Many theories of intonational phonology have granted some special status to pitch features that occur at the edges of prosodic domains, contrasting them with prominence-lending pitch configurations. The standard American structuralist theory that flourished in the 1950s (Trager & Smith 1951) drew a clear distinction between PITCH PHONEMES and JUNCTURE PHONEMES, the former constituting the body of a contour and the latter describing the movements at the contour’s end. Parallel to this development, a distinction was also drawn within the Prague School between the cumulative and delimitative functions of tonal phenomena (Trubetzkoy 1958), the former including prominence, the latter domainedge marking. Bolinger (especially 1970) distinguished ‘accent’ from ‘intonation’: ACCENT referred to the distinctive pitch shapes that accompany prominent stressed syllables (now generally known, following Bolinger, as pitch accents), while INTONATION included, among other things, distinctive pitch movements at the ends of contours. A distinction very similar, but not identical, to Bolinger’s is made in the theory of intonation developed at the Institute for Perception Research (IPO) in the Netherlands (Cohen & ’t Hart 1967, ’t Hart et al. 1990), namely between PROMINENCE-LENDING and NON-PROMINENCE-LENDING pitch movements.

Namwanga is a Bantu language spoken in the Northern province of Zambia.In this paper I would like to present an overview of Namwanga verbal tonology, specifically focusing on the issue of where downstep occurs and how best to account for it. It will be argued that the surface distribution of downstep can be most insightfully accounted for if one assumes that many of the underlying H's fuse together. Determining which H's fuse and which do not is quite complex and the subject of rigorous examination.

As Mutaka & Hyman (1990) and Mutaka (1994) show, the Kinande reduplication patterns in (1) present several analytical challenges (eri- is the infinitive prefix; the reduplicant is underlined):

Many phonological phenomena require reference to information beyond the immediate context of segments and boundaries. Most commonly, the syllable has been employed as an additional phonological context, but determining the exact nature of syllables and their boundaries has proved notoriously difficult. One approach is to add resyllabification (Selkirk 1982, Borowsky 1986) or ambisyllabification (Kahn 1976, Gussenhoven 1986, Rubach 1996) to basic syllabification in an attempt to account for phenomena where syllabification alone is inadequate. In this paper we argue against this approach and argue for a second approach, the PROSODIC approach. The essence of the prosodic approach is that there is a HIERARCHY of prosodic categories, of which the syllable is one, any one of which can serve as the context for phonological rules. Essentially, the argument is that prosodic categories, independently required for a wide variety of phonological processes, are sufficient for accounting for all the phenomena that resyllabification or ambisyllabification have been used for, whereas the reverse is not true. Resyllabification and ambisyllabification are invoked ad hoc for certain phenomena and cannot account adequately for the full range of processes that can be understood in terms of prosodic categories. Resyllabification and ambisyllabification are therefore superfluous and can be dispensed with, indeed must be dispensed with, in an explanatory theory of phonology.

Russian exhibits several different types of palatalisation. These are exemplified in (1), where we look at voiceless stops and affricates.

(1) a. Velar Palatalisation (velars change into postalveolars): k→č

ruk+a ‘hand (FEM NOM SG)’ −ruč+išč+a (AUG NOM SG), ruč+en’k+a (DIM NOM SG)

b. Affricate Palatalisation (affricates become postalveolar): ts→č

konets ‘end’ −konč+i+t’ ‘to finish’

otets ‘father’ −otč+estv+o ‘patronymic’

c. Iotation (many disparate changes of consonants): t→č

šut ‘joker’ −šuč+u ‘I joke’

d. Surface Palatalisation (consonants become [−back, +high]): t→t’

xvost ‘tail’ −xvost+ik [t’] (DIM), xvost+e [t’] LOC SG)

brat ‘brother’ −brat+j+a [t’] ‘brothers (COLL)’

coherent analysis of these disparate effects is a formidable task, but one process seems to be easy: Surface Palatalisation is a straightforward spreading change. This change is particularly simple in the context of i and j since not only the feature [−back] but also the feature [+high] is spread from the triggering context onto the input consonant. In the following, I will restrict the scope of analysis to this simple case. That is, I will look at Surface Palatalisation applying in the context of i and j. I will demonstrate that standard Optimality Theory (henceforth OT: Prince & Smolensky 1993, McCarthy & Prince 1995), with its insistence on parallel evaluation, cannot offer an adequate analysis of Surface Palatalisation. I will suggest that standard OT needs to be modified and to admit the possibility of a level distinction (a derivational step) in the evaluation of output forms.

Among the many types of non-concatentative morphemes are auto- segments or floating features which, in order to be realised phonologically, must attach to a root node in the stem. Akinlabi (1996) terms this process FEATURAL AFFIXATION. Featural affixes are of particular interest for models of reduplication, which make varying predictions as to whether or not they will be copied. In segmental models such as that of Marantz (1982), where nothing other than the underlying segmental base of the melody is copied, we would not expect the featural affix to be ‘transferred’ (Clements 1985a, Myers & Carleton 1996) between base and reduplicant.In models where the entire base is copied, such as that of Steriade (1988), featural transfer depends on the particular conception of the grammar. Within serial models of the grammar featural transfer depends crucially on the ordering of word-formation rules and phonological rules, while in a non-serial model like Optimality Theory (Prince & Smolensky 1993) featural transfer depends on the rank ordering of relevant constraints. The goal of this paper is to contribute to an understanding of featural affixation and featural transfer by presenting a constraint-based account of consonant mutation in Seereer-Siin, an Atlantic (Niger-Congo) language related to Fula, and by focusing specifically on the interaction of consonant mutation and reduplication. In the analysis presented here I consider mutation to be the result of featural affixation to the root node of a stem-initial consonant.

The principles determining secondary stress placement in English display considerable non-uniformity (Prince 1993) in their application. While in some contexts a syllable will be stressed if it is heavy, or if it is stressed in the stem of a derived form, in other environments syllable weight and stem stress do not entail secondary stress. To take a relatively straightforward case, the primary stress of the stems in (1a) is preserved as a secondary stress in the derived forms (cf. monomorphemic T`tamagóuchi with initial stress), but stress preservation systematically fails in words like (1b). Here we have phonologically conditioned non-uniformity; stress preservation on light syllables is blocked in the environment of a following primary stress.

There are currently many proposals for analysing cross-linguistic vowel length and consonant weight patterns within an Optimality Theory (OT) framework. The basic claim is that vowel length and consonant weight are determined by the interaction of markedness constraints on moraic content and constraints requiring faithfulness to underlying moraicity.

In this paper, I will show how the constraints used in one such proposal (Morén 1999) provide an analysis of the core syllable weight of Kashmiri, and that the inclusion of several other constraints proposed in the literature allows us to account for the previously puzzling distribution of stress in this language. Besides the empirical importance of both providing an analysis of Kashmiri stress and weight and demonstrating a language type predicted by Morén's weight typology, an added theoretical point is the demonstration that closed syllables may vary in weight depending on surface stress assignment. This is in line with work of Kager (1989), Hayes (1995), Rice (1996) and Broselow et al. (1997), but in contrast with many other theories which treat consonant weight for a particular segment in a given syllabic position as static within a given language. Further, the OT analysis presented here provides the necessary tools to allow the expression of weight hierarchies, while maintaining the restrictive theory of weight offered by a single-tiered moraic approach.

It is well known that though reduplicative morphemes generally fill their content through copy from a base stem, some also display a portion of fixed material. Understanding the source of such fixed segmentism in reduplication has been a matter of controversy and the subject of ongoing research in phonological theory. A long-standing theoretical approach has attributed any fixed content to prespecified material (Marantz 1982, Yip 1982 and subsequent developments; see Alderete et al. 1999 for an overview). However, more recent work has presented an alternative. A fruitful line of inquiry has stemmed from the notion that fixed content in reduplicative affixation can be explained without prespecification, through the activity of phonological constraints that are well integrated into the phonotactics and segmental-featural system of the language (McCarthy & Prince 1994b, 1995, Urbanczyk 1996a, b, Spaelti 1997, Alderete et al. 1999). Alongside the issue of fixed segmentism stands the question whether templatic structures are required to determine the size and shape of reduplicative affixes or whether such properties can be made to follow from general constraints on prosodic structure (see work cited above; also McCarthy & Prince 1994a, Prince 1997, Gafos 1998a, b, Urbanczyk 1998; with foundation from McCarthy & Prince 1986, 1990).

This paper brings a study of Mbe affixation to bear on these issues.

If an epenthetic vowel is required for syllable structure reasons, its position in a string may be determined by ‘directionality’, with the construction of maximal syllables beginning from a word edge (Itô 1986, 1989, Farwaneh 1995). Arabic has served as the prime example of directionality, but other Semitic languages have also played a role, such as Harari (Kenstowicz & Kisseberth 1979, Itô 1986) and Tigrinya (Denais 1990, Berhane 1991). In these languages the sonority of heterosyllabic (coda–onset) consonant sequences neither conditions insertion nor affects the site of the epenthetic vowel. Epenthesis is triggered by constraints on maximal syllable size, and the position of the epenthetic vowel is determined by directionality. As a result, violations of SYLLABLE CONTACT abound. Syllable contact can be defined as the requirement that a coda be more sonorous than a following onset (Murray & Vennemann 1983, Vennemann 1988).

In this article, I provide new data from Chaha, an Ethiopian Semitic language of the Gurage family, which demonstrate an intriguing difference from Semitic languages such as Harari, Tigrinya and Arabic.

The proper treatment of NON-DERIVED ENVIRONMENT BLOCKING (NDEB), also known as the Derived Environment Constraint, has long been the subject of debate by phonologists. Past approaches include the Strict Cycle Condition (Mascaró 1976), the Elsewhere Condition (Kiparsky 1982) and underspecification (Kiparsky 1993). However, since the introduction of Optimality Theory (McCarthy & Prince 1993, 1994, Prince & Smolensky 1993), phonologists have tried to model NDEB in terms of parameterised constraints (e.g. Burzio 1997) or constraint conjunction (e.g. Łubowicz 1998).

In this paper I present a case of NDEB found in the stress patterns of Tohono O'odham words. Secondary stress is assigned to all odd-numbered syllables in derived words, but is blocked on word-final odd- numbered syllables in underived words. I claim that all the presented facts about Tohono O'odham stress can be accounted for in terms of co- phonologies (cf. Orgun 1996, Inkelas et al. 1997, Inkelas 1998). By showing the intricate interaction between, on the one hand, stress assignment to latent vowels and, on the other, their behaviour with respect to perfective truncation, I argue that Tohono O'odham stress can be viewed as being assigned ‘cyclically’ and also as exhibiting the effect of bracket erasure. These facts, as I will show, are captured naturally by the co-phonology model. This co-phonology analysis is contrasted with the mono-stratal, non-constituency-based optimality-theoretic account argued for in Fitzgerald (1996, 1997). It is demonstrated that the co- phonology analysis yields a simpler and more explanatory account of the Tohono O'odham facts than Fitzgerald's account.

I begin this paper with an illustration of the stress patterns of both underived and derived forms in §2. I will then provide a co-phonology account for NDEB in §3. An alternative analysis is considered in §3.5. In §4 I illustrate the interaction between stress, latent vowels and perfective truncation, and finally the formal analysis is presented in §5.

Roca & Johnson (R & J) are ambitious in their goals for A course in phonology (CP), now in its second printing.I would like to thank Dirk Elzinga and Sharon Hargus for helpful feedback on an earlier draft of this review. I would also like to thank Iggy Roca for his thorough commentary on that earlier draft, although I realise that he will likely remain unsatisfied with the present version. The book, intended for beginners (p. xv), covers what the authors see as the outcome of 30 years of work in mainstream generative phonology, including the framework of Optimality Theory (OT), and strives to do so in a pedagogically sound fashion. CP contains 20 chapters, divided into three parts: Phonetics and phonology, Suprasegmental structure and Advanced theory. There is, in addition, an accompanying workbook by the same authors and publisher, A workbook in phonology (WP) (pp. x+144), which is designed to be employable with other textbooks or on its own.

Understanding phonology is intended as an introductory textbook in phonology for students with little or no prior knowledge of linguistics.The book served as the main text in both an introductory course to phonology for graduate students in linguistics as well as one for undergraduates at Ohio State University. Input from students in these classes regarding aspects of the book contributed to our evaluation in this review. We are particularly grateful to the following students for their helpful comments: Sharonne Albicker, Ryan Ginstrom, Jette Hansen, Sun-Hee Lee, Mary Paster, Shravan Vasishth, Jinyi Wang and Peggy Wong. We would also like to thank Carlos Gussenhoven, Sharon Hargus, Robert Levine and David Odden for valuable comments on a draft version of this review. The goal of the text, as stated, is to provide an introduction to all major topics in phonology, and a comprehensive survey of phonological theory. The book aims to explain the basics of phonology, rather than arguing for a particular theoretical position, thereby giving students a sound understanding of the field.

The influence of non-contrastive phonetic details such as intergestural timing, stop release burst and articulatory effort expense on phonological patterning has been discussed extensively in Browman & Goldstein (1992), Flemming (1995), Jun (1995), Kirchner (1997), Silverman (1997), Boersma (1998), Gordon (1999), Hayes (1999), Steriade (1999, 2000), Zhang (forthcoming), among others. Even though the way in which phonology incorporates phonetic factors is debatable (see Hayes & Steriade, forthcoming for an overview of the debate and § 3.1.1 for more detailed discussion), the fact that there exist phonological patterns that are governed by phonetic factors seems less so. In this paper, without committing myself to any view of how phonetic factors are encoded in phonology, I present the case of Chinese retroflex suffixation in support of the relevance of non-contrastive phonetic features to categorical phonological patterning. In addition, I argue that MAXFEATURE constraints (Lombardi 1995, 1998, Casali 1996, Pulleyblank 1996, Causley 1997, Walker 1999; henceforth Max[F]) are needed to account for the data in question.

This delightful book is a descriptive presentation of all aspects of Armenian word phonology.I thank Sharon Hargus and Sharon Inkelas for valuable comments. Although the author assumes a particular theoretical stance, this does not in any way detract from the descriptive value of the book (more on this point below, where it is suggested that the strong theoretical commitment of the author in fact adds to the book's strength, even for a reader who does not subscribe to the same theoretical view as the author).

The book is part of the series on the phonology of the world's languages edited by Jacques Durand, and it closely follows the format of the other books so far published in the series. It starts with a concise but thorough and interesting chapter on the history, dialectology and basic descriptive facts of Armenian phonology. The second chapter introduces Rules and Representations Theory, which Vaux uses in his detailed theoretical accounts of phonological phenomena in subsequent chapters. Probably aware that most potential readers of the book (whether they are primarily interested in Armenian or in phonological theory) are unlikely to share his theoretical views, Vaux is careful to explicitly state all steps of theoretical reasoning in his analyses throughout the book. As a result, I have found later chapters on specific phonological phenomena perfectly readable without referring back to the second chapter.

Determining where words begin and end can be a vexing task; one which requires knowledge of the phonological and morphosyntactic structure of a language. Studies on the phonological word is a compilation of articles which grew from a conference on the phonological word held in Berlin in 1997. There are nine papers, the first being a useful overview of the state of the art with respect to the phonological word. The remaining articles provide detailed studies from a diverse set of language families, including Salishan (Beck), Bantu (Downing), Indo-European (Booij, Hall, Raffelsiefen, Vigário), Algonquian (Russell), Siouan (Russell), as well as from Israeli Sign Language (Sandler). Each study provides detailed argumentation and makes more than a few points of interest regarding issues surrounding the phonological word. The volume provides many valuable contributions of interest to both theoretically and empirically inclined phonologists and morphologists.

A thorough coverage of each contribution would lead well beyond the scope of this review. Instead, following the overview, a central theoretical and empirical point from each article will be provided. This is followed by a brief discussion of some of the general and recurrent themes of the studies presented in the book.

These days, most graduate students in linguistics in the United States are not regularly exposed to the theory of Lexical Phonology and Morphology (Kiparsky 1982, Mohanan 1986). This theory – and the issues we wrestled with in it – have been largely discarded from the curriculum, replaced by the technical questions and concerns of Optimality Theory (Prince & Smolensky 1993, McCarthy & Prince 1993). Questions of stratal assignment, the Strict Cycle Condition and the like have been largely abandoned in favour of the minutiae of correspondence (McCarthy & Prince 1995) and sympathy (McCarthy 1999).

This volume consists of a subset of the papers presented at a workshop on Prosodic Morphology which took place in June 1994 at the Research Institute for Language and Speech at Utrecht University.We wish to acknowledge the helpful comments of Colin Wilson and Rachel Walker, neither of whom should accept any responsibility for any remaining errors or unreadability. There are two main themes that hold the volume together; the first and most obvious theme is the interface between morphology and phonology/prosody, and the second is the use of Optimality Theory (OT; Prince & Smolensky 1993) to analyse aspects of this interface. We comment on the individual chapters of the volume in § 2 below, and offer some general concluding remarks in § 3.

As stated in its Foreword, the Handbook is a ‘user’s manual’ for the International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA). It provides a variety of information about the philosophy and practice of IPA usage and in so doing, confronts a number of current issues in phonetics. But the goal of the Handbook remains resolutely practical, the intention being to give just ‘the information needed for getting to grips with the IPA’ (p. viii). Nonetheless, it provides much more information and discussion about transcription than the previous official source of information about the IPA, the 1949 Principles of the International Phonetic Association. The decision to produce a new Handbook was made at the 1989 Kiel Convention of the International Phonetic Association.