Cluster Reduction: Deletion or Coalescence?

Abstract

I show that a consequence of Correspondence Theory in Optimality Theory is that, for processes such as cluster reduction, if MAX outranks UNIFORMITY, candidates displaying coalescence are preferred to those displaying true deletion. It is thus incumbent on the analyst to identify the constraints that select appropriate coalescence candidates, even for apparent deletion cases. I show how Lamontagne and Rice's (1995) account of the D-effect in Navajo must be modified to ensure the correct outcome in a language where both coalescence and apparent deletion are repairs to cluster constraint violations. If, for other reasons, it is necessary that UNIFORMITY outrank MAX, the admission of MAX(Feature) constraints becomes unavoidable. An analysis of certain cluster reduction phenomena in Ibiza Catalan shows how complex coda constraints, perceptual markedness constraints for clusters, Paradigm Uniformity, and featural faithfulness interact to derive a pattern of contextual variation. The paper includes a review of Correspondence Theory focusing on its effects in cluster reduction.

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

“…Homorganic consonant cluster reduction in Catalan appears to pose a challenge to Baković's (2005) NO-GEM + AGREE(ƒ) analysis of 'sufficiently similar' antigemination, that any feature(s) ignored for the purposes of 'sufficiently similar' antigemination independently assimilate in the relevant set of contexts. However, once reduction is properly understood as coalescence rather than as deletion, as already argued by Wheeler (2005), the challenge vanishes. This is because reduction-as-coalescence measures relative similarity in its own way: features ignored for the purposes of 'sufficient similarity' are regulated by IDENT(ƒ) constraints ranked lower than the markedness driver of coalescence (NO-CC$ in our analysis); other IDENT(ƒ) constraints are ranked higher.…”

“…The challenge presented by the Catalan pattern in (8) relies on the assumption that the process responsible for consonant cluster reduction in (8)a is deletion of the second consonant, violating MAX-C. However, Wheeler (2005) convincingly argues that the responsible process is not deletion but coalescence of the two underlying consonants to one on the surface.…”

Coalescence as autosegmental spreading and delinking

“…In some cases, the deletion analysis is a by-product of the correspondence-theoretic constraint ranking. As pointed out by Wheeler (2005a), languages in which sequences of segments are simplified in the same context by either coalescence or deletion, depending on the quality of the segments involved, require that both types of reduction be treated as a two-to-one mapping. This is because a correspondence-based analysis necessitates a ranking in which any constraint violated by a coalescence candidate, such as U niformity , is ranked lower than constraints militating against other repairs, including M ax , which penalises segmental deletion.…”

“…In addition to analyses involving vacuous coalescence as a ‘by-product’, arguments have been put forward for analysing some segment–zero alternations as cases of crucial vacuous coalescence, on the basis of language-internal or typological evidence against deletion accounts. 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.…”

Idempotency in Optimality Theory

“…To illustrate, Uniformity assigns two violations to the candidate ( , , 𝜌 , ) in (41), because of its two surface coalescences and . The constraint thus defined is coarse (Wheeler 2005): it does not distinguish between a coalescence of just two segments (such as below) and a coalescence of more than two segments (such as ). This distinction can be captured through the following alternative gradient definition: the faithfulness constraint assigns violations for each coalescence of underlying segments.…”