17

CHAPTER 2. SYLLABIC VARIATION AND

EMERGENT PHONETIC CONDITIONING *

Toshihiro Oda

1. Introduction

The number of syllables is likely to be invaried in the regular way, and equal

to that of vowels and syllabic consonants; for instance, little, final no doubt

consist of the disyllables and extension the trisyllables. It fluctuates

commonly between the di- and tri-syllables in certain words, as noted in

Borowsky (1989:149), Giegerich (1992:131), Gimson and Cruttenden

(1994:182), Jensen (2000:197), Kahn (1980:35), Roach (2002:76) and Wells

(1965:110, 1995:402):1

(1) 2 syl. or 3 syl.: cuddly, cycling, bottling, rattling, settling, wrestling,

coupling, gambolling, settler, threatening

3 syl. or 4 syl.: realistic

In highly general terms, syllabic phonology specifies that consonants shift in

the same position (either onsets or codas) or across the boundary

(resyllabified) and that vocoids tend to be weakened in unstressed syllables

and strengthened in stressed syllables. Any of these result in the stability on

* Earlier versions of this article were presented at the 22nd Northwest Linguistic Conference

(Simon Fraser University, Vancouver, 2006 February), CUNY Phonology Forum on the

Word (New York City, 2010 January), and Phonology of Contemporary English: Variation

and Change (University of Toulouse-Le Mirail, 2012 February). 1 This article does not address the contemporary accents in the south of England, but focuses

on the issue that although the British scholars have mentioned for long years, the essential

issue in functional phonology is unclear. Like some other contemporary papers, it presents the

superiority of the phonetic basis to the phonological one.

18

the number of syllables. The phenomenon where the sonorants affiliate to

either of the two syllabic positions in the extraordinary way causes the

controversy to make in the phonology and, thus, has to be individually and

explicitly analysed.

Directed to the essence of the argument, the divergence between them comes

from the one on whether the medial /l/ is syllabified to the nucleus (3

syllables) or the onset (2 syllables). Borowsky refers to the latter as the

‘casual speech variant’, which corresponds with the derivative form which

the other sonorants do not contain. According to Kahn, wrestling is more

commonly the disyllable. The tendency toward this allophonization depends

on each of the words. We will term this theme syllabic variation in the sense

that the affiliations of the segments provide the binary status for the number

of the syllables.2 The cited books and papers touched on this and have not

presented a conditioning behind them during the decades. In what certain

English scholars (p.c., two British, one American) note, the two suffixes play

a distinctive role and, at first glance, this might settle the conundrum on the

syllabic variation. The morpheme structures on cycling are analysed as

<cycle> + <-ing> and <cyc> + <-ling>; each of them results in the syllabic

[l] (trisyllabic) and the nonsyllabic [l] (disyllabic). Owing to the apparent

exceptions, however, the suffixations turn out to be insufficient and, I

observe, the internal structure and the functional basis remain unsolved.

Roach (2002:ibid.) states that “[m]ore research is needed in this area for

English.” This paper investigates the issue of whether the idea with the

general agreement might have some flaws or of whether the alternative one

can better account for this theme. It deserves the close examination beyond

the simple descriptions.

2 The term syllabic variation can be well compared with allophonic variation. Both of them

shift from underlying to surface forms. The former is implied to be the difference in the

number of syllables and the latter the one in the contextual sounds.

19

Assuming the surface alternations derived in the ranked constraints, the

interaction of the onset and the syllabic consonant formation yields the two

forms at issue. Both of them are active on many of the medial sequences and

differentiate between the English-internal and crosslinguistic features. The

syllabic variations, however, do not occur for many of them and should be

settled outside the hierarchy of the constraints. The idea that the consistency

or the decrease in the number of the syllables stems from the isochrony is

also off the point. The explicit evidence on it is not shown in any regard. The

explanatory locus does not lie in the phonological side.

The syllabic variation is assumed to have a coarticulatory basis. The reason

for making this claim comes from the observation that the postures of the

articulators correlate with the contextual variant and that a few sequential

features are crucially concerned. The physical aspects such as movements,

postures and air flow functionally motivate the new allophone. This is

referred to as emergent phonetic conditioning, which this author views as the

process of the allophonic formation other than repair strategy, presence in

underlying form and influence of spelling.

Taken from, say, cycling, the stem word cycle ceases to be pronounced with

the schwa. After the syllabic [l] became obligatory, the allophonization

proceeds once again: for the stem word, the [o] vowel and for the derivative

word, the nonsyllabic [l]. Both of them make a contrast with each other

regarding the tongue postures of the lateral. This is reflected in the

allophonic occurrences on the two sounds.

What is more, the nonsyllabic variations also stem from the short distance

between the sonorant and the vowel. With the limited time on the

articulation of the lateral, the front of the tongue is made accessible to the

following posture. The double suffixations fail to give the explanatory

adequacy concerning the syllabic variations. On the contrary, the emergent

phonetic conditioning is able to account for them.

20

This article is organized as follows. Section 2 explicates the previous

account, describes the phonetic forms, introduces three prosodic criteria and

points out the flaws. Section 3 claims that neither Optimality Theory nor

isochrony correctly accounts for the present theme. Section 4 argues on the

phonetic conditioning and its superiority. Section 5 concludes.

2. The overview

2.1. The suffix-induced derivation

According to the generally accepted idea or the implicit understanding, the

affixations play a functional role in the syllabic variation. Both the prefixes

and the suffixes are attached to the stems, making up the words and, thus,

the internal structures should be examined on this issue. At first glance, the

systematic similarity is distributed in two ways: the morphological suffix

and the phonological medial sonorants. When the sufixation holds, the two

aspects are mutually dependent:

(2) 3 syl. 2 syl.

cuddly <cuddle> + <-y> <cudd> + <-ly>

cycling <cycle> + <-ing> <cyc> + <-ling>

bottling <bottle> + <-ing> <bott> + <-ling>

rattling <rattle> + <ing> <ratt> + <-ling>

settling <settle> + <-ing> <sett> + <-ling>

wrestling <wrestle> + <-ing> <wres(t)> + <-ling>

21

coupling <couple> + <-ing> <coup> + <-ling>

gamboling <gambol> + <-ing> <gamb(o)> + <-ling>

settler <settle> + <-er> ********

threatening <threaten> + <ing> ********

4 syl. 3 syl.

realistic <re-> + <al> + <-istic> <real> + <-istic> The morpheme structures on the medial /l/ are represented as the stem-finals

<-le> and <-ol> and the suffixes <-y> and <-ing>. As a consequence, these

forms motivate the syllabicity of the lateral and the three syllables. By

contrast, the suffixes <-ly> and <-ling> are related to the onset /l/ and, thus,

the number of the syllables decreases to two. The word realistic varies in

other way. The prefix <re-> and the stem <real> cause the syllabic variation

to occur. The former has the /i:/ plus the schwa in contrast to the diphthong

in the latter; the count on the syllabic nuclei is each two and one. The

suffixations of <-ly>, <-ling> and the prefixation of <re-> are ambiguous in

the sense that any of them do not have a semantic effect, but the same

sequences as the affixes themselves are reflected in the syllabic variation.

The dictionaries of English pronunciations (see EPD 2006:421, LPD

2000:634) illustrate that the stem <real> plus a suffix and the derived

compound make the dialectal differences: realize, real-time, etc. In those

words, the pronunciation with the /i:/ + the schwa is manifested in AmE and

the one with the diphthong in BrE. This is why the derived words from the

<real> are excluded from the main argument of this paper.

This reexamination leads to the lack of the systematic unity in the morpho-

phonological alternations of (2). The words settler and threatening are not

22

correctly analysed by the double suffixations. This is regarded as one of the

exceptions on them, as will be explicated in §2.4. Relevantly to this

phenomenon, the more intricate generalizations will be made possible.

Those other than the last one, the total number of ten, have some features in

common:

(3) a. The variable sonorant consonants are the /l/ for the nine words and the

/n/ for the rest one.

b. All of them are either trisyllabic or disyllabic.

c. The sonorants occur medially in every example.

d. The seven words end with either the <-ing> or the <-ling>

e. The sonorants shift from the nuclei to the onset rightward in every

example.

The classification in (3a) is related with the issue of the sequential

articulation. All of them have in common the feature that the coronals are

followed by a front(ed) vowel; the distance between the two sounds is short.

The duration on the sonorants varies. The accessibility in the front of the

cavity might play a role. Thus, we can predict the coarticulatory basis on the

syllabic variations. For the third statement, the reason why the final sonorant

is lacking in it is correlated with the sonority contour relevant to the syllabic

consonant formation. It gives the more sonorous nuclei than the preceding

consonant; in the sonority where the lateral is ranked higher than nasals, the

[n] + the syllabic [l] in final is allowed to occur, but the [l] + the syllabic [n]

in sullen is not. As for the latter one (the word-final Syll.Cons. preceded by

the more sonorous C), it might be presumed that after the syllabic consonant

began to be pronounced, then, it shifts to the nonsyllabic one and that the

word becomes either disyllabic or monosyllabic owing to the licit coda

cluster /ln/. This is not the case. Although the articulations of the syllabic

consonants are, in some cases, obligatory or highly common, those like the

23

[l] + the syllabic [n] and the [r] + the syllabic [l] are unlikely to be

pronounced.

The five statements in (3) fail to seize the features of the syllabic variations.

Paradoxically enough, all of them are employed in creating the theory on the

newly formed allophone. Each one will be sporadically referred to hereafter.

In the remainder of this article, the emergent phonetic conditionings are

explicated as the functional motivation and shown to serve as the

explanatory theory on the syllabic variations.

2.2. Phonetic forms

The syllabic consonant is generalized to consist of the schwa plus a sonorant

consonant in the underlying form. Allophones are intrinsically one of the

two or more sounds per morpheme and may or may not be pronounced in

certain contexts. It is possibly the case that an allophone surfaces

obligatorily. We should observe this issue beforehand. The phonetic

implementation on the syllabic consonants is conditioned by multifactors

such as speaking tempo, each utterance, posttonic weakening, preceding

consonants, word-internal positions, and common sequence, but may result

in the obligatory formation (see Roach, Sergeant and Miller 1992, Wells

1995 on the related articles). For the sake of discussion, the stems in the

derivative words of (2) are listed up:

(4) cuddle, cycle, bottle, rattle, settle, wrestle, couple, gambol, threaten

The final sonorants have a few features in common. The eight words out of

nine are preceded by the stops /d, k, t, p, b/ and the rest one by the fricative

/s/. The syllabic consonant formation may become obligatory when the

schwa plus the /l/ is preceded by a stop. RP has the feature of the

pronunciation that the syllabic lateral release is much more predominant than

24

the counterpart with the schwa. Moreover, the obligatory formation of the

syllabic consonants might also occur in the fricative plus the syllabic [n]

(station, seven) and the fricative plus the syllabic [l] (whistle). These

pronunciations are generalized to be either extremely or relatively common

to all of the dialects in English. Note that the consonants preceding the

sonorants are not those which the syllabic consonant formation is blocked

from occurring in the phonology:

(5) a. bottling b. settling c. coupling d. cycling

[], [tl], *[] [], [tl], *[] [], [pl], *[] [, [kl], *[] The derivative words on the syllabic variations are described without the

schwa form. At this stage, we should put the distribution in mind.

The stem words do not have the nonsyllabic [l] in the final positions,

from which the vowel [o] emerges (Regarding this, see Kerswill 1995,

Britain and Johnson 2007 for the sociolinguistic papers and Hardcastle 1989

for the phonological one.) The point made at this stage is attributed to the

fact that the newly formed allophones differ between the derivative and stem

words:

(6) a. bottle b. couple c. cycle

[], [o] [], [o] [], [o]

It is another interesting issue to describe the words formed solely with the

syllabic [l]. This is to mean that the syllabic sonorants in a morpheme make

the sole, pronounced form without any other. As far as I know, the word-

final lateral release in a basic word might become so when the [o] vowel is

not substitute. The descriptions of the pronunciations are summarized below:

(7) a. common form: [, ] – [] b. obligatory [] – [, l] (medially) c. obligatory [] – [, o] (finally)

25

The phonological process of this shift is distructured. After the obligatory

status on the syllabic [l] was established, the allophonization proceeds once

again in the prosodic terms. The [l] is formed medially, but the *[o] is not.

The word-final position has the [o], but not the *[l]. The occurrences of

these allophones may undergo the dialectal restrictions, but do not make

themselves reversed in any case.

The allophonic (nonsyllabic) [l] in the following onset is newly

formed on account of the phonetic effect. It gives rise to the divergence of

the new allophone from the one in the final position. This leads me to create

the emergent phonetic conditioning, as demonstrated in section 4.

2.3. The prosodic conditionings

The English allophones in general are commonly syllable-based (cf. Kahn

1980, Picard 1984, Rubach 1996 and others), but required to make use of the

higher hierarchies (Hammond 1997, Jensen 2000, Harrison 2007). Those in

RP are analysed by employing both of them as the explanatory theories.

Phonetic bases (Steriade 1999, Gordon 2002) serve as the functional

conditioning behind them and this is also correctly applied to those in and

outside RP (Oda 2009). Both the prosodic and phonetic features are made

use of in the discussion of this article.

The issue on the prosodic level of the syllabic variations should be

examined. This implies that the medial sonorants might be syllable-based,

but possibly have the conditioning of the higher hierarchy. The prosodic

approach takes the assumption that the hierarchies such as mora, syllable,

foot, prosodic word, phonological phrase and utterance play a conditioning

role in the allophonic analyses and that one of them functions as the

phonological context. In a sense, the analyses made in some dialects of

English fully utilize the majority, though not all, of the prosodic categories,

26

but, in other sense, syllable holds most commonly. In the following, both the

stressed vowels and the sonorants are emphasized:

(8) cúddly, cýcling, bóttling, ráttling, séttling, wréstling, cóupling,

gámboling, séttler, thréatening

Note that the stops make a difference on the basis of the phonemes. As in the

traditional syllabic analyses, the /k/ in cycling is ambisyllabic. The /t/ in

settler affiliates only to the coda. The /l/ following the obstruent is accounted

for by the syllabic constituents: the medial nuclei for the trisyllabicity and

the onset of the following syllable for the disyllabicity. The prosodic

conditions on these syllabic variations are the syllable. There are a few

conceivable exceptions, but the syllabic [l] is consistently allocated in the

posttonic position and the nonsyllabic [l] in the onset of the unstressed

syllables. The rest one realistic also receives the syllabic account. The case

in which the diphthong in the first syllable shifts to the two separated vowels

does not specify the prosodic level of foot or the higher one.

The functional literature on medial allophones argues on the phonological

status on the universal syllable structures and the phonetic one on each of the

individual surface forms:

(9) CVV. CV - CVVC.V

In the above schemata, the lefthand one implies that the syllable structures

conform to the universal ones (the dimorae in the stressed syllables, and

each of the onsets) and the rightside one indicates the shift of the second

onset to the preceding coda. If the syllable structure CVVC results from the

fact that the final C is lacking in the phonotactic constraint on the onsets, it

does not mean to have a phonetic conditioning. This is the issue of the

syllable structure template. Otherwise, the resyllabified coda does not

conform to UG and assumably stems from a phonetic effect. Before turning

27

to the syllable structures on the variations at issue, the two common

derivations on the syllabic consonant formations are given below:

(10) a. V O L] σ - syllabic [l] b. - syllabic [l] The syllabic lateral in (10a) occurs in the word-final position when preceded

by vowel plus obstruent. The sequence violates the contour of the sonority

and, then, yields the syllabic status on the lateral. This is not equivalent to

the syllabic variation, but implies the representational difference between the

underlying and surface forms. The sonorant syllabification in (10b) proceeds

by way of the schwa loss and the compensatory filling in the nucleus. The

number of the syllables remains to be kept.

The derivation of the syllabic variations differs from the two cases in (10).

The sonorants shift from the word-medial nuclei to the onset of the

following syllable. This makes an extraordinary view on the syllable

structures. The contemporary functional phonology language-internally or

language-externally hypothesizes the phonetic grounding in the

syllabifications specific to the individual phenomena, in which the syllabic

variations are involved. In parallel to the emergent [l] in the onset (§2.2.),

the shifts of the syllable structures lead me to assume a certain phonetic

conditioning on the syllabic variations.

In contrast to the onset sonorant (disyllabic) as the casual speech variant, the

trisyllabic one conforms to the common syllabic consonants. The disyllabic

variants are derived from the trisyllabic ones. In the sense of the shift from

the common to the rare forms, there is no need for controversy. The

phonological process on it is the shortening of the duration. This might be

implied to be the strengthening process since the nuclei become weaker.

However, the phonological environments for the sonorants are consistently

the intervocalic positions, where consonant lenition takes place both in the

dialects of English and crosslinguistically. A case taken from RP is

28

glottaling: button, city, etc. The underlying /t/ occupies the intervocalic

positions and surfaces as the glottal stop. Apparaently, no exception on the

intervocalic lenition occurs in this dialect. Kirchner (2001) grounds the

lenition in the reduction of effort and Kingston (2007) in the reduction to

obstruct air flow. Both of the works take the phonetic viewpoint. See also

Tollfree (1999) for the related article to this issue in RP.

The consonant fortition makes a contradictory outcome with the intervocalic

position where the lenition takes place very commonly. In addition, the

phonological process from the nucleus to the onset makes the rare shift in

syllabic phonology. This means that other conditioning might be superior to

the phonological ones. While I designated this rightward movement as the

strengthening process for the sake of convenience, the argument in section

4.2. will make clear the status of the other one, emergent phonetic

conditioning. This shift essentially has a different status from the aspiration

and the sonorant devoicing. It is based on the posture and the movement in

term of the allophonic formation.

2.4. The exceptions

In order to develop into the core of the present theme, the next step is, more

importantly, to observe all of the defects that the affix-based explanations

make. This being the case, other conditioning has to be taken into

consideration. It is also important to note the functional status on whether it

constitutes one of the requirements or replaces the original idea to which the

English scholars have implicitly agreed. In this section, I point out the three

pieces of the counterevidence: (a) no double suffixation in the syllabic

variations, (b) blocking the applicable suffixation, and (c) inapplicability on

the assumably licit suffixation. These expressions might be too abstract to

clarify the true meaning, but we will take a close look at each one.

29

Looking through the morphophonological alternation in (2), the words

settler and threatening are not grounded in the double suffixations. The

‘suffixation’ is applicable to the stem, iff it operates in the grammar of a

language: for cycling, both <-ing> and <-ling>; for cuddly, both <-y> and <-

ly>. The <settle> + <-er> has the licit one since the suffix itself is allowed to

be attached to the stem, but the <sett> + <-ler> does not. In the same way,

threatening has the licit morpheme structure <threaten> + <-ing>, but

<threat(e)> + <-ning> does not work out. The <-ning> is lacking in the

inventories of the English lexicon. This implies that other conditioning is in

essence to be set in a certain way.

It is equally observable that the phonological forms with the illicit suffixes

(i.e. the form with the nonsyllabic sonorant in settler and threatening) share

the sequential movement with those with the licit suffixes. All of the

examples contain the sequence coronal sonorant plus high front vowel. Note

that with the short duration, the front of the tongue is made accessible from

alveolar to the high front part of oral cavity. The status of the nonsyllabic

sonorants should be examined on account of phonetic conditioning.

Turning to the second counterexample, the words in (11a, b) each constitute

a minimal pair and make a contrast with regard to the syllabicity of the

lateral. These do not imply the counterexamples, but conform to any other

ones of the syllabic variations:

(11) a. coupling ‘making a couple’ vs. coupling ‘connecting’

[], [l] [l]

b. gambolling ‘playing happily’ vs. gambling ‘doing something risky’

[], [l] [l] In the leftside ones of the words, the nonsyllabic [l]s affiliate to the onsets

and, relative to the syllabic [l]s as another allophone, have the fewer number

of the syllables by one. The laterals in the rightside are also syllabified to the

onsets and not pronounced with the syllabic [l]. As far as the double

30

suffixation solely proceeds, the effect of the formations on the syllabic

variations should be in nature productive. This being the case in point, any

of the words with <-y> vs. <-ly> or with <-ing> vs. <-ling> might vary on

the number of the syllables. To put it ddifferently, no restriction may hold to

them as far as the double suffixations are applicable. It is, however,

prohibited from being made in the same morphological context:

(12) a. finally ‘final (adv.)’ vs. finely ‘fine (adv.)’

[], [] [l]

b. bitterly ‘bitter (adv.)’ vs. bitly ‘nonce word’

[], [] [l] In contrast to those in (11a, b), the laterals in finally and bitterly are not

allophonized to the onset [l]. The pronunciations in them illustrate that the

syllabic variations do not always proceed in the same morphological context

and that the decrease on the number of the syllables is blocked from

occurring in this word.

Even if the words with the double suffixations are grammatical in the

morphology, they might be lacking in the surface forms the pair of syllabic

and nonsyllabic sonorants. In this section, the latter two counterexamples are

like this. The second cases in (12a, b) show the unworkbility of the <-y> vs.

<-ly> from which cuddly (trisyllabic or disyllabic) might be derived. The

next unworkable case is chosen as the object of the other double suffixation:

(13) <-ess> (female) vs. <-ness> (forming nouns) citizeness, britoness

The following take the presumptions: <citizon> + <-ess> vs. <citiz(o)> + <-

ness>; four syllables and three syllables; in the similar vein, <briton> + <-

ess> vs. <brit(o)> + <-ness>; trisyllabic and disyllabic. Despite the effective

suffixations in the logical sense, both of them remain to have consistently

the same number of the syllables. When the words undergo the syllabic

variation, I predict, the same procedure as those of the attested cases will be

31

made; after the syllabic [n] came to be obligatorily pronounced, the

nonsyllabic sound is produced in the allophonic level. In any case, if it does

not surface, the double suffixation does not succeed in the satisfactory

explanation. It is thus blocked from proceeding and disregarded as the

productive process.

3. Theoretical inapplicability

3.1. Constraint ranking

Optimality Theory (OT) has been, beyond any doubt, predominant in the

contemporary phonological theory, but it is also undoubtedly true that it has

been rejected in some of the arguments. McMahon (2000, 2003a, b, 2007)

takes the latter view by observing some aspects, for the most part, on

English phonology. More specifically, the McMahon’s articles argue against

OT along the two themes in the broad sense: (a) phonological constructs and

(b) phenomena in the English language.3

The arguments on (a) are bidirectional. Prosody (syllable, foot, etc.) is

modelled by OT, but stress in not, as argued in (2003a). The constraint

reranking is incapable of properly accounting for sound changes.

Crosslinguistic and historical features are not satisfied with the unified

analysis (2000).

When discussing (b), one of the issues is taken from the Great Vowel Shifts

(GVS, 2007). The GVS and the subsequent vowel shifts in the Present-Day

period have the English-internal feature and OT is unable to serve as the

theoretical machinery. The paper in (2003b) addresses the unworkability on

3 It seems to me to be true that the constraint reranking incorrectly captures the historical

grammar of English. If OT is unable to serve as the unified theoreticaal model, the phonetic

and the language-internal analyses are required to be made.

32

OT with regard to impossible and implausible sound changes. The empirical

focus comes from the account for the Old English Diphthongization,

according to which OT is inferior to the rule-based grammar. Concerning the

theme relevant to the McMahon’s articles, see Carr (2000), Bermúdez-Otero

and Kersti (2006).

It can be observed that OT might be inapplicable to the following cases.

Those in RP that possibly undergo the anti-OT analyses comprise the four

variations, which are expected to be of the researchers’ interest:

(14) a. STRUT vowel (funny and enough) b. triphthong reduction (power)

c. glottaling (button, April) d. sonorant syllabification (little, bitterly)

STRUT vowel has some language-internal features (Wells 1982 for the

pronunciations from other region, Beal 2012 for the variation in the Early

Modern period). As one of the rare features, it is derived from the both in

the historical origin and in the synchronic variants. It also has the status

different from the other stressed vowels and from the other mid central

vowels. The shift of the triphthongs to the diphthong contradicts with the

direction of the vocalic shifts. Stressed syllables are likely to be

strengthened, but this diphthongization weakens the vocoids in terms of the

number of morae. It might receive phonetic grounding. Issues in BrE on

which it can better condition are argued in Docherty (1992) and Hall (2003).

The glottal stop is epenthesized in the postvocalic positions, but it also

derives from the /t/ and the other stops. It replaces the coda stop and also

induces the shift from the onset to the coda. It occurs not only in the

preconsonantal positions but also between the vowels. The formation of this

allophone consists of the several sorts (Roach 1973, Milroy et al. 1994,

Wells 1997). The syllabic consonant formation is featurized by language-

specificity to the extreme degree and the phonetic account might be superior

33

to those of the phonological aspects such as posttonic weakening and

monomora, as being taken in Oda (2008).

We have observed the evidence and the inference on the invalidity of OT. It

seems to me to be true that the two sound patterns of English are not

appropriately analysed in this framework: (a) those that make the intricate

internal structures; (b) those that are conditioned by physical aspects. The

syllabic variations, with which this paper is concerned, are not correctly

accounted for by OT, since the explanatory locus is conversely based on (a)

and (b). The incorrect analysis makes use of the syllabic consonant

formation (SCF) and Onset, both of them interacting with each other:

(15) a. SCF > Onset cyc[].ing b. Onset > SCF cyc.[l]ing For the trisyllabic form in (15a), SCF takes the priority. The form in (15b) is

derived from it and regarded as the casual variant. In this context, the

constraint Onset is ranked higher:

(16) a. The sonorants occur medially in every example.

b. The sonorants shift from the nuclei to the onset rightward in every

example. = (3c, e)

Taking these two aspects into consideration, it might be expected that the

onset formation on the basis of the constraint reranking is working properly

in the analyses. However, it is too simple to be justified. First, the status on

the medial sonorants is a matter of fact. The syllabic variation implies to be

the phenomenon that the syllabic sonorants shift to the nonsyllabic ones.

Both the onsets and the codas are adjacent to the nuclei inside the syllable.

There is no position other than the word-medials. The shift of the nuclei to

the right (15b) is attributed to the feature common to the English language.

The syllabic nuclei intrinsically do not vary into the onsets. This shift is

lacking in other sounds. Both of the examinations implicitly indicate the

34

natural outcomes in the phonology, but not the requirements of the universal

syllable structures. The locus of the explanation should be set outside OT.

The attested flaw on the constraints is replaced by functional account. The

sequence O + syll.cons. + high front vowel or the one similar to it has a

systematically same distribution. This makes a difference from the illicit

onset formation in the idiosyncratic way. The onset [l] proceeds to make the

allophonic status after the syllabic [l] became obligatory. This is applied to

the derived words such as cycling, bottling and settler. In the same

procedure, the stem words cycle, bottle and settle are formed with the [o]

following the obligatory syllabic [l].

The two allophonic formations are grounded in the postures of the

articulators. For the clear ‘l’, the tongue blade becomes more fronted. The

dark ‘l’ takes the shape to make the back of the tongue more upward. On

account of the phonetic similarity, the allophones emerge from the

phonological contexts: the nonsyllabic [l] before the high front vowel and

the [o] finally. The shift in the number of syllables thus does not stem from

the constraint on the syllable structure. Onsets are necessary in terms of the

universal template. The syllabic variation in English is in essence different.

After the syllabic [l] became obligatory in the stem words, the physically

motivated allophones emerge on the basis of the coarticulation and the

nonsyllabic [l] surfaces in the derived words.

3.2. Isochrony

Stress-timed languages are generalized to take the rhythm where stressed

vowels repeat in a same interval (cf. Fudge 1969, Dauer 1983). The syllabic

variations with the medial sonorants (see 2) have the unified fluctuation in

the number of the syllables:

(17) All of them are either trisyllabic or disyllabic. = (3b)

35

In the trisyllabicity in the words such as cycling and settler, the first syllables

are stressed and the second and third syllables are unstressed. When

disyllabic, the same words place the stress on the first one and not on the

second one. The word threatening takes the same way: S + W + W in the

trisyllables and S + W in the disyllables. The former varies to the latter in the

phonology. In arguing on the preference on the stress distributions, there is

no priority between them. Implicationally, both of them do not have a

difficulty in the basic way.

In realistic, the stress placements are abbreviated as S + S + W in the three

syllables and S + W + S + W in the four syllables. The latter is the derivative

form from the former. The shift is implied to be the one from worse to better

in the slight degree. As the diphthong varies to the long vowel plus the

schwa, the two consecutive stressed syllables (stress clash) in the former are

disallowed to occur adjacently to each other. Thus far, the isochrony as the

conditioning can not be judged very well. There is no evidence, in any way,

to show that when the following word begins with stressed syllable, S + W +

W is more common or that in the case of the initial unstressed syllables, S +

W is more common. Without the evidence like this, the idea on the

isochrony seems to be negative.

In the sequence C + syllabic consonant + C (C = any consonants if allowed

phonotactically), the syllabic consonant is more sonorous than the adjacent

consonants. The sonority contour prevents the syllabic variation from

occurring in this case. When syllabic sonorants occur medially before a

vowel, the nuclei might shift to the onset to follow. This holds to the words

with the medial /l/ like cuddly, cycling, bottling, and settler, and with the

medial /n/ in threatening. At this point, one of the five generalizations on the

double suffixations is taken below:

36

(18) The variable sonorant consonants are the /l/ for the nine words and the

/n/ for the rest one. = (3a)

In the same phonological context, the syllabic velar nasal is irrelevant to this

argument. The velar nasal is intrinsically banned from occurring in onsets,

unless the derivative words such as hanger gives rise to the ambisyllabicity.

The two sonorants /r/ and /m/ are not included in the word-medial

illustrations on the syllabic variations. This means that some of the sonorants

are subject to the syllabic variations, while the others are not. Assuming that

the isochrony plays a conditioning factor in them, the interval between the

two stressed vowels is important. Many of the sonorants should be the object

of the shift from the syllabic nucleus to the following onset. On the contrary,

the inventories on them are far from uniform. The isochrony therefore does

not condition the syllabic variations.

4. Emergent status

4.1. Phonetic factor

The syllabic variations are unable to be properly accounted for by the double

suffixations. The three exceptions occur to them. An alternative conditioning

therefore might make the better explanation. Given the obligatory formation

of the syllabic consonants and the subsequent process to another allophones

in the derivative and stem words, it is necessary to seek for other functional

motivation and to suggest the satisfactory explanations without any

inadequacies. The emergent phonetic conditioning, I posit, makes a

significant contribution to explaining the apparently morpheme-related

allophone. We should examine how it proceeds on the allophonic

formations:

37

(19) a. [], [] final , *[o] final [], [], *[l] finally

, puzzle , *[o] puzzle , , * puzzling

b. [], *[] cycle [], [o] cycle [], [l] cycling

[], *[] settle [], [o] settle [], [l] settling It is conceivable that the correlated morphological structures yield the

different phonological forms. In (19a), the laterals in both of the words are

pronounced as the syllabic consonant and the form with the schwa, but not

as the newly formed allophone. The [o] vowel in the stem words and the

nonsyllabic [l] in the derivative words therein are usually not allophonized.

The number of the syllables remains to be two and three, respectively. In

(19b), with the surface schwa, the final [o] would not be formed.

Incidentally, it is generalized that when certain two forms per morpheme are

already coexistent, another allophone does not emerge from there. If it does,

the phonological process should be the highly common one; vowel reduction

and the syllabic consonant formation represent it (LPD: 274, 565):

(20) a. excel , ,

b. pencil , , The three forms in (20a) illustrate that while the two front vowels are

allophonic, the schwa occurs as the third allophone. Those in (20b) show the

case in which the sonorant syllabification takes place in the similar vein.

Both of the phonological processes are continuously progressive. Returning

to the central theme, the loss of the schwa forms in (19b) causes to form the

other allophone: for the stem words, the [o] vowel and for the derivative

words, the nonsyllabic [l]. The latter takes the process of the syllabic

variations. In sum, one of the two allophones ceases to be pronounced and,

then, aother allophone is formed.

The emergent phonetic conditioning this article seeks to suggest has the

basis of the coarticulation and associates with the similarity or difference on

38

the articulators’ postures in the sequences. In other words, the allophones are

newly formed relevantly to the phonetic context. Lindblom (1990) and

Beddor (2009) share the linguistic idea on coarticulation with this article.

The purposes of my own suggestion are three-fold: (a) the shed light on the

long-standing, unsolved issue of how the syllabic variations take place, and

(b) to apply the updated functional phonology to the new theme. The

following feature the essential notions on this issue:

(21) a. sequential articulation, in particular, easiness/difficulty, distance,

similarity/difference, (in-)compatibility, air flow in each context

b. obligatory status on one of the allophones and, after that, newly

formed allophone

c. caused by phonetics, not by phonology or morphology

Taking into account the newly formed allophones in (19b), we should argue

on how the emergent phonetic conditioning functions. Word-finally, the

lateral is articulated with the dark variant. The posture of the dark /l/ in the

stem words is closest to that of the /o/. The back of the tongue is raised

relatively upwards, while the front is firmly attached to alveolar ridge. It is

not so lifted as the posture similar to that of the high back vowels. It has to

be put in mind that the examination made by this author does away with

phonological aspects. In RP, words commonly end with a lax vowel,

especially, the schwa (e.g. letter, power). This is implied to be phonological

due to the patterning of the feature. The emergent [o] might possibly seem to

conform to the final laxing, but this is not the case in point. Any of the other

final allophones do not undergo the shift to a lax vowel. This results in the

ad hoc analysis. In order to be highly systematic, any other sound sequences

should receive the right analysis in this unified model.

In parallel to the stem-final [o], the nonsyllabic [l] in the medial position of

the derivative words is grounded in the tongue posture and the

39

coarticulation. The feature is shared between them that after the syllabic [l]

became obligatory in the first stage of the derivation, another allophone

occurs in the second stage. This is one of the crucial aspects since this shift

causes the syllabic variation to be inherent to some of the words in the

phonology. The words such as cycling, settling, cuddly and threatening take

the same shift on the sonorant, that is, in terms of the syllable structures, the

one from the nucleus to the onset or, for speakers, the one from the common

form to the casual variant. As argued beforehand, the reranking of the

markedness constraints does not correctly explain the formtion on the

nonsyllabic sonorants. Likewise, the isochrony does not hold. Both of them

make the contradictory analysis with the assumably true phonetic grounding

and with the analysis of the extraordinary syllabic shift.

After the form with the schwa in the words like cycling and settling ceases to

be pronounced, the syllabic [l] becomes obligatory and, then, the nonsyllabic

[l] occurs as another allophone. All of the words with the syllabic variation

have some features in common. The stem-final /l/s are followed by the high

front vowel and, otherwise, the suffix begins with the /l/. This turn out to

produce the rare allophonic distribution on the clear and dark variants of the

lateral. The laterals that occupy the stem-final positions are articulated with

the dark variant. In contrast, those in the suffix-initials are made with the

clear sound. The pronunciations of the /l/ in the stem-finals and the suffix-

initials are affective. This holds true, as made in Jensen (2000:197), Hayes

(2000:section 2):

(22) morphology variant morphology variant

cuddly <cuddle> + <-y> dark ‘l’ <cudd> + <-ly> clear ‘l’

cycling <cycle> + <-ing> dark ‘l’ <cyc> + <-ling> clear ‘l’

bottling <bottle> + <-ing> dark ‘l’ <bott> + <-ling> clear ‘l’

40

The variants of the lateral have a gradient feature so that there is no clear-cut

distribution between them. The syllabic or nonsyllabic /l/ in the medial

position is included in it. The stem-final one might be rather fronted (i.e.

clearer) and the other is usually not velarized. The following show the

emergent conditionings on the medial /l/:

(23) a. The short (nonsyllabic) [l] emerges as the clear variant in contrast to

the dark (or slightly more fronted) one for the long [l]

b. Owing to the posture of the tongue body, the emergent allophone

surfaces as the short [l], but not *[o].

c. The distance between the alveolar and the high front vowel is made

accessible with the short duration of the sonorants.

Note that the three features in (23) are based on the phonetic perspective.

The first one describes the variants of the lateral. In the realm of syllabic

phonology, the allophones at issue shift from the nucleus to the onset.

Employing the emergent phonetic conditioning as the framework, however,

the differences on the basis of the durations and the postures cause them to

occur in the phonology.

The newly formed allophone is, as it were, the phonetic shift; medially, the

lateral sounds are shortened on the duration and shaped more fronted. The

syllabic nuclei in this position does not shift to *[o] in any case. This vowel

is formed on the basis of the tongue posture word-finally, and the posture of

the long [l] is closer to the shortened form, but not vice versa.

The phonetic conditioning in (23c) presents the other coarticulatory basis.

The syllabic variations in the words such as cycling, cuddly and threatening

consist crucially of the sequence alveolar sonorant plus high front vowel.

The points of the articulations between the two sounds therein are close to

each other. After the duration of the sonorants is made shortened, the front

of the tongue still easily reaches the next one. Due to this accessibility, the

41

nonsyllabic [l] emerges as the second allophone. The postures and the

occurrences of the allophones have a complimentary distribution between

the derivative and stem words.

Given this adequate argumentation, it is nevertheless true that new

allophones are not always formed by the emergent phonetic conditioning

with the coarticulatory basis. Now move onto the other factors that motivate

the formation of allophones:

(24) a. Rapair strategy

b. Presence in underlying form

c. Increase of a same form to other derivation

In the case of repair strategy, sequences with some difficulty are made easier

by shifting to other. In the word athletics, for example, the schwa is

epenthesized between the interdental fricative and the lateral (see LPD

2000:52). The tongue tip in it travels around the front of oral cavity and does

not make the contact with an articulator. This movement has the phonetically

marked status. The epenthetic schwa makes the phonemic sound smooth in

the articulatory way.

Intrusive liquids show the evidence on the second case. See Windsor Lewis

(1975), and Broadbent (1991) on intrusive ‘r’ and the related themes and

Gick (1999) and Bermúdez-Otero (2005) on intrusive ‘l’. Gick argues that

both of them are underlyingly present. The lateral becomes intrusive in

drawing before the high front vowel. A derivative word for draw is drawl,

which illustrates the underlying status of the lateral in the word-final

position. In parallel, the phrase idea is has also the intrusive ‘l’ following the

diphthong. This is conditioned by the underlying status of the /l/ on the basis

of the derivative word ideal.

In RP, the glottal stop has increased not only on the frequency but on the

derivation. The glottal stop is derived from the /t/ most commonly, but it is

also derived from the other voiceless stops. It is epenthesized in the

42

postvocalic position (April). The glottaling is not restricted to the position

before consonants, but included in the one before the vowel (city).

Relevant to the present theme, it is worth further investigation (a) to

elaborate the classification of the allophonic occurrences, and (b) to argue on

other example(s) of emergent phonetic conditioning. These are beyond the

scope of this paper and will be discussed on occasion.

4.2. Three exceptions

The last section demonstrated the intrinsic notion and the applied

explanation on the emergent phonetic conditioning. It is nonetheless

suspended for the moment that both the posture-based allophonization and

the double suffixation might be able to hold true. In order to succeed in

making the present suggestion in the reasonable way, it has to better account

for the flaws on the other. The three pieces of the counterevidence occur in

the rather different ways, but turn out to receive the unified phonetic

analysis.

4.2.1.The variation without the double suffixations

In the column of (2), the double affixations were shown to be applied to nine

words out of eleven. To put it differently, the previous idea does not hold to

the rest of the two words settler and threatening. In this argument, the

suffixes attached to the stems should belong to those in the morphological

inventory of the language, but there is not the one like <-ler> or <-ning>. My

viewpoint on the syllabic variations is that the double suffixations have some

flaws, and that the emergent phonetic conditioning is superior to it.

The phonetic variants of the lateral in settler are same as the ones as in

cycling and cuddly. While these three words receive the unified analysis in

43

the following, it holds true for all of the words with the medial sonorants at

the same time:

(25) suffixation

cycling <cycle> + <-ing> vs. <cyc> + <-ling>

cuddly <cuddle> + <-ing> vs. <cudd> + <-ly>

Settler <settle> + <-er> vs. ******

emergent phonetic conditioning

cycling long [l] & dark (or rather fronted) ‘l’ vs. short [l] & clear ‘l’

cuddly long [l] & dark (or rather fronted) ‘l’ vs. short [l] & clear ‘l’

settler long [l] & dark (or rather fronted) ‘l’ vs. short [l] & clear ‘l’

As we can see in the above, the supposition made by the double suffixations

does not make sense due to the flaw on settler. The phonetic allophones are

distributed contrastively. In addition, when the new allophone is formed, the

duration is shortened. The distance of the articulators between the alveolar

and the high front vowel is close. With the short time of the sonorantal

articulation, the tongue front can easily access to the position of the next

vowel.

The case of threatening is similarly considered to be grounded in the

coarticulation. The form with the schwa in it comes to be unpronounced and

the syllabic [n] becomes obligatory. The preceding /t/ is glottalized both in

RP and in the majority of the accents. When articulating the glottal stop,

speakers can prepare for the posture of the alveolar nasal. The high front

vowel takes the closest position to it among all the vowels. Then, the front of

the tongue is made accessible to the posture of the high front vowel. The

speakers’ readiness and the short distance convergingly produce the /n/ with

the limited duration. In sum, the words settler and threatening undergo the

syllabic variations after the obligatory formation on the syllabic consonants

proceeded. Turn to the statements regarding the double suffixations:

44

(26) a. The variable sonorant consonants are the /l/ for the nine words and

the /n/ for the rest one.

b. The seven words end with the <-ing> or the <-ling>. = (3a, d)

The other sonorants /m/ and /r/ are not involved in these examples. The

sonorants in the examples of (2) are all produced with alveolar. The adjacent

vowels also share the articulation close to that of the alveolar sounds: the

two hgh front vowels (lax and tense) and the fronted schwa. In other words,

all of them correspond to the sequence coronal sonorant plus high front

vowel, which makes the shortened sonorant accessible to the vowel.

4.2.2.The contrast on the forms

The pair of the words in (27) show to compare the cases in the syllabic

variations with those in the fixed number of the syllables. Note that the

following illustrations disfavour the double suffixations. Each consists of the

stem plus the suffix and contains the /l/ medially, but the number of the

syllables are either three or two in the leftside and definitely two in the

rightside:

(27) a. Coupling ‘making a couple’ vs. coupling ‘connecting’

, b. Gamboling ‘playing happily’ vs. gambling ‘doing something risky’

, = (11a, b) Form the point of view of the contemporary functional phonology, however,

this article argues that the allophonizations on the two laterals per morpheme

stem not from the double suffixations but from the emergent phonetic

conditioning. After the syllabic [l] became obligatory due to the lack of the

schwa form, the nonsyllabic [l], as well as the [o] vowel in the stem words,

is newly formed as other allophones. The two forms on the lateral consist of

45

the long duration, the dark variant (or slightly more fronted) vs. the short

duration, the clear variant.

The next cases make a contrast with those shown above. The double

suffixations do not play a functional role in the different way. Both of the set

of the words share the derivational morpheme structures: the apparently

possible case on the uses of the derivational suffixes <-ing> vs. <-ling>, <-

y> vs. <-ly>:

(28) a. finally ‘final (adv.)’ vs. finely ‘fine (adv.)’

,

b. bitterly ‘bitter (adv.)’ vs. bitly ‘nonce word’

, = (12a, b)

If the syllabic variations proceed by way of the double suffixation, each pair

of the words in (28a, b) must be like those in (27a, b), but it is not the case in

point. The double suffixations do not hold.

The leftsides of the words in (28) illustrate to block the allophonic

occurrences of the nonsyllabic [l]. On account of the coarticulatory accounts,

after the syllabic [l] made the obligatory status, the other allophones emerge

from there on the basis of the morpheme structures. Due to the cooccurrent

two allophones syllabic [l] and schwa form, the nonsyllabic lateral does not

surface in them. Owing to these surface forms, the syllabic variation is

blocked from taking the process in this context. The number of the syllables

in the left remains to be three and does not shift to two. The difference

between the two set of the examples is grounded not in the suffixations but

in the emergent phonetic conditioning.

4.2.3. The other suffixes

46

Given the cases in (29), it is apparently clear that the double suffixation is

permitted to occur from the perspective of the word formation, like the one

with the syllabic variations. However, it is paradoxically true that the

number of the syllables remains to be stable. This is implied to be the

unworkability of the double suffixation. The last section illustrated the

inapplicability of the double suffixation <-y> vs. <-ly> to finally and bitterly,

which is though applicable to cuddly. The following are similar to, but

different from, them:

(29) <-ess> vs. <-ness> citizeness, britoness

Given the double suffixations, the lefthand suffix induces the stem-final

sonorants to occupy the nuclei of the syllables. In this context, the same

word comes to have the form with the nonsyllabic sonorant. The cause and

effect like this well holds true for the case in which the medial /l/ occurs in

the words with the suffixes <-ing> and <-ling> in the final position; in the

two morpheme structures <cycle> + <-ing> and <cyc> + <-ling>, the former

and the latter represent the trisyllables and the disyllables, respectively.

However, the words in (29) are always unchanged on the number of the

syllables. This mismatch owes to the lack of the first derivation; the syllabic

[n] is not obligatorily pronounced. In the word threatening, the syllabic [n] is

likely to become obligatory and, after that, the syllabic variation in the

derivative word proceeds. For citizeness and britoness, the obligatory

pronunciation of the syllabic consonants would be rather possible, but less

common than that of threatening.

The articulatory movements in the sequences make a difference between

them. When speakers pronounce the glottal stop as in RP, the posture on the

alveolar nasal is readily made accessible. For threatening, the front of the

tongue is firmly attached to alveolar ridge when making the glottal stop. If

the obligatory articulation on the syllabic [n] in the words of (29) is at least

47

uncommon, the emergent phonetic conditioning is not effective in the first

derivation of the syllabic variations. The outcome on this argument is

attributed to the nonoccurrence of the syllabic variations on the basis of

unworkability of the emergent phonetic conditioning:

(30) a. The sonorants occur medially in every example.

b. The sonorants shift from the nucleus to the onset rightward in every

example. = (3c, e)

Taking into consideration the fact that the medial sonorants shift rightward

in all of them, the alveolar nasals in (29) might become the objects of the

syllabic variations in the same way. However, the words citizeness and

britoness have consistently four and three syllables, respectively. The reason

for blocking these syllabic variations comes from the fact that in the same

morphological context, the first one of the derivations is not satisfied,

leading to the consistent number of the syllables.

5. Conclusion

The syllabic variations present the extraordinary phenomenon in English

phonology and this paper investigates the functional grounding in them. The

idea on the double suffixation might be implicitly shared, but the three

pieces of the counterevidence make it flawed. The constraint reranking and

the isochrony do not hold, either. In order to overcome the insufficiency, the

emergent phonetic conditioning serves as the satisfactory explanation. After

the syllabic sonorants came to be obligatorily pronounced in the stem words,

another allophones occur as the different forms between the derivative and

stem words. The laterals are allophonized in the two respects: long and dark

(or slightly more fronted) vs. short and clear. Due to the short distance to the

48

adjacent vowel, both the lateral and the alveolar nasal are led to readily shift

to it with the short duration. All of the counterexamples are also better

accounted for by the coarticulatory way.

REFERENCES

Beal, Joan C. (2012) “By Those Provincials Mispronounced: The STRUT

Vowel in Eighteenth-Century Pronouncing Dictionaries,” Language

and History 55, 5-17.

Beddor, Patrice (2009) “A Coarticulatory Path to Sound Change,” Language

85, 785-821.

Bermúdez-Otero, Ricardo (2005) “The History of English Intrusive

Liquids,” ms., at:http://www.bermudez-otero.com/intrusion.pdf

Bermúdez-Otero, Ricardo and Börjars Kersti (2006) “Markedness in

Phonology and in Syntax: The Problem of Grounding,” Lingua

116, 710-756.

Borowsky, Toni (1989) “Structure Preservation and the Syllable Coda in

English,” Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 7, 145-166.

Britain, David and Wyn Johnson (2007) “L-vocalisation as a Natural

Phenomenon: Explorations in Sociophonology,” Language Sciences

29, 294-315.

Broadbent, Judith (1991) “Linking and Intrusive r in English,” University

College London Working Papers in Linguistics 3, 281-302.

Broadbent, Judith (2008) “t-to-r in West Yorkshire English,” English

Language and Linguistics 12, 141-168.

49

Carr, Philip (2000) “Scientific Realism, Sociophonetic Variation, and Innate

Endowments in Phonology,” Phonological Knowledge:

Conceptual and Empirical Issues, eds. by N. Burton-Roberts, P. et

al., 67-104, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Cruttenden, Alan (1994) Gimson’s Pronunciation of English, 5th ed.,

London: Arnold.

Dauer, Rebecca (1983) “Stress-timing and Syllable-timing Reanalyzed,”

Journal of Phonetics 11, 51-62.

Docherty, Gerard J. (1992) The Timing and Voicing in British English

Obstruents, Dordrecht: Foris.

Fudge, Erik C. (1969) “Syllables,” Journal of Linguistics 5, 253-286.

Gick, Bryan (1999) “A Gesture-based account of Intrusive Consonants in

English,” Phonology 16, 29-54.

Giegerich, Heinz J. (1992) English Phonology: An Introduction, Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.

Gordon, Matthew (2002) “A Phonetically-driven Account of Syllable

Weight,” Language 78, 51-80.

Hall, Tracy A. (2003) “Phonetics in Phonology: The Markedness of Rhotic +

Palatal Glide Sequences in English,” Folia Linguistica 37, 249-67.

Hammond, Michael (1997) “Vowel Quantity and Syllabification in English,”

Language 73, 1-17.

Hardcastle, William J. (1989) “Articulatory and Perceptual Factors in /l/

Vocalisations in English,” Journalof the International Phonetic

Association 15, 3-17.

Harrison, Phil (2007) “The Lost Consonants of Atlanta,” Language Sciences

29, 237-246.

Hayes, Bruce (2000) “Gradient Well-formedness in Optimality Theory,”

Optimality Theory: Phonology, Syntax, and Acquisition, eds.

by J. Dekkers, F. van der Leeuw, and J. van de Weijer. 88-120,

50

Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Jensen, John T. (2000) “Against Ambisyllabicity,” Phonology 17, 187-235.

Kahn, Daniel (1976) Syllable-based Generalizations in English Phonology,

Doctoral Dissertation, MIT. [published by Garland, 1980.]

Kerswill, Paul (1995) “Phonological Convergence in Dialect Contact:

Evidence from Citation Forms,” Language Variation and

Change 7, 195-207.

Kingston, John (2007) “Lenition,” Proceedings of the 3rd

Conference on

Laboratory Approaches to Spanish Phonology, eds. by L.

Colantoni et al., 1-31, Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.

Kirchner, Robert (1998) An Effort-based Approach to Consonant Lenition,

Doctoral Dissertation, UCLA. [by Routledge, 2001.]

Lindblom, Björn (1990) “Explaining Phonetic Variation: A Sketch of the

H&H Theory,” Speech production and Speech Modelling,

eds. by W. J. Hardcastle and A. Marchal, 403-440, Dordrecht:

Kluwer Academic Publishers.

McMahon, April (2000) “The Emergence of the Optimal?: Optimality

Theory and Sound Change,” The Linguistic Review 17, 231-40.

McMahon, April (2003a) “Phonology and the Holy Grail,” Lingua 113, 103-

115.

McMahon, April (2003b) “When History doesn’t Repeat itself: Optimality

Theory and Implausible Sound Changes,” Optimality

Theory and Language Change, ed. by E. Holt, 121-142, Dordrecht:

Kluwer Academic Publishers.

McMahon, April (2007) “Who’s Afraid of the Vowel Shift Rule?,”

Language Sciences 29, 341-359.

Milroy, James, Lesley Milroy, Sue Hartley and David Walshaw (1994)

“Glottal Stops and Tyneside Glottalization: Competing Patterns

of Variation and Change in British English,” Language Variation

51

and Change 6, 327-359.

Oda, Toshihiro (2008) “Phonetically Based Allophones and the Sharp

Increase of Syllabic Consonants,” presented at the 15th

International Conference on English Historical Linguistics, Munich.

Oda, Toshihiro (2009) “Phonetically Driven Coda Maximization,” paper

presented at Monosyllable Conference, Bremen.

Picard, Mark (1984) “English Flapping and Aspiration Revisited,” Canadian

Journal of Linguistics 29, 42-57.

Roach, Peter (1973) “Glottalization of /p/, /t/, /k/, and /th/,” Journal of the

International Phonetic Association 3, 10-21.

Roach, Peter (2002) “A Little Encyclopedia of Phonetics,” ms., available at:

http://www.personal.rdg.ac.uk/~llsroach/encyc.pdf

Roach, Peter, Paul Sergeant, and Dave Miller (1992) “Syllabic Consonants

at Different Speaking Rates: A Problem for Automatic

Speech Recognition,” Speech Communication 11, 475-479.

Rubach, Jerzy (1996) “Shortening and Ambisyllabicity in English,”

Phonology 13, 197-237.

Steriade, Donca (1999) “Alternatives to the Syllabic Interpretation of

Consonantal Phonetics,” Proceedings of the 1998 Linguistics and

Phonetics Conference, eds. by B. Joseph et al., 205-242, Prague:

The Calorinum Press.

Tollfree, Laura (1999) “South East London English: Discrete versus

Continuous Modelling of Consonantal Reduction,” Urban Voices,

eds.by P.Foulkes and G. Docherty, 163-184, London: Arnold.

Wells, John C. (1965) “The Phonological Status of Syllabic Consonants in

English RP,” Phonetica 13, 110-113.

Wells, John C. (1982) Accents of English 2: The British Isles, Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.

Wells, John C. (1995) “New Syllabic Consonants in English,” Studies in the

52

Pronunciation of English: A Commemorative Volume in Honour

of Professor J. D. O’Connor, ed. by J. Windsor Lewis, 401-412,

London: Arnold.

Wells, John C. (1997) “What Happened to Received Pronunciation?,”

Jornadas de Estudios Ingleses, eds. by C. C. Medina and P. C.

Soto, 19-28, Universidad de Jaén, Spain.

Windsor Lewis, Jack (1975) “Linking /r/ in the General British

Pronunciation of English,” Journal of the International Phonetic

Association 5, 37-42.