Re: orthographic syllabification [was: Re: Moraic codas]

On Wed, 18 Jul 2001, John Cowan wrote:

> Why doesn't the [d] in product belong to the first syllable,
> O resident phonologist?
Here's the problem.

1.  Lax vowels in English strongly prefer to be in a closed
syllable.

2.  Syllables strongly prefer to have onsets.

The <o> in 'product' is lax. Therefore by 1 it should be in a
closed syllable. This means that /d/ is a coda. This leaves the
second syllable without an onset, which is discouraged by 2. A
way out of this bind is to claim that the consonant /d/ can
belong to both syllables at the same time. The first syllable is
thereby provided with a coda and escapes the proscription of 1.
The second syllable is provided with an onset, thus satisfying
2. The problem is that for many phonologists, having /d/ belong
simultaneously to the first and second syllables violates a
restriction placed on phonological representations:

3.  A consonant may not belong to two syllables at once.

There have been all kinds of solutions to this conundrum, but
they all boil down to denying 1, 2, or 3 for the English data.

Of the three, I think that 3 probably has the weakest force
since it is a condition placed on phonological representations,
which may not be "real" in any sense of the word. I still have
an admittedly irrational difficulty in accepting ambisyllabic
consonants, though. 2 isn't very convincing either, but it finds
typological support in languages around the world. 1 seems to be
the weightiest, since it is a clearly observable fact of English
(at least some varieties).

In my earlier post, I tried to represent a majority opinion,
which discounts the possibility of ambisyllabicity, and which is
against the violation of the onset requirement.

In a perfect world free of the stultifying Traditions of the
Fathers, the Rational Linguist would boldly proclaim the
existence of Ambisyllabic Consonants in English, since that is
the conclusion demanded by the Data.

I haven't made up my mind.

Dirk

--
Dirk Elzinga                          dirk.elzinga@m.cc.utah.edu

"The strong craving for a simple formula
has been the undoing of linguists."               - Edward Sapir

Reply