Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T16:23:33.930Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Non-moraic geminates in Leti

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 November 2002

Elizabeth Hume ,
Jennifer Muller  and
Aone van Engelenhoven
Elizabeth Hume
Affiliation:
Ohio State University
Jennifer Muller
Affiliation:
Ohio State University
Aone van Engelenhoven
Affiliation:
University of Leiden
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The representation of geminate consonants remains a controversial topic in phonological theory. In a skeletal theoretic approach, for example, a geminate is represented as bipositional: a single root node multiply linked to two skeletal positions, as in (1) (see e.g. Clements & Keyser 1983, Levin 1985).

formula here

Conversely, in moraic theory, geminates are inherently moraic (see e.g. Hayes 1989, 1995, Davis 1994, 1996). Thus, an underlying geminate consonant differs from a single consonant of the same quality in terms of a mora, as shown in (2):

formula here

It is noteworthy that evidence bearing on the representation of geminates has thus far come predominantly from the patterning of intervocalic geminates, where the first part of a geminate occurs in coda position. Discussion of syllable-initial geminates, on the other hand, has received little attention in the literature.

Type
Research Article
Information
Phonology , Volume 14 , Issue 3 , May 1998 , pp. 371 - 402
Copyright
© 1998 Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

We are particularly grateful to Nick Clements, David Odden and Sam Rosenthall for their valuable comments on a draft version of this paper. We would also like to thank members of the audiences at the Mid-Continental Workshop on Phonology 2 (University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign), the Montreal-Ottawa-Toronto Workshop on Phonology (University of Toronto) and the Austronesian Formal Linguistics Association (UCLA) for their input. Finally, we acknowledge three anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments and suggestions. Naturally, we assume responsibility for any errors of fact or interpretation.