Recursive prosodic words in Kaqchikel (Mayan)

Ryan Bennett

doi:10.5334/gjgl.550

Abstract

Following the development of Prosodic Hierarchy Theory (Selkirk 1984; Nespor &amp; Vogel 1986), evidence has accumulated that prosodic categories may be recursively self-embedded (e.g. Selkirk 1995; Truckenbrodt 1999; Wagner 2010; Itô &amp; Mester 2013, etc.). However, this conclusion is not universally accepted (e.g. Vogel 2009a), and even the need for prosodic categories has been recently disputed (e.g. Scheer 2012b).In this article I argue that the prefixal phonology of Kaqchikel provides clear and convincing evidence for unbounded (iterable) recursion of the prosodic word ω. Patterns of [ʔ]-insertion and degemination receive a simple, elegant treatment if recursion of the prosodic word is permitted. Theories of prosodic phonology which do without recursion are forced to resort to ad hoc stipulations to account for the same facts. Both derivational (e.g. Kiparsky 1982) and transderivational (e.g. Benua 2000) analyses of these patterns fail on morphological grounds. The overall conclusion is that both abstract prosodic structure and recursion of the prosodic word are indispensable parts of any theory of word-level phonology.

Highlights

1 Introduction The central claim of Prosodic Hierarchy Theory is that phonotactic patterns may be conditioned by abstract phonological constituents— known as prosodic categories— which are distinct from the constituents provided by morphology and syntax (Selkirk 1978; 1980a; b; 1984; 1986, etc.; Nespor & Vogel 1986; and many others)
Work within this theory adopted a strong version of the Strict Layer Hypothesis (SLH), essentially a set of formal restrictions governing the hierarchical nesting of prosodic categories (Selkirk 1984; Nespor & Vogel 1986, etc.)
It should be noted that the analysis developed here only bears on the need for unbalanced recursion (2c) in prosodic phonology

Summary

Introduction

The central claim of Prosodic Hierarchy Theory is that phonotactic patterns may be conditioned by abstract phonological constituents— known as prosodic categories— which are distinct from the constituents provided by morphology and syntax (Selkirk 1978; 1980a; b; 1984; 1986, etc.; Nespor & Vogel 1986; and many others). The problem is simple: prefixes in Kaqchikel are all closely integrated with their stems in the morpho-syntax, but they do not show the same prosodic behavior (Bennett et al 2018) Both high- and low-attaching morphemes have the morphological properties of regular affixes: they are bound morphemes which cannot occur in isolation; they are syntactically dependent on a following stem; and they must appear in a fixed, invariant position relative their stems.. There is little to no evidence that high-attaching morphemes like aj- agt are synchronically roots in Kaqchikel: distributionally, they only occur in the prefixal constructions described here Futhermore, even if these morphemes were roots, that alone would not account for their prosodic behavior, because there are various root-root compounds which pattern as single, non-recursive prosodic words, e.g. Iximulew [ω ʔiʃimulew ] ‘Guatemala’ < ixim ‘corn’ + ulew ‘land’ (note the lack of [ʔ]-insertion on the righthand member of the compound, and cf ulew [ʔulew ] ‘land’; Patal Majzul 2007: 509; Brown et al 2010: 154, 275). This mapping is again driven by the constraint Match (X0, ω), which requires correspondence between morphological words and prosodic words (Selkirk 2009; 2011; see Bennett et al 2018 for further details)

Level ordering

Transderivational faithfulness

Discussion