seenin (17), consonants located in M1 syllable positions include a singleton onset, the firstmember of a branching onset, or the second member of a branching coda. Consonantsfound in M2 syllable positions include a singleton coda and the second member of


a branching onset. The types of consonants permitted in M2 syllable positions areimportant to our discussion of CB complex syllables.

The SMA draws on the seemingly universal tendency for languages to prefer syl-lables containing consonants of certain sonority values in specific syllable marginpositions. The nucleus is, barring exceptional cases, the sonority peak of a syllable,and the sonority of elements moving away from the nucleus tends to decrease suchthat higher sonority consonants are located in positions closer to the nucleus, whilethe lowest sonority elements are located at the syllable edges. While this and relateduniversalities of margin sonority have been noted and discussed widely in the liter-ature (e.g., Clements 1990; Green 2003; Gouskova 2004; among others), the SMAformalizes these sonority relationships via the incorporation of an extension to Princeand Smolensky’s (1993/2004) Margin Hierarchy, shown in (14).

(14) Margin Hierarchy (Prince and Smolensky 1993/2004)*M/a � *M/i � *M/l � *M/n � *M/d � *M/t

This Margin Hierarchy gives preference to low sonority constituents in all syl-lable margin positions. In order to capture the fact that certain syllable positionsdo not, in fact, favor low sonority constituents, Baertsch (2002) proposed a secondmirror-image hierarchy within which certain syllable positions favor high sonorityconstituents. Baertsch captured these preferences by splitting Prince and Smolen-sky’s Margin Hierarchy into two separate but complementary Margin Hierarchies.The first of the two hierarchies, the M1 Hierarchy, follows Prince and Smolensky’soriginal proposal and shows the preference for low sonority consonants in M1 syllablemargin positions (e.g., a singleton onset). The second hierarchy, the M2 Hierarchy,captures the preference for high sonority consonants in M2 positions (i.e., a singletoncoda or the second member of a branching onset). The M1 and M2 margin hierarchiesare given in (15) and (16), respectively.10

(15) M1 Hierarchy:(*M1/[-hi] � *M1/[+hi]) � *M1/r � *M1/l � *M1/Nas � *M1/Obs

(16) M2 Hierarchy:*M2/Obs � *M2/Nas � *M2/l � *M2/r � (*M2/[+hi] � *M2/[-hi])

The M1 and M2 margin hierarchies, taken together, represent a ranked series ofconstraints on the presence of particular consonants (and vowels) in one of two typesof syllable margin positions. The M1 hierarchy shows that low sonority constituents,e.g., obstruents, are the best singleton onsets, while higher sonority elements are lesspreferred. The M2 hierarchy illustrates just the opposite tendency for a singletoncoda or the second member of a branching onset. This M2 hierarchy shows that highsonority elements, e.g., liquids, are the preferred constituents to fill these positions,while lower sonority elements are less preferred. A Split Margin syllable is shown

10The parenthesized elements in (15) and (16) are those that would be drawn into the syllable peak and,for the most part, are not relevant to our discussion of syllable margins in this paper. Consequently, whenwe refer to the M1 hierarchy in this article, we are referring only to true consonants and not to glides orvowels. We note, however, that there are glide-initial words in Bamana.


in (17). A syllable initial consonant is found in an M1 position while an M2 positionwould include elements such as the second member of a branching onset (if present)and the first member of the coda. The second member of a branching coda, if allowed,would be an M1 position. Because CB does not allow branching codas, this structurewill not be discussed further in this paper.

(17) Split-Margin syllable (adapted from Baertsch 2002)

A growing body of work drawing on the SMA has emerged detailing the intrica-cies and implications of this model of the syllable (e.g., Baertsch and Davis 2003,2009; Davis and Baertsch 2005, 2008, 2011). Beginning with phonotactic restric-tions, these earlier works have argued that, via the introduction of both individualand conjoined margin constraints into a language’s constraint hierarchy, their rank-ing relative to FAITH effectively formalizes the presence and/or absence of specificconsonant-consonant sequences within a syllable (i.e., within a complex onset) andwithin a word (i.e., in a syllable contact sequence). Margin constraints ranked aboveFAITH militate against the presence of particular segments or sequences of segmentsin syllable margins, while margin constraints ranked below FAITH indicate sounds orsequences of sounds that are readily accommodated in syllable margins.11

Let us consider, for example, a language like SB that is more phonologically con-servative in terms of the syllable shapes that it permits. By phonologically conser-vative, we mean that SB has a maximal CV syllable shape, generally speaking, andtherefore does not permit complex syllable shapes like CCV and CVC. Drawing onprinciples of the SMA (Baertsch 2002), we will assume that because SB does not per-mit complex syllables, its entire M2 hierarchy (i.e., that associated with the secondmember of a branching onset or a singleton coda) is ranked above FAITH, therebypreventing consonants from occupying these syllable positions. Because any conso-nant or glide can occupy a singleton onset in SB, corresponding *M1 constraints are

11The analysis below follows from the theoretical proposal underlying the SMA that FAITH outranksmargin constraints that permit particular consonants to occupy M2 positions. We point out, however, that inCB, the faithfulness constraint, MAX, interacts with the low-ranking *M2 margin constraints in such a waythat, in order for a violation of a relevant *M2 constraint to occur, MAX will also necessarily be violated.Thus, the true interaction (and therefore ranking) between MAX and these lower-ranked constraints isobscured. Following from this assumption, we employ a ranking of MAX � *M2/Son in the discussionand tableaux below (e.g., in (21)) although we assert that, analytically, one could otherwise employ anindeterminate ranking between these candidates with no effect on the optimal outputs predicted. The keymechanism for syncope in CB, as shown in Sect. 2, concerns the crucial relationship between the *PEAK

constraints and MAX.


located below FAITH. This ranking for SB is schematized in (18), where ‘X’ repre-sents any consonant.

(18) Standard Bamana singleton margin constraint ranking12

*M2/X � FAITH � *M1/X

This SB ranking differs from what one finds in CB, as the latter variety permitsconsonants to occupy M2 positions. For CB, while the M1 hierarchy remains belowFAITH, so too would some constraints of the M2 hierarchy be ranked below FAITH,with the exception of *M2/Obstruent. This state of affairs arises given the observationthat in no instance is an obstruent consonant permitted to occupy an M2 position inCB. That is, obstruents are never found as the second member of a branching onsetor occupying a singleton coda position. This ranking for CB is schematized in (19).

(19) Colloquial Bamana singleton margin constraint ranking*M2/Obstruent � FAITH � *M2/Sonorant, *M1/X

The demotion of the M2 markedness constraints below FAITH arguably permitsthe emergence of complex syllable shapes in CB. We next explore in more detail therole of particular types of margin constraints in this emergent language variety.

3.1 Role of *M2 constraints

The SMA asserts that a language-specific ranking of constraints on margin con-stituents relative to those preserving faithfulness and barring against other types ofmarkedness effectively drives the permissibility of different syllable shapes in a lan-guage. In CB, we see that a constraint barring obstruents from syllable codas andfrom the second position in a branching onset (*M2/Obs) is active in selecting out-puts with complex onsets of rising sonority, as it is undominated in the CB ranking.As a result, obstruents in M2 positions cannot be accommodated. On the other hand,a related constraint barring sonorants from M2 positions (*M2/Son) would be rankedlow in the hierarchy, as complex onsets with second member sonorant consonants and

12An anonymous reviewer asks what prevents the ranking *M1/X � FAITH � *M2/X, which would re-sult in a language with codas but no onsets. First, it should be remembered that *M1/X is a cover for allthe specific constraints given in (15). In this regard, we note there are languages such as Yakut (Baertsch2002) and Korean (Smith 2003) that disallow single onsets of high sonority. In such languages, constraintsmilitating against high sonority consonants in M1 positions would be ranked above FAITH, while con-straints against low sonority onsets would be ranked below FAITH. Further, it has been claimed by Breenand Pensalfini (1999) that a dialect of the Australian language Arrernte lacks onsets altogether. While theargument for this is not solid since the language does have words beginning with single consonants, iftheir claim is correct, then Arrernte could be a language with the ranking *M1/X � FAITH � *M2/X.The question then is why onsetless languages are extremely rare or perhaps non-existent. Others have dis-cussed this matter. We can follow Breen and Pensalfini (1999) and references cited therein in suggestingthat the rarity of such languages has to do with perceptual factors that identify the right edge of the conso-nant (i.e., its release) as being more perceptually salient than the transition from the vowel to the followingconsonant. Concerning this, it is interesting to observe that Arrernte has pre-stopped nasal consonants andretroflex consonants, both of which have a left edge cue of saliency that is of importance in their identifi-cation. See, in particular, Steriade (2001) and Hamann (2003) on retroflex consonants. Since we view thisexplanation for the rarity or non-existence of onsetless languages as being external to the phonology, anoptimality-theoretic grammar does not have to encode it.


singleton sonorant codas occur in the language.13 Display (20) shows the ranking ofthese margin constraints relative to other relevant markedness and faithfulness con-straints discussed above. Tableau (21) evaluates potential outputs containing complexsyllables in CB.

(20) CB M2 Ranking: *M2/OBS � *PEAK[+hi] � *PEAK[-hi] � MAX �*M2/SON

(21)

These tableaux show that both (21b) and (21d) fail to be optimal, having ob-struents in an M2 syllable margin position. The fully-faithful candidate, (21a),fails by retaining a [+hi] vowel. The winning candidate (21c) avoids these vio-lations by removing a [+hi] peak to create an obstruent-sonorant complex onset.Similarly, candidates (21e) and (21f) violate *PEAK[+hi], rendering them non-optimal compared to the winning candidate (21g) that is reduced via the dele-tion of a [+hi] vowel. Candidates (21i) and (21j) are ruled out by *M2/Obs,while the remaining two candidates are evaluated by *PEAK[+hi]. The optimalcandidate (21k) is selected owing to its fewer violations of this constraint. Theoutcome in (22) shows that the constraints (as they are ranked) also correctlypredict outputs containing a CVC complex syllable in relevant instances. Thisform results, once again, from the deletion of an offending [+hi] vowel. In thiscase, the [+hi] vowel is in a position different from the vowels deleted abovein (21).

13A reviewer asks if this means that the SMA predicts that the second position of complex onsets shouldalways pattern together with sonorant codas. The answer is no. In Sect. 3.2, we detail how complex onsetsare analyzed by the conjunction of *M1 and *M2 constraints. If, for example, the conjoined margin con-straints are undominated in a language while *M2 constraints are all ranked below FAITH, the resultantlanguage would have a maximal syllable of CVC, allowing for codas but not onset clusters. See Davis andBaertsch (2011) for discussion on how the SMA accounts for syllable typology.


(22)

As a means of comparison, one can entertain the predicted outcomes for thesesame words in SB by implementing the constraint ranking in (18) (and repeated be-low in (23)). The ranking of the entire M2 hierarchy above FAITH in SB precludescomplex onsets or codas from emerging. The outputs in this variety are fully faith-ful to the underlying form, i.e., they are unreduced. These unreduced outcomes areshown in (24).14

(23) SB *M2 Ranking: *M2/OBS � *M2/SON � PEAK[+hi] � *PEAK[-hi] �MAX

(24)

The ranking of constraints in the M2 hierarchy also accurately predicts instancesof failed minimization in CB for words whose SB inputs contain only obstruent con-sonants, as in (25). Minimization cannot occur in these words, as the deletion of anyvowel would yield an impermissible consonant in an M2 position. In such instances,a fully-faithful, non-reduced output is optimal in CB.

14The ranking of the *PEAK constraints over MAX, here, follows from arguments made above concerningthe syncope process in CB. We assume, following the SMA, that the ranking of margin constraints rela-tive to FAITH (i.e., MAX) is responsible for the difference of syllable types allowed in the two languagevarieties.


(25) Failed minimization in CB: /sàbàtí/ → [sà.bà.tí] ‘stable’

Thus far, our discussion of *M2 constraints in CB syncope has captured boththe avoidance of obstruents and the presence of sonorants in M2 margin positions.We have not yet explored, however, the finer details of the language’s phonotactics,i.e., which consonant-consonant combinations are preferred vs. actively avoided incomplex onsets and in consonant contact sequences across a syllable boundary. Al-though sonorant consonants are generally permitted in M2 positions, there are certainobstruent-sonorant sequences that are disallowed in the language. These too are pre-dicted by the SMA via its conjoined *M1&*M2 constraints.

3.2 Conjoining margin hierarchies

General principles of sonority sequencing (e.g., Steriade 1982; Clements 1990;Zec 1995; Parker 2002) suggest that an ideal branching onset is one in which a lowsonority consonant is followed by a high sonority consonant to create a sequence ofsteeply rising sonority toward the syllable peak or nucleus. This sonority preferencecan be expressed, in terms of the SMA M1 and M2 hierarchies, via the conjunctionof the lowest ranked margin constraints from each of the two hierarchies. The partialconjoined margin hierarchy in (26) shows preferred M2 constituents when the M1 isan obstruent. This creates a sequence of conjoined *M1&*M2 constraints groundedin sonority. The ranking in (26) is fixed, reflecting the M2 hierarchy in (16). Theconjoined margin hierarchy in (26) indicates that the local domain of the conjoinedconstraints is the syllable. This is necessary when the consonants in sequence aremembers of a complex onset; i.e., they are adjacent within a syllable. Conjoinedconstraints whose local domain is the word can also be employed in reference toconsonants in syllable contact sequences, i.e., they are adjacent to one another but indifferent syllables.

(26) Conjoined Margin Hierarchy (partial)σ [*M1/Obs&*M2/Obs � σ [*M1/Obs&*M2/Nas � σ [*M1/Obs&*M2/[l]� σ [*M1/Obs&*M2/[r]

Following the mechanics of Local Constraint Conjunction (e.g., Smolensky 1995;Downing 1998; Moreton and Smolensky 2002; Ito and Mester 2003) discussed inreference to the SMA (Baertsch and Davis 2003, 2009), this conjoined margin hierar-chy (and its extensions) captures the preference for complex onsets with low-sonorityM1s alongside high-sonority M2s and a general avoidance of complex onsets likeσ [*M1/Obs&*M2/Obs whose elements are both of low sonority. Via these conjoinedmargin constraints, we can better illustrate the phonotactics of consonant-consonantsequences in CB, including a complete picture of the types of sequences that are


possible in complex onsets versus syllable contact sequences. The conjoined marginconstraints proposed in Baertsch’s model could obviate the need for cover constraintslike *COMPLEX that militate against complex syllable margins. While both the con-joined margin constraints and *COMPLEX effectively limit the types and number ofcomplex syllable margins allowed, the former have the added ability to formalize therelationship between consonants in specific syllable margin positions that are eitherpermitted or not permitted, instead of banning all constituents outright. The schematicdiagram in (27) indicates permissible versus impermissible M1-M2 co-occurrences inCB where the conjoined constraints show intrinsic ranking based on the position ofthe individual margin constraints in the M1 and M2 hierarchies displayed in (15) and(16), respectively. Recall that these co-occurrences generally apply to consonants ei-ther adjacent in the syllable (where the M1 consonant precedes the M2 consonant) orin a syllable contact sequence (where the M2 consonant precedes the M1 consonant),depending on the local domain of conjunction. The solid line passing through thecenter of the diagram in (27) represents FAITH. Consonant sequences falling belowthe FAITH line are those permitted in CB, while those above the FAITH line are dis-allowed in the language. As an example, the low ranked conjoined constraint *T1/R2

permits the occurrence of obstruent + rhotic as a complex onset and a rhotic + ob-struent in syllable contact (across a syllable boundary). On the other hand, the veryhigh ranked *R1/T2 constraint disallows a rhotic + obstruent onset cluster and anobstruent + rhotic sequence across the syllable boundary.

(27) Bamana M1-M2 co-occurrence15

This diagram shows permissible consonant contact in Bamana and illustrates someof the more intricate features of the language’s syllable phonotactics. It shows theimportant role of sonority sequencing when formalizing the phonotactic restrictionsactive in the language via constraints on conjoined syllable margins. This diagramcaptures additional details, such as the differing behavior between voiced obstruent-

15The abbreviations used in this schematic are as follows: R—[r], L—[l], N—nasal consonants, D—voicedobstruents, T—voiceless obstruents. M2 obstruents do not include affricates for independent reasons. Notethat while D1/N2 sequences are not found in onsets, they can appear in syllable contact sequences as theresult of the phonetic emergence of a nasal consonant between a nasal vowel and an adjacent voiced stop.Our data, however, do not contain any instances in which a N.D sequence has arisen via syncope. Thus,such sequences are not included below FAITH in (27).


nasal sequences which are disallowed (e.g., SB /kábánó/ → CB [ká.bá.nó] ‘asylum’)and voiceless obstruent-nasal sequences which are permitted (e.g., SB /sàfínE/ →CB [sà.fnE] ‘soap’). This is also apparent in such instances as [tEnE] ‘taboo’ whichsurfaces as [tnE] in CB, while words such as [bàná] ‘to become sick’ surface intheir fully-faithful form.16 Another intricacy of Bamana phonotactics is capturedin (27) by the dark bold-line conjunctions. These conjunctions are found in sylla-ble contact sequences but not in complex onsets. N1/N2 and L1/L2 sequences arefound in CB as the result of vowel syncope, e.g., /sánúmá/ → [sán.má] ‘holy’,/sàkàkìlìla/ → sàà.kìl.lá ‘near the sheep’s testicle’.17 L1/R2 sequences, althoughpermitted in theory, are often obscured by the propensity for a rhotic consonantto assimilate to a lateral in a lateral environment, yielding L1/L2 on the surface.Such differences between permitted sequences in complex onsets versus those foundacross syllable boundaries are predicted (Baertsch and Davis 2009). As discussedbelow, it is also a prediction of the SMA that the consonant-consonant sequencespermitted in complex onsets will be a subset of those permitted across a sylla-ble boundary. The reason for this prediction lies in the fact that a consonant se-quence across a syllable boundary violates only a conjoined margin constraint thathas the word as its local domain. On the other hand, a complex onset violates boththe conjoined margin constraint with the word as its local domain and an analo-gous conjoined margin constraint that syllable as its local domain.18 Thus, a com-plex onset violates two conjoined margin constraints, while a syllable contact se-quence violates only one of these constraints. It follows, therefore, that structuresviolating more constraints (i.e., complex onsets) will be more restricted in theirinventory of possible consonant-consonant sequences. This is what we observe inCB.

Having discussed the formation and motivation behind the conjoined *M1&*M2

constraints, we illustrate their importance in the constraint hierarchy in (28) by con-sidering the permissibility of T1/N2 versus the impermissibility of D1/N2 complex

16Most commonly, the second member of voiceless obstruent-nasal complex onsets is the alveolar nasal,although velar obstruent-bilabial nasal complex onsets are acceptable for some speakers (e.g., /lOkOmá/ →[lOO.má]/[lO.kmá] ‘handful’, /tákámá/ → [táá.má]/[tá.kmá] ‘journey’), however never word-initially (e.g.,/kámálé/] → [ká.mlé] ‘boyfriend’, *kma.le). Baertsch and Davis (2009) point out that segments at the samesonority level may not pattern exactly the same way and thus may account for the inconsistent behaviorof such sequences. Such cases are proposed to be due to language-specific markedness constraints. In thisway, the approach taken by Baertsch and Davis differs from that taken in Gouskova (2004), who proposesthat segments at the same sonority level should behave identically. Moreover, Gouskova’s approach doesnot capture the formal relationship between “M2” consonants, which is an important component and ad-vantage of Baertsch’s SMA. See also Pons-Moll (2011) for a comparison between Baertsch and Davis(2009) and Gouskova (2004), though we do not comment on this here.17In certain more complex constructions, e.g., nominal and verbal compounds and other polymorphemicderivatives, more than a single instance of segmental deletion is possible. Details about reduction in theseconstructions are in Green (2010).18This interpretation of local domains in constraint conjunction is consistent with the thorough discussionon this matter in Ito and Mester (2003).


onsets in CB. Tableau (29) shows how these constraints interact with other marked-ness and faithfulness constraints and reveals that a high-ranking conjoined constrainthas the ability to drive the selection of a fully-faithful output candidate (29d) andtherefore to prevent minimization. It is important to keep in mind that, followingfrom the inherent logic of local constraint conjunction, any conjoined constraint, inorder to be active in a language, must dominate (or at least be equally ranked with)both of its component constraints.

(28) *M2/Obs, σ [*M1/VdObs & *M2/Nas � *PEAK[+hi] � *PEAK[-hi] �MAX � σ [*M1/VlObs & *M2/Nas

(29) /sàfínE/ → [sà.fnE] ‘soap’, /kábánó/ → [ká.bá.nó] ‘asylum’

Conjoined margin constraints are also potentially at play in explaining other char-acteristics of Bamana. Take, for example, like-vowel words with more than twosyllables shown in (30).19 Like-vowel words in these Bamana data refer to wordscontaining identical vowels, at least in the first two syllables of a word. These data(30a–i) show variation between CB outputs with complex onsets (CCV syllables)and those with singleton sonorant codas (CVC syllables) where one or the other ofthe two like-vowels is deleted when phonotactics are favorable. Variation betweengrammatical outputs in these instances is only found when both vowel deletion tar-gets are identical. Words that do not achieve this requirement have only a singlegrammatical output. As a point of comparison, consider words like (30j–l) illustrat-ing instances in which the phonotactics of the language permit only a single out-put.

19Bamana has a 7-vowel system with an oral series (i, e, E, u, o, O, a) and a phonemic nasal vowel serieswhere all vowels have a nasal counterpart. Thus far in this paper, a distinction has been drawn betweenthe behavior of [+hi] vowels (e.g., i,u) and [-hi] vowels (e.g., e, E, o, O, a) for the sake of simplicity.While this generalization captures the data presented in this paper, Green (2010) discusses cases where itis necessary to introduce a further distinction between mid vowels (e.g., e, E, o, O) and low vowels (i.e., a)into the language’s phonology, given that mid vowels are preferable syncope targets to low vowels whenthe choice to delete one or the other vowel presents itself, e.g., /dàmàtEmE/ → [dàmàtmE], *dam.tE.mE, ‘toexaggerate’, but such examples are not common.


(30) Variation in Syncope20

Standard (SB) Colloquial (CB) Glossa. [mE.lE.kE] [mEl.kE]/[mlE.kE] ‘angel’b. [kè.lè.kú] [kèl.kú]/[klè.kú] ‘to stumble’c. [gà.là.má] [gàl.má]/[glà.má] ‘spoon’d. [kO.lO.sí] [kOl.sí]/[klO.sí] ‘carefulness’e. [bO.rO.tO] [bOr.tO]/[brO.tO] ‘to tear apart’f. [sá.rá.tí] [sár.tí]/[srá.tí] ‘condition’g. [sú.rú.kú] [súr.kú]/[srú.kú] ‘hyena’h. [bù.lù.kú] [bùl.kú]/[blù.kú] ‘to plow’i. [kù.lù.sí] [kùl.sí]/[klù.sí] ‘pants’j. [cá.pá.ló] [cá.pló]/*[cpa.lo] ‘millet beer’k. [ká.má.l´e] [ká.ml´e]/*[kma.le] ‘boyfriend’l. [jà.là.kí] [jàl.kí]/*[jla.ki] ‘blame’

Competing strategies have been proposed in the literature to address variationin optimality-theoretic terms. One method of evaluation (e.g., Zubritskaya 1997;Anttila and Cho 1998; Davis and Torretta 1998; Auger 2001; Davis 2005) appealsto the non-crucial ranking of adjacent constraints. These studies argue that indeter-minacy between adjacent constraints in the grammar permits the alternative selectionof either output. Employing only the constraints stated thus far, this approach raisesan undesirable outcome in CB. Consider the possible ranking and tableau in (31) and(32).

(31) Possible ‘indeterminacy’ ranking for variation in output candidates*PEAK[+hi] � *PEAK[-hi] � MAX � σ [*M1/Obs&*M2/Son,Wd[*M1/Obs&*M2/Son � *M2/Son

(32) /sárátí/ → [sár.tí]/[srá.tí] ‘condition’, /bùlùkú/ → [bùl.kú]/[blù.kú] ‘to plow’

This tableau shows that variants differ only in their violations of low-rankingconjoined margin constraints with different local domains (either the syllable orthe word). An output candidate satisfying σ [*M1/Obs&*M2/Son but violatingWd[*M1/Obs&*M2/Son would be the CVC variant, whereas one in which both of

20Further restrictions on minimization due to the rhythmic structure of the language are discussed inSect. 4.2.


these constraints are violated would be the CCV variant. Given these constraintsalone, the CCV variant that can surface appears to be harmonically bounded, a stateof affairs that is otherwise deemed an analytical impossibility (e.g., McCarthy 2002).To address this clearly attested state of affairs, it is necessary to introduce an addi-tional low-ranked constraint into the hierarchy that would have the effect of favoringcandidates like (32c) and (32f) over their CVC counterparts, namely (32b) and (32e).One alternative is a constraint like NOCODA that bars against codas of all typesin all instances. A second alternative is a variation of Alber’s (2001) COINCIDE-σ ,which captures the preference that many languages have for a strong left edge. Thatis, syllable complexity is preferred at the left edge of the word. (See also Tamarit-Torres et al. 2010, for one implementation of this idea.) In the case of CB, this con-straint would penalize CVC syllables in favor of CCV syllables in order to achievethe strongest, most complex left syllable edge. An indeterminate ranking betweenσ [*M1/Obs&*M2/Son and NOCODA (or the alternative COINCIDE-σ ), for example,would permit a similar analysis to those in the above cited literature. This is demon-strated in (33) with the introduction of NOCODA. This state of affairs highlights thatthe choice between the two attested variants is left to constraints that are low-rankingin the hierarchy. Indeed, both variants satisfy the highest ranking relevant markednessconstraints and tie in their violations of *PEAK constraints and the antagonistic MAX

constraint, thus leaving them subject to the lower level constraints for evaluation.21

(33) *PEAK[+hi] � *PEAK[-hi] � MAX � σ [*M1/Obs&*M2/Son, NOCODA,Wd[*M1/Obs&*M2/Son

Thus far, the CB data have shown disyllabic reduced outcomes for words derivedfrom trisyllabic SB words. These data illustrate general syncope preferences and pat-terning in CB, as well as the importance of margin phonotactics in selecting either

21This is reminiscent of an alternative approach to variation, discussed in Coetzee (2006), which may bea promising method of evaluation for Bamana. In Coetzee’s analysis, output forms that equally satisfya specified set of high-ranking constraints are considered to be ‘well-formed enough’ in comparison toother potential output candidates and are therefore permitted to surface as grammatical variants. Coetzeesuggests that there exists in a grammar (i.e., a constraint hierarchy) a point at which output candidatesare well-formed, and thus constraint violations incurred below this point are not detrimental to the overallgrammatical well-formedness of the candidate. Candidates would differ only in their harmonicity. In thetwo evaluations in (33), candidates that violate constraints to the right of (below) MAX, where there is abold line that separates MAX from other constraints, can indeed surface just as long as they are tied on theconstraints to the left of the bold line. The details of this alternative must be left for future research.


a single output candidate or variation (in certain instances) between two candidates.More detail is uncovered by next turning to monosyllabic CB words derived fromdisyllabic SB inputs. We show in Sect. 3.3 that syncope still actively applies in thesewords but can be blocked by higher-ranking constraints on both syllable and wordphonotactics.

3.3 Syncope in shorter words

Shorter words are more restricted in their possible reductions than words with a largernumber of syllables due to the fact that they contain fewer potential syncope targets.Their outcomes demonstrate that CB strives to satisfy its overall drive towards mini-mization while still obeying more stringent restrictions. Of importance in these wordsare restrictions on word-final syllable codas. More specially, certain word-final codasare permitted in CB, but the sonorant consonants permitted to occupy this M2 po-sition are restricted in comparison to those allowed in word-internal M2 positions.It was noted above for longer words that an optimal syncopated output is always aword containing either a complex onset or singleton coda in a word-internal position.It is shown in this section that this is not always the rule for shorter words. Thusfar, we have expounded upon the preference to syncopate [+hi] vowels, however wehave not yet discussed the behavior of input SB words containing a [+hi] vowel infinal position and the general failure to delete this final vowel. This failed deletion ispredicted in instances where the onset of the ultimate syllable is an obstruent, as itwould generate an impermissible M2 obstruent coda. This avoidance is attributed tothe high-ranking of the *M2/Obs constraint. Final [+hi] vowel syncope is permitted,however, when an [l] results in word-final position. Let us consider the representativeexamples of CB monosyllables in (34).

(34) Two-Syllable Standard Bamana WordsStandard (SB) Colloquial (CB) Gloss

a. [sí.r´a] [sr´a] *sir ‘to scar’b. [fì.nE] [fnE] *fin ‘caste name’c. [bò.lí] [bòl] *bli ‘to run’d. [sé.lí] [sél] *sli ‘prayer’e. [fò.lí] [fòl] *fli ‘greeting’f. [sò.lí] [sòl] *sli ‘to wake early’g. [bú.rú] [brú] *bur ‘bread’h. [fì.nı] [fnı] *fin ‘caste name’i. [tE.nE] [tnE] *tEn ‘taboo’j. [bí.lí] [blí]/[bíl] ‘roof’k. [kí.lí] [klí]/[kíl] ‘egg’l. [fì.lí] [flı]/[fìl] ‘to err’

(34a–b) show syncope via deletion of a [+hi] vowel to yield CCV CB words withan obstruent M1 and sonorant M2. (34c–f), however, are different in that SB words ofthe shape CV[-hi][l]V[+hi] (where C is an obstruent) result in reduced CV[l] outputs.A CCV syllable is not the preferred output in these instances. These words, once


again, illustrate the preference to remove a [+hi] vowel (and the preferred creationof a CVC syllable, if possible), however this particular outcome is restricted by otherfactors. Notice, for example, in (34g–i), where there is no deletion of the final [+hi]vowel, that the input second syllable consonant is either [r] or [n], but in (34c–f), thecorresponding sonorant is [l]. Earlier work by Green and Diakite (2008) suggestedthat the sonority scale for Bamana may be such that [l] is more sonorous than rhoticsand nasals. Thus, in the limited instances where a coda consonant is permitted word-finally, only the most sonorous of the three consonants types, i.e., laterals, wouldbe accommodated. This stance, although not unreasonable, raises the question ofmodifying what is meant to be a universal sonority hierarchy, with rhotics being moresonorous than laterals (see Clements 1990). Work by Jany et al. (2007) suggests thatthe sonority of liquids can depend on word position and is language-specific.22 Withthis in mind, we assume that because CB permits only the most sonorous consonantsto occupy a word-final position, the rhotic is unable to be as sonorous in this contextand thus cannot occur in such instances of syncope. Analytically, this would call forpositional constraints on M2 sonorants, such that *M2/[r]final, for example, would behigh-ranked in the hierarchy, while *M2/[l]final would be low-ranked to permit theobserved word-final laterals.23 This state of affairs is shown in (35) and (36).24

(35) *M2/[r]final � *PK[+hi] � *PK[-hi] � MAX � *M2/[l]final, *M2/SON

(36) /búrú/ → [brú] ‘bread’, /bòlí/ → [bòl] ‘to run’

22We thank an anonymous reviewer for bringing this to our attention.23We assert that this ranking relative to other relevant constraints is justified if one also considers that*[far] is an illicit output for the input [fàrí] (see (37)). We discuss in Sect. 4.2, however, that additionalfactors are at play such that an alternative reduction, e.g., *[fri], is also non-optimal. The optimal form forsuch words is unreduced and fully faithful to the input.24We also point out other potential alternatives that could explain the distribution and behavior of word-final sonorants in CB, one of which being that [l] and [r] have opposite specifications for the feature [con-tinuant]. This is a cross-linguistically well-motivated possibility (e.g., Kenstowicz 2005; Abramson 1962;Traill 1985) and would suggest that [-continuant] liquids (i.e., rhotics) are banned from word-final position.This however leaves open the status of [continuant] for nasals, which must be taken up separately. Mielke(2005) reports that it is not unheard of for nasals to pattern with other sonorants, either [+continuant]or [-continuant], thus providing some evidence in support of rhotics and nasals patterning together. Forthe present time, we will assume that the motivating factor behind the distribution of these sounds issonority. Further, because nasals are clearly less sonorous than liquids, it is reasonable to assume that a*M2/Nasalfinal would also be undominated in the constraint hierarchy.


For data like (34j–l) which contain two identical [+hi] vowels that are eligibletargets for deletion, such words behave in a manner similar to those shown in (30)in that they exhibit free variation between two permitted syncopated outcomes whenpermitted by the language’s phonotactics.25 This variation can be attributed to theindeterminate ranking between low-level conjoined margin constraints favoring CVCsyllables and a constraint like NOCODA favoring CCV syllables, as was shown in(33).26

3.4 Blocking Syncope

Thus far, we have shown that singleton and conjoined M1 and M2 margin constraints,alongside other constraints on markedness and faithfulness, drive the choice of syn-cope targets in CB. In addition to their role in selecting types of reduced outcomes,margin constraints also play a role in determining those instances where syncope isblocked. In such instances, no reduced outcome with favorable phonotactics can begenerated, and thus, syncope fails to apply altogether. The data in (37) show input SBwords where syncope is blocked by unfavorable phonotactics.

(37) Syncope Blocked in CBStandard Colloquial Gloss

a. [sà.bá] [sà.bá] *sba ‘three’b. [dì.bí] [dì.bí] *dbi ‘darkness’c. [kí.tí] [kí.tí] *kti ‘trial’d. [fá.sá.dá] [fá.sá.dá] *fsa.da/*fas.da ‘to praise’e. [sà.bà.tí] [sà.bà.tí] *sba.ti/*sab.ti ‘stable’f. [mù.sà.ká] [mù.sà.ká] *mu.ska ‘expense’g. [dù.sù.ká.sí] [dù.sù.ká.sí] *dus.ka.si ‘heartbreak’h. [bà.ná] [bà.ná] *bna/*ban ‘to get sick’i. [ká.bá.nó] [ká.bá.nó] *ka.bno/*kba.no ‘asylum’j. [kì.bà.rú] [kì.bà.rú] *kib.ru/*ki.bru ‘news’k. [dú.kE.nE] [dú.kE.nE] *du.knE/*dkE.nE ‘courtyard’l. [té.rí] [té.rí] *ter/*tri ‘friend’m. [sá.ní] [sá.ní] *san/*sni ‘clean’n. [fà.rí] [fà.rí] *far/*fri ‘body’

In many of these data, syncope is blocked when its application would place anobstruent into an M2 position; either as the second member of a branching onset or a

25An unusual case in CB is found in words like /dOlO/ → [dlO] ‘beer’ where speakers almost unanimouslychoose a CCV outcome to an otherwise favored CVC, e.g., *[dOl]. This outcome is exceptional and mayreflect the fact that this Colloquial variety of Bamana is in a state of flux such that syncope preferences forwords of particular shapes and containing particular vowels are not yet fixed. It may also be possible thatthe lexical form of such words is, in fact, CCV. As Green (2010) discusses at length, the choice of CCV inthese instances may also be related to the fact that CB, overall, prefers complexity at the left edge of wordsresulting from a constraint like COINCIDE-σ . For other examples of a drive toward left edge complexitysee Frigeni (2009) on Sardinian and Tamarit-Torres et al. (2010) on Algherese Catalan.26As a reviewer correctly points out, this indeterminate ranking would occur higher in the constrainthierarchy than *M2/[l]final, *M2/SON. Thus, *M2/[r]final � *PEAK[+hi] � *PEAK[-hi] � MAX �σ [*M1/Obs&*M2/Son, NOCODA, Wd[*M1/Obs&*M2/Son � *M2/[l]final, *M2/SON.


singleton coda (37a–g). Recall that *M2/Obs (and, in theory, *M1/Obs&*M2/Obs) isundominated in CB, barring obstruents from M2 positions. Because such constraintsare ranked above those driving the syncope machinery of the language, syncopatedcandidates are ruled out in favor of the fully-faithful SB form, even though a fully-faithful output candidate accrues multiple violations of the lower ranking *PEAK

constraint(s). Words like (37h–i) surface faithfully for an analogous reason. Recall thedetailed conjoined margin schematic in (27) where sequences of M1/VoiObs-M2/Nasadjacent in a syllable are not permitted in CB due to a high-ranked σ [*M1/D&*M2/Nconstraint. This fact, taken alongside the restrictions on segments permitted to oc-cupy word-final codas, predicts the selection of the fully-faithful candidate in suchwords. Words like (37j–n) require additional explanation. The descriptive general-ization that these data offer is that the syncope process fails to remove a [-hi] vowelwhen a [+hi] vowel target found within a defined domain cannot be deleted. To beclear, for a SB word like [kìbàrú], although it would otherwise appear phonotacti-cally possible to generate a CB output like *[ki.bru], such an output is systemati-cally avoided in favor of a fully-faithful representation, i.e., [kì.bà.rú]. A standardoptimality-theoretic analysis utilizing margin constraints fails to predict this outcome.Additional machinery is necessary to derive these forms, as discussed in Sects. 4and 5.

3.5 Other predictions

Our CB data, thus far, reveal a parallel relationship between consonants in differ-ent syllable margin positions, as predicted by the SMA. More specifically, we haveillustrated that the language has synchronically developed complex CCV and CVCsyllables wherein the consonants permitted in M2 positions are identical, taking intoconsideration inherent differences between consonant-consonant sequences adjacentin a syllable versus those in contact across a syllable boundary. These positions areparallel to one another in a Split Margin syllable (see (17)), and thus it follows thatCCV and CVC syllable types containing M2 margin consonants should be expectedto emerge in parallel in the language’s phonology. This is precisely what we observein CB.

These synchronic changes in CB also lend support to the predictions of the SMAwith regards to diachronic changes in sound and syllable structure. For example, itwas discussed in earlier work (e.g., Baertsch and Davis 2009) that the SMA canbe applied to explain sound changes such as those observed historically in the de-velopment of unassimilated coda consonants in Campidanian Sardinian from Latin(e.g., Bolognesi 1998; Frigeni 2009). As Campidanian Sardinian emerged from Latin,the types of consonants permitted in a single syllable coda became more restricted(i.e., Latin permitted rhotics and laterals, e.g., [al.ba] ‘white’, however Sardinianpermitted only rhotics, e.g., [ar.ba] ‘white’). Furthermore, in the second positionof Sardinian complex onsets, a rhotic is found in correspondence to a lateral inLatin (e.g., /plus/ → [prus] ‘more’). Baertsch and Davis (2009) attribute the par-allel loss of laterals as the second member of a branching onset and the subse-quent permissibility of rhotics in Campidanian Sardinian as evidence implicatinga relationship between the M2 positions in these languages. Other work by these


authors highlights the parallel between (dis)allowed onset clusters and coda conso-nants in the development of Pali from Sanskrit. While these earlier works discussimplications that the model has for the tightening of restrictions on permitted sylla-ble structures, we find in CB that this prediction is equally applicable to the loos-ening of such restrictions, thereby resulting in more complexity in syllable shapesand the parallel emergence of both complex onsets and singleton codas in this lan-guage.

Having considered the process of SYNCOPE in detail, as well as the role of con-straints on syllable margin phonotactics in driving its outcomes in CB, we next turnto additional details that outline an overall trend of minimization or syllabic reductionin the language. In Sect. 4, we introduce a second process of reduction, namely VelarConsonant Deletion and consider its application and, conversely, its failed applicationin certain instances in relation to other constraints and processes at play in CB.

4 Rhythmic structure

This study offers some support to the proposal that the minimization processes un-derway in CB provide evidence for prosodic structure above the level of the syllablein the language. The presence of such structure has not been previously discussed inspecific reference to the segmental phonology of languages in the branch of Mandewhere Bamana is found. Other Mandeist linguists suggest that rhythmic structuresmay be responsible for phonological processes in certain South-Eastern Mande lan-guages (e.g., Vydrine 2003; Kuznetsova 2007). Leben (2002, 2003) and Weidmanand Rose (2006) have analogously proposed tonal feet to account for the surfacetonal patterns found in other varieties of Bamana. The relationship between theseearlier analyses and the current proposal of metrical structure is explored further be-low with specific reference to CB. While it is not the intent of this paper to discuss thefiner details of rhythmic structure, we provide evidence implicating it in driving spe-cific types of vocalic syncope in CB and in the deletion of velar consonants betweenidentical vowels in both SB and CB.

4.1 Velar consonant deletion

The deletion of velar consonants between identical vowels in CB (and often evenin SB) is not a typologically uncommon process. In Bamana, words of the shapeC1V1C2V1, where C2 is a velar stop, manifest the endpoint of a more general di-achronic progression of lenition (i.e., k → g →G → h → Ø) that yields total seg-mental loss of the velar consonant and subsequent derivation of a long vowel. Similarschemes of velar consonant deletion (VCD) have been noted cross-linguistically, forexample in Turkish (Sezer 1981), Kranichfeld German (Glover 2009), Kwasio (Dukeand Martin 2009) and in other Mande languages (e.g., Konatè and Vydrine 1989;Dumestre and Hosaka 2000; Vydrine 2008). Both SB and CB appear to have anoverall ban on diphthongs (presumably due to an undominated NODIPHTHONG con-


straint). The proposed ban on diphthongs is motivated by the fact that VCD (in bothlanguage varieties) is permitted only in those instances when the velar consonant tar-geted by the process is located between identical vowels, as in (38). If this structuralcondition is not met, VCD does not occur. Depending on the structure of a givenword, minimization may be avoided altogether (e.g., /tìkE/ → [tì.kE] ‘to cut’). Wepropose that the restrictions on this process are best explained by the fact that VCDonly occurs within a defined domain of application. (38a–i) illustrate that VCD occursbetween identical oral vowels of any type in CB. Minimization by vowel syncope tocreate a word-initial CCV syllable in such words is not permitted, as it would placean obstruent into an M2 position.

(38) Velar Consonant Deletion (VCD)Standard Colloquial Gloss

a. [sì.gí] [sìí] ‘to sit’b. [mO.kO] [mOO] ‘person’c. [tO.gO] [tOO] ‘name’d. [sà.gá] [sàá] ‘sheep’e. [dù.gú] [dùú] ‘village’f. [có.gó] [cóó] ‘manner’g. [fà.gá] [fàá] ‘to kill’h. [sO.kO.lí] [sOO.lí] ‘infection’i. [sO.kO.má] [sOO.má] ‘morning’

We argue that, upon VCD, resyllabification occurs such that the vowel of the sec-ond syllable is adopted into the nucleus of the first syllable. This generates a CVVsyllable containing a single long vowel peak. By this mechanism, VCD is a secondmeans by which CB phonology removes peaks (and therefore syllables) from thelanguage. Whether by the removal of a vowel in vowel syncope or by the removalof a velar consonant by VCD, the drive toward minimization is achieved. In VCD,high-ranked *PEAK constraints still act as the impetus to remove syllable peaks. Thepreference to remove a velar consonant, rather than a vowel (with few exceptions), iscaptured by the critical ranking of low-ranked faithfulness constraints, namely MAX-VOWEL (henceforth MAX-V) and MAX-VELAR (henceforth MAX-K). The relation-ship and ranking between these constraints captures what has become known in theliterature as a conspiracy (Kisseberth 1970). Generally speaking, a phonological con-spiracy occurs when two (or more) rules or processes act together (i.e., conspire)to achieve the same purpose. The ranking schema for a conspiracy is described, forexample, by McCarthy (2002) as MARKEDNESS1, MARKEDNESS2 � FAITHFUL-NESS1 � FAITHFULNESS2. In this schema, the two high-ranked markedness con-straints need not be critically ranked; however, they must be crucially ranked abovetwo faithfulness constraints which are, themselves, critically ranked. This relation-ship and ranking is illustrated in (39) for Bamana with an accompanying tableauin (40).

(39) *M2/Obs � *PEAK[+hi] � *PEAK[-hi] � MAX-V � MAX-K


(40) /fàgá/ → [fàá] ‘to kill’, /sOkOlí/ → [sOOlí] ‘injection’

Candidates (40b–c) and (40g) are omitted by the high-ranking margin constraint,*M2/Obs. The fully-faithful candidates are omitted due to their multiple violationsof *PEAK constraints. For /sOkOli/, in particular, the choice remains between thevowel deletion and velar deletion candidates. The critical ranking between the twoMAX constraints dictates that the latter is the optimal choice. As discussed in Sect. 5,the optimality-theoretic evaluation of VCD involving [+hi] versus [-hi] vowels hasslightly different outcomes that necessitate the division of MAX-V into constraintsthat can evaluate specific types of vowels.

While the data in (38) showed the transparent application of VCD, the data in(41) show more complex Bamana words where other restrictions effectively blockthe application of the process. Morpheme boundaries are indicated by ‘#’.

(41) Blocking Velar Consonant DeletionStandard Colloquial Gloss

a. [ñà.mà.ká.lá] [ñà.mà.ká.lá] *ña.maa.la ‘caste’b. [mE.lE.kE] [mlE.kE]/[mEl.kE] *mE.lEE ‘angel’c. [sú.rú.kú] [srú.kú]/[súr.kú] *su.ruu ‘hyena’d. [bù.lù.kú] [blù.kú]/[bùl.kú] *bu.luu ‘to plow’e. [bó.ló#ko] [bló.kó]/[ból.kó] *bo.loo ‘to circumcise’f. [kó.ló#kó.wó] [kló.kó.wó]/ *ko.loo.wo ‘window’

[kól.kó.wó]g. [lá#kà.lí#tá] [lá.kàl.tá] *laa.li.ta ‘news’

Following Green and Diakite (2008), we note that VCD does not apply in twodistinct instances. First, in words like (41a–d), VCD fails when the deletion targetis located underlyingly at what will be the onset of the third syllable of a word. Inwords like (41e–f), VCD fails when the velar target is the onset of the third syllableand also a word-internal morpheme boundary. In (41g), VCD is blocked at a mor-pheme boundary between the first and second syllable. These data show that VCDis a process affected by boundaries, but not explicitly so. For words containing nointernal morpheme boundary, clearly some other factor is at play that blocks VCD.

Green and Diakite (2008) broached that the failed application of VCD in wordslike those in (41) suggests that Bamana is a language in which prosodic structureabove the level of the syllable is active in driving the outcome of certain phonologi-cal processes. In terms of VCD itself, data in (38) and (41) point toward VCD being a


process bounded in its application by the presence of binary trochaic prosodic feet. Byproposing that binary feet are assigned left-to-right in Bamana, we find that in eachinstance, VCD occurs when its target and flanking vowels are located within a footdomain. Conversely, VCD fails to apply (in relevant instances) when a velar conso-nant and its flanking vowels are located across or otherwise split by a foot boundary.While additional details of Bamana morphology are not key to our discussion in thispaper, the relationship between phonological processes and the language’s morphol-ogy reveals interesting complexities in the language than have not been discussed inthe literature. For more on this, see Green (2010).

An alternative possibility is that VCD avoids creating iambic (i.e., light + heavy)sequences of syllables. By positing that each of the two vowels flanking the velartarget is associated with its own mora, the resulting derived long vowel that emergesvia VCD is bimoraic and therefore phonologically heavy. Comparing words in (38)and (41) alongside the examples in (42), it appears that trochaic (i.e., heavy + light)sequences are accommodated by CB, while iambic sequences are avoided.

(42) a. /dàràká/ → [dàr.ká]/[drà.ká] *da.raa ‘breakfast’b. /bùlùkú/ → [bùl.kú]/[blù.kú] *bu.luu ‘to plow’c. /ñásáká/ → [ñá.sá.ká] *ña.saa ‘twig’

(42) shows that when VCD would generate an iambic sequence, an alternative ischosen, i.e., vowel syncope or no reduction. With favorable phonotactics in place,variation is possible between CVC and CCV outcomes, as in (42a–b). When barredby phonotactics, an unreduced outcome is possible, as in (42c). This outcome, gen-erally speaking, is formalized by positing an undominated constraint, e.g., *IAMB,that disallows iambic sequence of syllables in the language. This cover constraint isa simplification of a more detailed expression of footing constraints but nonethelesscaptures the observed phenomenon. Consider the tableau incorporating the *IAMB

constraint in (44).

(43) *IAMB, *M2/OBS � *PK[-hi] � MAX-V � MAX-K � *M2/SON

(44) /sOkOmá/ → [sOO.má] ‘morning’, /ñásáká/ → [ñásáká] ‘twig’

The tableau in (44) shows that, for both inputs, costly violations of undominatedconstraints are avoided, yielding alternative outcomes. While an unreduced form isoptimal in (44e), when iambic structure is not at issue (44c), the preferred VCDprocess occurs as otherwise expected. Whether in reference to a domain of applica-


tion or the avoidance of particular sequences of syllable types, both outcomes makereference to prosodic structure above the level of the syllable. We take such out-comes as promising evidence for the presence of higher prosodic structure in Ba-mana. Others have implicated ‘foot’-like units to be responsible for surface tonalpatterns resulting from compacité tonale, or tonal compactness, in Standard Ba-mana compounds (e.g., Courtenay 1974; Dezeeuw 1979; Rialland and Badjimé 1989;Creissels 1992). Work by Leben (2002, 2003) and Weidman and Rose (2006), discusstonal feet in Bamana but make no explicit reference to a role played by the language’ssegmental phonology in defining and/or influencing their construction.

4.2 SYNCOPE and rhythmic structure

There is additional support for the presence of higher prosodic structure in Bamanain the CB SYNCOPE process. In Sect. 1, we introduced basic syncope patterns whoseoutcomes are attributed to the competition between *PEAK constraints. We illustrateda mechanism by which these constraints drive the preferred syncope of [+hi] vowels.In the absence of [+hi] vowels, however, [-hi] vowels may also be deleted in somewords. Whether or not certain [+hi] vowels are available for syncope stems fromconstraints on preferred versus dispreferred segments in M1 and M2 margin posi-tions, as well as other phonotactic constraints. The ranking of constraints relative tothe *PEAK complex has allowed us, thus far, to motivate the selection of optimal out-put candidates in CB, as well as to explain (in nearly every instance) the failed appli-cation of syncope. The proposed constraints, in their current instantiations, however,fail to predict a small number of attested but exceptional opaque outputs. We referto opaque outputs here as those attested surface forms that would not otherwise beexpected to be optimal based upon the language’s constraint hierarchy, as motivated.The presence and systematicity of such opaque outputs draws further attention to theimportance of rhythmic structure in the language. These opaque outcomes are of twotypes. First are instances of failed syncope via [-hi] vowel deletion in the face ofseemingly favorable phonotactics. These occur when a [-hi] vowel target is locatedwithin the same disyllabic domain as a [+hi] vowel that cannot be deleted for anynumber of reasons. Consider the representative data in (45), seen earlier in (37).

(45) Standard Colloquial Glossa. [fà.rí] [fà.rí] *fri/*far ‘body’b. [kì.bà.rú] [kì.bà.rú] *ki.bru/*ki.bar ‘news’c. [dù.kE.nE] [dù.kE.nE] *dkE.nE/*du.knE ‘courtyard’

For a SB word like [fà.rí] ‘body’ (45a), rather than observing a syncopated outputin CB (e.g., [fàrí] → *[fri]), the form is fully faithful. It is predicted, based upon thediscussion of word-final codas above, that a syncopated candidate where the [+hi]vowel has been removed (e.g., *[far]) is not optimal. What is yet unexplained is whyan output containing an obstruent-sonorant complex onset is not optimal. Given thedrive towards minimization and the acceptability elsewhere of onset sequences likeσ [fr, it is surprising that *[fri] is unattested. The situation is similar in (45b) wheretwo [+hi] targets are present. In this case, *[kibar] is avoided based on the language’sword-final coda condition, and *[kba.ru] is ruled out due to constraints on margin


phonotactics. An output like *[ki.bru], however, would otherwise appear possible butis not found in CB. The case of (45c), too, is similar. The generalization here is thatSYNCOPE must act preferentially on a [+hi] vowel, if one is available, or not at all.The question that stands is why.

It appears that these restrictions are directly related to the language’s higherprosodic structure. When a [+hi] vowel and a [-hi] vowel are located within a givendisyllabic domain (i.e., a foot), and the [+hi] vowel is not available for deletion,the [-hi] vowel cannot be removed, even though it might appear phonotactically fa-vorable to do so. In optimality-theoretic terms, this would mean that the combinedviolation of *PEAK[+hi] and *PEAK[-hi] resulting from a fully-faithful mapping ofSB to CB is less costly, phonologically speaking, than the combined violation of*PEAK[+hi] and MAX-V[-hi] (along with the other margin constraint violations thatwould accompany them) within a single domain. As a result, the less costly of thesetwo options is chosen, thus yielding the systematic emergence of the fully-faithfulcandidate in this and other instances. While these additive effects are not sufficientlyaccommodated in a standard optimality-theoretic framework (Prince and Smolensky1993/2004)), they are addressed and provided for in extensions of standard Opti-mality Theory, for example Local Constraint Conjunction (e.g., Smolensky 1995;Łubowicz 2005. A conjoined constraint penalizing a combination of *PEAK[+hi] andMAX-V[-hi] with a local domain of the foot is effective in disallowing an otherwisecommonplace instance of syncope, in favor of retaining a fully-faithful candidate.27

Evaluation by this constraint is shown in (47).

(46) FT[*PEAK[+hi] & MAX-V[-hi], *M2/OBS � *PK[+hi] � *PK[-hi] �MAX-V[-hi] � MAX-V[+hi]

(47)

A second type of opacity is found in words like /sábálí/ → [sá.blí] ‘calm’, wherecomplex onsets are created when a [+hi] vowel is not within a disyllabic domain withthe syncope deletion target. Minimization proceeds as expected; however we mustaddress the fact that a [+hi] vowel (which we have learned is the preferred deletiontarget in the language) is not selected for deletion when it would generate a seeminglypermitted word-final [l] coda. We know that a form like *[sba.li] would not emerge

27Another possible way to tackle this issue is in Harmonic Grammar (e.g., Smolensky and Legendre 2006;Farris-Trimble 2008). Within this framework, however, it has been argued that certain combinations ofconstraints are more costly than the simple summation of their constituent parts, thus leading scholars toappeal to proposals of superlinear constraint conjunction (Legendre et al. 2006), split additivity (Albrightet al. 2008), and constraint weight exacerbation (Khanjian et al. 2010). An exploration into these effects isbeyond the scope of the current paper; however the reader is referred to discussion of these phenomena asthey apply to CB in Green (2010).


given the overall ban on conjoined obstruent-obstruent onsets in the language, orsimply by the high-ranking position of the *M2/Obs constraint. Let us consider theremaining candidates in (48) where the attested winner is marked by ‘�’, and theincorrectly predicted winner is marked by ‘�’.

(48) /sábálí/ → [sá.blí], *[sa.bal] ‘to calm’

Candidate (48d) shows the attested winner, where the vowel targeted for syncopeis found within the first two syllables of the word. Candidate (48b), in which a [+hi]vowel has been removed, is predicted, however, by these constraints. We proposethat this outcome, once again, is in support of the fact that higher prosodic structureis at play in the choice of this seemingly opaque case of syncope. The opacity inthese instances rests in the fact that syllable weight is active in the selection of anappropriate output candidate. Recall from the discussion of VCD in Sect. 4.1 that theprocess was blocked where iambic structure would be created. This was proposedas being due to an undominated *IAMB constraint. Here, too, in the case of ‘sabali’-type words, *IAMB selects against an output like *[sabal]. By appealing to contextualweight (e.g., Rosenthall and van der Hulst 1999; Morén 2000), we propose that word-final closed syllables in Bamana are heavy and are therefore avoided in the languagewhen they would create an iamb. A CVC monosyllabic word in CB would not beproblematic given that these syllables constitute a single unary foot. Hence, wordslike those in (38) (and (34c–f)) are found in CB. Trisyllabic CB words containing afinal CVC syllable are also attested based upon similar argumentation, e.g., /k´ukófálí/→ [k´u.kó.fál] ‘wild donkey’. The removal of a word-final [+hi] vowel is permittedto yield an [l] coda, once again resulting in a heavy unary foot. By considering theoutput candidates in (49) with the addition of *IAMB, the attested output is correctlyselected.

(49) /sábálí/ → [sá.blí], *[sa.bal] ‘to calm’28

28An additional potential output candidate, *[sabal], in which the word-final sonorant consonant is notmoraic would be ruled out owing to an undominated constraint in the language requiring words to end


In this section, we have characterized the patterns and details of vowel syncopein Colloquial Bamana in light of a second, complementary process of minimization,namely VCD. We have also implicated and provided preliminary evidence for thepresence of prosodic structure above the level of the syllable in this language. Wehave proposed that the characteristics of this structure, namely the disyllabic structureof the prosodic foot domain and its ban against iambic sequences, are responsible forcertain attested departures from canonical patterns of reduction in the language. Wenext turn to discussion and some implications of our findings.

5 Discussion and implications

This paper has showed that complementary processes are underway in CB drivingsyllable minimization or reduction in the language and that the types of complex syl-lables emerging in parallel in CB, as well as that the sounds permitted to occupy themargin positions of these complex syllables, provide support for the SMA (Baertsch2002). We have illustrated that the distribution of consonants occupying M1 and M2positions is accurately predicted by the SMA and that the ranking of singleton andconjoined margin hierarchies alongside other constraints on markedness and faithful-ness drives the types of consonants found CB syllable margins. These findings arein line with the predictions spelled out elsewhere for this model of the syllable (e.g.,Baertsch and Davis 2003, 2009; Davis and Baertsch 2005, 2011). One characteristicthat we explored concerned the demotion of *M2 constraints in CB below FAITH,resulting in the subsequent emergence of complex syllables with sonorant conso-nants occupying M2 positions. We have shown that deviations between the typesof consonants permitted in syllable contact sequences and those found in complexonsets are predicted by the SMA based on differing local domains of constraint con-junction such that consonant-consonant sequences in complex onsets are somewhatmore restricted in comparison to those in syllable contact sequences. Higher-rankingmarkedness constraints, too, place restrictions on other types of reductions that canor cannot occur.

By employing the SMA, we can effectively explain the types and emergence ofcomplex syllables in CB. It should be clear in CB that the overall generalization isthat the processes of syncope and VCD conspire to achieve minimization via theloss of segmental material. Whether via the loss of a vowel or the loss of a velarconsonant, both processes aim to satisfy this drive within their means by the lossof a single segment. Overlying this aim are language-specific preferences for its im-plementation driven by the ranking of the language’s constraints. By omitting theSYNCOPE cover constraint, we have argued that vowel deletion is driven by a se-quence of *PEAK constraints that favor [-hi] vowel syllable peaks to [+hi] vowelsyllable peaks. This follows from the fact that [-hi] vowels are of higher sonority than[+hi] vowels, and thus, they are ‘better’ peaks to preserve. This is tied directly tosonority, just as we have shown for the Margin Hierarchies. The role of the *PEAK

with a moraic element. This is a reflex of contextual weight such that word-final closed syllables areheavy, given that their coda consonants must be moraic.


constraints is counterbalanced by a complementary set of MAX-V constraints rankedbelow them. Because the respective MAX-V constraints are ranked below the *PEAK

constraints, vowel syncope is compelled but controlled. The ranking of *PEAK[+hi]� *PEAK[-hi] follows from the Peak Hierarchy, while a proposed ranking of MAX-V[-hi] � MAX-V[+hi] also follow intuitively from this observation, i.e., preferredpeaks are those that the language penalizes most for removing. A third faithfulnessconstraint, MAX-K, ranked below both MAX-V constraints, effectively explains why,in most instances, VCD is a preferred means by which to achieve minimization (e.g.,‘sacrificial sheep’, /sélí#sàgá/ → [sé.lí.sáá], *sel.sa.ga). We discuss these three MAX

constraints in more detail below.We further point out that the CB data would be difficult to analyze insightfully

without reference to the SMA. One could, for example, cite constraints that preferhigh sonority codas, along the lines of Orgun (2001) and constraints that prefer onsetclusters with a certain sonority distance (Green 2003), but this would miss the paral-lel and simultaneous emergence of onset clusters and codas in the complexificationof CB syllable structure. Even if one were to incorporate the sophisticated syllablecontact theory of Gouskova (2004) that could account for the emergence of codas insyllable contact, a set of unrelated constraints would be needed to account for onsetclusters. Thus, CB provides strong evidence for the SMA.29

On the interaction between the three MAX constraints (i.e., MAX-V[+hi], MAX-V[-hi], and MAX-K) mentioned above, consider the data in (50) where Syncope andVCD are permutable variations on minimization for some word types but in directcompetition with one another elsewhere.

(50) Standard Colloquial Glossa. [sO.kO.lí] [sOO.lí] *sO.kli ‘infection’b. [sO.kO.má] [sOO.má] *sO.kma ‘morning’c. [sì.kì.lá] [sìì.lá]/[sì.klá] *ski.lã ‘chair’d. [sú.kú.ná] [súú.ná]/[sú.kná] *sku.na ‘urine’e. [dù.kù.má] [dùù.má]/[dù.kmá] *dku.ma ‘on the ground’f. [sù.gù.rí] [sùù.rí]/[sù.grí] *sgu.ri ‘pre-fasting meal’

29Another reasonable alternative for the attested CB data, as suggested by a reviewer, would be thatthe language is acting to satisfy some extension of the Obligatory Contour Principle (e.g., Leben 1973;Goldsmith 1976) such that sequences of identical vowels are dispreferred in the language. Such an anal-ysis would employ a prosodically-conditioned OCP constraint on identical vowels that would compel theomission of a fully faithful candidate containing adjacent identical vowels in favor of other reduced candi-dates. The remaining candidates would then be evaluated by lower-ranked constraints, leaving little role (ifany) for the *PEAK constraints in evaluation. This alternative could readily account for the more problem-atic CB data. That is, it would attribute the unexpected failure of words like /kìbàrú/ → [kì.bà.rú], *[ki.bru]to be reduced due to the fact that these words do not contain a sequence of identical vowels. The observedreduction of words like /kábílá/ → [ká.blá], *[ka.bi.la], which do not violate the OCP and which createidentical vowel sequences, would seem counterintuitive if, in fact, satisfaction of the OCP is the motivat-ing factor behind minimization. Thus, the *PEAK constraints (and the margin constraints) would still benecessary in addition to an OCP constraint. While we recognize that an OCP-style analysis is an attractivealternative to invoking locally-conjoined constraints, we believe that such an approach fails to capture thegeneralization inherent in the two processes of VCD and vowel syncope, as they relate to sonority and thetrade-offs between competing constraints on peak markedness and segmental faithfulness.


The CB outcomes in (50) are clearly split into two categories. (50a–b) show thatwhen a choice of a deletion target is between a velar consonant and a [-hi] vowel,minimization is always via VCD. On the other hand, when the choice of a deletiontarget is between a velar consonant and a [+hi] vowel, either outcome is grammatical,and variation between the two outcomes is attested (e.g., 50c–f).

It was shown in (44) for words like (50a–b) that a high-ranked *M2/Obs constraintand *PEAK[-hi] are responsible for removing the least optimal potential output can-didates. With the choice left between a VCD output and a Vowel Syncope output, thehigher-ranked MAX-V constraint penalizes the Vowel Syncope candidate, renderingthe VCD candidate optimal. This evaluation is repeated in (51) where the genericMAX-V constraint has been more appropriately named MAX-V[-hi] to match its*PEAK[-hi] counterpart.

(51)

The outcome and evaluation of these [-hi] vowel words differs somewhat fromwhat occurs for [+hi] vowel words. By incorporating a MAX-V[+hi] constraint, wecan more transparently motivate the two types of outcomes noted in (50). Wherea clear winner was found in (50a–b), we attribute the variation between VCD andVowel Syncope in (50c–f) to the critical ranking MAX-V[-hi] � MAX-V[+hi] onthe one hand, and the indeterminate ranking of MAX-V[+hi], MAX-K on the other.These ranking relationships capture the strict versus variable choice between the twooutcomes based upon vowel type. Tableau (52) illustrates this evaluation.

(52)

The enhanced detail offered by expanding MAX into constituent constraints thatprovide an exact counterpart to the *PEAK constraints (i.e., a classic conflict be-tween markedness constraints and their antagonistic faithfulness constraints) pro-vides a principled explanation for the observed but seemingly unusual outcome inthese words.

It is clear that the SMA has been successful in predicting the synchronic emer-gence of both CCV and CVC complex syllables in CB in a unified way. Consider, forexample, the claim of Kaye and Lowenstamm (1981) that languages with a maximal


syllable shape of CCV (i.e., onset clusters are allowed but codas are not permitted)are theoretically predicted not to occur.30 That is, an implicational relationship existssuch that languages with CCV syllables are predicted to have CVC syllables, how-ever the reverse does not hold. Baertsch’s SMA also makes the same implication, thatthe presence of an onset cluster implies the presence of a coda in that language. AsBaertsch and Davis (2003) discuss, for a given σ [*M1&*M2 conjunction, in orderfor a complex onset to be permitted, the conjoined constraint must be ranked be-low FAITH. Local conjunction is such that for a conjoined constraint to be active, itis ranked higher than its conjuncts, i.e., an *M2 constraint is ranked below its corre-sponding *M1&*M2 counterpart. Thus, a singleton coda containing an M2 consonantwould also be readily permitted. The mechanism of local conjunction therefore pre-cludes CCV without CVC. It follows under the SMA that CCV syllables imply thepresence of CVC. It should be noted that data from a number of other West Africanlanguages appear to challenge this prediction (e.g., Fon-Gbe, Eße, and Lelemi), butcomprehensive studies on the processes in these languages that lead to onset clusters(and possibly other complex syllables) have not been thoroughly undertaken. Thetheoretical complications posed by such languages become clear from the body ofwork that has emerged in which scholars minimize all syllable structure to a maxi-mal CV (see Lowenstamm 1996, 2003; Nikièma 2003, and references therein). Weleave the discussion of possible counterexamples for future research (but see Davisand Baertsch 2011 on this issue).31

Concerning variation, a number of scholars attribute observed variation in theworld’s languages to the presence of indeterminate rankings between constraintsand/or the gradual diachronic loss in stringency between two previously critically-ranked constraints. This brings us to consider the current situation and what the even-tual outcome stemming from variation might be in CB. On the one hand, it is possiblethat the constraints that we have proposed are now indeterminately ranked. Ranked inthis manner, they permit variation in outputs and may perhaps remain so ranked andcontinue to permit variation in the language as it continues to develop. On the otherhand, however, it may be the case that one or the other constraint in each pair will ul-timately win out in comparison to the other. In such an instance, a critical ranking re-lationship would be born resulting in the demotion of one constraint below one otherand, subsequently, the emergence of a single grammatical output for a given type ofwords. The resolution to variation will be especially telling in the case of CVC/CCV

30By CCV, we specifically mean languages with obstruent-sonorant onset clusters. We leave aside in thispaper the issue of the analysis of strident + obstruent clusters, which can be syllable- or word-initial insome languages, such as English and Italian, but are not permitted in CB. We point out here that oftenlanguage-internal evidence suggests that strident + obstruent clusters behave like adjunct clusters ratherthan true onset clusters (see, for example, Davis 1990 on Italian). One possible way of analyzing adjunctclusters in the SMA is to view such clusters as involving a sequence of M1 positions. We leave this matterfor future research.31In a similar way, Baertsch’s split margin approach to the syllable also predicts that in first languageacquisition, CVC syllable should emerge before (or simultaneous with) CCV syllables. Although discus-sion of the acquisition literature is beyond the scope of the present paper, it should be noted that Leveltet al. (2000), who discuss parallel and predicted trajectories of complex syllable emergence in acquisition,observe that in developmental paths of syllable complexity, CVC syllables emerge before CCV syllablesin both of their paths of development of syllable complexity.


variation discussed above. In this instance of variation, a potential resolution to thenoted variation (whether in favor of a CVC or CCV syllable) could have much to sayabout the typological predictions of both Baertsch’s and Kaye and Lowenstamm’smodels of the syllable, given the implicational relationship that exists between CVCand CCV syllables in both approaches. It follows from both approaches that CVCis predicted to be a preferred syllable shape, and thus it may prove to be the morefavored outcome in future stages of CB, all else being equal.

There remain a great number of promising expansions to the current study, in-cluded among them an exploration into the machinery used to select deletion targetsat higher levels of the language’s morphology, e.g., nominal and verbal compoundsand other polymorphemic derivatives. These and other issues are considered in somedetail in Green (2010).

6 Conclusion

In this study, we have presented a theoretically driven analysis of processes in Col-loquial Bamana that collectively apply and interact with one another in aiming tosatisfy an overall drive towards word minimization in the language. We have shownthat the Split Margin Approach to syllable structure provides an ideal formalizationof attested outputs resulting from vocalic syncope and velar consonant deletion inColloquial Bamana. These processes are influenced and bounded by the ranking ofsingleton and conjoined constraints on syllable margins alongside other markednessand faithfulness constraints at play in the language. Taken together, these constraintscompel the emergence of new syllable complexity in a language whose phonologi-cally conservative predecessor generally permits only simple CV syllables. We haveshown that both the emergence of complex syllable shapes in Colloquial Bamana andmany characteristics of the resultant syllables are correctly predicted to arise accord-ing to the principles and implications of the Split Margin Approach. We have seenthat this model of syllable structure predicts the parallel emergence of CCV and CVCcomplex syllables in Colloquial Bamana—a phenomenon that would be difficult toexpress in other theories. Furthermore, we have provided preliminary evidence for theproposal of metrical structure in this language by illustrating that, in instances wherethe transparent application of processes fails to occur in the language, it is consis-tently due to restrictions on a domain of application that resembles a disyllabic foot.In sum, margin phonotactics, alongside other constraints on the language’s prosodicstructure play a key role in driving the attested outcomes of minimization in Collo-quial Bamana.

Acknowledgements This paper has benefitted greatly from challenging comments and suggestions fromDan Dinnsen, Laura Downing, Sharon Rose, Lee Bickmore, Tracy Alan Hall, two anonymous reviewers,as well as from discussion at various conference presentations over the past two years. Any remainingerrors or shortcomings are our responsibility. The work of the first two authors was supported in part by agrant to Indiana University from the National Science Foundation under Grant No. #1023781.


References

Abramson, Arthur S. 1962. The vowels and tones of Standard Thai: Acoustical measurements and experi-ments. International Journal of American Linguistics 28(2): 1–146.

Alber, Birgit. 2001. Maximizing first positions. In Proceedings of HILP5, eds. Caroline Féry, Anthony D.Green, and Ruben van de Vivjer, 1–19. Potsdam: University of Potsdam.

Albright, Adam, Giorgio Magri, and Jennifer Michaels. 2008. Modeling doubly marked lags with a SplitAdditive Model. In Proceedings of the 32nd Boston university conference on language development,eds. Harvey Chan, Heather Jacob, and Enkeleida Kapia, 36–47.

Anttila, Arto, and Young-mee Cho. 1998. Variation and change in Optimality Theory. Lingua 104: 31–56.Auger, Julie. 2001. Phonological variation and Optimality Theory: Evidence from word-initial vowel

epenthesis in Vimeu Picard. Language Variation and Change 13: 253–303.Baertsch, Karen. 2002. An optimality theoretic approach to syllable structure: The split margin hierarchy.

Ph.D. dissertation, Indiana University, Bloomington.Baertsch, Karen, and Stuart Davis. 2003. The Split Margin Approach to syllable structure. ZAS Working

Papers in Linguistics 32: 1–14.Baertsch, Karen, and Stuart Davis. 2009. Strength relations between consonants: A syllable-based OT

approach. In Strength relations in phonology, eds. Kuniya Nasukawa and Phillip Backley, 293–324.New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

Bailleul, Charles. 2007. Dictionnaire Bambara-Français, 3rd edn. Bamako: Editions Donniya.Bird, Charles. 1977. An ka bamanankan kalan: Beginning Bambara. Bloomington: IULC Publications.Bolognesi, Robert. 1998. The phonology of Campidanian Sardinian: A unitary account of a self-organizing

structure. PhD dissertation, University of Amsterdam.Breen, Gavan, and Rob Pensalfini. 1999. Arrernte: A language with no syllable onsets. Linguistic Inquiry

30: 1–26.Clements, George N. 1990. The role of the sonority cycle in core syllabification. In Papers in laboratory

phonology I: Between the grammar and physics of speech, eds. J. Kingston and M. Beckman, 283–333. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Coetzee, Andries W. 2006. Variation as accessing ‘non-optimal’ candidates. Phonology 23: 337–385.Courtenay, Karen. 1974. On the nature of the Bambara tone system. Studies in African Linguistics 5:

303–323.Creissels, Denis. 1989. La nasalité en Bambara du Beledugu (parler de Daban). Mandenkan 17: 41–68.Creissels, Denis. 1992. Tonologie du Bambara: Bilan et perspectives. Mandenkan 24: 1–45.Davis, Stuart. 1990. Italian onset structure and the distribution of “il” and “lo”. Linguistics 28: 43–55.Davis, Stuart. 2005. Basic analysis: Compensatory lengthening and geminate throwback in Trukese. Ms.,

Indiana University.Davis, Stuart, and Karen Baertsch. 2005. The diachronic link between onset clusters and codas. Proceed-

ings of the Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society 31: 397–408.Davis, Stuart, and Karen Baertsch. 2008. Implications of the Split Margin Approach to the syllable: The

relationships between onset clusters and syllable contact sequences. Paper presented at the CIL 18,Seoul, July 2008.

Davis, Stuart, and Karen Baertsch. 2011. On the relationship between codas and onset clusters. In Hand-book of the syllable, eds. Charles E. Cairns and Eric Raimy, 71–95. Leiden: Brill.

Davis, Stuart, and Gina Torretta. 1998. An optimality-theoretic account of compensatory lengthening andgeminate throwback in Trukese. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the North Eastern LinguisticSociety 28: 111–125.

Dezeeuw, Peter H. 1979. Western Mande compound tone rules. MA thesis, Michigan State University,East Lansing.

Diakite, Boubacar. 2006. The synchronic link between onset clusters and codas in Bambara. Unpublishedmanuscript, Indiana University, Bloomington.

Downing, Laura. 1998. On the prosodic misalignment of onsetless syllables. Natural Language & Lin-guistic Theory 16(1): 1–52.

Duke, Daniel, and Marieke Martin. 2009. Pharyngealized vowels in Kwasio (Bantu A80): A case of de-voicing? Paper presented at the 6th world congress on African linguistics, August 2009.

Dumestre, Gérard, and Michiyo Hosaka. 2000. Observations sur le Bambara de Kolona (sud Mali). Man-denkan 36: 85–107.

Farris-Trimble, Ashley W. 2008. Cumulative faithfulness effects in phonology. PhD dissertation, IndianaUniversity, Bloomington.


Frigeni, Chiara. 2009. Sonorant relationships in two varieties of Sardinian. PhD dissertation, University ofToronto.

Glover, Justin. 2009. An OT account of dorsal consonant alternation in Kranichfeld German. Paper pre-sented at the 15th mid-continental workshop on phonology, Indiana University, October 2009.

Goldsmith, John. 1976. Autosegmental phonology. Bloomington: IULC Publications.Gouskova, Maria. 2003. Deriving economy: Syncope in Optimality Theory. PhD dissertation, University

of Massachusetts, Amherst.Gouskova, Maria. 2004. Relational hierarchies in Optimality Theory: The case of syllable contact. Phonol-

ogy 21(2): 201–250.Green, Tonio. 2003. Extrasyllabic consonants and onset well-formedness. In The syllable in Optimality

Theory, eds. Caroline Féry and Ruben van de Vijver, 238–253. Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress.

Green, Christopher R. 2010. Prosodic phonology in Bamana (Bambara): Syllable complexity, metricalstructure, and tone. PhD dissertation, Indiana University, Bloomington.

Green, Christopher R., and Boubacar Diakite. 2008. Emergent syllable complexity in Colloquial Bambara.Journal of West African Languages 35(1–2): 45–56.

Green, Christopher R., Stuart Davis, Boubacar Diakite, and Karen Baertsch. 2012. Domain-restricted re-duction: A proposal for segmental feet in Bamana. In Proceedings of the 41st annual conference onAfrican linguistics, eds. Bruce Connell and Nicholas Rolle, 1–9.

Hamann, Silke. 2003. The phonetics and phonology of retroflexes. PhD dissertation, Utrecht University.Ito, Junko, and Armin Mester. 2003. Japanese morphophonemics: Markedness and word structure. Cam-

bridge: MIT Press.Jany, Carmen, Matthew Gordon, Carlos M. Nash, and Nobutaka Takara. 2007. How universal is the sonor-

ity hierarchy? A cross-linguistics study. In 16th international congress of phonetic sciences, 1401–1404.

Kaye, Jonathan D., and Jean Lowenstamm. 1981. Syllable structure and markedness theory. In Theoryof markedness in generative grammar: Proceedings of the 1979 GLOW conference, eds. AdrianaBelletti, Luciana Brandi, and Luigi Rizzi, 287–316. Pisa: Scuola Normale Superiore di Pisa.

Kenstowicz, Michael. 2005. The phonetics and phonology of Korean loanword adaptation. Paper presentedat the first European conference on Korean linguistics, Leiden University, February 2005.

Khanjian, Hryar, Yasutada Sudo, and Guillaume Thomas. 2010. Modeling doubly marked lags with exac-erbation. Paper presented at the 18th Manchester phonology meeting, May 2010

Kisseberth, Charles W. 1970. On the functional unity of phonological rules. Linguistic Inquiry 1: 291–306.Konatè, Adama F., and Valentin Vydrine. 1989. Le système phonologique du dialecte bamana du Bèlèdugu

(Village de Diyòn). Mandenkan 17: 1–40.Kuznetsova, Natalia. 2007. Le status fonctionnel du pied phonologique en gouro. Mandenkan 43: 13–45.Leben, William R. 1973. Suprasegmental phonology. Bloomington: IULC Publications.Leben, William R. 2002. Tonal feet. In Proceedings, typology of African prosodic systems, Vol. 1, eds.

Ulrike Gut and Dafydd Gibbon, 27–40. Bielefeld: Bielefeld Occasional Papers in Typology.Leben, William R. 2003. Tonal feet as tonal domains. In Trends in African linguistics 5: Linguistic typology

and representation of African languages, ed. John Mugane, 129–138. Trenton: Africa World Press.Legendre, Géraldine, Antonella Sorace, and Paul Smolensky. 2006. The Optimality Theory—harmonic

grammar connection. In The harmonic mind: From neural computation to optimality-theoretic gram-mar, eds. Paul Smolensky and Géraldine Legendre, 339–402. Cambridge: MIT Press.

Levelt, Clara, Niels O. Schiller, and William J. M. Levelt. 2000. The acquisition of syllabic types. Lan-guage Acquisition 8: 237–264.

Lowenstamm, Jean. 1996. CV as the only syllable type. In Current trends in phonology, models, and meth-ods, eds. Jacques Durand and Bernard Laks, 419–443. Salford: European Studies Research Institute.

Lowenstamm, Jean. 2003. Remarks on mutae cum liquida and branching onsets. In Living on the edge: 28papers in honor of Jonathan Kaye, ed. Stefan Ploch, 339–363. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Łubowicz, Ania. 2005. Locality of conjunction. In Proceedings of the 24th west coast conference on for-mal linguistics, eds. John Alderete, Alexei Kochetov, and Chung-hye Han, 254–262. Somerville:Cascadilla Press.

McCarthy, John J. 2002. A thematic guide to Optimality Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.McCarthy, John J. 2008. The serial interaction of stress and syncope. Natural Language & Linguistic

Theory 26: 499–546.Mielke, Jeff. 2005. Ambivalence and ambiguity in laterals and nasals. Phonology 22: 169–203.Morén, Bruce. 2000. The puzzle of Kashmiri stress: Implications for weight theory. Phonology 17(3):

365–396.


Moreton, Elliot, and Paul Smolensky. 2002. Typological consequences of local constraint conjunction. InProceedings of the west coast conference on formal linguistics, eds. Line Mikkelsen and ChristopherPotts, 306–319. Somerville: Cascadilla Press.

Nikièma, Emmanuel. 2003. Defective syllables: The other story of Italian sC(C)-sequences. In Livingon the edge: 28 papers in honor of Jonathan Kaye, ed. Stefan Ploch, 365–384. Berlin: Mouton deGruyter.

Orgun, Cemil O. 2001. English r-insertion in Optimality Theory. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory19: 737–749.

Parker, Steven G. 2002. Quantifying the sonority hierarchy. PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts,Amherst.

Pons-Moll, Claudia. 2011. It is all downhill from here: A typological study of the role of syllable contactin Romance languages. Probus 23: 105–173.

Prince, Alan, and Paul Smolensky. 1993/2004. Optimality Theory: Constraint interaction in generativegrammar. Malden: Blackwell.

Rialland, Annie, and Mamadou Badjimé. 1989. Réanalyse des tons du Bambara: des tons du nom àl’organisation général du système. Studies in African Linguistics 20: 1–28.

Rosenthall, Samuel, and Harry van der Hulst. 1999. Weight-by-position by position. Natural Language &Linguistic Theory 17(3): 499–540.

Sezer, Egin. 1981. The k/ØAlternation in Turkish. In Harvard studies in phonology, Vol. 2, ed. George N.Clements. Bloomington: IULC Publications.

Smith, Jennifer. 2003. Onset sonority constraints and subsyllabic structure. Rutgers Optimality Archive,ROA-608.

Smolensky, Paul. 1995. On the structure of the constraint component CON of UG. Rutgers OptimalityArchive, ROA-86.

Smolensky, Paul, and Géraldine Legendre. 2006. The harmonic mind: From neural computation tooptimality-theoretic grammar. Cambridge: MIT Press.

Steriade, Donca. 1982. Greek prosodies and the nature of syllabification. PhD dissertation, MassachusettsInstitute of Technology, Cambridge.

Steriade, Donca. 2001. Directional asymmetries in place assimilation: A perceptual account. In The roleof speech perception in phonology, eds. Elizabeth Hume and Keith Johnson, 219–250. San Diego:Academic Press.

Tamarit-Torres, Francesc, Claudia Pons-Moll, and Maria Cabrera-Callis. 2010. Rhotic metathesis in Al-gherese Catalan: A harmonic serialism account. Poster presented at the Hispanic linguistics sympo-sium, Indiana University.

Traill, Anthony. 1985. Phonetic and phonological studies of !Xóõ Bushman. Hamburg: Helmut BuskeVerlag.

Vydrine, Valentin. 2003. La phonologie gouro: deux décennies après Le Saout. Mandenkan 38: 89–113.Vydrine, Valentin. 2008. Lélé: présentation d’une langue. Paper presented at the 2e colloque international

sur les langues et la linguistique mandé.Weidman, Scott, and Sharon Rose. 2006. A foot-based reanalysis of edge-in tonal phenomena in Bambara.

In Proceedings of the 25th west coast conference on formal linguistics, eds. Donald Baumer, DavidMontero, and Michael Scanlon, 426–434. Somerville: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.

Zec, Draga. 1995. Sonority constraints on syllable structure. Phonology 12(1): 85–129.Zoll, Cheryl. 1996. Parsing below the segment in a constraint based framework. PhD dissertation, Univer-

sity of California, Berkeley.Zubritskaya, Katya. 1997. Mechanism of sound change in Optimality Theory. Language Variation and

Change 9: 121–148.

on the role of margin phonotactics in colloquial bamana ... · nat lang linguist theory (2014)...

Documents