The architecture of the english lexicon

A.8.4 /-ative/

Like /-atory/, the addition of /-ive/ to stems in /-ate/ produces an adjective or noun. Again, various types appear which often apply to multiple alternate forms of individual words, and disagree between American and British English. All monosyllabic roots show antepenultimate stress:

(A.66)

CVV- 19% lu³crative c‡usative

CVC- 16% f’xative f—rmative h—rtative

CV- 64% n‡rrative nŽgative v—cative fr’cative

Bisyllabic stems show three stress patterns, all of which appear in both American and British, but not always across the same words. Many words show multiple types in any case:

[1,0,2,0]: 18%

[1,0,0,0]: 15%

[0,1,0,0]: 67 %

(A.67)

[1,0,2,0]:

CVC-CVC- 2% c—ntemplaøtive

CV-CVC- 3% ’llustraøtive lŽgislaøtive

CVV-CV- 5% cu³mulaøtive (Br.alt.) ru³minaøtive (Br. alt.)

CVC-CV- 9% ’ndicaøtive (Br. alt.) qu‡ntitaøtive

CV-CV- 81% c—pulaøtive (Br. alt.) gŽneraøtive (Br. alt.)

mŽditaøtive ’mitaøtive pŽnetraøtive

c—nnotaøtive qu‡litaøtive c—mmutaøtive

[1,0,0,0]:

CV-CVC- 8% ’llustrative lŽgislative (Br. alt.)

CVV-CV- 18% cu³mulative ru³minative pe³jorative (Br.)

CVC-CV- 4% qu‡ntitative (Br. alt.)

CV-CV- 70% c—pulative gŽnerative f’gurative

dŽcorative spŽculative n—minative

[0,1,0,0]:

s-CVV- 18% incho³ative accu³sative commu³tative

conno³tative

s-CVC- 35% altŽrnative consŽrvative contŽmplative

aff’rmative inf—rmative dem—nstrative

prevŽntative supŽrlative

s-CV- 46% prov—cative comp‡rative ind’cative

ev—cative impŽrative
Here, many stems with a short vowel are seen that show a long vowel in their unsuffixed forms, although a few alternatively show long vowels as well. What generally distinguishes the last set from the others is that most (but not all) of these stems form suffixless prefixed verbs, while the first two sets are primarily made up of stems that tend to form verbs in /-ate/.

Trisyllabic stems show a similar distribution:

[0,1,0,2,0]: 38%

[0,1,0,0,0]: 43%

[2,0,1,0,0]: 18%

(A.68)

[0,1,0,2,0]:

s-CVV-CV- 25% accu³mulaøtive (Br. alt.) agglu³tinaøtive (Br. alt.)

appre³ciaøtive (Br. alt.)

s-CVC-CV- 8% intŽrpretaøtive (Br. alt.)

s-CV-CV- 67% all’teraøtive (Br. alt.) auth—ritaøtive

sign’ficaøtive (Br. alt.) commŽmoraøtive (Br. alt.)

corr—boraøtive (Br. alt.) degŽneraøtive (Br. alt.)

commu³nicaøtive (Br. alt.)

[0,1,0,0,0]:

s-CVV-CV- 22% accu³mulative agglu³tinative appre³ciative

recœperative remu³nerative vitu³perative

s-CVC-CV- 15% intŽrpretative detŽrminative sub—rdinative

s-CV-CV- 63% all’terative commŽmorative c¯—perative

sign’ficative corr—borative

[2,0,1,0,0]:

s`-s-CVC- 60% ˆrgumŽntative ndem—nstrative rpresŽntative

s`-s-CV- 40% “nterr—gative
In this case, American English appears to favor the variant without stress on the suffix, although there are some forms which retain variants or even prefer it. As was noted above, the morphological issue of whether a stem formed its verb in / ate/ or not appears to be directly linked to whether the antepenult received stress, although this is not a hard and fast rule:

(A.69)

[1,0,2,0] [1,0,0,0] [0,1,0,0]

gŽnerate gŽneraøtive gŽnerative

lŽgislate lŽgislaøtive lŽgislative

comp‡re comp‡rative

consŽrve consŽrvative

’ndicate ’ndicaøtive ind’cative

A.9.1 /-ment/

This suffix is parallel in behavior to /-ate/ and /-ize/ in some ways. When verbal, it takes the main stress in bisyllabic words, but reverts to secondarily stressed status when the word is trisyllabic or greater. In nominals, /-ment/ is only suffixed when the initial syllable of the word is light.

Words in /-ment/ may be divided into two groups, nouns (80%) and verbs (20%), of which the former greatly outnumbers the latter. The verbs show a final stress primarily absent from the nouns and may be treated first:
(A.70) Monosyllabic stems:

[0,1] : 84%

CVV- 11% f¯mŽnt

CVC- 55% augmŽnt fermŽnt fragmŽnt

segmŽnt tormŽnt

CV- 33% cemŽnt lamŽnt fomŽnt

[1,0] : 16% sŽgment (alt.) c—mment
Bisyllabic stems show the pattern [1,0,2], wherein the final syllable shows a full rather than a reduced vowel. There are a few words, like c—mplement, c—mpliment and rŽgiment which show variants with the pattern [2,0,1]. All such verbs have light penults.
(A.71) Bisyllabics: c—mplimnt c—mplemnt d—cumnt

’nstrumnt ’mplemnt —rnamnt

rŽgimnt sœpplemnt
There is also the longer verb expŽriment.

Nouns with monosyllabic stems are primarily initially stressed:

[0,1] : 6%

[1,0] : 94%

The few nouns, like cemŽnt, lamŽnt, which show final stress are also verbs. Other nouns that have corresponding verbs are initially stressed, e.g., ‡ugment, fŽrment, sŽgment, t—rment. These all have heavy initial syllables, in contrast to the finally stressed nouns.

(A.72)

CVVCC- 8% —intment a³ilment ba³ilment

CVVC- 21% ba³sement ca³sement m—vement

CVV- 19% pa³yment mo³ment ra³iment

CVC- 44% fŽrment f’gment fr‡gment

t—rment p’gment g‡rment

sh’pment sŽgment jœdgement

CV- 8% clŽment c—mment
Words showing two syllables preceding the suffix show two stress patterns with the following distribution:

[1,0,0] : 33%

[0,1,0] : 67%

Structurally, almost none of the latter group shows a light penult, the sole exception being the form inclŽment, a prefixed form of the adjective clŽment seen above. However, there are a number of words with antepenultimate stress which do have heavy penults, such as b‡nishment, ch‡stizement, m‡nagement, b‡fflement. In most cases, words with free stems appear to retain the same accentuation as their unsuffixed counterparts. A great many words with penultimate stress show prefixed monosyllabic stems.

(A.73)

[1,0,0] : 24%

CVC-CVV- 5% fr‡nchösement ch‡stösement (alt.)

CV-CVC- 21% m‡nagement g—vernment b‡nishment

sŽttlement w—nderment

CVV-CV- 6% mu³niment nu³triment ru³diment

CVC-CV- 25% ‡rgument ‡rmament Žxcrement

f’rmament ’mplement ’nstrument

CV-CV- 42% d—cument dŽtriment Žlement

f’lament mŽrriment

[0,1,0] : 76%

CVVCC- 10% ann—uncement ann—intment arra³ngement

CVVC- 37% repla³cement conce³alment conf´nement

cons´gnment

CVV- 10% repa³yment empl—yment end—wment

CVCC- 19% adv‡ncement bomb‡rdment comp—rtment

ench‡ntment enf—rcement

CVC- 19% confŽrment entr‡pment fulf’llment

assŽssment

CV- 5% inclŽment

Four syllable words show a similar pattern, but there are a few forms with unusual initial stress:

(A.74)

[0,1,0,0]: 61%

[2,0,1,0]: 32%

[1,0,0,0]: 2% tŽmperament l’neament mŽdicament

[1,0,2,0]: 5% —verstaøtement œnderstaøtement ‡dvert“sement

œndergˆrment rŽconcØlement
The last pattern is an inversion of the expected [2,0,1,0]. Again, words with antepenultimate stress tend to have light penults, end in liquids or be multiply suffixed.

(A.75)

s-CVV-CVC 17% disa³blement enl´ghtenment ent´tlement

acqu´rement enno³blement env´ronment

s-CVC-CVC- 15% disfr‡nchisement enfr‡nchisement advŽrtisement

ab‡ndonment enc’rclement ent‡nglement

bew’lderment

s-CV-CVC- 31% ackn—wledgement emb‡rrassment embŽllishment

enc—uragement devŽlopment emb’tterment

impr’sonment

s-CVC-CV- 16% dis‡rmament re‡rmament presŽntiment

s-CV-CV- 21% emb—diment impŽdiment arb’trament

expŽriment pred’cament

There are apparently no words of the form s-CVV-CV- in this group. The word impŽdiment is notable in that the stem seen in impŽde appears short. Of the words with penultimate stress, most are prefixed monosyllabic stems:

(A.76)

s`-s-CVVCC- 10% prarra³ngement rarra³ngement d“sapp—intment

s`-s-CVVC- 38% prorda³inment rinsta³tement d“senga³gement

nterta³inment ral´gnment

s`-s-CVV- 21% ˜verpa³yment nempl—yment d“send—wment

d“sagre³ement

s`-s-CVCC- 24% rimbœrsement rinf—rcement d“scontŽntment

radjœstment

s`-s-CVC 6% d“sintŽrment
Among longer words, penultimate stress is not found, although some words do show preantepenultimate stress again. Most of the words with penultimate stress actually show a heavy penult, and are in fact prefixed versions of stems seen earlier.

(A.77)

[0,1,0,0,0]: 25% acc—mpaniment imp—verishment

[2,0,1,0,0]: 75% hred’tament d“semb‡rrassment d“sent‡nglement

d“sest‡blishment d“sillu³sionment ndern—urishment
A.10 /-ist/ and /-ism/

As in the / ment/ forms, for / ist/ and / ism/ words, stress appears to be related to the morphological type of the stem being suffixed. Words that are already suffixed tend to maintain that stress pattern, although there are exceptions.

Forms showing a monosyllabic stem are universally stressed with the pattern [1-0,(0)]; forms with light stems make up about a seventh of the group.

(A.78)

CVV- 48% cu³bist cy³clist pa³pist sty³list

de³ism nu³dism ra³cism ‡utist

CVC- 39% ‡rtist b‡ptist lŽftist l’nguist

m‡rxism sŽxism

CV- 13% cŽllist drœggist f‡scist chŽmist

tr‡ppist f‡scism s—phism

Words showing two syllables preceding the suffix show two stress patterns with the following distribution:

[1,0,0] 88%

[0,1,0] 12%

Unlike the words in the /-al/ group above, many of these words showing antepenultimate stress nevertheless have heavy penults:

(A.79)

CVV-CVV- 2% e³g¯tist a³th«ist Župh¬ism ju³daism

CVC-CVV- 5% j’ng¯ist p‡nth«ist h’nd¬ism ‡rchism

CV-CVV- 5% Žg¯ist Žssyist hŽr¯ism

CVV-CVC- 6% sc´entist so³lipsism so³lipsist (alt.)

CVC-CVC- 2% ‡dventist Žxorcist Žxorcism

CV-CVC- 3% c—lumnist s—lipsist ‡narchist m—dernism

CVV-CV- 25% Žucharist b´cyclist ch‡uvinist d´arist

he³donist mo³torist so³cialist fa³talism

re³alism vo³calism n´hilism

CVC-CV- 19% ‡ctivist ‡lchemist ‡rsonist p—rtraitist

f—rmalism sy²mbolism pr‡gmatism

CV-CV- 34% —culist b’gamist b—tanist cl‡ssicist

m—ralist s‡tirist str‡tegist cl‡ssicism

fŽminism m‡sochism fŽtishism c—mmunist
Notable are the short penults seen in s‡tirist, str‡tegist, as compared to s‡töre and strate³gic. A number of words have alternate forms with quantity fluctuations. Also notable is the shortening seen in hŽroism. Many of the words with heavy antepenults that are skipped have similarly stressed stems in isolation, e.g., c—lumn, g—vern, ‡narchy. There are also a number of stems that are already suffixed with /-al/ and /-ent/ type suffixes, e.g., sc’entist, v—calist, ‡ctivist.

Words with penultimate stress are in a minority. Almost all show heavy penults:

(A.80)

CVV- 53% el’tist cart—onist extre³mist esca³pist

mach’nist defe³atism ide³alism surre³alism

CVC- 33% conf—rmist resŽrvist transvŽstism

CV- 13% librŽttist narc’ssist (Br.) narc’ssism (Br.)
Very few forms show a stressed light antepenultimate syllable. Again, many stems are similar to their unsuffixed forms, e.g., defŽat, extrŽme, cart—on, conf—rm. Words with trisyllabic stems show a range of stress patterns:
Trisyllabic stems: [0,1,0,0] 59%

[2,0,1,0] 13%

[1,0,2,0]: 7%

[1,0,0,0] 20%

Words with antepenultimate stress have light penults:
(A.81)

s-CVV-CV- 17% anae³sthetist pod´atrist salva³tionist beha³viorist

illu³sionist rev´valist beha³viorism ide³alism

s-CVC-CV- 26% projŽctionist num’smatist rom‡nticist

mis‡nthropist patŽrnalist obstrœctionism

somn‡mbulism ev‡ngelism

s-CV-CV- 57% seösm—logist ec—nomist phon—logist

exprŽssionist ventr’loquist suprŽmacist

telŽphonist sax—phonist (alt.) emp’ricism

fan‡ticism ant‡gonism met‡bolism

While most words appear to have the same accentuation as their unsuffixed forms, a few, like telŽphonist and alternate British pronunciations of cap’talist and sax—phonist, do not. Fewer words show penultimate stress, most of which have heavy penults:

(A.82)

s`-s-CVV- 32% pˆrachu³tist (alt.) ˜pportu³nist ˆbsolu³tist

˜pportu³nism p˜lythe³ism ˆbsente³eism

m˜nothe³ism

s`-s-CVC- 50% n˜nconf—rmist ˜bscur‡ntist “rredŽntist

pr˜pag‡ndist ˜bscur‡ntism “rredŽntism

s`-s-CV- 18% v“ol’nist clˆrinŽtist

Words like v“ol’nist follow the stress of the simplex v“ol’n, despite the fact that the main stressed syllable is light. A few words show the inverse pattern, with initial stress; all have heavy penults:

(A.83)

s²-s-CVV- 67% p‡rachuøtist m—notheøist m—torcyøclist

m‡nicuørist s‡xophoønist —pportuønism (alt.)

‡bsoluøtism ph‡risaøism

s²-s-CVC- 33% t‡xidrmist mŽtallrgist

Words with the pattern [1,0,0,0], with no secondary stress, primarily show light syllables in the penult.

(A.84)

s²-s-CVC- 13% pr—testantism

s²-s-CV- 77% n‡turalist r‡tionalist fœnctionalist c‡pitalist

sŽparatist f‡voritism ‡lcoholism pœritanism

rŽlativism

Many of these are light bisyllabic stems extended in /-al/ suffixes, e.g., c‡pitalism, rŽlativism, but the suffix /-ate/ appears to show a similar treatment in sŽparatist, similarly the suffix /-ant/ in pr—testantism. Similar patterns are seen for longer words:
(A.85) Four syllables:

[2,0,1,0,0] 89% smif´nalist c˜nserva³tionist trˆnscendŽntalist

ˆnthrop—logist sˆdom‡sochism ˆntisŽmitism

[0,1,0,0,0] 5% sensa³tionalist colo³nialist impe³rialism

mate³rialism

[2,0,0,1,0] 3% cˆricatœrist (alt.) v“olincŽllist ˆnthropom—rphism

[1,0,0,2,0] 1% c‡ricatrist

[1,0,0,0,0] 2% sp’ritualist sp’ritualism

Most longer words are multiply suffixed and follow the stress patterns of the singly suffixed form.
(A.86) Five syllables:

[2,0,1,0,0,0] ˆgricœlturalist c˜ngrega³tionalist c˜nstitu³tionalist

“ntern‡tionalism vangelicalism

[2,0,0,1,0,0] bˆcteri—logist m“crobö—logist phy``siothŽrapist

paøleont—logist ˆutoer—ticism

[0,2,0,1,0,0] bactri—logist (alt.) collˆbor‡tionist env“ronmŽntalism

elctrom‡gnetism

Six syllables: auth˜rita³rianism totˆlita³rianism humˆnita³rianism

Seven syllables: lˆtitdina³rianism

A.11 /-able/

This suffix appears to be similar in realization to the /-ic/ type suffix / ible/, but it maintains a different stress pattern which generally corresponds to words with the orthographic representation ‘-able’. The suffix surfaces as / æbæl/, but the underlying form /-abil/ is suggested by extended forms in / ity/, e.g., chˆngeab’lity /aønï-æb’l-iti/. Forms showing a monosyllabic stem are universally stressed with the pattern [1,0,0] and shows all types of stems:

(A.87)

CVVC- 5% cha³ngeable c—untable

CVV- 29% brea³kable e³quable (alt.) quo³table ca³pable

CVC- 31% s—lvable th’nkable p‡lpable

CV- 25% l’vable fl‡mmable st—ppable pr—bable

sy²llable

As can be seen, there is practically no distinction regarding the distribution of the different stem types, apart from those with extra-heavy stems, which are generally rare in English. Non-Latinate stems combine freely with / able/, which is still derivationally productive.

Words showing two syllables preceding the suffix show two stress patterns with the following distribution:

[1,0-0,0] 31%

[0,1-0,0] 69%

Of the first set, most show a light antpenultimate syllable:

(A.88)

CVC-CVC- 2% c—mfortable

CV-CVC- 3% dŽmonstrable (Br.) l‡mentable (Br.)

CVV-CV- 10% fa³vorable no³ticeable re³asonable v´olable

su³perable

CVC-CV- 31% ‡dmirable ‡ctionable ‡nswerable Žxecrable

m‡rketable sŽrviceable f—rmidable (alt.)

tr‡nsferable (alt.)

CV-CV- 53% ‡pplicable sŽparable p‡latable v‡luable

m‡nageable crŽditable Žnviable ch‡ritable

prŽferable vŽgetable

Quite often, words with final stress fail to maintain that stress in the suffixed form, e.g., prŽferable, tr‡nsferable, ‡dmirable, the latter also showing no trace of the long vowel.

Of the second pattern with antepenultimate stress, a majority of these forms show heavy antepenultimates. Many of these stems are prefixed monosyllables, but a few are bisyllabic but stressed on a light antepenult:

(A.89)

s-CVVC- 4% excha³ngeable surm—untable acc—untable

s-CVV- 40% impla³cable (Br.) inca³pable ame³nable

insa³tiable mainta³inable adv´sable

unspe³akable

s-CVC- 38% imprŽgnable delŽctable accŽptable

transp—rtable dispŽnsable

s-CV- 18% form’dable (alt.) impl‡cable (alt.) impr—bable

transfŽrable (alt.) hosp’table
Note the alternate pronunciation of form’dable, as well as hosp’table, which are stressed on light syllables. Prefixed verbs in this set, unlike the previous, are seen to maintain their stress patterns.

The stress distribution noted above is paralleled by the longer forms. Again, words with light antepenults usually show the final stress pattern [2,0,1,0] while words with heavy penults show [0,1,0,0]. Words multiply suffixed with /-ify/, / ize/ and similar long suffixes show the inverted pattern [1,0,2,0]:

(A.90) Trisyllabic forms:

[0,1,0-0,0] 52%

s-CVV-CV 15% indu³bitable dec´pherable

s-CVC-CV- 35% invœlnerable ext’nguishable unc—nscionable

inc—mparable

s-CV-CV- 50% inŽvitable unŽnviable ab—minable irrŽfutable (alt.)

inv’olable cons’derable irrŽvocable (alt.)

[2,0,1-0,0] 34%

s`-s-CVVC- 8% “ntercha³ngeable nacc—untable

s`-s-CVV- 62% “nconso³lable crtif´able d“sagre³eable

s`-s-CVC- 17% “nelœctable “ncontŽstable

s`-s-CV- 12% “nappl’cable “nhosp’table nforgŽttable

[1,0,2-0,0] 14%

s²-s-CVV- 73% no³tiföable

s²-s-CVC- 12% qu‡ntiföable œnbelieøvable (alt.)

s²-s-CV- 15% cl‡ssiföable rŽcognØzable (alt.) rŽconcØlable

m—nosy``llable
While many monosyllabic stems retain their stress, others, as in alternate pronunciations of irrŽfutable, irrŽvocable, lose theirs.
(A.91) Four syllables:

[2,0,1,0-0,0] “ndef‡tigable “ndec´pherable “next’nguishable

ninh‡bitable “rrec—verable

[0,1,0,2-0,0] irrŽconcØlable (alt.)

[2,2,0,1-0,0] “rrconc´lable (alt.)

[2,0,0,1-0,0] bØodegra³deable

Bibliography

Anderson, S. (1985). Phonology in the Twentieth Century,

Chicago: U. of Chicago Press.
Aronoff, M. (1976). Word Formation in Generative Grammar.

Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Baayen, R. H., R. Piepenbrock & H. van Rijn (1993). The CELEX Lexical

Database (CD-ROM). Philadelphia, PA: Linguistic Data Consortium,

University of Pennsylvania.

Bauer, L. (1983). English word-formation.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Beard, R. (1995). Lexeme-Morpheme Base Morphology.

Albany, NY: SUNY Press.

Benua, L. (1995). Identity effects in morphological truncation.

in Beckman, Dickey & Urbanczyk, eds., Papers in Optimality Theory

(pp. 77-136). Amherst, MA: GLSA.
Bird, S. (1990), Constraint-based Phonology.

Doctoral dissertation, University of Edinburgh.

Bird, S. & T. M. Ellison (1992). One level phonology.

Research paper EUCCS/RP-51, University of Edinburgh.

Booij, G. (1981). Rule ordering, rule application and the organization of grammars. Phonologica 1980, 45-56.
Booij, G. & J. Rubach (1984). Morphological and prosodic domains in Lexical Phonology. Phonology Yearbook 1, 1-27.

Borowsky, T. (1986). Topics in the Lexical Phonology of English,

Doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
Borowsky, T. (1989). Structure preservation and the syllable coda in English.

NLLT 7: 145-166.
Brame, M. (1974). The cycle in phonology: Stress in Palestinian, Maltese & Spanish. LI 5.1: 39-60.
Browman, Catherine & Louis Goldstein (1988). Some notes on syllable structure in articulatory phonology. Phonetica 45: 140-155.
Burzio, L. (1993). English stress, vowel length, and modularity.

Journal of Linguistics 29: 359-418.
Bybee, J. (1985). Morphology,

Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Bybee, J. (1988). Morphology as lexical organization.

in Hammond & Noonan, eds., Theoretical Morphology.

New York: Academic Press.
Bybee, J. (1995). Regular morphology and the lexicon.

Language and Cognitive Processes 10.
Chomsky, N. (1967). Some general properties of phonological rules.

Language 43.1: 103-128.
Chomsky, N. & M. Halle (1968). The Sound Pattern of English.

New York: Harper & Row.

Clements, G.N. (1985). The problem of transfer in nonlinear morphology.

Cornell Working Papers, vol. 7.
Clements, G.N. (1985). The geometry of phonological features.

Phonology Yearbook 2: 225-252.
Clements, G.N. (1990). Vowel height as a hierarchical feature.

Handout, Cornell Linguistics Circle, Oct. 2.

Clements, G.N. (1988). The role of the sonority cycle in core syllabification.

in Kingston & Beckman, eds., Papers in Laboratory Phonology 1,

Cambridge, MA: Cornell University Press.
Clements, G.N. & S. R. Hertz (1996). An integrated model of phonetic

representation in grammar. Ms., Cornell University and University of

Paris III.
Clements, G.N. & E. Hume (1995). The internal organization of speech

sounds. in Goldsmith, ed., The Handbook of Phonological Theory (pp.

70-114). Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.
Clements, G.N. & S.J. Keyser (1983). CV Phonology: a Generative Theory of

the Syllable. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Cohn, A. (1989). Stress in Indonesian and bracketing paradoxes.

NLLT 7: 167-216.
Cohn, A. & J. McCarthy (1994). Alignment and parallelism in Indonesian prosody. Ms., Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, and University of

Massachusetts, Amherst.

Cole, J. (1995). The cycle in phonology.

in Goldsmith, ed., The Handbook of Phonological Theory (pp. 70-114).

Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.
Comlex (1995), The COMLEX English pronouncing lexicon.

Linguistic Data Consortium, University of Pennsylvania.

Crowhurst, M. & M. Hewitt (1995). Directional footing, degeneracy, and alignment.

Rutgers Optimality Archive 65.

Ellison, T. M. (1995). Phonological derivation in Optimality Theory.

Rutgers Optimality Archive 75.

Freidin, R. (1978). Cyclicity and the theory of grammar.

LI 9.4: 519-549.
Fudge, E. (1969). Syllables.

Journal of Linguistics 5: 253-286.
Fudge, E. (1987). Branching structure within the syllable.

Journal of Linguistics 23: 359-377.
Fudge, E. (1984). English Word Stress.

London: Allen & Unwin.

Golston, C. (1995). Against syllabification.

Rutgers Optimality Archive 95.

Golston, C. (1996), Direct OT: Representation as pure markedness.

Rutgers Optimality Archive 71.

Green, T. & M. Kenstowicz (1995). The lapse constraint.

Rutgers Optimality Archive 101.

Hale, K. (1973). Deep-surface canonical disparities in relation to analysis and

change: an Australian example. In T. Sebeok (ed.), Current Trends in

Linguistics, vol. 9: Diachronic, Areal and Typological Linguistics (pp.

401-458). The Hague: Mouton.

Hale, M. & C. Reiss (1997). Grammar Optimization: The simultaneous

acquisition of constraint ranking and a lexicon. Rutgers Optimality

Archive 231.
Halle, M. (1977). Tenseness, vowel shift and the phonology of back vowels

in Modern English. LI 8: 611-625.

Halle, M. & M. Kenstowicz (1991). The free element condition and cyclic

versus noncyclic stress. LI 22.3: 457-501.

Halle, M. & K. P. Mohanan (1985). Segmental phonology of Modern English, LI 16: 57-116.
Halle, M. & J.-R. Vergnaud (1978). Metrical structures in phonology.

Ms., MIT.

Halle, M. & J.-R. Vergnaud (1987). An Essay on Stress.

Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Hammond, M. (1984). Constraining metrical theory: A modular theory of

rhythm and destressing. Doctoral dissertation, UCLA.
Hammond, M. (1995). There is no lexicon!

Rutgers Optimality Archive 43.

Harris, J. (1985). Spanish diphthongization and stress: a paradox resolved.

Phonology Yearbook 2: 31-45.
Hayes, B. (1981). A Metrical Theory of Stress Rules.

Bloomington, IN: The Indiana University Linguistics Club.

Hayes, B. (1982). Extrametricality & English stress.

LI 13.2: 227-276.
Hayes, B. (1985). Iambic and trochaic rhythm in stress rules.

Proceedings of the Berkeley Linguistic Society 11.
Hayes, B. (1986). Inalterability in CV phonology.

Language 62.2: 321-352.
Hayes, B. (1987). A revised parametric metrical theory",

NELS 17: 274-289.
Hayes, B. (1989). Compensatory lengthening in moraic phonology.

LI 20. 2: 253-306.
Hayes, B. (1995). Metrical Stress Theory.

Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Hung, H. (1994). The Rhythmic and Prosodic Organization of Edge Constituents.

Doctoral dissertation, Brandeis University.

Inkelas, S. (1989), Prosodic Constituency in the Lexicon,

Doctoral dissertation, Stanford University.

Inkelas, S. (1994). The consequences of optimization for underspecification.

Rutgers Optimality Archive 40.

Inkelas, S., O. Orgun & C. Zoll (1994). Exceptions and static phonological

patterns: cophonologies vs. prespecification.

Rutgers Optimality Archive 124.
It™, J. (1989). A Prosodic Theory of Epenthesis.

NLLT 7: 217-259.
It™, J. & A. Mester (1994). Reflections on CodaCond and Alignment.

Phonology at Santa Cruz 3: 27-46.
It™, J., A. Mester & J. Padgett (1994). NC: Licensing and underspecification in

Optimality Theory. Rutgers Optimality Archive 38.

Jensen, J. T. (1990). Morphology,

Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Kager, R. (1989). A metrical theory of stress and destressing in English and Dutch,

Dordrecht: Foris.

Kahn, D. (1976). Syllable-based generalizations in English Phonology.

Doctoral dissertation, MIT. Published 1980, by Garland Publishers, N.Y.

Kaisse, E. & P. Shaw (1985). On the theory of Lexical Phonology.

Phonology Yearbook 2: 1-30.
Kean, M. (1974). The strict cycle in phonology.

LI 5.2: 179-203.
Kiparsky, P. (1973). ‘Elsewhere’ in Phonology.

in Anderson & Kiparsky, eds., A Festschrift for Morris Halle,

New York: Holt Rinehart and Winston.
Kiparsky, P. (1979). Metrical structure assignment is cyclic.

LI 10.3: 421-444.

Kiparsky, P. (1981). Remarks on the metrical structure of the syllable.

in W. Dressler, ed., Phonologica, vol. 3. Innsbruck: Innsbrucker

BeitrŠge zur Sprachwissenschaft.

Kiparsky, P. (1982a). Lexical Morphology and Phonology.

in I.-S. Yang, ed., Linguistics in the Morning Calm,

Seoul, Hanshin Publishing.
Kiparsky, P. (1982b). From Cyclic Phonology to Lexical Phonology.

in van der Hulst & Smith, eds., The Structure of Phonological Representations., vol. 1 (pp. 131-175). Dordrecht: Foris.

Kiparsky, P. (1982c), "Word-Formation and the Lexicon",

Mid-American Linguistics Conference, 3-29.
Kiparsky, P. (1982d), Explanation in Phonology.

Dordrecht: Foris.

Kiparsky, P. (1985). Some Consequences of Lexical Phonology.

Phonology Yearbook 2: 85-138.
Kiparsky, P. (1994). Remarks on markedness. Trilateral Phonology Weekend

II. University of California, Santa Cruz.

Lahiri A. & J. Koreman (1988). Syllable weight and quantity in Dutch.

Proceedings of the 7th WCCFL: 217-228.
Lahiri, A. (1991). Abstractness in Lexical Representations.

Handout, University of Edinburgh talk.

Leben, W. (1973). Suprasegmental Phonology.

Doctoral dissertation, MIT.

Levin, J. (1985). A Metrical Theory of Syllabicity.

Doctoral dissertation, MIT.

Liberman, M. & A. Prince (1977) On stress and linguistic rhythm".

LI 8.2: 249-336.
Maddieson, I. (1985). Phonetic cues to syllabification.

in V. Fromkin, ed., Linguistic Phonetics. Orlando: Academic.

Marchand, H. (1969), English Word Formation.

Munich: C.H. Beck'sche Verlagsbuchhandlung.

Mascar—, J. (1976). Catalan phonology and the phonological cycle.

Doctoral dissertation, MIT. Dist. by the Indiana U. Linguistics Club,

Bloomington, Ind.
Matthews, P.H. (1974). Morphology.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

McCarthy, J. (1981). A prosodic theory of nonconcatenative morphology.

LI 12.3: 373-418.
McCarthy, J. (1983). Prosodic organization in morphology.

UMOP 8: 61-75.
McCarthy, J. & A. Prince (1986). Prosodic Morphology.

Ms., University of Massachusetts, Amherst, and Brandeis University.

McCarthy, J. & A. Prince (1988), Quantitative transfer in reduplicative and templatic morphology. In Linguistic Society of Korea, ed., Linguistics in the Morning Calm, vol. 2 (pp.3-35). Seoul: Hanshin Publishing.
McCarthy, J. & A. Prince (1990a). Foot and word in prosodic morphology: the

Arabic broken plural. NLLT 8: 209-283.

McCarthy, J. & A. Prince (1990b). Prosodic Morphology and Templatic

Morphology. In Eid & McCarthy, eds., Perspectives on Arab Linguistics

II, Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
McCarthy, J. & A. Prince (1992). Constraint interaction in Prosodic

Morphology and Phonology. Handout, Cornell University talk.

McCarthy, J. & A. Prince (1993a). Generalized Alignment. Rutgers Optimality

Archive 7.

McCarthy, J. & A. Prince (1993b). Prosodic Morphology I: Constraint

interaction and satisfaction. Ms., University of Massachusetts,

Amherst, and Rutgers University.
McCarthy, J. & A. Prince (1994). The emergence of the unmarked: Optimality

in Prosodic Morphology. Rutgers Optimality Archive 13.

McCarthy, J. & A. Prince (1995). Faithfulness and reduplicative identity.

in Beckman, Dickey & Urbanczyk, eds., Papers in Optimality Theory

(pp. 249-384). Amherst, MA: GLSA.
Mester, R. A. (1994). The quantitative trochee in Latin.

NLLT 12: 1-61.
Milliken, S. (1988). Protosyllables: A Theory of Underlying Syllable Structure

in Nonlinear Phonology. Doctoral dissertation, Cornell University.
Mohanan, K.P. (1982). Lexical Phonology.

Doctoral dissertation, MIT.

Mohanan, K.P. (1985). Syllable structure and lexical strata in English.

Phonology Yearbook 2: 139-155.
Mšssner, L. (1978). Morphonologie.

TŸbingen: Niemeyer.

Myers, S. (1987). Vowel shortening in English.

NLLT 5, 485-518.
Myers, S. (1991). Persistent rules.

LI 22.2: 315-344.
Nanni, D. (1977). Stressing words in -Ative.

LI 8: 752-763.
Nespor, M. & I. Vogel (1982). Prosodic domains of external sandhi rules.

in van der Hulst & Smith, The Structure of Phonological

Representations, vol. 1. Dordrecht: Foris.
Nespor , M. & I. Vogel (1983). Prosodic structure above the word.

in Ladd & Cutler, eds., Prosody: Models and Measurement.

Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
Nespor, M. & I. Vogel (1986). Prosodic Phonology.

Dordrecht: Foris.

Oehrle, T. (1972). The stress pattern of bisyllabic words in English.

Paper presented at NELS 3, Amherst, MA.

Padgett, J. (1995). Feature Classes.

in Beckman, Dickey & Urbanczyk, eds., Papers in Optimality Theory

(pp. 385-420). Amherst, MA: GLSA.
Paradis, C. (1988). On constraints and repair strategies.

The Linguistic Review 6: 71-97.
Pater, J. (1994). Optionality and Optimality: Syllable weight effects in English

secondary stress. Ms., McGill University.

Pater, J. (1995). On the nonuniformity of weight-to-stress and stress

preservation effects in English. Rutgers Optimality Archive 107.

Pinker, S. (1991). Rules of language.

Science 253: 530-535.
Pinker, S. (1994). The language instinct: the new science of language and

mind. London: Penguin.
Pinker, S. & A. Prince (1991). Regular and irregular morphology and the

psychological status of rules of grammar. Proceedings of the 17th

Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society (pp. 230-251).

Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Linguistics Society.

Poldauf, I. (1984). English Word Stress.

New York: Pergamon Press.

Poser, W. (1982). Phonological representation and action-at-a-distance.

in van der Hulst & Smith, The Structure of Phonological

Representations, vol. 2. Dordrecht, Foris.
Prince, A. (1983). Relating to the grid.

LI 14: 19-100.
Prince, A. (1990). Quantitative consequences of rhythmic organization.

Chicago Linguistic Society 26.
Prince, A. & P. Smolensky (1993). Optimality Theory: Constraint interaction in

generative grammar. Ms., Rutgers University & University of

Colorado, Boulder.
Rialland, A. (1991). L’allongement compensatoire : nature et modles.

in Laks & Rialland, eds., L’Architecture et la GŽomŽtrie des ReprŽsentations Phonologiques. Paris: Editions du C.N.R.S.

Rosenthall, S. (1994). Vowel/Glide Alternation in a Theory of Constraint

Interaction. Doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts,

Amherst.
Rubach, J. (1984). Segmental rules of English and cyclic phonology.

Language 60.1: 21-54.
Russell, K. (1995). Morphemes and candidates in Optimality Theory.

Rutgers Optimality Archive 44.

Sainz, S. (1988). A noncyclic analysis of English word stress.

Working Papers of the Cornell Phonetics Laboratory 3: 1-82.
Sainz, S. (1992). A Noncyclic Approach to the Lexical Phonology of English,

Doctoral dissertation, Cornell University.

Scobbie, J. (1991). Attribute Value Phonology.

Doctoral dissertation, University of Edinburgh.

Selkirk, E. (1980). The role of prosodic categories in English word stress.

LI 11.3: 563-605.
Selkirk, E. (1982a). The Syntax of Words.

Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Selkirk, E. (1982b). The syllable.

in van der Hulst & Smith (eds.), The Structure of Phonological Representations, vol.2. Dordrecht: Foris.

Selkirk, E. (1984), Phonology & Syntax.

Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Sherer, T. (1994). Prosodic Phonotactics.

Doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.

Siegel, D. (1974). Topics in English Morphology.

Doctoral dissertation, MIT.

Stampe, D. (1972). How I Spent My Summer Vacation.

Doctoral dissertation, University of Chicago.

Stanley, R. (1967). Redundancy rules in phonology.

Language 43.2: 393-436.
Steriade, D. (1987). Locality conditions and feature geometry.

NELS 17: 595-617.
Vennemann, T. (1974). Words and syllables in natural generative phonology.

In Natural Phonology Parasession, pp. 346-374. Chicago: Chicago

Linguistic Society.
Waugh, L. (1992). Constraints on iconicity in the lexicon.

American Journal of Semiotics, 9.1: 7-48.
Woods, A., P. Fletcher & A. Hughes (1986). Statistics in language studies.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Yip, M. (1987). English vowel epenthesis.

NLLT 5: 463-484.

Zec, D. (1988). Sonority constraints on prosodic structure.

Doctoral dissertation, Stanford University.
Zec, D. (1990). Closed syllables in Lithuanian.

FLSM: 317-330.
Zec, D. (1994), Coda constraints and conditions on syllable weight.

Ms., Cornell University.

Zec, D. & S. Inkelas (1990). Prosodically Constrained Syntax.

in Zec & Inkelas, eds., The Phonology-Syntax Connectio.n.

Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Zoll, C. (1994a). Subsegmental parsing: Floating features in Chaha and

Yawelmani. Rutgers Optimality Archive 29.

Zoll, C. (1994b). Anchors away: a unified treatment of latent segments and

floating features. Ms., University of California, Berkeley.

Zoll, C. (1995). Conflicting directionality. Ms., University of California,

Berkeley and University of Iowa.

Zoll, C. (1996). Parsing Below the Segment in a Constraint-Based Framework.

Doctoral dissertation, University of California at Berkeley.

1"Phonology" and "morphology" are usually applied to the range of structures found between the word level and the phonetic level of linguistic analysis, although phonological effects can also be seen at the syntactic level in English, and other languages may differently align phonological constituents to syntactic units, revealing some of the usual terminology, such as "word", "phrase" and "morpheme", to be potentially confusing when applied universally.

2See Hayes (1995), chapter 8, however, for a discussion of languages whose apparently ternary feet cannot be explained by extrametricality alone.

3Although what counts as "heavy" may vary cross-linguistically. See Hayes (1995: 50-51), Zec (1988, 1994).

4That is, skeletal C’s and V’s (cf. Clements & Keyser 1983) or X’s (cf. Levin 1985).

5Hayes’ theory also covers unbounded feet, which actually appear to be instances of stress being applied to one end of a word. Hayes regards these as feet which may be of any length, and in many cases they appear to be simply the application of an End Rule (¤ 1.2.1), or word-level stress assugnment, without foot-level constituency. As they are not relevant to English, they will not be discussed further here.

6A brief discussion of the universality of constraints and suggestions for limiting and formalizing the acceptable types of constraints will be pursued in ¤ 7.5.1.

7The question of whether the onsets link to the mora or the syllable nodes (Zec 1988, Hayes 1989, 1995: 53) is irrelevant here. However, linking them directly to the syllable node removes the difficulty of explaining the distinction between links indicating weight and links which are irrelevant to weight, such as onsets.

8In this work, attested words will appear in italics, but unattested hypothetical forms will appear in plain text, with an asterisk.

9Although one could point out the related noun rcompŽnse, with main stress on the same (unsuffixed) root. Sainz (1992: 124-135) offers an excellent summary of the English words used to support this type of argument.

10In fact, there is a pattern based, as Kager notes, on frequency. Less frequent words tend to show their full vocalism, presumably to aid the listener in accessing the correct lexical information.

11The Celex English wordlist used in this study listed both compensation and condensation as having variant pronunciations with /e/ and /æ/, the compilers apparently being undisturbed by the theoretical significance the two words supposedly hold. In my own speech, the words behave identically.

12This also eliminates other sorts of problems inherent in Lexical Phonology, such as bracketing paradoxes, which arise from the unnecessary linking, inherent in the serial model, of morphological subcategorization to level-ordered rule application.

13One might question the status of an onset without a following vowel, or syllables without nuclei. However, if onsets, syllable nuclei and syllables themselves are understood as no more (and no less) than prosodic constituents in the prosodic hierarchy, governed by the constraint hierarchy, then unfilled nuclei in certain contexts are just as plausible as unfilled onsets, common in the literature. Both of these potential situations depend solely upon whether the constraint hierarchy allows for them.

14While one could propose a pseudo-constraint which fails to apply to certain diacritically marked words, this makes a mockery of OT’s principles of universality, inclusiveness and parallelism, i.e., the universal application of constraints to all candidates (¤ 1.3.1). It also violates a central principle proposed in this work, that constraints may only refer to members of the constituent hierarchies (¤ 1.0).

15It should be noted that some words of this type do not show this shortening in some British pronunciations, e.g., dŽformation /deø-form-a³tion/.

16Myers excuses a large group of words, such as pint, beast, round, as ending in an extrametrical cluster of final coronals, following Kiparsky (1981).

17For the treatment of /-ary/ and /-ory/ as monosyllabic suffixes, see, for example, Chomsky & Halle (1968), Liberman & Prince (1977), Kager (1989).

18Presumably, words like function and juncture , which have the illegal template *CVCC in their lexical entries, are somehow allowed to be exceptional.

19Borowsky(1986) tries to account for forms like capital by suggesting that the underlying form is /kapitl/, but admits that this approach cannot deal with forms like divinity, repetitive.

20Although one could also argue that the vowel was shortened and then re-lengthened after deletion of /h/.

21Figures cited here and below refer to the computational corpus investigation outlined in the Appendix and discussed further in chapter 3.

22 It should be clear from the flapping facts noted above that flap should not be treated as parallel with the other cases.

23Below, feet are denoted by parentheses. Feet not relevant to the discussion are not marked. Extrametrical syllables are marked with angle brackets, as above.

24Burzio’s position is challenged in ¤ 4.3.4 below.

25The database contains various British pronunciations of the corpus; for the most part some or all of these correspond phonologically to American pronunciations. When they clearly do not, as in the case of words in /-atory/ and a few other sets, distributions for American English pronunciations have been calculated separately. See the Appendix for more detail.

26 A discussion of this complex problem is found in ¤ 6.4 below.

27Although the issue of the uneven trochee will be minimized.

28The distinction of words with long vowels in their final syllables from other words with final heavy syllables also stems from the fact, discussed below (¤3.1.4), that most words said to undergo retraction end in such syllables. The automatic assignment of "original" stress to final long-vowel syllables is necessary to account for this retraction process.

29Note that some of these words also have regularized forms, e.g., gu’tar, c’garette.

30 Alternatively, such words can be said to suffer "retraction", which is Kager’s explanation for these forms. See ¤ 3.1.4 below.

31Due to the sonorant in the penult, one might wish to regard this word as undergoing "sonorant retraction", described below. However, Kager lists it with the strong retracted forms.

32Hayes (1995) disprefers feet of the shape(HL) and regards such structures as (H)L, where the light syllable is simply unparsed into foot structure.

33Heavy syllables would be word internal CvC, Cvv, CvvC and word-final (if final consonant extrametricality is in force) CvCC, Cvv, CvvC, CvvCC. Light syllables would be word-internal Cv and word-final CvC.

34Long closed syllables (as in comp—und), not specifically treated by Kager, compose only about 5% of the syllables in the sample and are treated as "long" in this table.

35While Kager regards all long vowels as secondarily stressed, the Celex database lists most of these with the pattern [1,0], i.e., with unstressed (or tertiarily stressed) finals. This distinction appears to be entirely subjective.

36Kager (1989: 40) mentions that "in disyllabic nouns the location of primary stress is correlated with the strength of the initial cluster", i.e., the shape of the initial syllable, ascribing this finding to Oehrle (1972).

37A handful of borrowed words, e.g., bourge—is [bô½w‡], el‡n [eÆl‡] can show final stress on a qualitatively short vowel /a/. These words are often regularized, by stress shift or the addition of a perceived final consonant: [bô²½wa], [bô½w‡r], [eÆl‡n].

38Note that no distinction is made here between the stress patterns [100] and [102], or [010] and [210]; there was not enough evidence from the corpus to warrant separate categories for these, and many instances of these stress patterns in the database were simply variant pronunciations of the same word.

39Cophonologies, suggested by McCarthy & Prince (1993b) and It™, Mester & Padgett (1994), are explicitly excluded from the strong version of OT advocated here (¤ 1.4.3). Diacritics marking certain lexical entries as "immune" from certain constraints are also not permitted; only members of the constituent hierarchies may appear in the constraints or the lexicon. The only thing which can exempt a candidate from the action of a constraint would be the absence of the structure governed by the constraint from that candidate, making its application vacuously satisfied.

40Below, the dash (‘-’) indicates where the suffix syllable would follow.

41Surface geminates may appear across the word boundary for some speakers, e.g., r—ommate [rœ·mmeÆt].

42These words displayed true geminates in earlier stages of English or in Latin, from which most were borrowed.

43In English, for example, we discuss "long vowels" that are surface diphthongs and a voice/voiceless distinction in obstruents that is represented phonetically as a contrast in the duration of the vowel preceding the consonant in question.

44Here the orthographic convention of the double consonant, representing a geminate, indicates a complex structure where a mora is lexically linked to a consonantal segment, i.e., /bat_m/. This is the presentational equivalent of the macron, used herein to represent a similar structure involving vowel segments.

45An Optimality account will be given below, ¤ 5.3.1.

46One advantage of using a segment /æ/ rather than "phonetically null structure", among others, is that /æ/ will then be present in morphological structure, and prosodic constituents corresponding to /æ/ can be understood as distinct from prosodic constituents without segmental correspondents, which can incur certain faithfulness constraint violations in OT. There is also evidence for /æ/ surfacing in other contexts (¤ 5.4.3).

47Stress for the /-ic/ group will be discussed in ¤ 4.3.2, below.

48Apart from morphemes with underlying long vowels, of course, which are also associated with lexical moras.

49A revised interpretation of the data (¤ 5.3) will demand a modified version of this hierarchy, accounting for, e.g., attested cases of (LH), as in lŽgend, br’gand.

50One point of Zec (1994) was that segments do not always associate to the moras they project, but that the constraint governing this association can, like all constraints, be violated. In this way she accounts for compensatory lengthening processes (see ¤ 5.2.2).

51 In this case, the particular edge in question is not relevant, as the number of violations across a candidate will be identical for each edge.

52She also notes (p. 230) the contrast between words of this type, and those that are truly bisyllabic, such as butter /bótær/ Ü buttery /bótæri/.

53Recall that /-ic/ is understood as /-icæ/, making stress in words like m’mic antepenultimate with regard to the underlying form.

54See also ¤ 4.3.2 below.

55Suffixes in the /-ent/ group have the same subcategorization as the /-al/ group and the constraint described here as "al-Suffixation" might be more properly characterized as "al/ent-Suffixation".

56In the following tableaux certain conventions will be used to mark morphological and prosodic structure within candidates. These are not meant to be interpreted as part of the representation, but are rather a means to distinguish the different constituents without adding so many parenthetical markers as to make the forms uninterpretable. Feet will be surrounded by (), stems by {}, morphological words by [], and segments which fail to surface by <>. Furthermore, ‘-’ may be used to divide stem syllables from affixes and affixes from each other, for the sake of further clarification.

57The breakdown refers to the percentage of each type of bisyllabic stem (monomorphemic, prefixed) that shows the given structure, which focuses on the form of the penult when these stems combine with the /-al/ series of suffixes. The percentages given on the rows indicate what percentage of words with the structural type given on that row show initial or penultimate stress.

58This is marked in the lexical database as an alternant to coŽval, with expected stress.

59The very small number of cases noted here includes even questionable examples of prefixed words like pr—digal and p—sthumous, which begin with phoneme sequences identifiable with clear prefixes (here, /pro-/ and /post-/), but which are not necessarily morphologically prefixed.

60The form ’nfamous, for example, being from the long-vowelled fame /fm/, is, following the standard view, idiosyncratically shortened.

61From CvC- stems, the stem-final consonant acting as the onset to the final syllable, and thus not included in the penult.

62Recall that word-final consonants are parsed by Margin constituents and are thus non-moraic, i.e., effectively "extrametrical".

63One might also wish to understand this as functioning like a constraint