[Author Login]
Title:Re-examining Spanish 'Resyllabification'
Authors:Timothy L. Face
Comment:Phonetic symbols in IPA Garamond font, available as "Other" file
Abstract:Re-examining Spanish 'Resyllabification'

Timothy L. Face

The Ohio State University

Revised version of paper presented at the 29th Linguistic Symposium

on Romance Languages, University of Michigan, April 8-11, 1999.

This paper reexamines Spanish syllabification, focusing on

"resyllabification", within Optimality Theory (Prince and

Smolensky 1993) and Correspondence Theory (McCarthy and Prince 1994).

The first part of the paper presents the data relevant to

syllabification in Spanish, showing preferences for a consonant

to be an onset, both within a word and across word boundaries,

for the formation of complex onsets within words but not across word

boundaries, and for the interaction of syllabification and aspiration

in those dialects of Spanish where /s/ aspiration is not limited to

coda position. It is also seen that syllabification across prefix

boundaries shows exactly the same pattern as syllabification across

word boundaries. This leads to the proposal that prefixes have a

different status than do suffixed morphemes, and specifically that

they are phonological domains (PDs). A PD is defined as a grouping

of morphemes that is the input to the phonology. A PD may consist of

one or more morphemes, but only PDs (and not individual morphemes

within a polymorphemic PD) can be referred to by the phonology.

Taking into consideration the morphological status of prefixes, a new

analysis of Spanish syllabification is provided using universal

constraints independently motivated in previous studies, and

by making minor modification to the Uniform Exponence constraint

proposed by Kenstowicz (1995) and used by Colina (1997) in her attempt

to account for Spanish "resyllabification".

Previous analyses of Spanish syllabification have had trouble dealing

with prefixes, or have ignored them altogether. Previous accounts are

reviewed, pointing out where they fall short. The account offered in

this paper is superior to previous accounts in two ways: (1) It

recognizes the morphological distinction between prefixes and suffixed

morphemes, and (2) it is able to account correctly for data about

which previous analyses make false predictions.
Type:Paper/tech report
Article:Version 1