Apparent ‘sufficiently similar’ degemination in Catalan is due to coalescence

Abstract

Cameron et al. (2010) and Fruehwald & Gorman (2011) present the pattern of homorganic consonant cluster reduction in Catalan as a challenge to Baković’s (2005) theory of antigemination, which predicts that any feature ignored in the determination of consonant identity for the purposes of antigemination in a given language must independently assimilate in that language. I argue that the pattern in Catalan is not a counterexample to this prediction if the reduction process is analyzed as coalescence, following Wheeler (2005), rather than as deletion.

Coalescence as autosegmental spreading and delinking

“…One case in point is the reduction of syllable-final homorganic clusters in (Central) Catalan, as in [punˈt-ɛt] ‘bridge ( dim )’ vs. [pɔn] ‘bridge’ (Wheeler 2005a, 2005b: 221). Baković (2017) argues that treating this pattern as coalescence makes it possible to uphold his theory of antigemination (Baković 2005), which states that avoidance of ‘sufficiently similar’ adjacent consonants is the result of the interaction of two constraints: N o G em , a strict antigemination constraint against fully identical adjacent consonants, and some constraint enforcing assimilation of the features ignored in the determination of identity (e.g. A gree or S hare ).…”

“…Catalan homorganic cluster reduction constitutes a prima facie counterexample to this theory, since it incorrectly predicts that all but place features should assimilate in the language. Baković (2017) points out that this prediction is not made if the Catalan pattern is treated as coalescence driven by a constraint against complex codas. In this case, the reduction is not the result of avoidance of segments that are similar enough.…”

“…There are two ways to retain Baković's (2017) insight in an ACC analysis, and thus treat the reduction as driven by *C omplex C oda ranked above M ax (•). One is to assume that Catalan cluster simplification involves vacuous spreading and that the surface segment dominates two identical place nodes (e.g.…”