Constraints, which go also by the names “conditions”, “filters”, and less transparently, “principles” and “parameters” are currently opposed to (contextual and non-contextual) arbitrary rules, and are argued to be more explanatory in the scientific sense that they can: 1) reduce the number of sources and/or causes of a given phenomenon; 2) link apparently unrelated facts; and 3) make more predictions, if formulated adequately and related to universal grammar (UG). Although the notion of phonological constraints was not born with generative phonology (see, e.g., Hockett 1958:282), it is within that framework that they have begun to receive more formal treatment (Paradis and Nikiema 1993:45).

In phonology, constraints are finally coming into their own. There is no real consensus, however, about how constraints behave, and specifically how they interact with other aspects of the phonology and with each other. Theories of Declarative Phonology (DP) approach this “Interaction Problem” (Scobbie 1991a) in a radical way. In DP everything is a constraint — generalizations and lexical entries alike constrain the form of the intended phonological representation (“surface structure”). Moreover, constraints are mutually compatible, indefeasible and are declared non-procedurally. Declarative Phonology is therefore an extremely simple and restrictive type of constraint-based phonology, eschewing constraint conflict, violation and destructive repair. For details of various declarative theories as well as phonological and computational motivation for the declarative paradigm, see Scobbie (1991a) and the other papers in that volume, Bird et al (1993), Bird (1990), Broe (1993), Coleman (1992), Russell (1992), Scobbie (1991b) and Wheeler (1988).

The idea that constraints on well-formedness play a role in determining phonological alternations, which dates back at least to Kisseberth’s (1970) pioneering work, has by now achieved almost universal acceptance. A tacit assumption of this program, largely unquestioned even in recent research, is the notion that valid constraints must state true generalizations about surface structure or some other level of phonological representation. Anything different would seem antithetical to the very idea of a well-formedness constraint.

The following pages sketch a system of constraints intended to sharpen and organize a number of current assumptions surrounding the concept of “prosodic licensing”, as proposed in Itô (1988) and further developed in later work (Bagemihl 1991; Charette 1990; Goldsmith 1990; Inkelas 1991; Itô and Mester 1991; Kaye 1990; Lombardi 1991; Piggott 1991; Zec 1988; and others). The proposal to be developed below draws on Optimality Theory (Prince and Smolensky 1993); one of the goals is to explicate the notion of the coda as a “secondary licenser” (Goldsmith 1990) and to clarify the privileged status of geminate and partial geminate clusters (Prince 1984) with respect to syllabification. After laying out some background assumptions (Section 1), we present the definitions and constraints that form the core of our theory of licensing (Section 2). We illustrate the approach with an analysis of the syllable structure of Japanese (Section 3) and conclude the paper with a discussion of remaining issues and problems relating to the general typology of syllabification systems (Section 4).

It is increasingly accepted in generative phonology that phonological alternations can be caused, directly or indirectly, by phonological constraints. The Theory of Constraints and Repair Strategies (TCRS) proposed by Paradis (1988a, 1988b, 1990, 1992, 1993) claims that when a constraint is violated, a repair strategy must apply which, in repairing the violation, produces a phonological alternation.

Morpheme structure constraints (MSCs or, equivalently, morphemic constraints), i.e., constraints on underived items, pose a logical problem to any theory claiming that the first input list to the lexicon, i.e., the dictionary (DICT), may contain material which is considered ill-formed by the MSCs of the language. This problem is related to Scobbie’s (1991:1) “interaction problem”, i.e., the need to make explicit the way in which constraints, rules and representations interact. In the case of MSCs, the interaction problem can be stated as follows: how can ill-formed material be present in the DICT if the DICT contains constraints, i.e., MSCs, against ill-formed material? The Theory of Constraints and Repair Strategies (TCRS) proposed by Paradis (1988a, 1988b, 1990, 1993, this volume), along with Optimality Theory (e.g., Itô and Mester, this volume, and McCarthy, this volume) but in contrast with Declarative Phonology (e.g., Scobbie, this volume), claims explicitly that the DICT can contain material which is identified as ill-formed by post-morphemic constraints (see Paradis and Prunet 1989a:331; Bagemihl 1991:641; Paradis and El Fenne 1991, 1992, 1993; and Ulrich 1991 for other instances of underlying ill-formedness). To solve this interaction problem, Paradis (1993, this volume) suggests that phonological constraints are active in the lexicon (the component where words are morphologically derived) and the post-lexical level alone, not in the DICT. Structures of the DICT may be identified as ill-formed only when going through the lexicon. The theory of phonology which emerges from this position clearly contradicts the commonly-held view that DICT entries are constrained by MSCs.

I argue here for the necessity of negative constraints, specifically the claim in (1). This position contrasts with that taken by Declarative Phonology (Scobbie 1992; this volume) and with the view that positive and negative constraints are equivalent (Itô 1988:32).

Aphasia refers to an impairment of language processing resulting from brain damage. A very common symptom observed in aphasic speech is the presence of phonemic paraphasias, i.e., phonemic errors involving the substitution, addition or syncope of one (or more) segment(s) in a word stimulus. Phonemic paraphasias can be found across multiple tasks (repetition, reading aloud, spontaneous speech, picture naming) that require a subject to produce a word sound. They are not specific to a particular type of aphasia since Broca’s aphasics, Wernicke’s aphasics, conduction aphasics, and mixed aphasics all produce phonemic paraphasias (see Lecours et al 1983).