KATOLICKI UNIWERSYTET LUBELSKI JANA PAWŁA II

Wydział Nauk HumanistycznychFilologia Angielska

Radosław FencNr albumu: 116476

Licensing at Word Edges in English and Spanish

Praca licencjacka napisana pod kierunkiemdr Krzysztofa Jaskuły

Lublin 2011

Contents

Preface....................................................................................................................................4

Chapter I: Introduction Of the Government Phonology Framework.....................................5

1. Introduction........................................................................................................................5

2. Government Phonology......................................................................................................5

2.1 Basic information about GP.........................................................................................5

2.2 Government.................................................................................................................6

2.3 Licensing.....................................................................................................................7

3. Conclusion..........................................................................................................................9

Chapter II: Licensing of Edge Single Consonants and Consonant Clusters in Spanish.......10

1. Introduction......................................................................................................................10

2. Word-initial and word-final single consonants.................................................................10

2.1 GP analysis................................................................................................................13

3. Consonant clusters............................................................................................................18

4. Licensing of branching onsets..........................................................................................18

5. Conclusion........................................................................................................................23

Chapter III: Licensing of Word­edge Single Consonants and Clusters in English.

Spanish - English Comparison. ...........................................................................................24

1. Introduction......................................................................................................................24

2. Word-edge single consonants in English..........................................................................24

2.1 GP analysis................................................................................................................26

3. Branching onsets in English.............................................................................................28

3.1 GP analysis................................................................................................................30

4. Coda-onset sequences in English and Spanish.................................................................31

4.1 The Spanish case........................................................................................................32

4.2 Special status of s + C clusters..................................................................................33

4.2.1 (magic) licensing in Spanish..............................................................................36

2

5. Proper government...........................................................................................................37

6. Conclusion........................................................................................................................38

Conclusion............................................................................................................................40

Podsumowanie......................................................................................................................41

References............................................................................................................................42

3

Preface

The aim of this work is to provide a presentation and analysis of the phenomena linked to

the licensing of word-edge consonant clusters in English and Spanish. To deal with the

phonological issues, the Government Phonology framework, and its extension, the CVCV

model, will be employed in the analyses.

Chapter one is devoted to the introduction of the rudimentary notions of GP. The basic

principles are presented, and their application is laid out in a graphical manner. In

particular, chapter one is about Licensing and Government, the two most important notions

in GP.

The second chapter provides data and analysis for the Spanish phenomena. First, the

single consonants are scrutinised in terms of word-edge licensing. The theory of elements

is employed here to find a common denominator for consonants which behave in the same

manner. Later, being provided with the corpus, the same analysis is done on Spanish

branching onsets. Additionally, chapter two presents some phonetic alternations which may

have influence on the understanding of the phonological processes.

Chapter three is a mirror image of chapter two, it concerns English, in comparison with

Spanish. The first part of this chapter provides us with some essential data, i.e. licensing of

single consonants and their elemental structure for the better understanding of the

phenomena of licensing of the consonant clusters. Next, the licensing of branching onsets

is analysed and discussed. After that, there is an analysis and comparison between English

and Spanish coda-onset sequences. Here, the CVCV model is used to replace the old

'Magic Licensing', which concerns s + C sequences. In the last part of this chapter, the

notion of proper government is presented and analysed.

I would like to wholeheartedly thank my supervisor

for his advice, patience, and kind heart.

Though my eyes would see, I still was a blind man

Though my mind could think, I still was a mad man

4

Chapter I

Introduction to the Government Phonology framework

1. Introduction

This chapter attempts to introduce the theoretical framework of this paper, i.e. Government

Phonology KLV1 (1990), Harris (1990), Harris (1994), Gussmann (2002), Cyran (2003). It

is a minimalistic approach to phonology which is seen to be the most succinct one. Cyran

(1997) accurately notices that the invention of Government Phonology was a ground

breaking event in the old generative phonology theory. As he continues, plenty of rules

from the old theory were replaced by a handful of universal principles which provide

linguistics with complex tools to deal with diverse phonological problems.

2 Government Phonology

As can be found in Harris (1994), Government Phonology (GP) sees phonological

phenomena as a reflection of just several universal principles and language-specific

parameters. What is more, the name itself suggests that governing relations are crucial to

this approach. Trying to understand government, one may find out that government is

viewed as an asymmetric relation between two skeletal slots, i.e. units of phonological

timing.

2.1 Basic information about GP

Before presenting and explaining exact visualisation of government, the most rudimentary

principles of GP have to be mentioned. KLV (1990) argue that all syllabic constituents are

maximally binary (The Binarity Theorem). A syllabic constituent is to be perceived as an

onset, a nucleus, or a rhyme. In other words, this theorem disallows constituents to have

more than two branches.

Following Kaye (2000), one may encounter also notions of Strict Locality and Strict

1 Kaye, Lowenstamm, and Vergnaud (1990).

5

Directionality which are of utmost importance in GP. The Strict Locality principle states

that both positions in constituent government must be adjacent. The consequence of The

Strict Directionality postulation is that all syllabic constituents be head-initial, and the

direction of government is not subject to parametric variation (KLV 1990). Consequently,

ternary syllabic constituents are banned from Government Phonology.

2.2 Government

Given all the above-mentioned notions, it can be inferred that the possibilities of

government in GP are relatively limited. Only few combinations are possible. The

combinations of government in GP are as follows (the structures taken from Jaskuła 2010a:

211):

(1) a. constituent government

R syllabic tier

|

O N N

|

x x x x x x skeletal tier

| | | | | |

b. inter-constituent government

R

|

N O

| |

x x x

| |

In these representations governors are underlined. In (1a) there are formal graphic

6

representations of government within the same syllabic constituent. Namely, a branching

onset represented by the consonant cluster [, a nucleus in the form of a diphthong ,

and a rhyme exemplified by a sequence. In the inter-constituent government, a

governing relation exists between the onset (governor) and the rhymal complement [r]

(governee). Inter-constituent government (as in (1b)) is known to be a head-final one,

(Kaye 2000). The direction of this kind of government is from right to left. Overall, it can

be stated that in most cases obstruents are governors, and sonorants are governees. Still, it

is worth to state the obvious that non-branching constituents do not have governing

relations.

2.3 Licensing

In accordance with the Licensing Principle (KLV 1990: 306), every position in

phonological representation must be licensed (given power to exist or govern another

position) by the head of the domain which normally is the stressed nucleus. Then every

nucleus emanates its licensing power to the onsets in the phonological utterance, thus, all

nuclei have the power to license preceding onsets. These dependencies and their variants

may be graphically represented as:

(2)a. b. c. R

|

O1 N1 O2 N2 O1 N1 O2 N2 O1 N1 O2 N2 O3 N3

| | | | | | | | | | | | | |

x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x

| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |

glossary: traba 'an obstacle'

tobo 'a bucket'

tendero 'a salesman'

The Spanish data above present three variations of licensing possibilities. Point (2b) shows

7

licensing in the simplest combination, namely, two full syllables consisting of an onset and

a nucleus. As it can be seen, each nucleus licenses its preceding onset. Point (2a) illustrates

a slightly more complex situation. The first syllable contains a branching onset, the head of

which is underlined. Consequently, N1 licenses O1 which gives governing power to the first

part of the branching constituent. This type of licensing is called a licence to govern. Next,

graph (2c) represents how licensing works if the word contains a rhymal complement (or

'coda'). In this case, the coda [n] is governed by O2 [d] – this phenomenon is called inter-

constituent government.

Yet, these are not the only possible combinations. Let us consider a situation where a

word ends not with a vowel but with a consonant. By way of illustration the following

examples should be analysed:

(3) a. b.

R R

| |

O1 N1 O2 N2 O1 N1 O2 N2

| | | | | | | |

x x x x x x x x x x

| | | | | | | | | |

glossary: tort 'cake'

'cake sing. Gen'

Above, three Polish words are presented. In (3a), the first nucleus [o] licenses the first

onset [t]. The last onset [t] has enough power to govern the coda [r]. A careful reader might

wonder where this ability of O2 comes from. This situation requires a more thorough

scrutiny. A linguistically-conscious Polish speaker will consider the word tort a one-

syllable utterance where is an onset and is a ternary rhyme comprising a nucleus

and a branching coda (ternary rhyme) The same speaker will probably take (3b)

as a two-syllable word; first is an onset, rhyme with a complement, and an

onset and a nucleus.

8

However, from the GP point of view, such a configuration is illegitimate word-finally

due to the violation of the Coda Licensing Principle and the Binary Theorem. The former

states that a well-formed coda needs an onset to follow and govern it, as presented in (2c)

and (1b), the latter, as it was mentioned above, disallows constituents to have more than

two branches. In other words, a cluster of consonants in word-final position cannot be

treated as a word-final coda in the Government Phonology framework. Consequently,

taking also the Licensing Principle (given in 1.3) into consideration, resyllabification is not

possible in GP approach.

As it can be inferred from the arguments above, the only legitimate configuration is

treating the last consonant as a new onset which is licensed by an empty nucleus at the end

of the word. Thus it has the power to govern the preceding rhymal complement. It can be

said that the empty nucleus in word-final position is able to license by a language-specific

parameter.

After saying that an empty nucleus licensing parameter is ON in Polish, a one more

closely related aspect should be considered. When analysing points (3a) and (3b) one may

notice that tortu is a paradigmatic oblique case of tort. The suffix is used in this Polish

word to form a singular Genitive case, e.g. smród 'stench', smrodu

'stench sing. Gen.'. As it was noted above, the word tort ends with an empty nucleus (in

bold) which licenses the preceding onset. After declension of (3a) it can be seen that the

final empty nucleus (N2) is now somehow realised in the form of (in bold). This

phenomenon is an outcome of the Projection Principle (Harris 1994) which states that the

relations among segments are perceived as stable, no matter which version of a single word

we deal with.

3. Conclusion

As we can see, the basics of GP are very succinct and straightforward. There is no place for

speculations and uncertainty. Next, having the rudimentary notions of GP explained, let us

proceed to the following chapter. Some additional remarks on the theory will be made if

necessary.

9

Chapter II

Licensing of edge single consonants and consonant clusters

in Spanish

1. Introduction

This chapter aims to present the phenomenon of the licensing of word-edge consonants and

consonant clusters in Spanish. The analysis will be conducted from the viewpoint of

Government Phonology. A consonant cluster is a configuration of two or more adjacent

non-vocalic segments. However, in order to understand their true nature, some beforehand

comments on the rudimentary essentials should be made.

2. Word-initial and word-final single consonants

To understand the licensing of single consonants in Spanish, each group of sounds present

in this tongue should be examined. To start with, let us scrutinize some hand-picked

Spanish data.

(1) plosives

sound

IPA

spelling polvo ebeo coto bañera dedo gordo

gloss 'dust' 'a comic book' a fence' 'a bath tub' 'a finger' 'fat (Adj)'

The data above show that the plosives [p, b, t, d, k, g] are present in Spanish. To add more,

they are able to occupy word-initial slots in a word. As the research has shown, it is

impossible to find words which end with a bare plosive such as English cat or

[nap. Instead in Spanish, phonetically similar words contain a full vowel

cata'a tasting' or napo 'a hawk' rendering word-final plosives an

impossibility in this language. What is more, there are no voiced stops even

intervocallicaly, despite of the ortography. Further investigation on this problem will be

10

made in the following paragraphs.

In opposition to the Spanish plosives, fricatives have even more limited distribution.

Rarely do they appear in word-initial position, and only few of them are to be found at the

end of the word. The following data exemplify the constraints in the licensing of fricatives

in Spanish. Sounds andwill be talked about in a separate paragraph.

(2) fricatives and approximants

word-initial

spelling zapatero fase segundo joya yo llaga

gloss 'shoemaker' 'phase' 'second' 'jewellery' 'I' 'a wound'

word-final ---

spelling abaz además abad ---

gloss 'a dresser' 'what is more' 'a dean' ---

Given that, it might be noticed that some fricatives such as have unlimited

distribution when appearing as a single consonant. This table shows that some of the

fricatives ( and) are not found in the initial position of the word in Spanish.

However, there are some contexts where these sounds are realized in word-initial position.

This issue is discussed in a greater scope in Oftedal (1985). To illustrate the problem, some

examples based on Oftedal’s ideas will be used. The Spanish word ganar in when it is

context-free begins with a [g]. However, when it is in intervocalic environment (not only

within a word) it may be realised as Example: ganar ['to earn money'but va a

ganar will win'and garras [but las garras

s' Asimilar situation takes place when [dbecomesandalternates within

similar contexts. Here, the bilabial sound marked by the symbol denotes a bilabial

voiced fricative (Oftedal, 1985), and not a bilabial approximant. These fricatives normally

do not exist at the beginning of the word, however, under some circumstances they are

phonetically realized. This phenomenon is subject to further research.

11

Let us scrutinize the sounds of Spanish that are left.

(3) affricates, liquids, nasals

word-initial

spelling cheo rabia leal mano nostro ñoclo ualabi ion

gloss 'drunk' 'rabies' 'loyal' 'hand' 'ours' 'doughnut' 'wallaby' 'ion'

word-final

spelling abajar real tren

gloss 'to lower' 'royal' 'train'

Regarding phonological analysis, the licensing is as follows. The word initial onset O1 is

licensed by the adjacent nucleus N1 in accordance with the GP principles laid out in

chapter one. The fricatives at the end of the word are licensed by the empty nucleus which,

as it was mentioned in the previous chapter, is able to share its power with the preceding

onsets by parameter.

As it is presented, one may observe that some sounds occur in all the aforementioned

positions, while the others do not. The affricate appears in a number of words in the

corpus, whereas is not considered an official part of the Spanish phonemic inventory.

However, it is included in this paragraph to show that the phenomena from (5) are present

also in other sounds. (in bold) may be an alternation of or in a velar context

such as in sin yoyo 'no yoyo', en llamas 'in flames' or inyection

'injection' where the trans-domain environment supports the affrication. It can

be seen that this change is similar to the word-initial alterations of plosives. It is worth to

mention that some borrowings genuinely starting with may be easily found in Spanish,

e.g. gigabyte 'gigabyte'.

The trill and the tap occur interchangeably, according to the table. However,

both can appear in word-medial position e.g. perro 'a dog', andpero 'but'.

From the nasals presented, only [n] occurs in both positions. However, there are some

loans which end with such as ohm 'ohm' or webcam 'webcam' but

these are deliberately omitted in this paper for the fact that they are not representatives of

this language. Semivowels andare also marginal in the language and occur in loan

12

words or in proper names.

To summarise, more single consonants in Spanish can open the word rather than close

it. In word-initial position one can find a number of possibilities. Although some fricatives

are officially banned from this slot, they are still found in an appropriate context (vide the

behaviour of ). It can be said that Spanish phonology is quite liberal, allowing

almost every single consonant to take word-initial position.

On the other hand, Spanish does not allow just any consonant to occupy word-final

position. The phonological system of that language excludes all plosives, a few fricatives,

and other sounds from this slot. In a nutshell, only are possible single

consonants at the end of the word in genuine Spanish. Having given it a thought, one may

notice a regularity. The system allows only the 'weak' sounds which do not demand much

effort to produce. To put it more bluntly, these sounds which involve a kind of significant

closure (such as plosives, nasal plosives, affricates, or even the trill [r]) are too strong to

stand solitarily at the word-final position.

2.1 GP analysis

The conclusion from the previous section needs a further analysis in the Government

Phonology framework. However, word-initial single consonants will not be taken into

consideration by reason of being virtually unconstrained. The only limitation of a

consonant in this slot is, surprisingly, the unexceptional tap [which is never to be found

in the word-initial slot.

To complement the phonetic summary, a phonological analysis has to be done. In the

following paragraphs, the same data will be scrutinized by the use of the phonological

elements or primes which will be explained in the flow of the analysis. The theory of

elements and their application is used here on the basis of the works of Harris (1990),

KLV (1990), Harris (1994), Kaye (2000), and Cyran (2003).

In this part, each aforementioned Spanish sound will have its elemental description. It

will be done to have a deeper insight in the licensing of word-final consonants in Spanish.

To start with, the following table should be analysed. The examples from the previous part

still hold true. Some sounds are omitted due to their insignificant importance in this issue.

13

(4) elemental structure of Spanish consonants

a. obstruents

sound *

complexity U

h

U

h

L

A

h

A

h

L

@

h

@

h

L

U

h

L

@

h

L

I

h

L

A

+h

A

h

L

A

h

A-I

h

U

h

@

h

b. sonorants

sound

complexity N

A-I

A-I

A-I A-I N

U

N

I

I

h

U I

The tables show major Spanish consonants and their phonological interpretation in the

form of Primes or Elements. To start with, it is advisable to make a brief comment on their

internal structure in general. Each group of sounds has something in common when

regarding their complexity. Now, the similarities of the sound families will be laid out.

In the first place, there is a need to explain why the element (L) is used to mark lenis

consonants, and not the element (H) for fortis ones. Cyran (2011) suggests that in Romance

languages (such as Spanish) lenis consonants are fully voiced (their VOT2 is negative), but

the fortis obstruents are not totally voiceless (they have positive VOT). Bearing this

information in mind, it is more reasonable to mark voiced consonants rather than the

voiceless ones. It is also worth mentioning that sonorants need not to be marked as lenis as

they are such by their nature.

Next, the usage of individual primes will be made clear. At the outset, all labials are

described by the prime (U). It characterizes bilabials, labio-dentals, and bilabial

approximants as well. The prime (A) designates all dental sounds such as dental plosives,

2 Voicing Onset Time, see Cyran (2011) for thorough differentiation between fortis and lenis vs. voiced and voiceless consonants

14

affricate, and inter-dental fricatives.

The next element is a compound (A-I). It was introduced by Cyran (1997) for

coronals and employed in Jaskuła (2006) to describe dental non-vocalic elements.

However, this compound will be used here to specify alveolar sounds. Consequently, (A-I)

comprises alveolar fricatives, a nasal, a trill, a lateral, and a tap.

The symbol (@) is used to determine velar sounds, i.e. velar plosives and fricatives.

Next, (h) may be considered as a noise component present during the production of some

consonants. The stop element () stands for any kind of significant closure in the oral tract.

In this work, nasals also have stop element in their structures. It results from the fact that

each of them involves the aforementioned closure, simultaneously, they cannot be

perceived as non-sonorants. Next, the headedness element modification (_) describes

which of the elements in the structure is more prominent. As an example, let us consider

Spanish and case. Both are described here by the same elements, but here, the post-

dental part (A-I) part of is headed. It means that the articulatory component in is

stronger than its headless twin

The sound with an asterisk * needs a further comment on. The presentation in

brackets is the author's original idea. To the author's present knowledge, such a

presentation has not been done anywhere else and it should be considered highly

experimental and absolutely no references to this idea should be made. To make it clear,

the bracket presentation ((A.)+(h)) aims to put forward a contour structure first introduced

by Harris (1994) in a form of a tree. (A.) presents the common part of the structure, +(h)

is the release stage, in this case . What is more, this is the only significant affricate in

Spanish, and in addition, it does not occupy word-final position. Therefore, it will not take

more attention in this analysis.

The segments in bold are known to appear in the final slot of a word. (4a) is a

column devoted to obstruents. Column (4b) introduces sonorants. Such a division has been

made for it has been noted that obstruents act differently than sonorants when it comes to

their behaviour in final position.

As it may be observed, amongst obstruents, only a few fricatives are allowed by the

system to constitute a word-final consonant. Surprisingly, not all of them. The palatal

voiced fricative , the velar voiced fricative and the labial one are excluded from

15

this group. Yet, putting aside these two, it can be said that in Spanish there is a tendency for

the headless and stopless obstruents to occupy the word-final post. Consequently, the final

empty nucleus is unable to license (or to give power) to lenis obstruents which contain

head and stop elements in their compositions. To present it more graphically, the following

trees should be examined.

(5) licensing of single obstruents

a. x x x b. x x x

| | | | | |

V V A

L A-I

_ h

(L)

The graphs (5a) and (5b) aim to show the ability of the word-final empty nucleus to license

certain elements in the case of obstruents. In (5a) the empty nucleus is unable to license

any of the elements from the medial skeletal slot, both, together or as separate units. Graph

(5b) shows which elements the empty nucleus is able to give power to, here, each

separately or in the following combinations: (A.h.L), (A.h), (A-I.h). To make everything

clear, (V) stands for any phonetically realised vowel. As it was mentioned before, the

empty nucleus is unable to license stops and lenis obstruents, except for coronal sounds.

Tree (5a) presents graphically which elements may not be licensed in the word-final slot.

As it is stated, when regarding obstruents, the final empty nucleus is too weak to relay

power to sounds which contain in their structures elements of stopness, headedness, or

voice, except . On the contrary, (5b) makes it evident that fortis obstruents, namely,

voiceless fricatives, are the only sounds less vocalic than sonorants to be licensed by an

empty nucleus. Excluding the aforementioned inter-dental .

Yet, there are some exceptions. Three voiced fricatives are disallowed

from taking the last slot in the word, however, being a voiced fricative itself is a

common ending in Spanish.

16

Moving on to the other group, it has to be noted that sonorants are ruled by slightly

different principles. In this case, it is not the matter what the empty nucleus is able to

license, but rather what is preferred. It is secure to say that headed elements are not good

candidates to be licensed. What is more, the approximants are headed which, as it is

mentioned above, renders a segment unlicenseable. Among sonorants, only ,

andare supported.

Surprisingly, in sonorants, the element () is licensed. Gimson (2008: 206) explains

this phenomenon by showing the similarity between nasals and plosives where a total

occlusion in the oral cavity is made, with an exception of the soft palate being raised. It

allows the air to flow continuously with no audible friction. That is why nasals remind

vowels in many respects. When talking about Spanish nasals, only Despite

the similarities, andare not licensed for some reason.

To complete this scrutiny, one has to think what the licensed sonorants have in

common. Surely, they are headless, and are not of plosive-nature. What unifies them, is the

(A-I) compound which constitutes peculiar foundations for the licensing susceptibility. To

add more, it can be noted that these three sounds are in a succession of complexity. is

the most complex one, is less complicated, the last but not least is the tap consisting

of the solo compound. To show it more graphically, the following tree is to be seen.

(6) complexity of the licenseable sonorants

| | |

N | |

|

A-I A-I A-I

(6) shows that the only sonorants which are found in word-final position have the same

basis.

To sum this part up, let us draw the following observations. First, concerning all

consonants, the empty nucleus is under no condition able to license headed elements.

Second, obstruents are treated differently than sonorants. The conditions for licensing the

obstruents are more strict than for sonorants. To be precise, only unheaded coronal

17

fricatives are allowed to stand in the final position. Next, only three sonorants which share

the same foundations are licensed in word-final position. In general, it can be said that

consonants of dental-alveolar ((A) and (A-I) elements) origin are more welcome at the end

of the word. In a nutshell, coronals are special in Spanish.

3. Consonant clusters

There are three types of consonant clusters recognized by the linguists. The first is a

branching onset, which is discussed in 4. Next, for coda-onset sequences and proper

government see chapter III.

4. Licensing of branching onsets

To get familiar with the notion of a branching onset, let us accept the following definition.

A branching onset is a binary syllable constituent (The Binary Theorem) whose segments'

sonority rises. Sonority, in simple words, is the peak of the sound. Harris (1994: 56)

proposes the following sonority hierarchy:

(7) sonority hierarchy

Plosives Fricatives Nasals Liquids Glides

the least sonorant the most sonorant

Considering  sonority   in   terms of  phonology,  one  may observe  the  connection  between 

sonority and the complexity of a sound. Using an example, let us take two Spanish sounds,

the plosive and the liquidtheir complexity would run as follows: (@.h..L), [r]

(A-I). As we can see, is much more complex than [r]. In Spanish, there are many words

starting with cluster [gr], e.g. grabar 'to engrave', or gracia 'grace'. This

cluster is to be considered as a branching onset since it is true to the definition above. The

sonority of the components rises within a constituent.

From the phonological point of view, there is a government relation in this cluster (cf.

18

inter-constituent government, chapter I). Namely, is the governor, and is the

governee. In conclusion, we can say that sonority rises in inverse proportion to the

complexity, which is quite reasonable since the more 'obstacles' in the airflow, the less

vocalic the sound becomes. Thus, in phonology, a segment which is more complex governs

the more simplex one within a branching onset.

In order to see which combinations of Spanish consonant clusters in word-initial

position are possible, the following table has been prepared and analysed.

(8) possible word-initial consonant clusters

a.

+ - + + - + + (-) - - - -

+ + + + + + + - - - - -

+ + + + + + + + + + + +

+ + + + + + + + + + + +

Tables (8) presents which consonant combinations are found in word-initial position in

Spanish. Table (9) (below) is a repository of examples for the clusters given in (8).

Obviously, the vertical sounds constitute the first consonant, and the horizontal are the

second ones. It has been decided not to include to this list for they are just context-

dependent realisations of and behave in the same way in a branching onset.

Bearing in mind the definition of a branching onset, plosives make a perfect C1 (first

consonant) of a cluster. They are the most complex and the least sonorous sounds in

Spanish so there are virtually no limitations to their occurrence in this part of the syllable.

Of course, there are some exceptions. andare not usually found paired with [l].

Following Harris (1983), is allowed in some dialects, but is prohibited globally.

However, there are words starting with acluster, such as Tlaco 'proper name' or

kiosko 'kiosk' but they mostly loan words, thus they are of marginal importance to

this thesis.

However, it is the sound which is the most special one. In this table, only the non-

exceptional clusters are presented. [s] can be found in such words as suave 'gentle'

or suelo 'ground'. The coexistence of and is an issue for further discussion.

19

The Oxford Spanish Dictionary shows some loan words such as (e)slalom

'slalom' or [(e)s'lo slogan 'slogan' to have a parenthetic [e] which is not mandatory.3 As

a curiosity, it can be added that when is stressed, is obligatory e.g. [slot 'slot'.

The s+C sequences will be discussed later on.4

Being given some theoretical introduction, let us scrutinize the following example of

the consonant cluster [tr] occurring in a variety of positions. It can be said that [tr] is a

branching onset because [r] is more sonorous than [t]. And there are no homorganicity

factors preventing these to form a branching onset. The following table presents the

behaviour of a typical branching onset in a word.

(9) licensing of a branching onset at various word positions

a.  b.

O1 N1 O2 N2 O1 N1 O2 N2

/\ | | | | | /\ |

  x    x x x x x x       x    x x

  |      | | | | | |         |     | |

  

glossary: [ tren 'a train'

cutre 'a stingy person'

In (9a) and (9b) Spanish data are presented. Starting with (9a), some phenomena from

chapter I can be observed. Namely, a full vowel N1 licenses the head of the preceding

branching onset O1, in which [t] governs [r] stating a well-formed consonant cluster in

Spanish. This type of licensing is named a license to govern. What is more, the empty

nucleus N2 licenses the onset O2 to be in accordance with the most rudimentary principles

of GP mentioned in chapter I.

Proceeding to (9b), it can be stated that the same consonant cluster, a branching onset

3 The examples are taken from The Oxford Spanish Dictionary, CD-ROM edition.4 According to Kaye (1996), s+C sequence cannot be treated as branching onset. This issue will be

discussed in chapter III.

20

occupying two skeletal slots whose phonetic realisation is [tr], in this word occurs in its

medial position. In this case, the licensing is not problematic. N2 is a full vowel which has

enough power to license O2. Yet again, license to govern may be observed.

One may ask why the cluster is not presented in word-final position. To answer

that question, it has to be stated that Spanish and English are not good data repositories for

such phenomena. In these languages a word-final branching onset simply does not exist.

Additionally, English as a non-rhotic language does not produce even if it is justified by

the spelling.

The following tables present examples of word-initial branching onsets in Spanish.

(10) word-initial branching onsets

a. sonorant + sonorant

IPA spelling gloss IPA spelling gloss

mueble 'moveable' miedo 'fear'

nueva 'new' 'granddaughter'

ruego 'a request' rielar 'to shine'

luego 'soon' liebre 'a hare'

b. obstruent + sonorant

IPA spelling gloss IPA spelling gloss IPA spelling gloss IPA spelling gloss

plata 'silver' pravo 'evil' pueblo 'a town' piedra 'a stone'

blanco 'white' brazo'shoulder

' bueno 'good (adj)' bien 'good (n)'

tres 'three' tueste 'toasting' tienda 'a tent'

droga'medicin

e' duelo 'duel' diabla 'she-devil'

clava 'a club' croar'to

chuckle' cuaco 'a nag' quien 'who'

glabro 'beardless' grifo'(of hair)

curly' guácharo 'frail' guiar 'to guide'

flaco 'thin' fregar 'to rub' fuego 'fire' fiebre 'fever'

suave 'gentle' siega 'to reap'

zueco 'a clog' cien 'one hundred'

The list above is an extension of the table (8). It has been prepared for the reader to have an

21

instant access to the word examples. What is observable is that, once again, obstruents

behave in a different manner than sonorants. As a matter of fact, there is only ban on

homorganic (for elements, see (4)) consonant clusters, That is why, there are no

combinationsin Spanish. When it comes to fricatives and sonorants, the restriction

is even more rigid. Only accepts all C2's, while and are paired with

glides exclusively. Similarly to and, all sonorants can mate only with glides.

To narrow down this thought, the following statement may be made. The more a sound

is complex, the more it can govern. That is why almost all stops can take all possible

second consonants to form a cluster. It is easy for them to govern such sounds as

Let us now consider a special case in Spanish, namely, coronal sounds. As we

know so far, they are the only ones to be licensed word-finally as single consonants. Here,

however, they do not constitute potent governors. For the sake of consistency, let us remind

that coronal sounds comprise dentals (A), and alveolars (A-I). From the observation that

has been made, it can be said that they are somehow 'weak', and behave in a different way

than other sounds.

It might be noted that the 'coronality' elements make sounds 'weaker', consequently they

are easier to be governed by the FEN5, and simultaneously they are not good governors in

branching onsets as they have to much in common. For the same reason, all sounds can

constitute an onset with a semi-vowel because it has the simplest structure of all

consonants, so it is not a demanding governee.

In order to summarise, it has to be said that a branching onset is not a favoured

consonant arrangement in Spanish. It is hardly surprising that a language which does not

license the whole consonant inventory in all possible positions would license some more

complicated structures word-finally.

5 Final Empty Nucleus

22

5 Conclusion

To sum up this chapter, let us recall several issues tackled here. First, Spanish is a quite

liberal language when it comes to word-initial single consonants. However, at the end of

the word, only headless coronals are allowed. Word initial branching onset comprise

obstruent + liquid/glide, and sonorant + glide sequences, provided homorganicity

principles are preserved. In general, the Spanish language system prefers coronal sounds.

This is the only group of single segments which can occupy the end of a word, when

licensed by a final empty nucleus. Presumably, their being 'coronal' makes the

licensing/government easier for the nuclei in Spanish. What is more, coronal sounds of

speech can also constitute branching onsets together with glides, and each other if the place

of articulation varies in both cases. As a conclusion, it can be said that Spanish copes with

clusters by by licensing clusters/single consonants with a full vowel word-finally.

23

Chapter III

Licensing of word-edge single consonants and clusters in

English.

Spanish - English comparison.

1. Introduction

Chapter III aims to briefly show how single consonants and consonant clusters behave in

English in comparison with Spanish. The pattern will stay the same as in the chapter above.

First, single consonants will be discussed, then word-initial and word final clusters will be

scrutinized. Unlike Spanish, there is an abundance of literature on English modern

phonology to draw on. To keep this paper coherent, only a non-rhotic variant of English

will be presented.

2. Word-edge single consonants in English

As it was done in chapter II, here, all possible word-final and word-initial consonants will

be shown altogether with word examples. It will be presented in a form of a table.

(1) single consonants

a.

t k b d g

word-initial IPA

spelling put take car bat dear get

word-final IPA

spelling grope pit tick crab kid gig

24

b.

word-initial IPA

spelling fought vet say zebra think that

word-final IPA

spelling tough give mess his north smooth

c.

word-initial IPA

spelling should gigolo huge chair jail man

word-final IPA

spelling polish rouge ------------ patch badge trim

d.

word-initial IPA ------------

spelling no ------------ leak roar yes one

word-final IPA (----------) (----------) (----------)

spelling bean thing bowl (----------) (----------) (----------)

The data in (1) show that English is a very liberal language when it comes to single

consonants. It allows almost every one of them to occupy word-initial and word-final

position. Because of that, we can expect that there are also fewer limitations to the

distribution of consonant clusters in this language. In a nutshell, English excludes only

from word-initial position, and end of a word.

In table (1c) the distribution of word-final ,, andis in parenthesis because of

the fact that they can be found at that post in connected speech. Referring to Gimson

(2008: 305), linking (or intrusive ) is common in fast speech. e.g. far off in normal,

careful speech will be pronounced as but in fast, careless manner of speech the

production looks like . A similar thing happens to and , e.g. my arms

, window open . For more information, see Gimson (2008).

25

2.1 GP analysis

This part is devoted to the presentation of English sounds in terms of GP. Once again, the

element theory will be implemented here. Knowing the internal structure of English

sounds, we may be able to tell more about the licensing of the clusters.

(2) complexity of English consonants

a.

sound

complexity

U

H

A

H

@

H

U

A

@

U

h

H

U

h

A

h

H

A

h

A

h

H

I

A

h

I

b.

sound

complexity A

h

H

A

h

@

h

H

N

U

N

A

N

@

A A

U I A

+h

H

A

+h

Table (2) clearly shows that English has a completely different sound structure than

Spanish. First of all, the element (H) denotes voicelessness. Unlike Spanish, where the

voiced sounds are marked by (L). English consonants, in opposition to Spanish, are not

fully voiced, thus it is more reasonable to mark the voiceless ones. Cyran (2011) states that

in general, Romance and Slavic languages are characterised by (L), while Germanic

tongues take (H).

Next, the plosives stock is quite the same as in Spanish, there are three voiced, and three

voiceless stops in the repository. However, the changes which concern English stops are of

26

different nature than the Spanish ones. In Spanish, voiced

becomeintervocalically, and in various morphological contexts. On the

other hand, there is an alternation of English voiceless stops. English speakers tend to

aspirate voiceless stops in word-initial position before vowels, thus, in such words as

take, the detailed relisation would be . However, Gimson (2008: 168) claims that in

some dialects of English, a similar situation as in Spanish takes place. Namely,

may be followed by or altered to a brief fricative ,

especially among educated peoplee.g. becomes imported. Despite

its being intriguing, it is of marginal importance to this thesis. Coming back to Spanish

affrication and English aspiration, it is a good idea to take a deeper look into this in terms

of GP. According to Watson (2006), spirantisation is a form of lenition. Thus, it can be

explained by the use of the elements. Let us take the case of Spanish as an example.

becomes intervocalically, and in morphologically dependent environments. As a

reminder, the complexity of is (@.h..L), when it alters to , its structure also changes

to (@.h.L). As we can see, the stop element is deleted, making this sound a fricative. Yet,

there is something different going on with the English fortis plosives. When aspirated, their

elementary structure remains intact. Consequently, we can state that the alternations of the

Spanish plosives are of phonological nature because their complexity changes, whereas

English plosives just undergo some phonetic changes, which are not considered important.

In 1.1 it is stated that English excludes from word-initial and from word-final

position. Let us make an attempt at explaining it in terms of GP. As we know, all sounds,

except for these two, are allowed to occupy every position in the word. Following

Gussmann (2002: 46-52), the velar nasal is an extraordinary type of a consonant which

always shares its place of articulation with the following velar plosive and may only occur

after a short vowel. Next, Gussmann compares to a specific type of consonant cluster,

where, word-finally, the second constituent (velar plosive) is inaudible, but often present in

the orthographic representation. Thus, the velar nasal cannot stand in the first slot of the

word because it has to be followed by a velar plosive, which is impossible word-initially in

English.

27

3. Branching onsets in English

As it is stated above, English accepts almost all solo consonants to constitute a non-

branching onset at in word-initial and final position. The following paragraphs will include

a table of possible branching onsets word-initially in English and a short analysis.

(3) branching onset

+ - + + - + + - - -

+ + + + + + + + - -

- + + - + + - + - -

+ + + + + - + - + +

IPA gloss IPA gloss IPA gloss IPA gloss

please prey pure

blow bridge beauty

trench tube twig

drive dew dwell

class crane cue choir

glow grow ------------ guano

fly fry few

thrive thwart

mute

new

Although English is more liberal when considering single consonants, word-initial

branching onsets remain Spanish-like. Only obstruent/nasal + liquid/glide compositions are

permitted. What is more, Spanish allows also more sonorants () to state C1 in a

branching onset which in English case these are only and. What is more, we can

see that English plosives are less flexible when it comes to C2 acquisition. English forbids

28

homorganic branching onsets, including not only , but also 6, and

In fact, English is more limited when it comes to the possibility of forming branching

onsets. Spanish allows 38 combinations of word-initial branching onsets, while in English

only 25 instances can be found. The next peculiarity is that English plosives are weaker

than the Spanish ones and do not accept just any possible second consonant. On the other

hand, it this can be explained by saying that English phonological system just rigidly obeys

the homorganicity ban in branching onsets. In terms of GP, both constituents in a

branching onset cannot have the same place of articulation element in their structures.

Consequently, we will not find clusters such as ((U.h.H) (U)) or ((A.h.H) (A)),

though, in rapid speech, only the release stage changes. e.g. keep walking

cut log , but these changes are purely phonetic events. Next, there is also the

problematic case of cluster, which according to the observation above should be

permitted, because the place elements differ, but in fact no English words begin with such

combiantion. However, occurs in connected speech: beg you Gimson (2008:

226) causing palatalisation (but not the change of the release stage) of this velar stop.

Relying on this data, it can be said that the case is a phonological issue because the

elemental quality of these sounds changes (the (I) element is added as a secondary place of

articulation), while in word-initial it is sheer phonetic effect having no

influence on the phonological structure of the sound. Thus, the cluster may be treated

as a well-formed word-initial, though exceptional, branching onset. In conclusion, there is

enough data to confirm the statement that homorganic clusters are dissallowed in English.

There is one thing which Spanish and English have in common. Namely, they do not

have a branching onset in word-final position. Consequently, words such as Polish

Piotr 'Peter' or łagr 'labour-camp' simply do not exist in the phonological

systems of English or Spanish. However, there is one slight difference. As it is mentioned

in chapter I, a full vowel is substantial to license a branching onset in Spanish. Thus, a

considerable number of words, which hypothetically would end with a branching onset

plus a phonetically realised nucleus, as an example, litro 'litre', while in Polish the

same word is realised as litr 'litre'. On the other hand, English, as a non-rhotic

6 Although, Longman Pronunciation Dictionary (2005) shows one word starting with : Fuegian, however, it is a proper name and it is not considered here as a prominent exception.

29

language, acquired a different solution to this issue. Namely, it just deletes the liquid ,

prolonging the vowel, or altering it to the , and rendering a word-final branching onset

an impossibility, e.g. litre. From the orthographical point of view, the grapheme 'e' is

here to close the second syllable (in a grammatical way) to prevent the vowel from

being realised as a diphthong , as in lighter, where the final syllable is open from

the orthographical point of view.

In conclusion, it can be said that the English branching onset is quite similar to the

Spanish one despite the poorer inventory. These clusters are licensed word-initially by a

full nucleus, potent enough to emanate its strength over the C2 to license the first

consonant. Gussmann (2002: 72) gives the following condition: 'English branching onsets

must consist of an obstruent followed by non-homorganic, and non-nasal sonorant'.

Similarly to the Spanish FEN, the English one is not able to license word-final branching

onsets.

3.1 GP analysis

As it is already known, the first consonant of a branching onset must be a true obstruent

(preferably a plosive or a fricative), and the second one a non-homorganic, non-nasal

sonorant. All attested branching onsets which occur word-initially, are also found word-

medially within one phonological word. That excludes prospective homorganic clusters to

be perceived as branching onsets. For the sake of illustration, let us take the word deadly

, phonetically, a cluster in this word is possible, however, in phonology, this

cannot be taken into consideration because the cluster is between two morphemes which is

not phonologically approved; .7

Knowing these facts, we may now state what is happening to the attested branching

onset in various word positions. As we know, in every possible position, such an onset is

licensed by an audible nucleus, either non-branching or branching, and never by an empty

nucleus. Thus, the following tree showing the overall word-initial licensing preferences

should be drawn.

7 Data taken from Gussmann (2002: 74).

30

(4) possible licensing configurations of branching onsets

a. b. c.

O N O N O N

/\ | /\ /\ /\ /\

x x x x x x x x x x x

| | | | | | | | | \/

T R V T R V1V2 T R V:

All graphs (4a,b,c) present the licensing of branching onsets in every possible word

position in English. To make everything clear, let us explain the terminology used here. T

stands for a true obstruent, such as a plosive or a fricative. R is a sonorant, the second

sound in branching onsets. And the V combinations as follows: V is a single vowel, V 1V2

stands for a diphthong, and V: denotes a long vowel, e.g. (4a) twig, (4b)

thrive, and (4c) freeze. As we can see, the nucleus licenses the preceding

onset, relaying power to the head of the branching onset, the true consonant, which finally

governs R. There are no examples of a well-formed branching onset being licensed by an

empty nucleus in any word position. Consequently, it can be stated, that the English empty

nucleus is somehow stronger than the Spanish one because it licenses almost all single-

consonants word-finally, but it also has the same weakness of not being able to handle a

branching onset.

4. Coda-onset sequences in English and Spanish

Having thought over the conclusion from 3, one may notice that it does not solve all

possibilities of the language to form consonant clusters. So far, we have concluded that

branching onsets must consist of a true consonant (T), and a sonorant (R), looking from

left to right. However, it is not hard to find words which comprise clusters in which the

order is opposite. Let us examine such words as help and alba8. The word-

final consonant cluster cannot be named a branching onset due to the lack of accordance

with the principles which state that in a branching onset, the sonority of the constituents

must rise from left to right. As we can see, here the sonority rises in the opposite way. This

8 Structures taken partially from Gussmann (2002)

31

fact denotes that a different type of a cluster is being dealt with.

To start with, the notion of the coda should be explained. the Coda is a traditional name

of a rhymal complement. The Coda exists only if there is a less sonorous consonant in an

adjacent syllable following and governing it. What is more, it is worth to define what a

coda-onset sequence is in terms of GP. Harris (1994: 67) proposes the following definition:

'In an optimal coda-onset cluster, the first consonant is no less sonorous than the second.'

Let us see, how it may be presented by the use of a phonological tree.

(5) coda-onset sequence in English

a. R b. R

| |

O1 N1 O2 N2 O1 N1 O2 N2

| | | | | | |

x x x x x x x x x

| | | | | | | | |

Examples (5a) and (5b) present the most classic representations of coda-onset sequences.

Both of them include a consonant cluster consisting of two consonants, which, looking

from left to right, have decreasing sonority. What is more, in front of every rhymal

complement, there is a nucleus. What is worth to observe is the direction of government. In

this arrangement, the following constituent O2 governs the preceding coda.

This type of cluster is much more 'digestible' for the licensor. The nucleus does not have

to 'jump over' a consonant in order to license the less sonorous one as it takes place in a

branching onset. The direction of the licensing/government is the same so it can be said

that combining these two factors (licensing adjacency and one direction of the

relationships), coda-onset sequence is easier for the phonological system to be put within a

word. Thus, the FEN is able to license coda-onset sequences word-finally in English.

4.1 the Spanish case

Although the English Final Empty Nucleus behaves similarly to the Spanish one when it

comes to licensing word-final branching onsets, it is mightier in the licensing of the coda-

32

onset sequences. Let us take a brief look at the following examples of the Spanish codas.

(6) coda-onset sequence in Spanish

a. R b. R

| |

O1 N1 O2 N2 O3 N3 O1 N1 O2 N2

| | | | | | | | | |

x x x x x x x x x x x x

| | | | | | | | | | |

k

gloss artero 'a postman'

ante 'elk'

The Spanish data present coda-onset sequences word-medially. As we can see, these

sequences are licensed in the same manner as in (5) with a full vowel. However, there is a

serious limitation in Spanish concerning the licensing of a coda-onset sequence word-

finally. In opposition to English, the Spanish FEN is not able to license a final coda-onset

sequence, thus, a full vowel is required. Let us compare two phonetically similar words,

the first is English, the second Spanish: , and 'elf'. Here, the difference

is obvious. Despite the same semantic meaning, their phonological structure is different

because both languages have different phonologies. In brief, the English FEN licenses

coda-onsets word-finally, thus it can be said that it is stronger than Spanish, which needs a

full vowel to license such a cluster.

4.2 Special status of s+C clusters

The research conducted by the most recognised linguists KLV (1990), Harris (1994), Kaye

(1996) claim that clusters consisting of and a consonant cannot state a branching onset

due to a range of reasons.9 Basically, words such as stop do not begin with a

branching onset, but are rather perceived as a special type of coda-onset sequence which

can occur word-initially. Of course, this kind of consonant cluster is easy to find in every

word position, e.g. vest, text, street. Let us see, how it may be presented graphically.

9 For more information on s+C clusters, consult the aforementioned positions.

33

(7) licensing of s+C clusters

a. b. c.

R R R

| | |

N0 O1 N1 O2 N2 O1 N1 O2 N2 O1 N1 O2 N2 O3 N3

| | | | | | | | | | | | | |

x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x

| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |

R

|

N0 O1 N1 O2 N2

/\ /\ | |

x x xxx x x

| | | \/ | |

The graphs in (7) present the behaviour of s+C clusters in various word positions. (7a)

shows word-initially, (7b) presents word-final position, and (7c) depicts what is

happening word-medially in an even more complicated cluster . Tree (7d) is an

interesting example of a word starting with a s + C1C2 sequence, so after [s] there is a

branching onset.

To start with, it has been stated above that s+C sequences are treated as a special kind of

coda-onset configuration. As we can see in (7a), when such a cluster occurs word-initially,

the preceding nucleus N0 is not realised, being licensed by magic.10 is governed by as

in a standard coda-onset sequence. Next, (7b) presents a usual situation, with a full rhyme,

where the nucleus N1 is realised. For more comments, see 4. Example (7c) shows a

situation where there are two adjacent empty nuclei, which is somewhat controversial due

to the problematic licensing of the word-medial empty nucleus. (7d) depicts a situation,

where after the fricative, there is a branching onset. What is interesting in this

10 The notion of 'Magic Licensing' is to be found in Kaye (1996).

34

configuration is the licensing abilities of the closest nucleus. It has to, at one time, license

the true obstruent in the branching onset and the preceding coda. Kaye (1996) names such

configuration 'Magic Licensing'.

However, there is a newer theory which may disprove magic licensing. In terms of

CVCV, we can explain the problematic licensing of the s+C clusters. The CVCV theory is

an expansion of the Government Phonology, introduced by Lowenstamm (1996),

developed by Scheer (1998), Cyran (2003), Jaskuła (2006), Jaskuła (2010b). It assumes

that there are no branching syllable constituents whatsoever. Thus, the aforementioned

problem may be solved by treating each consonant as a separate onset with an nucleus

(empty or full) in between. Let us scrutinize the following proposal:

(8) s+C sequences in CVCV

a. b. c.

O1 N1 O2 N2 O3 N3 O1 N1 O2 N2 O3 N3 O1 N1 O2 N2 O3 N3 O4 N4

| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |

x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x

| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |

d.

O1 N1 O2 N2 O3 N3 O4 N4 O5 N5 licensing

| | | | | | | | | proper government

x x x x x x x x x left interonset government (LIO)

| | | | | | | | | right interonset government (RIO)

Here, the same words are presented in CVCV framework. In a nutshell, it states that there

35

LIO

LIORIO

PGLIO

are no branching syllable segments and there are no closed syllables (codas).11 In (8a), N3 is

licensed by parameter, and N1 is licensed to be mute by LIO. (8b) shows quite a different

situation. O3 is licensed by the FEN, and governs O2 using Left Inter Onset government

introduced by Cyran (2003). (8d) is the CVCV variation on the cluster licensed by a

long vowel. As we see, the long vowel licenses O2 to perform RIO and LIO. Next, (8c)

shows the weakness of CVCV to present the licensing of this type of clusters. However,

Jaskuła (2010b: 404) proposes the following solution:

(9) affrication

O1 N1 O2 N2 O3 N3

| | | | | |

x x x x x x

| | | | |

Jaskuła (2010b) treats the plosive + s sequence as an affricate, which is LIO governed by

the next onset. As we see here, there is license to govern relationship between N3 and O3.

Subsequently, O3 becomes a governor of the preceding onset O2. Thus, the problem of

three consecutive empty nuclei and their licensing is solved.

4.2.1 (magic) licensing in Spanish

There is a parenthetic 'magic' in the title of this part because there are no such phenomena

in Spanish. What is more, the lack of magic licensing in Spanish, makes CVCV a strong

argument to accept its validity. Words which would start with a s+C cluster, obligatory

have an epenthetic before the cluster, filling up the preceding empty nucleus, rendering

it a conventional coda-onset sequence. e.g. (e)slalom 'slalom',

escuela 'school'.

11 For further reading on CVCV, see Lowenstamm (1996).

36

LIO

5. Proper Government

Considering all the possibilities, it can be found out that the configurations above do not

reflect the whole system. So far, the following types of consonant clusters have been

discussed. First, the branching onset where the sonority of two consonants must rise

looking from left to right, and heterogeneity is demanded. The second one is a coda-onset

sequence in which the government direction is from right to left. However, there is one

more type of a consonant cluster in English, Spanish and other tongues. Now, let us

consider a situation where we cannot differentiate between the sonority of the two

consonants (or the sonority is hardly distinguishable), or/and what is more, they are

homogeneous (either by the place of articulation or the membership to the same sound

family, for instance, are both homogeneous. There are no data in the corpus to state that

this type of clusters occurs word-initially (as in for example in Polish). The graphs below

depict this problem.

(10) proper government in English

*a. b.

O1 N1 O2 N2 O3 N3 O1 N1 O2 N2 O3 N3 O4 N4

| | | | | | | | | | | apt

x x x x x x x x x x x atlas

| | | | | | | | | | |

Graph (10b) shows a typical environment for proper government, while graph (10a) shows

a situation in PG cannot be contracted (see, and, help, text). In (10a), the consonant cluster

occurs word-finally and its licensing is as follows. Though the cluster consists of two

plosives of similar sonority, it cannot be properly governed, because there is no proper

governor (a full nucleus). Instead, a coda-onset sequence should be recognized as in 7b and

8b. (10b) Shows a situation, where the proper governor is a full nucleus N3. It also governs

the empty nucleus N2 by 'jumping over' O3, simultaneously licensing it. O2 is licensed by

the following empty nucleus.

As it may be observed, yet again, the FEN, which itself is licensed by parameter, is able

37

to license another preceding empty nucleus. Now, let us see how does proper government

look in Spanish.

(11) proper government in Spanish

a. O1 N1 O2 N2 O3 N3 O4 N4 b. O1 N1 O2 N2 O3 N3 O4 N4

| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |

x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x

| | | | | | | | | | | | | | |

glossary: garlar 'to chatter'

acepto 'well accepted'

Table (11) presents a situation where a consonant cluster cannot be classified as a coda-

onset sequence or a branching onset. Such a situation happens due to their similar sonority

and/or their place of articulation. To solve this problem, an empty nucleus which is

properly governed by the next full nucleus may be placed between the consonants. This

type of inter-constituent relationship is named proper government in GP. In Spanish, this

type of government is common in Spanish in word-medial position. What is more, there is

no significant evidence in the Spanish corpus to state that this configuration can be found

word-initially, let alone, word-finally due to the lack of a proper governor which must

follow the cluster.

6. Conclusion

Generally, this chapter shows the main differences and similarities between various

phonological behaviours of different types of consonant clusters in English and Spanish.

To sum up, it has to be said that the behaviour of the English FEN is similar to Spanish

when taking into consideration word-final branching onsets. However, it is also attested

that the English FEN is able to license other types of consonant clusters word-finally,

unlike Spanish, which does not cope with anything more than single coronals in this

38

position.

What is more, it has been shown that the 'magic licensing' model may be abandoned in

a more modern approach to GP. CVCV is used here to show that some problematic

licensing issues may be solved in a different way than the classic one. It has also be said

that in Spanish, there is no need to employing 'magic licensing' due to its syllable structure

which does not allow s + C structures word-initially. All the more, coda-onset groups will

not be found word-finally due to the Spanish FEN inability to license any consonant

clusters. Finally, divided constituents which are understood as two separate onsets with a

properly governed empty nucleus between them exist and are licensed both in English and

Spanish.

39

Conclusion

This thesis presents an attempt to show the behaviour of different types of consonant

clusters at word-edges in Spanish and English. First, some theoretical account on GP was

given, showing crucial pillars of this approach.

Next, the second chapter aimed to discuss the issues of the licensing of single

consonants, and consequently, consonant clusters as branching onsets in Spanish. The

Element Theory was employed in this analysis. What is more, some phonetic digressions

were also made to account for better understanding of phonological phenomena in Spanish.

As a result, we concluded that the Spanish final empty nucleus licenses only single,

unheaded coronals in word-final position.

Chapter three provided an account of the licensing of consonant clusters in English in

comparison to Spanish. As well as in chapter two, the Element Theory was used to indicate

the complexity of English consonants. The analysis showed that English allows all possible

consonants word-initially and word-finally, with some exceptions. Subsequently, the

Elements were used to explain the possible word-initial branching onsets. As well as in

Spanish, branching onsets are too hard to be licensed by the English final empty nucleus.

However, the next type of consonant clusters, coda-onset sequences, occur to be easily

licensed by the English FEN, but not by the Spanish one. The clusters with

undistinguishable sonority are licensed in both languages.

To summarise, it can be said that in some respects the licensors/governors in Spanish

and English behave in the same way, but other facts show that the English is more flexible

when it comes to the licensing of various types of consonant clusters at word-edges.

40

Podsumowanie

Celem niniejszej pracy jest przedstawienie i zanalizowanie zjawiska licencjonowania

różnych typów zbitek spółgłoskowych na obrzeżach słów w językach hiszpańskim i

angielskim. Aby osiągnąć powyższe cele, wprowadzono założenia Fonologii Rządu i jej

pochodnych. Pierwszy rozdział ma na celu zaprezentowanie i usystematyzowanie

najważniejszych zagadnień teoretycznych z dziedziny Fonologii Rządu. Są to relacje rządu

między rozgałęzionymi nagłosami i licencjonowanie zbitek poprzez końcowy pusty

ośrodek sylaby.

Rozdział drugi zajmuje się przedstawieniem licencjonowania zbitek spółgłoskowych w

języku hiszpańskim. Celem wprowadzenia, zostały przedstawione i zanalizowane

pojedyncze spółgłoski, które mogą znaleźć się na obu krańcach słowa. Następnie,

zastosowana została Teoria Elementów, która mówi, iż u podstawy wszystkich dźwięków

w różnych językach leżą te same składowe – elementy. Jako dopełnienie tej wstępnej

prezentacji i analizy, zaprezentowane zostało licencjonowanie rozgałęziających się

nagłosów. Rezultatem tej analizy było stwierdzenie, że w języku hiszpańskim, końcowy

pusty ośrodek sylaby nie jest w stanie licencjonować zbitek spółgłoskowych będących

rozgałęzionymi nagłosami.

Rozdział trzeci, ostatni, ma na celu zanalizowanie języka angielskiego pod kątem

licencjonowania i relacji rządu na krańcach słowa i porównanie go do języka

hiszpańskiego. Wnioskując z danych, okazuje się, że angielski końcowy pusty ośrodek

sylaby mimo tego, że tak samo jak hiszpański, nie radzi sobie z licencjonowaniem

rozgałęzionych nagłosów, doskonale robi to w przypadku sekwencji o malejącej

sonorności i zbitkach homorganicznych.

41

References

Cyran, E. (1997) Resonance elements in phonology. A study in Munster Irish. Lublin:

Folium.

Cyran, E. (2003) Complexity scales and licensing strength in phonology. Lublin: Redakcja

Wydawnictw KUL.

Cyran, E. (2011) Laryngeal Realism and Laryngeal Relativism. Two Voicing Systems in

Polish. Unpublished, Ms.

Durand, J., and B. Laks (eds.) (1996) Current Trends in Phonology. Models and Methods.

Salford, Manchester: European Studies Research Institute, University of Salford.

Galimberti, J. B., R. Russell, C. S. Carvajal, and J. Horwood. (2003) The Oxford Spanish

Dictionary: Spanish-English/English-Spanish. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Gussmann, E. (2002) Phonology: Analysis and Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press.

Harris, J. W. (1983) Syllable Structure and Stress in Spanish: a Nonlinear Analysis.

Cambridge: MIT.

Harris, J. (1994) English Sound Structure. Oxford: Blackwell.

Harris, J. (1990) "Segmental Complexity and Phonological Government." Phonology 7,

255-300

Jaskuła, K. (2006) Ancient Sound Changes and Old Irish Phonology. Lublin:

Wydawnictwo KUL.

Jaskuła, K. (2010a) "Polish Place-names and Word-final Consonant Groups: More

Affricates and Diphthongs in Polish?" Poznań Studies in Contemporary

Linguistics, 46(4)

42

Jaskuła, K. (2010b) "From Generators to Mirrors – a Comparison of Phonological

Theories." Facta Simonidis 1, 205-222

Kaye, J. (2000) A User's Guide to Government Phonology (GP). Unpublished, Ms.

Kaye, J. (1992) "Do You Believe in Magic? The Story of S+C Sequences." SOAS Working

Papers in Linguistics and Phonetics 2

Kaye, J., J. Lowenstamm, and J.-R. Vergnaud. (1990) "Constituent Structure and

Government in Phonology." Phonology 7, 193-231

Lowenstamm, J. (1996) "CV as the Only Syllable Type." In J. Durand and B. Laks (eds),

419-441

Scheer, T. (1998) "Governing Domains Are Head-final." In E. Cyran (ed.)

Watson, K. (2006) "Lenition and Segmental Interaction: Evidence from Liverpool English

(and Spanish)." Glossa - An Ambilingual Interdisciplinary Journal 1.1

Wells, J. C. (2003) Longman Pronunciation Dictionary. Harlow: Longman.

43