S. J.
Hannahs
Contributions to journals
In this paper, we examine the distribution of epenthesis in final clusters and initial syllable deletion in trisyllabic words in Welsh using a corpus of Twitter data (Jones et al. 2015). We show that the generalisations established in Hannahs 2009, Hannahs 2011, and Hannahs 2013 are largely borne out, but there are additional lexical and phonological complications.
Specifically, we show that these two processes are subject to lexical frequency effects that go in opposite directions. While this seems at first paradoxical, we go on to show that the frequency effects make sense given what we know about phonological processes generally and what we know about Welsh phonotactics specifically.
The organization of this paper is as follows. We first review Hannahs's foot-based account of the facts. We then turn to our Twitter data testing Hannahs's claims, but also considering additional variables. We show that: i) the phenomena are gradient; and ii) that they are subject to lexical frequency effects. We then argue that these effects are, in fact, to be expected and we justify that claim by looking at further data from another corpus.
In this paper, we examine the distribution of epenthesis in final clusters and initial syllable deletion in trisyllabic words in Welsh using a corpus of Twitter data (Jones et al. 2015). We show that the generalisations established in Hannahs 2009, Hannahs 2011, and Hannahs 2013 are largely borne out, but there are additional lexical and phonological complications.
Specifically, we show that these two processes are subject to lexical frequency effects that go in opposite directions. While this seems at first paradoxical, we go on to show that the frequency effects make sense given what we know about phonological processes generally and what we know about Welsh phonotactics specifically.
The organization of this paper is as follows. We first review Hannahs's foot-based account of the facts. We then turn to our Twitter data testing Hannahs's claims, but also considering additional variables. We show that: i) the phenomena are gradient; and ii) that they are subject to lexical frequency effects. We then argue that these effects are, in fact, to be expected and we justify that claim by looking at further data from another corpus.
It has long been observed that certain final consonant clusters in Welsh may provoke vowel epenthesis (svarabhakti), deletion of one member of the cluster, or metathesis. These clusters consist of a consonant followed by [r], [l] or [n]; other sorts of final clusters are permitted. The occurrence of epenthesis, deletion or metathesis, moreover, depends not only on the type of cluster involved, but also on the prosodic size of the input form. I argue in this paper that these three processes – epenthesis, deletion and metathesis – are all directly connected. All arise in order to avoid a sonority sequencing violation: an obstruent followed by a sonorant in a final cluster represents illicit rising sonority in a coda. To account for the data at hand, the analysis will rely on the interaction between several constraints, including a constraint militating against epenthesis, a constraint militating against deletion, and a constraint working against metathesis. The interaction of these constraints serves to capture the effects of epenthesis, deletion and metathesis in avoiding a violation of the undominated 'sonority sequencing' constraint. In addition, prosodic structure will be shown to play a role in deciding between epenthesis (which occurs in the case of a monosyllabic input form), and deletion or metathesis (which occurs when the input form is bisyllabic). Finally, account will also be given for the fact that the epenthetic vowel is a copy of the stem vowel (rather than simply a 'default' vowel such as schwa) by means of a correspondence relation between the epenthetic vowel and the underlying stem vowel.
It has long been observed that certain final consonant clusters in Welsh may provoke vowel epenthesis (svarabhakti), deletion of one member of the cluster, or metathesis. These clusters consist of a consonant followed by [r], [l] or [n]; other sorts of final clusters are permitted. The occurrence of epenthesis, deletion or metathesis, moreover, depends not only on the type of cluster involved, but also on the prosodic size of the input form. I argue in this paper that these three processes – epenthesis, deletion and metathesis – are all directly connected. All arise in order to avoid a sonority sequencing violation: an obstruent followed by a sonorant in a final cluster represents illicit rising sonority in a coda. To account for the data at hand, the analysis will rely on the interaction between several constraints, including a constraint militating against epenthesis, a constraint militating against deletion, and a constraint working against metathesis. The interaction of these constraints serves to capture the effects of epenthesis, deletion and metathesis in avoiding a violation of the undominated 'sonority sequencing' constraint. In addition, prosodic structure will be shown to play a role in deciding between epenthesis (which occurs in the case of a monosyllabic input form), and deletion or metathesis (which occurs when the input form is bisyllabic). Finally, account will also be given for the fact that the epenthetic vowel is a copy of the stem vowel (rather than simply a 'default' vowel such as schwa) by means of a correspondence relation between the epenthetic vowel and the underlying stem vowel.
