# The typology of the distributional restrictions of a feature: occlusion and bipositionality

Mohamed Lahrouchi, Shanti Ulfsbjorninn

► To cite this version:

Mohamed Lahrouchi, Shanti Ulfsbjorninn. The typology of the distributional restrictions of a feature: occlusion and bipositionality. Linguistic Review, 2025, 42 (1), pp.103-137. 10.1515/tlr-2025-2004.halshs-05001880

HAL Id: halshs-05001880

https://shs.hal.science/halshs-05001880v1

Submitted on 22 Feb 2026

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons CC BY 4.0 - Attribution - International License
Mohamed Lahrouchi and Shanti Ulfsbjorninn*

# The typology of the distributional restrictions of a feature: occlusion and bipositionality

https://doi.org/10.1515/tlr-2025-2004

Published online March 7, 2025

**Abstract:** In some languages, the distribution of occlusion is highly restricted and interacts with bipositionality. Ulfsbjorninn and Lahrouchi, henceforth UL, (Ulfsbjorninn, Shanti & Mohamed Lahrouchi. 2016. The typology of the distribution of Edge: The propensity for bipositionality. Papers in Historical Phonology 1. 109–129) present a typology of this distributional restriction. UL demonstrated that in order to capture the typology of the feature restrictions, one requires Melody-to-Structure Licensing Constraints (MSLCs). These are a ‘prosodic licensing’-type mechanism that express grammatical statements dictating the distributional co-occurrence of a feature/ melody <M>, against a certain state of syllable structure <S>. Crucially, to get the typology right, MSLCs must be stated bidirectionally: Bottom up (M must be contained by S), or Top down (S must contain M). This is theoretically significant because it excludes any analysis where occlusion and bipositionality are simply equated. We note, however, that the typology proposed by UL looks more symmetrical than it is; only two of the four predicted possibilities are discussed. Here we will fully expand the MSLC analysis, showing that each predicted type is attested. The bidirectional nature of MSLCs is critical since a simpler statement such as: ‘feature sharing is strength’ is not elaborate enough to account for the typology. We will also show that a completely unattested system, where the occlusion feature is systematically restricted to monopositional structures is excluded. This is because (a) MSLCs cannot formulate the statement, and (b) there is no other contributor to phonological strength that will generate it either, since bipositional structures are always positionally strong (Ségéral, Philippe & Tobias Scheer. 2001. La Coda-Miroir. Bulletin de la Société de Linguistique de Paris 96. 107–152) and sharing-strong (Honeybone, Patrick. 2002. Germanic obstruent lenition: Some mutual implications of theoretical and historical phonology. University of Newcastle upon Tyne. PhD thesis).

*Corresponding author: Shanti Ulfsbjorninn, Memorial University of Newfoundland, St. John's, Canada, E-mail: s.ulfsbjorninn@mun.ca

Mohamed Lahrouchi, UMR 7023 – Formal Structures of Language, CNRS & University Paris 8, Saint-Denis, France, E-mail: mohamed.lahrouchi@cnrs.fr

<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>

Open Access. © 2025 the author(s), published by De Gruyter. This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
**Keywords:** phonotactics; typology; phonology; occlusion; Tümbisa (Uto-Aztecan); Berber

# 1 Introduction

Positional Neutralization and its converse, Positional Licensing, constitute the formal phonological theory of the interaction between segmental and prosodic structure (Steriade 1994). This captures the observation that segments and features are often distributed with respect to certain positions in syllabic or prosodic structure. By hypothesis, it is understood that these features are *Licensed* in relation to their position. It follows then that the grammar of a language will render features/segments phonetically inexpressible in positions where they are not licensed (for precursors, see Itô 1986).

Steriade (1994) provides a thorough discussion of this model of licensing, from discussing its origins in the Jakobsonian concept of *Strukturbedingte Aufhebung* to presenting an impressive typological spread of phenomena that it accounts for. This approach has been developed in many subsequent works (e.g. Walker 2011 among others), and is closely related to the treatment of Licensing in Dependency Phonology (Anderson and Ewen 1987), Radical CV Phonology (Hulst 2020), and Government Phonology (Charette 1990, 1991; Harris 1994; Kaye et al. 1990). The latter was collected and unified into Harris’ notion of prosodically conditioned lenition where ‘weakening’ is always the literal loss of phonological features, caused by the lack of licensing in certain positions (Harris 1997; Harris and Urua 2001).

In the same line of research, UL (2016) proposed to extend the mechanism of Licensing by exploring the distributional cooccurrence of a given feature/melody (call it: M), and a certain state of syllable structure (call it: S). These are called *Melody to Structure Licensing Constraints*, henceforth referred to as: MSLCs.

Focusing on the distribution of the occlusion feature (Edge in Element Theory: [?], Backley 2011; Harris and Lindsey 1995), the authors identified two types of languages: (i) Type A where Edge must be licensed by being bipositional, and (ii) Type B where bipositionality must contain Edge.

Ontena Gadsup and Tamazight Berber were shown to belong to the first type, on the basis that their occlusives are retained only when geminated or preceded by a hard sonorant, in these cases the occlusion is only possible when it is bipositional. Kingi Soninké, on the other hand, was argued to be a type B language, where monopositional consonants can contain Edge, but the geminates and consonant clusters are limited to occlusives. Here bipositionality is only possible if it contains occlusion. These two types are therefore Bottom up and Top down mirror images of each other, and they have the opposite implications for monopositional and
bipositional structures. The Type A and Type B languages that we saw acted on different types of occlusion, however, in Ontena Gadsup for example the restriction applied only to headed occlusion |?| (stops), whereas in Kingi Soninké, the restriction applied to any occlusion at all |?| (stops and hard sonorants, excluding fricatives and rhotics for instance).

The formulation of MSLC's, however, predicts a four-way distinction. Top down versus Bottom up, for headed occlusion only (stops), or for occlusion generally (stops and hard sonorants). The main goal of this paper is to expand UL's (2016) typological record by providing two additional types of languages that the original analysis omitted. Alongside the Bottom up Type A, we bring evidence for the existence of another Bottom up type in which Edge is retained, not only in stops but also in hard sonorants. Tümbisa (Uto-Aztec) and Tarifit Berber will be presented as such languages, in which the occlusion of stops and hard sonorants are preserved in bipositional structures only. Anejoň, an Austronesian language, will complete the typology, as a case where the licensing constraints proceed Top down (S to M), acting specifically on headed Edge (stops). In this language, only stops can be found in bipositional structures (geminates).

As well as delineating the types that do exist, we will also show that there can be no language where Edge is found only in monopositional structures. This case is inherently excluded by our MSLC-based analysis, in concert with what is currently formally understood as phonological strength and weakness.

The paper will be structured as follows. Section 2 will provide the theoretical background required to understand our analysis of occlusion and bipositionality. It will also outline previous attempts at modeling their distribution which has been achieved by claiming a formal equivalence of the two and recasting occlusion (Edge) as structure. In Section 3 we will argue that in order to correctly model the typology, we must use MSLCs that are bidirectional: Bottom up and Top down. We show how bidirectional MSLCs account for the typology presented in UL (2016), as well as explaining a universal implicational relationship between occlusion and bipositionality, and an untested system. Section 4 then expands the typology, showing that we need four language types, which vary by bidirectionally licensing the Edge of (a) stops only or (b) stops and hard sonorants. We will then conclude the paper with the future extensions of the model.

## 2 Theoretical background and key concepts

We begin with an outline of the principles of Element Theory, the framework within which the distribution of occlusion will be formalized. Then, we provide a formal
definition of occlusion and bipositionality, followed by a review of the main sources
of phonological strength.

2.1 Element theory basics

Element Theory (Backley 2011; Harris 1990, 1994; Harris and Lindsey 1995; Kaye 2001; Kaye et al. 1985; Scheer 1996) provides an alternative view on the phonological structure of segments, developed within the general framework of Government Phonology (Harris 1994, Kaye et al. 1985, 1990; Scheer and Kula 2018). It diverges from standard feature theory in that it uses *elements* as phonological a.k.a. melodic primes, instead of binary features (Chomsky and Halle 1968; Clements 1985; Dresher 2008, 2009; Halle 1992; Sagey 1986).

Elements are monovalent, phonetically interpretable primitives, and acousti-
cally defined targets that determine the internal structure of segments. Broadly split
into “place” and “manner”, these primitives can be realized as simplex or complex
melodic expressions. For example, in English the elements |I| and |A| may be realized
as such, or may fuse into either [e], as in *send*, or [æ], as in *action*, depending on which
of the two elements is the head of the expression (Backley 2011: 43). Likewise, |U| may
be realized alone, as in *push* or combined with |A|, as in *caught*. The same reasoning
holds for consonants: |H| (frication) and |ð| (occlusion) can be realized separately, like
in *horse*, and *put* [pu?] in the glottalizing variety of English. They can also combine
with other elements to form, among other consonants, a coronal stop [t] = |ð,H,A|, a
sibilant [s] = |H,A| or a rhotic [r] = |A| (Backley 2011: 133). The reader is referred to the
abovementioned work, which provides common Element Theory phonological
break-downs for various sound classes (see also Harris 1994; Harris and Lindsey
1995).

As it stands, Element Theory allows accounting for opposing phonological pro-
cesses such as lenition and fortition. The first is viewed as the loss of element(s) in a
melodic expression (segment): e.g. the loss of |A| in /s/ turns the Spanish word *tos
‘cough’* into [toh] in the Andalusian variety. Fortition refers to an enhancement or a
preservation of the melodic content, as in Classical Arabic and Farsi word-initial
empty onsets, which host a glottal stop (e.g. Classical Arabic [ðalf] ‘a thousand’, Farsi
[ðotri] ‘Austria’, Jaferian 2024: 180). The reader is referred to Harris (1990, 1994) and
Harris and Lindsey (1995) for a thorough analysis of lenition trajectories within this
framework. The next section expands on occlusion in relation to bipositionality.
## 2.2 Defining occlusion and bipositionality

Occlusion (Edge) is a formal phonological feature, it is typical of stops and affricates. It is also found in some sonorants (so called 'hard sonorants'), though there is some language variation, nasals generally pattern with stops and it is common, though highly optional, for laterals (a pattern we also see in acquisition Rose 2024). It is almost always absent in fricatives, rhotics, glides and vowels. As mentioned in the previous section, Element Theory marks Edge by a single monovalent feature: |?|, as opposed to [-cont] in standard feature theory.

Bipositionality is an autosegmental condition by which a feature (bundle)/segment is linked to more than one position in the syllable structure; it is equivalent to heterosyllabicity. Most transparently, this is seen with geminate consonants (e.g. [b:], [d:]), but it is also a feature of partial geminates, where only some of the features of a cluster are shared across the two positions (e.g. [mb], [nd]). These transparently constitute a many-to-one relationship between segments and the skeleton (Goldsmith 1976, 1990; Leben 1973).

### (1) One-to-one association (monopositional) vs. many-to-one (bipositional)

a. Monopositional

<figure><img src="image_3.png" /></figure>

b. Bipositional heterosyllabic structures

<figure><img src="image_4.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_5.png" /></figure>

As shown above, heterosyllabic clusters involve bipositionality: kan.na and kam.ba (1b-c), as opposed to various unattested things like *ka.tta, *katt.a, *ka.nta.<fnref n="1" /> All rhyme-onset sequences have the same structural configuration as geminates (Charette 1990; Harris 1990, 1997).<fnref n="2" />

In Government Phonology, the C2 of these heterosyllabic clusters is taken to be the head (Charette 1990) and it is featurally never less complex than C1 (Harris 1997). We assume that the head of a C1C2 heterosyllabic cluster is C2 even in the Strict CV representation shown beneath (cf. Cyran 2010). This headedness is indicated with the arrows in (2a-b).

<footnote n="1">1 Pace Topinzi (2010) who hypothesizes the existence of Moraic Onsets. This syllabification option was unavailable in classical Moraic Theory (Hayes 1989), and it remains controversial. A cluster like /nd/ is permitted in onset or rhyme position, but only as a complex segment attached to one position.</footnote>

<footnote n="2">2 Branching onsets have a complicated status and are made up of multiple segments, but they are not heterosyllabic, see Lowenstamm (2003), Brun-Trigaud and Scheer (2012), Ulfsbjorninn (2017), and Lahrouchi (2022).</footnote>
(2) Geminate vs. rhyme onset sequences (coda-onset)

a. Standard Syllabification

<figure><img src="image_6.png" /><figcaption>a. Standard Syllabification</figcaption></figure>

Rhyme-onset (RT)

<figure><img src="image_7.png" /></figure>

Partial geminate

<figure><img src="image_8.png" /></figure>

Full geminate

b. The Strict CV translation of the above representation.

<figure><img src="image_9.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_10.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_11.png" /></figure>

The representations in (2a) refer to standard Government Phonology, a general framework to which the Strict CV model is directly linked. The latter will be used for the purpose of our analysis. Its basic tenets are outlined below.

2.3 Strict CV and the word-initial position

Strict CV is an autosegmental approach to syllable structure which holds that the syllabic level of phonological representations consists of alternating C and V positions, with no rhymes, no codas, and no constituent nodes (Lowenstamm 1996, Scheer 2004). Government and licensing are lateral relations that allow deriving various syllabic and segmental configurations, including consonant clusters, complex onsets, long vowels and geminates. Within this model, a word like *flattery* is represented as in (3).

(3) [flat(ə)ri]

<figure><img src="image_12.png" /></figure>
Note the empty V positions that are interposed between the first and last two con-
sonants. They are said to remain empty under the effect of proper government of the
adjacent vowels. Furthermore, according to Scheer (1999, 2004: 37), genuine
branching onsets, whose vocalic position remains constantly empty, involve a spe-
cific type of government, termed infra-segmental government. The initial cluster in
(3) is a perfect illustration of this. Its members form a governing domain, headed by
/l/. Such a domain allows explaining the absence in English-like languages of words
beginning with falling sonority clusters. It further supports the hypothesis that an
empty initial site sits at the left edge of the word. The facts in Tümbisa to be discussed
in Section 4.2.2.1 will point to this specific hypothesis.

The initial CV dates back to Lowenstamm's (1999) work on word-initial clusters
and proclitics in French and Biblical Hebrew (see also Scheer 2004: 95, 2012: 146,
Lahrouchi 2001, 2003, 2018a; Seigneur-Froli 2006). In an attempt to capture the dif-
ference between languages that display only sonority-rising clusters at the beginning
of the word (e.g. French: *plateau* 'tray', *bras* 'arm', English: *true*, *flat*; Spanish: *fruta*
'fruit', *trabajo* 'job'), and languages where the initial clusters are made sonority-free
(e.g. Maghrebi Arabic: *glǝf* 'remove', *lga* 'find'; Biblical Hebrew: *qrašim* 'midsts',
*rqahim* 'spices'), the author proposes that the left edge of the word is phonologically
marked with an empty CV that hosts various morphophonological operations on
condition that it is licensed. This pits two types of languages against each other:
(a) Type I languages where the initial site is always licensed (e.g. French, English),
(b) Type II languages where the initial site is not always licensed (e.g. Maghrebi
Arabic, Biblical Hebrew).<fnref n="3" />

Proper government is one type of licensing that emanates from the following
vowel, and leads to the cliticization process shown in the French examples below (the
initial site appears in bold).

<footnote n="3">³ Scheer (2004: 111) and Seigneur-Froli (2006: 278) take a different view of the issue. They suggest that the difference between languages with word-initial clusters of rising sonority and languages with clusters that are made sonority-free conveys the presence versus absence of the initial site. Relying on data from Czech and Greek, they claim that type I languages have an initial site, whereas type II do not.</footnote>
(4) *le tapis* ‘the carpet’ vs. *le plateau* ‘the tray’

<figure><img src="image_13.png" /></figure>

In these examples, the initial CV is licensed by the vowel /a/. The small arrow in (4b) denotes infrasegmental government from /l/ to /p/, a relation whereby the two consonants form a closed domain that the following vowel straddles in order to license the initial CV. By contrast, in Biblical Hebrew, the initial site can be either licensed (5a) or not (5b).

(5) *hakklaβim* ‘the dogs’ vs. *ha:rqahim* ‘the spices’

<figure><img src="image_14.png" /></figure>

A uniformity convention allows the initial CV to be unlicensed throughout the language, including in words that begin with a falling sonority cluster, Lowenstamm (1999: 164) argues. Vowel lengthening (5b) and gemination (5a) are viewed as the result of the identification of the initial site.

The postulation of the initial CV further allows explaining the strength of word-initial consonants, according to Scheer and Ségéral’s Coda-Mirror theory. Indeed, word-initial consonants sit in a position that is only licensed, while government (viewed as a weakening force) targets the initial CV. By contrast, the consonants that appear in word-internal or final coda and in intervocalic position are said to be prone to weakening because they are either subject to government and licensing or they escape both forces. The representations in (6), adapted from Scheer (2004: 140) and Ségéral and Scheer (2001: 144), illustrate these situations:
(6) a. Initial consonants: ungoverned but licensed

<figure><img src="image_15.png" /></figure>

b. Intervocalic consonants: governed and licensed

Gov.

<figure><img src="image_16.png" /></figure>

c. Consonants in coda: ungoverned and unlicensed

Gov.

<figure><img src="image_17.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_18.png" /></figure>

With these theoretical premises in hand, we now turn to the core issue of this paper: occlusion.

## 2.4 Previous analyses: occlusion as bipositionality

In the alternations between the singular and plural nouns of the West Atlantic language Firdu Fula (Gamble 1958), Jensen (1994) noticed a relationship in the patterning between bipositionality (as defined above) and occlusion. As shown in (7),
the alternations result from the insertion of an empty prefix in the plural. In each of these strong/weak pairs, the addition of the empty position in the plural corresponds with the hardening of the initial consonant of the stem, in all cases, it seems one has to add occlusion, Edge.<fnref n="4" />

(7) Firdu Fula alternations

<table><thead><tr><th colspan="2">a. Monopositional</th><th>b. Bipositional</th><th>Weak/Strong pair</th></tr><tr><th>Singular</th><th colspan="2">Plural (empty prefix + stem)</th><th></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>al:adu</td><td>gal:a:di</td><td>‘horn’</td><td>Ø - g</td></tr><tr><td>wa:ndu</td><td>ba:di</td><td>‘monkey’</td><td>w - b</td></tr><tr><td>fɛrlo</td><td>pɛrle</td><td>‘hill’</td><td>f - p</td></tr><tr><td>hinɛrɛ</td><td>kine</td><td>‘nose’</td><td>h - k</td></tr><tr><td>re:du</td><td>de:di</td><td>‘stomach’</td><td>r - d</td></tr><tr><td>sa:re</td><td>ca?e</td><td>‘town’</td><td>s - c</td></tr><tr><td>wudɛrɛ</td><td>gude</td><td>‘cloth’</td><td>w - g</td></tr><tr><td>jitɛrɛ</td><td>gite</td><td>‘eye’</td><td>j - g</td></tr><tr><td>je:so</td><td>je:se</td><td>‘face’</td><td>j - j</td></tr></tbody></table>

Since stopness by hypothesis *is* bipositionality, and you can get stops word-initially in the strong ‘grade’, Jensen ascribes the initial stopness of this grade as initial bipositionality an empty prefix + stem (7b); effectively, word-initial gemination. Outside of this grade, one obtains only the monopositional weak forms of (7a).

Jensen hypothesizes that the bipositional/geminate structure (8b) provided by the empty prefix is enough to generate the strong version of the consonant. That is, he proposed that in this language, the occlusion feature (|?|) can be entirely recast as the bipositional relationship itself. Jensen’s (1994) definition of Edge as bipositionality is shown in (8).

<footnote n="4">⁴ The pattern involves a rather complex variation in the shape of the stem-initial consonant, also known as “consonant gradation” (Anderson 1976). For the purposes of our analysis, we draw the reader’s attention to Jensen’s (1994) original observation that the initial consonants all acquire the occlusion feature in the plural.</footnote>
(8) Occlusion as bipositionality (Jensen 1994)

a. w in wa:re

<figure><img src="image_19.png" /></figure>

b. b in bahel

<figure><img src="image_20.png" /></figure>

This argument is central for GP2.0 (Pöchtrager 2006; Pöchtrager and Kaye 2013) and they develop their own version of this hypothesis. The claim of GP2.0 is that |?| is not a feature at all, instead it is a structure, specifically a structure which involves more than one x-slot. Jensen (1994) had a more traditional rhyme-onset structure, and GP2.0 instead place the two x-slots that make up the former |?| element stacked on top of each other. This fits the modus operandi of the framework, where an element |?| is argued not to be a feature at all, rather it is ‘more structure’, in this case a bipositional configuration of x-positions. As shown beneath, xO is the head of the sound and in combination with an x-position one obtains a fricative (9a-b). There is a further distinction of voicing that is not relevant to us, but notice that if one has another ‘layer’ with another x-position, one obtains a stop (9c-d). In this way, the framework recasts and defines what was previously a feature (|?|), as a structure involving multiple skeletal/x-slots/positions.

(9) Occlusion as structure, Pöchtrager (2006)

a. lenis v

<figure><img src="image_21.png" /></figure>

b. fortis f

<figure><img src="image_22.png" /></figure>

c. lenis b

<figure><img src="image_23.png" /></figure>

d. fortis p

<figure><img src="image_24.png" /></figure>
# 3 Bidirectional MSLCs

## 3.1 Occlusion and bipositionality interplay

Ulfsbjorninn and Lahrouchi (2016) show, however, that the typology of the distributional restrictions on occlusion cannot be reduced to equating occlusion with bipositionality. This is because there are actually two kinds of languages in the restriction, and they have to be expressed bidirectionally. This directionality has different implications for the overall distribution of the feature in question, as illustrated below in (10).

(10) Interrelation between Edge and bipositionality (UL)

a. No restriction (English, French, Hungarian...)

b. Restriction on Edge

**Type A** Ontena Gadsup, Tamazight Berber

Edge must be found in bipositional structures: [p: ], [mp], *[p]
Bipositional structures are free: [p: ], [f:]

**Type B** Kingi Soninké

Bipositional structures must contain Edge: [p: ], [mp], *[f:]

Monopositional structures are free: [p], [f]

Take for example Type A. In this language type, Edge can only be found in bipositional structures (geminates, and partial geminates) and it is lost in all monopositional positions, even word-initially (10b). However, bipositional structures are free to contain sounds with or without Edge. Conversely, in the Type B language, bipositional structures must have Edge. However, there is no restriction on Edge in monopositional structures; these are allowed to have Edge or not.

In order to capture the typology in (10), the distributional statements between Edge and bipositionality must be statable bidirectionally: Bottom up and Top down. This is shown in (11) beneath. To account for Type A (11a), the restriction is stated as a condition on the feature (M) relative to the structure (S): Bottom up. In contrast, in (11b) we see the restriction must be stated as a condition on the structure (S) relative to the feature (M): Top down.

(11) a. Type A – Bottom up (M → S)

<figure><img src="image_25.png" /><figcaption>Type A (Tamazight, Ontena Gadsup)</figcaption></figure>

<table><thead><tr><td>Initial</td><td>Intervocalic</td><td>Geminate/Post-Coda</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td></td><td></td><td>stops</td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td>|2|</td></tr><tr><td>Monopositional</td><td></td><td>Bipositional</td></tr></tbody></table>

Condition: FEATURE must be contained by (Bipositional) STRUCTURE
b. Type B – Top down (S → M)

<figure><img src="image_26.png" /><figcaption>Type B (King! Soninké)</figcaption></figure>

<table><thead><tr><th>Initial</th><th>Intervocalic</th><th>Germinate/Post-Coda</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>All p, c, ŋ, t, k, q, m, ŋ, l, s, h, r, w, y</td><td>all</td><td>Only p, c, ŋ, t, k, q, m, ŋ, l</td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td>Only [?]</td></tr><tr><td>Monopositional</td><td></td><td>Bipositional</td></tr></tbody></table>

Condition: (Bipositional) STRUCTURE must contain FEATURE

The directionality is crucial because it has implications for the distribution of the feature relative to other structures. This typology necessitates that occlusion is a feature which has a licensing type relationship with syllable structure, it cannot just be that structure itself (pace GP 2.0).

The fact that MSLCs are bidirectional (Bottom up, Top down) is a formal property of MSLCs, a possibility made available by Phonological Universal Grammar. This shapes the possibilities space of the typology of particular languages.

Counterfactually, it could have been the case that languages would only license a feature in relation to a structure (all Top down), or a structure in relation to a feature (all Bottom up). Instead, we learn that phonological UG must be able to have MSLCs in either direction.

Additionally, we see that there is an implicational relationship between occlusion and bipositionality. No language known to us has a prohibition on Edge in bipositional structures, while allowing (or restricting) Edge only in its monopositional structures: e.g. [f:] *[p:]:, [mf] *[mb]:, [p]:, [f]. Such a system would have posed a serious problem to our MSLCs. A restriction on Edge being licensed only by singletons and not bipositionally is impossible to formally state, using the tools currently available to us.

## 3.2 Types of strength

We take the implicational relationship just depicted to follow from the fact that there are three distinct types of strength in phonology (Scheer 2004), briefly outlined below. In none of these types would monopositionality be stronger than bipositionality.

The first kind of phonological strength is prosodic. This can be characterized by languages where lenition is conditioned by their position relative to stress (Harris 1997), (see Scheer 2000 for further discussion of this type of strength in light of Strict CV).
A case of this involving Edge in stops is found in Tripura Bangla (Das 2001:170) or Ibibio (Harris 2023; Harris and Urua 2001). For instance, in Ibibio, stops are spi-rantized in intervocalic foot-medial position (the round brackets indicate feet): e.g. [((díp)] versus [(díbe)] ‘hide/hide oneself’. However, those that are intervocalic but foot-initial, or across a foot-boundary, are crucially not lenited: e.g. [ú-(tán)] *[u-(rán)] ‘NMLZ-plaiting’ and [((dáp:á)-ké] *[((dáp:á)-yé] ‘not dream’.

In such languages, monopositionality and bipositionality are simply not critical to the distribution of Edge in stops. However, Harris’s account of lenition would preclude neutralization of stops to fricatives in metrically strong positions, since fricatives have less features than stops (Harris 1990, 1994; Harris and Lindsey 1995). Therefore, the type of language with only fricatives in the weak position of feet, at the exclusion of stops, is ruled out on these grounds.

The second type of phonological strength is purely positional. It is modeled by the ‘Coda’-Mirror (Ségéral and Scheer 2001). As mentioned in Section 2.3, a position which is governed is weak, such as the intervocalic position. Conversely, an ungoverned but licensed position is strong (post-coda, and word-initial positions).

Colloquial Tuscan Italian would be a perfect example of a language where Edge in stops and affricates obeys a distributional restriction described purely by Gov-ernment. Positional strength and weakness is shown in (12) and exemplified with Florentine Tuscan spirantization ‘Gorgia Toscana’ (Marotta 2008), see also: Ulfsb-jorninn (2017) and Kenstowicz (2017).

In (12b) we see all stops and affricates become fricatives in positions in which they receive + Gov according to the Coda Mirror. They are strong only in positions that are -Governed, such as initial (12a) and post-coda (12c) positions. Similar facts, but with some interesting complications, are reported in Campidanese Sardinian (see Chabot 2023).

(12) Coda mirror distributed lenition in Florentine Tuscan (loss of Edge)

<table><thead><tr><th>a. Initial (-Gov)</th><th>b. Spirantization context (+Gov)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><strong>ponti</strong></td><td>i φonti 'the bridges'</td></tr><tr><td><strong>korsi</strong></td><td>i hortsi 'the courses'</td></tr><tr><td><strong>tʃerki</strong></td><td>i ʃerki 'the circles'</td></tr><tr><td><strong>bi:ro</strong></td><td>la βi:ro 'the ink PEN'</td></tr><tr><td><strong>dɔn:a</strong></td><td>la ðɔn:a 'the woman'</td></tr><tr><td><strong>dʒorni</strong></td><td>i ʒorni 'the days'</td></tr></tbody></table>

<table><thead><tr><th>c. Post-Coda (-Gov)</th><th></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><strong>kɒrpo</strong></td><td>'body'</td></tr><tr><td><strong>pasta</strong></td><td>'pasta'</td></tr><tr><td><strong>lɪskja</strong></td><td>'fish bone'</td></tr></tbody></table>
In Tuscan, there is a connection between monopositionality, bipositionality and Edge, but it is defined through Government. Bipositional structures with Edge such as geminates and the post-coda position uniformly have the head of the cluster (C2) in an ungoverned position. Any monopositional structure/C-slot that is governed will have to lose Edge. This clearly shows that the pattern is not one caused by bipositionality, rather the casual factor in lenition of Edge is purely positional and dictated by Government.

Because of how strength works in the Coda-Mirror, any bipositional structure will have to have its head be ungoverned (strong), thereby independently ruling out as a possibility the type of system where bipositionality repels Edge. Being able to exclude this possibility on principled grounds is a particular success of this phonological model of positional strength.

## 3.3 Feature sharing strength and edge/bipositionality

A third type of strength is ‘sharing makes us stronger’ (Honeybone 2002, 2005a, 2005b). This is a case where bipositionality renders a feature inherently strong.

The most famous example of this is geminate inalterability (Hayes 1986, Schein and Steriade 1986). This is partly modeled by the positional strength type (coda-mirror). However, one can distinguish between true positional strength and bipositional strength (‘sharing makes us stronger’) because the latter crucially requires feature sharing to induce strength.

In positional strength, the initial position is parametrically strong (Lowenstamm 1999; Scheer 2004), and, even if it is not a phonological geminate. So is a post-coda position which retains Edge, as in Italian *scarpa* ‘shoe’.

However, in some languages, lenition/strength patterns care specifically about the doubly linked status of a feature/segment. In a true bipositional-strength case, the initial position and the post-coda position *without* feature sharing will be classed as weak. An example of this is the v-b pair in Neapolitan (*pace* recent loanwords from Italian): [v]arca ‘boat’ (cf. tre [b:]arche ‘three boats’), [v]ar[v]a ‘beard’ (Russo and Ulfsbjorninn 2020). Here we see the weak variant of the labial consonant in initial and the post-coda position simply because they do not geminate or share features. Positionally of course, these are strong positions, however, the lenition pattern in traditional Neapolitan is dictated by another type of strength, one defined by feature sharing.

Clearly in these ‘sharing is strength’ systems, Edge would *always* be weak in monopositional structures and *always* strong in bipositional structures. Again, from this formulation of phonological strength and weakness, one cannot make a system where Edge survives only in monopositional, but not bipositional structures.
# 4 Expanding UL's typology

Notwithstanding the advantages discussed above, and as we foreshadowed in the introduction, the typology stated in UL looks more symmetrical than it actually is.

The Type A languages (11a), the Bottom up MSLC, relate only to occlusion in non-sonorants: stops and affricates. The implications do not extend to nasals and laterals. Meanwhile, the Type B language that we present as an example of a Top down MSLC is Kingi Soninké (11b). In this language, the MSLC applies to all occlusion, not just that of obstruents. Consequently, all continuants are banned from bipositional structures such as geminates. This fact turns out to be a feature not a bug, however. As we will show below, the MSLC is sensitive to something predicted in Element Theory, namely that while sonorants contain occlusion, just like stops and affricates, there is a phonological differentiation of this Edge feature that relates to *headedness*.

## 4.1 Hard and soft sonorants

Occlusion is parametrically found in some sonorants, these are anecdotally referred to as 'hard sonorants'. In fact, it is typical for nasals to be hard, and variably laterals can also be shown to be hard in some languages (Backley 2011: 116; Harris 1994: 125; Harris and Lindsey 1995: 73).

The hardness of sonorants depends on how their occlusion, which phonetically decreases from nasal to lateral to rhotic to glide, is phonologized. There is an implicational hierarchy of sonorant hardness.

(13) Implicational relationship in sonorant Edge (hardness of sonorants)
Nasal > Lateral > Rhotic = Glide

The difference between occlusion in non-sonorants and sonorants can be expressed with *headedness*, a contrast based on the prominence of an element in the melodic expression (Charette 1994; Charette and Göksel 1998; Kaye 2001; Ploch 1999); for more recent work on this see Breit (2013, 2017, 2023), Faust (2017), Backley (2011, 2017), Ulfsbjorninn (2021). Headed elements are typically notated by being underlined: |ü| 'headed Edge' referred to as Edge* versus |ü| 'unheaded Edge' referred to simply as Edge. Stops can be argued to have a headed Edge feature (Edge*), whereas hard-sonorants can be ascribed the non-headed feature (Edge).

Berber, presented in UL as a Type A language, provides an interesting example of a Bottom up MSLC, not only for stops but also for a subset of hard sonorants. As we will see in §4.2.2.2, Tarifit, a variety spoken in Northern Morocco, bans the stops as well as the lateral sonorant from a monopositional structure, while Tamazight does
so only for stops (§4.2.1), in sharp contrast with Tashlhiyt in which occlusion is systematically retained.

## 4.2 A four-way typology: directionality and headedness

Since MSLCs are bidirectional, and we have two features to consider: Edge* (head) and Edge (non-head). It follows that our system actually predicts four patterns of featural distributional restrictions. Languages can either have Bottom up or Top down MSLCs which refer to either Edge* only (stops, affricates) or Edge generally (stops, affricates and hard sonorants).

<figure><img src="image_27.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_28.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_29.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_30.png" /></figure>

In addition to the Ontena Gadsup/Tamazight versus Kingi Soninké/Somali,<fnref n="5" /> this leaves us to find examples of a Bottom up MSCL that applies to all occlusion (Edge), including that of hard sonorants (14a), and Top down MSLC that applies only to headed occlusion (Edge*) (stops, affricates) but without any implication for hard-sonorants (14d).

<footnote n="5">5 In Somali, only a subset of consonants occurs as a geminate, precisely those that contain Edge, namely stops and hard sonorants (see Orwin 1994: 59). The voiceless stops /t, k, q/, traditionally described as displaying no surface geminated counterparts, have been argued to behave as underlying geminates, termed virtual geminates (see Ségéral and Scheer 2001b: 321).</footnote>
### 4.2.1 Bottom up (M → S) for Edge*

Some Berber languages demonstrate the positional restriction on occlusion, colloquially the ones that are known as ‘spirantizing varieties’. An example of a spirantizing variety is Tamazight, spoken in the Central Atlas Mountains of Morocco. This can be compared against a non-spirantizing variety such as Tashlhiyt, which closely preserves the occlusion distribution of Proto-Berber. As we see below, singleton stops have become fricatives in Tamazight in all positions, even word-initially (Kossmann 1995; Saïb 1976).

<table><thead><tr><th>(15)</th><th>Tashlhiyt</th><th>Tamazight</th><th></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td></td><td>akabar</td><td>açaβar</td><td>'caravan'</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>agl:id</td><td>aʒəl:ið</td><td>'king'</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>tirgin</td><td>θirʒin</td><td>'embers'</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>akuz</td><td>açuz</td><td>'weevil'</td></tr></tbody></table>

Non-sonorant occlusion can only be found in bipositional structures such as geminates, or in sonorant-obstruent clusters where occlusion can be shared across adjacent consonant positions. Given that occlusion is not permitted in singletons, and morphological gemination is common in the language, this generates many synchronous alternations, where occlusion can only be maintained in the geminate sequence (see (16)), or where occlusion can be shared with a preceding hard-sonorant such as a nasal or a lateral, not a rhotic (see (17)).

<table><thead><tr><th>(16)</th><th>Tamazight</th><th></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td></td><td>Aorist</td><td>Imperfective</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>nçər</td><td>nək:ər</td><td>'stand up'</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>mʒər</td><td>məg:ər</td><td>'harvest'</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>fθəl</td><td>fət:əl</td><td>'roll'</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>rβəl</td><td>rəb:əl</td><td>'ramble'</td></tr></tbody></table>

Beni Iznassen Berber (El Kirat 1987), another spirantizing variety to the North-East of Morocco, provides evidence for occlusion surviving in post-hard sonorant position; these correspond to the sharing of Edge.

<table><thead><tr><th>(17)</th><th>Tashlhiyt</th><th>Beni Iznassen</th><th></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td></td><td>lmdint</td><td>θamdimt</td><td>'town'</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>taqbilt</td><td>θaqbilt</td><td>'tribe'</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>ultma</td><td>ultma</td><td>'my sister'</td></tr></tbody></table>

Nasals and laterals behave as hard sonorants in Beni Iznassen Berber, like in many other neighboring varieties (Iazzi 2018: 367), ultimately leading in some cases to
gemination as a result of the sharing of Edge and place of articulation. This is shown
in the examples in (18) taken from Chibli and Bensoukas (2020: 66).

(18) Ait Sgougou Tamazight

a. /nt/, /nd/ → [nn]
/t+adun+t/ [θaðunn] ‘fat’
/imndi/ [imnni] ‘seeds’

b. /lt/, /ld/ → [ll]
/t+amllal+t/ [θaməllall] ‘white.FM’
/ildi/ [illi] ‘catapult’

A noteworthy point about the Beni Iznassen variety is that Edge is allowed to branch
across adjacent consonants that contain this feature. This is permitted in our model
because the Edge* is in the head-position of the bipositional structure.

(19) /tamdimt/ [θamdimt] ‘town’

<figure><img src="image_31.png" /></figure>

In (20), we see occlusion being lost in post-consonantal position. This cannot be due to
positional strength, since the Coda Mirror makes this a strong position, as explained
in §3.2 and exemplified with Tuscan spirantization. However, rhotics do not contain
Edge, and, as such, they cannot share Edge with the neighboring stop, hence /g/
realized as [ʒ]; this occurs also in the initial position, where singleton /t/ spirantizes
into [θ].

(20) [θirʒin] ‘embers’

<figure><img src="image_32.png" /></figure>

4.2.2 Bottom up (M → S) for Edge and Edge*

The gap in the typology (14a), repeated beneath in (21), describes a system, which is
effectively the same as that of the Tamazight Berber, but which applies not only to
Edge* (stops and affricates) but to all Edge (including hard sonorants). This would be
a pattern where nasals and laterals would undergo Edge-lenition, alongside the stops. Moreover, where their lenition pattern cannot be described as positional strength (Government, Coda mirror), but has to be due to branchingness strength (dictated by an MSLC). The next section presents data from Tümbisa that fill the typological gap just described; Tarifit Berber does this only partially, as we will see in §4.2.2.2.

(21) Bottom up ($M \rightarrow S$)

<figure><img src="image_33.png" /></figure>

Occlusion only in (P)-Gems
No occlusion in monopositions

### 4.2.2.1 Tümbisa

Tümbisa (Panamint Shoshone) is a recently extinct member of the Numic branch of Uto-Aztecan. It was spoken by hunter gatherers in the Mountains valleys and deserts East of the Sierra Nevada in what is today Southeastern California and Southwestern Nevada, including what is known today as Death Valley. The processes described in the language that we reference here were all productive when the language was recorded (Dayley 1989).

The language has the following phonological inventory (Dayley 1989: 401). It has phonemic stops including a glottal stop, an affricate (ts), hard sonorants (nasals), glides and fricatives including the glottal fricative /h/. The language only had one or two instances of /l/, always initial, borrowed from English (Dayley 1989:402).

(22) Inventory of Tümbisa

<figure><img src="image_34.png" /></figure>

The language has contrastive gemination, additionally /s/ and /ŋ/ are inherent geminates. In addition to these heterosyllabic consonant clusters, the language also has underlying consonant clusters of the shape: NC and HC: e.g. /nampe/ 'foot', /ohpin/ 'mesquite bean'.
(23) Inventory of clusters in Tümbisa

<table><tr><td>p:</td><td>t:</td><td>ts:</td><td>k:</td><td>k<sup>w</sup>:</td></tr><tr><td>m:</td><td>n:</td><td>ŋ:</td><td>ŋ<sup>w</sup>:</td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td>s:</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>mp</td><td>nt</td><td>nts</td><td>ŋk</td><td>ŋk<sup>w</sup></td></tr><tr><td>hp</td><td></td><td></td><td>hk</td><td>hk<sup>w</sup></td></tr><tr><td>hm</td><td>hn</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td>hj</td><td></td><td></td><td>hw</td></tr></table>

As shown above, /h/ is not permitted to form a cluster before the inherent geminates /s:/ and /ŋ:/, which is consistent with a heterosyllabic analysis of these h.C clusters: *hŋ:. There is a gap with a missing: /ht, hts/, we take this to be accidental; any other non-inherent geminate consonant can form a consonant cluster by being preceded by /h/.

Turning to the distribution of occlusion in Tümbisa, we note that this language has lenition of occlusives in singleton positions, except word-initially. Word-medially, singletons surface as fricatives/approximants (lenis fricatives, rhotics, glides). Crucially, in Tümbisa, the lenition of occlusion affects both headed and headless Edge, in stops, affricates and nasals (Kirchner 1998). The weak variant is shown voiced here but it becomes voiceless next to a voiceless vowel.<fnref n="6" />,<fnref n="7" />

<table><thead><tr><th>(24)</th><th></th><th>Strong</th><th>Weak (no Edge)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="5">Edge*</td><td>p</td><td>U, H, ?</td><td>β/φ</td></tr><tr><td>t</td><td>R, H, ?</td><td>r/ʃ, ð/θ (after front vowels)</td></tr><tr><td>ts</td><td>R H, ?</td><td>z/s or ʃ/ʒ (palatalization)</td></tr><tr><td>k</td><td>H, ?</td><td>ɣ/x</td></tr><tr><td>kw</td><td>H, ? + U</td><td>ɣ<sup>w</sup>/h<sup>w</sup></td></tr><tr><td rowspan="3">Edge</td><td>m</td><td>U, L, ?</td><td>ŵ/ŵ̃</td></tr><tr><td>n</td><td>R, L, ?</td><td>ż/ j (after front vowels)</td></tr><tr><td>ŋ<sup>w</sup></td><td>H, L, ? + U</td><td>ŵ/ŵ̃ (after back vowels)</td></tr></tbody></table>

Crucially, the strength and weakness of stops in the language is not defined purely positionally, because stops after the fricative coda are lenited, despite being

<footnote n="6">6 There is also an extra complication to do with vowel quality, since /n/ exceptionally does not lenite after non-front vowels and /t/ has two different weak alternations one after non-front vowels: [r] and another after front vowels: [ð]. However, this is not strictly relevant to our discussion, we will treat it in a separate paper on bipositional strength and V and C interactions in the language (cf. Bucci 2013).</footnote>

<footnote n="7">7 A further complication is that a devoiced γ (lenited /k/) seems to be optionally pronounced [k] here (Dayley 1989:413).</footnote>
positionally strong. Instead, the MSLC does not permit Edge in these non-branching positions.

In Tümbisa, if an occlusive is post-consonantal/heterosyllabic, it will be strong only if it shares Edge with the preceding consonant, such as in NC clusters or geminates. Otherwise, the stops, the affricate /ts/, and even the hard sonorants (nasals), all lose their occlusion in monopositional structures.<fnref n="8" /> Intervocalically and post-H-coda, all Edge is lost.<fnref n="9" />

(25) Weak form intervocalically and HC clusters

a. Edge* (stops and affricates)

<table><tr><td>/kupisi/</td><td>[kúβiʃi]</td><td>'brains'</td></tr><tr><td>/hupapin/</td><td>[húβaφ̣i]</td><td>'soup'<fnref n="10" /></td></tr><tr><td>/suti/</td><td>[súri]</td><td>'that'</td></tr><tr><td>/motson/</td><td>[mőzo]</td><td>'bear/whiskers'</td></tr><tr><td>/tsito:hin/</td><td>[tsiðo:hij]</td><td>'push'</td></tr><tr><td>/im pitsiʔi/</td><td>[ĩm bíẓiʔi]</td><td>'your breast'</td></tr><tr><td>/pakatin/</td><td>[páγaṛi] or [páγaṛi]</td><td>'body of water'</td></tr><tr><td>/paa okʷen:á/</td><td>[pa: óyʷen: á]</td><td>'water flowing'</td></tr><tr><td>/hupiatiki/</td><td>[húβiariγi] or [húβiàrix̣i]</td><td>'sing'</td></tr></table>

b. Edge (nasals)

<table><tr><td>/timuhun/</td><td>[tĩwũhụ]</td><td>'rope'</td></tr><tr><td>/senu/</td><td>[sé̃jũ]</td><td>'therefore'</td></tr><tr><td>/kʷina:/</td><td>[kʷĩjã̃]</td><td>'eagle'</td></tr><tr><td>/iŋʷatin/</td><td>[ĩwãri]</td><td>'rain'<fnref n="11" /></td></tr><tr><td>/pie tukʷan:i</td><td>[píe ðúγʷan:i]</td><td>'it's already getting'</td></tr><tr><td>/na:kin:a/</td><td>[a]</td><td>'dark'</td></tr></table>

The lenition in HC clusters leads to two fricatives in a row. When this happens, these lenited forms surface with coalesced melody e.g. /h+p/= [φ]. Although on the surface they appear to be one sound, there is ample evidence for it underlyingly (phonologically) being a consonant cluster. Firstly, the nasal harmony of the language is blocked by HC. This outcome happens equally across words and in productive affixation, where we can be sure there is a synchronic h+C sequence underlying [φ]

<footnote n="8">8 With the exception of the word-initial position, which we will discuss at the end of this section.</footnote>

<footnote n="9">9 The lenited forms show voiced and palatalized variants depending on the context.</footnote>

<footnote n="10">10 It is apparently also sometimes possible not to lenite before final voiceless vowels, though this is generally a leniting context.</footnote>

<footnote n="11">11 /ŋ/ never lenites because it is an inherent geminate, however, /ŋʷ/ can lenite, though it sometimes appears to resist lenition, another variant of 'rain' for instance is: [iŋʷāri].</footnote>
(see 27 below). Elsewhere, the final /h/ surfaces transparently before vowel-initial affixes: /iat:iah + a/ [iat:iah-ɑ] ‘ranch-obj’. Secondly, the evidence for [φ] being the surface interpretation of an underlying /h+p/ cluster comes from its non-voicing in an otherwise ostensibly ‘intervocalic’ context. If [φ] was not a cluster, it would behave unlike all other obstruents. Incidentally, its non-voicing in this context cannot even be explained away using extrinsic rule ordering since, in Tümbisa, intervocalic voicing is a post-lexical process found with both derived and underlying obstruents in the language. Meanwhile, non-obstruent consonants (and exception- ally /n/) are unaffected after /h/.

(26) HC clusters within the same word

<table><tr><td>/ohpimpi/</td><td>[oφ̂īmpi]</td><td>'mesquite tree'</td></tr><tr><td>/tahmani/</td><td>[tā́hʷā̄n̂i]</td><td>'springtime'</td></tr><tr><td>/kuhmats:i/</td><td>[kūhʷats:i]</td><td>'husband'</td></tr><tr><td>/wihnu/</td><td>[wī́hŋ̃u] or [wī́hŋ̃u]</td><td>'then'</td></tr><tr><td>/wihnumpits:i/</td><td>[wī́hŋ̃umbitʃ̂i]</td><td>'buzzard'</td></tr></table>

(27) HC across words<fnref n="12" />

<table><tr><td>/tik:ap:ih + pan/</td><td>[tik:áp:i̯φá]</td><td>'food + on top of'</td></tr><tr><td>/tik:ap:ih + tukw:an/</td><td>[tik:áp:i̯r̂kw:ɑ]</td><td>'food + under'</td></tr><tr><td>/tik:ap:ih + man/</td><td>[tik:áp:i̯hʷā]</td><td>'food + on'</td></tr><tr><td>/ tik:ap:ih + na:/</td><td>[tik:áp:i̯hŋ̃à:]</td><td>'food + be (groceries)'</td></tr><tr><td>/iat:iah + ka/</td><td>[iat:ia xá]</td><td>'ranch + on'</td></tr><tr><td>(cf. iat:iah + a</td><td>[iat:iah-ɑ]</td><td>'ranch-obj')</td></tr><tr><td>/juŋwah + kʷan/</td><td>[jūŋwahwà]</td><td>'scoop + COMPL'</td></tr></table>

The above data clearly show the loss of occlusion by singleton consonants in intervocalic, as well as in post-consonantal, position. However, this happens only when there is no bipositional Edge-sharing.

In the next section, we present the relevant data on the sharing of occlusion, then we provide our representational analysis of the loss of occlusion in monopositional structures. The general pattern is one of occlusion being found exclusively in bipositional structures, be that the headed occlusion of stops and affricates, or that of hard sonorants, in this case nasals.

<footnote n="12">12 Some suffixes are unaffected the stem, we put this affix-specific behaviour down to a cyclic effect (in the vein of Scheer 2012; Newell 2021) effect, which we will not have space to explore here but would be very unlikely to prove problematic for the analysis as a whole (since these would be essentially string initial = word-initial).</footnote>
(28) Strong form in geminates and NC clusters<fnref n="13" />

<table><tr><td>/tias:ip:ih/</td><td>[tías:ìp:ì]</td><td>'frozen'</td></tr><tr><td>/pos:ot:i/</td><td>[pós:ot:ì]</td><td>'alkali'</td></tr><tr><td>/sak:a/</td><td>[sák:à]</td><td>'that.OBJ'</td></tr><tr><td>/kim:an:a/</td><td>[kím:ãn:à]</td><td>'to come'</td></tr><tr><td>/wats:iwitin/</td><td>[wáts:iwìði]</td><td>'four'</td></tr><tr><td>/ukʷ:ah/</td><td>[úkʷ:à]</td><td>'when/if'</td></tr><tr><td>/timpe/</td><td>[tímpe]</td><td>'mouth'</td></tr><tr><td>/naŋki/</td><td>[nǎŋki]</td><td>'ear'</td></tr></table>

In non-bipositional structures we see the loss of all Edge, including that of hard sonorants. The representation below illustrates the mono- and bipositional configurations, using /m/ as an example: the |?| feature is deleted when it has access to only one C position (29a), and preserved when it is shared over two C positions (29b), that is in geminates and CC clusters.

(29) a. Monopositional

<figure><img src="image_35.png" /></figure>

b. Bipositional

<figure><img src="image_36.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_37.png" /></figure>

The fact that this Bottom up MSCL applies to all occlusion, not just headed occlusion, is the big difference between this type and the Tamazight Berber type.

One wrinkle in the data has to do with the word-initial position. In Type A (Ontena Gadsup and Tamazight) we saw that word-initial singletons lost Edge*, as we would expect from a Bottom up MSCL. Tümbisa is a Bottom up language too, though applying to all Edge not just Edge*. However, unlike other Bottom up languages, word-initially, we see the retention of stops.

This point of variation has an independent explanation, the fact that in Tümbisa one gets an initial-CV and word-initial geminates. Therefore, the presence of stops in 'monopositional' initial position is in fact due to initial consonants in the language being bipositional.

<footnote n="13">¹³ A nasal + stop cluster will usually lead to voicing (unless the adjacent vowel is voiceless), however, these are not prenasalized (monopositional) stops. Nasal spreading shows that NCs are not pre-nasalized segments. It is for this reason that *mb* does not trigger nasalization of the following vowel: /ohpimb/ [óφimbi/*i̥]* 'mesquite tree' (cf. /kim:akin:a/ [kím:āyīn;à] 'to come here').</footnote>
In our framework, initial strength is independently motivated in languages by the presence or absence of an initial empty CV (Lowenstamm 1999; Scheer 2004, 2011, 2012). The reader is referred to Section 2.3 for an outline of the initial CV hypothesis.

In Berber, there seemingly is no initial CV. This allows for unrestricted consonant clusters at the left edge, and makes the initial position weak not only in terms of Government but also with regard to the number of positions that the initial consonant has access to: the absence of the initial site prevents the consonant from branching into two C positions (for an alternative view, see Lahrouchi 2001, 2003, 2018a).

In Tümbisha on the other hand, we have no clusters at the left edge of words, consistent with the presence of an initial empty CV. This alone would be enough to suspect that the bipositional strength of initial segments comes from their branching (like geminates) word-initially (cf. (30a) and (31a)). This initial CV is not present if there is any material at the left of the stem (cf. (30b) and (31b)), which is why these forms become weak if they are not string initial (e.g. see below in 30b) (Dayley 1989:514).

(30) a. /tonam:in:a/ [tɔ́nãm:in:ɑ̃] ‘to stab’

b. /u tonam:in:a/ [u rɔ́nãm:in:ɑ̃] ‘to stab it’

(31) a. Edge is bipositional string initially

<figure><img src="image_38.png" /></figure>

b. Edge is monopositional when non-string initial

<figure><img src="image_39.png" /></figure>

In Tümbisa there is additional evidence that this is the case. The language has inherent geminates, [s:] and [ŋ:]s. For independent reasons, the language does not allow word-initial velar nasals, so both /ŋ/ or /ŋʷ/ are never found initially, however, there is word-initial /s:/.
Unlike other sounds, /s:/ is an underlying geminate, what it demonstrates is that the language allows linking a geminate word-initially. It stands to reason, therefore, that the other sounds spread into the initial CV rendering them long (and strong) exclusively when these singletons are supplied with the initial CV.

### 4.2.2.2 Tarifit Berber: Edge in stops and hard sonorants

Tarifit Berber, spoken in Northern Morocco, seemingly stands on the same typological side as Tümbisa in as much as Edge is banned from monopositional structures, specifically in stops and liquids. Strangely, nasals are immune from weakening, which we would not predict (a problem we leave for future research).

In a number of items that are shared by Tarifit, Tamazight and Tashlhiyt, there is a regular change whereby any singleton lateral in Tashlhiyt rhotacizes in Tarifit, while what appears as a Tashlhiyt coda /c/ undergoes deletion in Tarifit and causes compensatory lengthening of the preceding vowel (Bouarourou 2014; Chtatou 1980; Dell and Tangi 1993, Lafkioui 2006, 2007). This is shown in the data in (32a), drawn from Serhoual (2002) and Taïfi (1991), along with examples of the process of spirantization, commonly found in Tamazight and Tarifit (32b). The reader is also referred to Section 4.2.1 for further data and discussion about spirantization.

#### (32) Tashlhiyt Tamazight Tarifit

a. ul ul ur 'heart'
ifili ifili firu 'string, thread'
adṣarṣ aḍṣarṣ ḍa: 'leg, foot'
ur ur u: 'not'
ṣr ṣr ṣa: 'to read'

b. akal açal çar 'ground, soil'
tabrat: θαβrat: θαβrat: 'letter'
agl: id aʒəl:iḍ aʒədʒiḍ 'king'
udi uði uði 'rancid butter'

c. aman aman aman 'water'
ini ini ini 'to say'
mani mani mani 'where'

Of the Berber varieties spoken in Morocco, Tarifit is the only dialect that expanded the set of consonants undergoing Edge-lenition to the class of sonorants, with the notable exception of nasals (32c). Even if it may appear unclear why the dialect preserves edge in monopositional nasals, in contrast with Tümbisa, there is one important fact about the mechanism regulating the distribution of Edge: This feature
is banned from monopositions, regardless of its function within the melodic expression, that is, when it is the head as in stops or dependent as in /l/<fnref n="14" />

In an attempt to handle these facts, Lahrouchi (2018b: 10) has proposed that the lenition process consists of one single subtraction operation triggering the Edge element. Removing this element from a stop leads to a spirant; the same operation derives a rhotic from an underlying lateral. This is illustrated in the example represented below.

(33) Tarifit: /akal/ → [açar] ‘ground, soil’

<figure><img src="image_40.png" /></figure>

Two observations are in order. Firstly, the Edge-deletion in Tarifit’s /l/ and Tumbisa’s /t/ (see 31) leads to the same output: [r]. Secondly, leniting /l/ to [r] in Tarifit yields a case of phonological opacity where two instances of [r] may occur in the onset position: e.g. ari ‘write’ versus ari (from underlying /ali/) ‘climb’. This is in contrast with the coda position in which only [r] derived from /l/ occurs: Compare [ur] ‘heart’ to [u:] ‘not’ in (32a).

Our refined typology is thus enriched by these two languages, Tümbisa and Tarifit, that represent the Bottom up MSLC on Edge, not only in stops, but also in hard sonorants, with the case of Tümbisa being consistent all the way down: any occlusion (Edge) is banned from all monopositional structures. The next section completes our typology.

### 4.2.2.3 Top down (S → M) for Edge*

The final missing section of the typology is one where the MSLC on Edge and Bipo- sitionality is Top down, but where this applies only to the headed occlusion of stops/ affricates (Edge*) and not that of hard sonorants.

In a language like this, partial gemination (e.g. nd C1C2) would be allowed but there would have to be either a stop or affricate in C2. Moreover, full geminates would have to be stops or affricates, the language should exclude all non-Edge* geminates, even nasal geminates would be banned here.

<footnote n="14">14 Alternatively, it is possible that the lenition of /l/ was sporadic in Tarifit and the result is not specifically a ban on Edge in monopositional structures, but the ban only holds on Edge* as in the other spirantizing Berber varieties.</footnote>
(34) Top down ($S \rightarrow M$)

<figure><img src="image_41.png" /></figure>

A language like this does exist, though we have only been able to find one instance of this language type. The reason for this may lie in a complicated interplay between phonetics and the specific pathways of phonologization of geminates (Blevins 2008).

The language that completes our typology is Anejoñ. This is the only indigenous language of Aneityum, the southernmost inhabited island of Vanuatu, where it is spoken by approximately 800–900 people (Lynch 2000).

Crucially for us, Lynch (2000:23) shows, that in Anejoñ, only stops can be geminates. Even though there are some geminate affricates, Lynch explicitly mentions that only the stop part is geminated (2000:24).

(35) Full geminates only contain stops and affricates (Lynch 2000:24)

<table><tr><td>nɒp<sup>w</sup>:a</td><td>'ashes'</td></tr><tr><td>aːp:eɪ</td><td>'scrape &lt;taro+&gt;'</td></tr><tr><td>aːt:eθ</td><td>'chipped'</td></tr><tr><td>aːk:e</td><td>'poke about in a reef'</td></tr><tr><td>ʔaːʃaŋ</td><td>'sneeze'</td></tr><tr><td>nɪtʃaŋ</td><td>'sharp/pointed thing'</td></tr></table>

For our purposes it means that in a pure geminate structure, only Edge* can sit in its head-position.<fnref n="15" />

(36) [nɒp<sup>w</sup>:a] ‘ashes’

<figure><img src="image_42.png" /></figure>

<footnote n="15">15 This condition is not shared with other consonant clusters, but the representation of those consonant clusters is not certain (e.g. bogus clusters, Harris 1994; Ulfsbjorninn 2017). Positions *known* to be bipositional are subject to it.</footnote>
This is a robust attestation of a pattern we predicted to find, the Top down MSLC acting specifically on Edge*.

There are further aspects of the grammar that show this MSLC forming or in progress in the development of the language. Consider for instance, the historical origin of these full geminates. Interestingly, these seem to have come historically from /h + C/ sequences. Lynch (2000) reports Inglis [1882]'s transcriptions with this regular sound correspondence.

<table><thead><tr><th>(37)</th><th>Inglis [1882]</th><th>Lynch (2000)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td></td><td>ahtaij</td><td>a:t:atʃ</td><td>'they (trial)'</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>nohpa</td><td>nop<sup>w</sup>:a</td><td>'ashes'</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>ahpei</td><td>ap:ei</td><td>'scrape (taro)'</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>ahtag</td><td>at:an</td><td>'come together'</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>ehped</td><td>ep:eθ</td><td>'castrate'</td></tr></tbody></table>

At this point in the history of the language, the consonant clusters went from glottal fricative-stop, that is non-edge and Edge* to structures that have a headed Edge shared across both parts of the cluster, that is: the branchingness of |¿|. This is illustrated in (38) beneath.

(38) Rejection of bipositional structures not containing branching Edge*

a. **nohpa<fnref n="16" />

<table><thead><tr><th>C</th><th>V</th><th>C</th><th>V</th><th>C</th><th>V</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>|</td><td>|</td><td>|</td><td>|</td><td>|</td><td>|</td></tr><tr><td>n</td><td>o</td><td>h</td><td></td><td>p</td><td>a</td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>?</td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>

b. [nop<sup>w</sup>:a] 'ashes'

<table><thead><tr><th>C</th><th>V</th><th>C</th><th>V</th><th>C</th><th>V</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>|</td><td>|</td><td></td><td></td><td>|</td><td>|</td></tr><tr><td>n</td><td>o</td><td></td><td></td><td>p<sup>w</sup></td><td>a</td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>?</td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>

This development is in line with what we would expect from our MSLC. This language therefore only has Edge* geminates, constituting the missing slot in our typology, the Top down restriction on headed Edge* only.

<footnote n="16">16 * refers to an ungrammatical form. ** refers to a historically reconstructed form.</footnote>
# 5 Conclusions

This paper has presented a novel mechanism to regulate the grammatical distribution of a feature: occlusion, relative to a structure: bipositionality, thereby explaining the typology of this relationship. These statements are called: Melody-to-Structure Licensing Constraints (MSLCs) and they are formally bidirectional, either Bottom up (a feature must be contained by a structure) or Top down (a structure must contain a feature). This bidirectionality is crucial since the typology obliges us to make both kinds of statements. It is not sufficient to merely derive strength from the (undoubtedly real) bipositional-type of strength, “sharing is caring” (Honeybone 2002, 2005a, 2005b), or from simply translating the feature Edge as a multi-/bi-positional structure (Jensen 1994) developed by Pöchtrager (2006); Pöchtrager and Kaye (2013).

MSCLs apply to a feature, for instance, Occlusion headed or headless (Edge* = stops and affricates only or Edge = stops, affricates and hard sonorants) in relation to bipositionality. The bipositionality means that this creates four possible restrictions, these are summarized beneath. All four types of languages are attested.

<figure><img src="image_43.png" /></figure>

Occlusion only in (P)-Gems
No occlusion in monopositions
*Tümbisa

<figure><img src="image_44.png" /></figure>

(P)-Gems must be occlusive
No non-occlusion in bipositions
*Kingi Soninké, Somali

<figure><img src="image_45.png" /></figure>

Stops only in (P)-Gem
Hard sonorants unaffected
Tamazight, Ontena Gadsup

<figure><img src="image_46.png" /></figure>

(P)-Gems must have a stop
Geminates must be stops
*Anejom

MSLCs, in combination with what is known about strength and weakness in phonology generally, also correctly model the non-attestation of two more types of language. Namely, those where occlusion (headed or headless) are permitted only in monopositional structures, therefore banned in all bipositional structures.
(40) Unattested

a. Edge

Singletons: j, w, r, f, v, z, m, n, p, t, k

Geminates: j, w, r, f, v, z:

b. Edge*

Singletons: j, w, r, f, v, z, m, n, p, t, k

Geminates: j, w, r, f, v, z, m, n:

The non-attestation of these systems emerges directly from the fact that MSLC's are not stated negatively. MSLCs are statements of licensing, that is, they are permissions. Indeed, they *cannot* be stated negatively. For instance: *No Edge in Bipositional structures*. MSLCs are stated positively and occlusion is a feature, but non-occlusion is not. Top down, MSLCs can require a bipositional structure (S) to contain a given feature (M), this happens with Edge, but non-occlusion is not a feature, so no such relationship can be established that forces all bipositional structures to contain non-occlusion. Meanwhile, Bottom up, we can force a feature to occupy a certain structure. However, again if non-occlusion is not a feature we cannot force non-occlusion to occur in the Bipositional structure, and we would need a negative statement: *Edge cannot be found in a monopositional C-slot*, to generate this language type. In order to model these negative constraints, one needs to say: feature Edge must be contained by position 1 (S1), but *cannot* be found in positions 1 and 2 (S2).

This is of crucial and broad importance in Generative Grammar because negative statements are inherently stipulations: *do not* do x, *do not* have y. By their very nature, any statement whatever can be stipulated, but this also greatly diminishes its explanatory power. Optimality Theory, for instance, mixes positive and negative constraints as notations and these are then evaluated e.g. Onset and NoCoda (Prince 1993). In general, negative statements are 'relative constraints' in Kiparsky's (1982) terms, they involve a notation and an evaluation measure.

MSLC's are not stipulations in this sense, they are what Kiparsky (1982) calls 'absolute constraints': "absolute constraints are given by the form of the notation itself, which limits the class of possible grammars" (Kiparsky 1982:83). The condition: *No Edge in Bipositional structures*, simply cannot be written in MSLCs.

Simultaneously, no theory of phonology can generate the pattern shown in (40) either, not synchronically nor diachronically. This is because stops involve more phonological content than fricatives, liquids and glides (Harris 1990), and are therefore strong segments. These strong segments will, therefore, never lenite in bipositional structures, since these are positionally strong, due to the Coda-mirror (Ségéral and Scheer 2001). Moreover, the sharing-is-caring-type of strength (Honeybone 2002, 2005a, 2005b) will also never lenite the same segment in bipositions while leaving it strong in monopositions.
Consequently, there is simply no way to generate the unattested Types shown in
(40) in natural language according to formal phonology, while using MSLCs.

References

Anderson, Stephen. 1976. On the description of consonant gradation in Fula. *Studies in African Linguistics* 7. 93–136.

Anderson, John & Colin Ewen. 1987. *Principles of dependency phonology*. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Backley, Philip. 2011. *Element theory, an introduction*. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

Backley, Philip. 2017. Headedness in element theory: The case for multiple heads. *Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics* 2(1). 89.

Blevins, Juliette. 2008. *Explaining diversity in geminate consonant inventories: An evolutionary approach. Course for Leipzig Spring School on Linguistic diversity*. University of Leipzig. Available at: https://www.eva.mpg.de/lingua/conference/08_springschool/pdf/course_materials/blevins_evening_lecture.pdf.

Bouarourou, Fayssal. 2014. *La gémination en tarifit: considérations phonologiques, étude acoustique et articulatoire*. Strasbourg: Strasbourg University. Doctoral Dissertation.

Breit, Florian. 2013. *Formal aspects of element theory*. London: UCL – University of London MRes Dissertation.

Breit, Florian. 2017. Melodic heads, saliency, and strength in voicing andnasality. *Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics* 2(1). 85.

Breit, Florian. 2023. Sets of (sets of) elements. In Florian Breit, Yoshida Yuko & Conor Youngberg (eds.), *Elements, government, and licensing: Developments in phonology*, 33–48. London: UCL Press.

Brun-Trigaud, Guylaine & Tobias Scheer. 2012. La lénition des attaques branchantes en français et dans les dialectes de l'ALF. In Barra-Jover, et al. (eds.), *Etudes de linguistique gallo-romane*, 183–198. Saint-Denis: Presses Universitaires de Vincennes.

Bucci, Jonathan. 2013. Voyelles longues virtuelles et réduction vocalique en coratin. *The Canadian Journal of Linguistics* 58(3). 397–414.

Chabot, Alexander. 2023. Positional strength in Campidanese Sardinian as substance-free phonology. *Phonology* 40(3–4). 197–228.

Charette, Monik. 1990. License to govern. *Phonology* 7. 233–253.

Charette, Monik. 1991. *Conditions on phonological government*. Cambridge: CUP.

Charette, Monik. 1994. *Head-alignment. Talk at: 17th GLOW Colloquium*. Vienna: University of Vienna.

Charette, Monik. & Asli Göksel. 1998. Licensing constraints and vowel harmony in Turkic languages. In Eugeniusz Cyran (ed.), *Structure and interpretation. Studies in phonology*, 65–88. Lublin: Folium.

Chibli, Fatima & Karim Bensoukas. 2020. Assimilation des coronales, épenthèse et spirantisation en tamazight (parler des Ayt Sgougou). *Asinag* 15. 63–101.

Chomsky, Noam & Morris Halle. 1968. *The sound pattern of English*. New York: Harper and Row.

Chtatou, Mohamed. 1980. *The phonological system of the Berber dialect of Ajdir (Rif area of Morocco)*. London: SOAS, University of London MA thesis.

Clements, George Nick. 1985. The geometry of phonological features. *Phonology Yearbook* 2. 225–252.

Cyran, Eugeniusz. 2010. *Complexity scales and licensing in phonology*. Berlin and New York: De Gruyter Mouton.
Das, Shyamal. 2001. *Some aspects of the phonology of Tripura Bangla and Tripura Bangla English*. Hyderabad: CIEFL PhD dissertation. Available as ROA-493 from the Rutgers Optimality Archive.

Dayley, Jon. 1989. *Tümpisa (Panamint) Shoshone grammar*. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Dell, François & Ouafa Tangi. 1993. On the vocalization of /r/ in Ath-Sidhar Rifian Berber. *Linguistica Communicatio* 5/1–2. 5–53.

Dresher, Elan. 2008. The logic of contrast. In Robert Freidin, Carlos P. Otero & Maria Luisa Zubizarreta (eds.), *Foundational issues in linguistic theory: Essays in Honor of Jean roger Vergnaud*, 359–380. Cambridge: MIT Press.

Dresher, Elan. 2009. *The contrastive hierarchy in phonology*. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

El Kirat, Yamina. 1987. *Spirantization in the Beni Iznassen dialect, diachrony and synchrony*. Rabat: Mohammed V University. D.E.S.S. Thesis.

Faust, Noam. 2017. Get that into your head: Tigre vowel harmonies as templatic. *Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics* 2(1). 95.

Gamble, David. 1958. *Firdu Fula grammar*. London: Research Department, Colonial Office.

Goldsmith, John. 1976. *Autosegmental phonology*. Cambridge, MA: MIT Dissertation.

Goldsmith, John. 1990. *Autosegmental and metrical phonology*. Oxford: Blackwell.

Halle, Morris. 1992. Phonological features. In William Bright (ed.) *International encyclopedia of linguistics*, vol. 3, 207–212. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Harris, John. 1990. Segmental complexity and phonological government. *Phonology* 7(2). 255–300.

Harris, John. 1994. *English sound structure*. Oxford/Cambridge: Blackwell Publishers.

Harris, John. 1997. Licensing inheritance: An integrated theory of neutralization. *Phonology* 14. 315–370.

Harris, John, et al. 2023. A unified model of lenition as modulation reduction: Gauging consonant strength in Ibibio. *Phonology* 40(1–2). 35–64.

Harris, John & Geoffrey Lindsey. 1995. The elements of phonological representation. In J. Durand & F. Katamba (eds.), *Frontiers of phonology*, 34–79. London and New York: Longman.

Harris, John & Eno-Abasi Urua. 2001. Lenition degrades information: Consonant allophony in Ibibio. *Speech, Hearing and Language: Work in progress* 13. 72–105.

Hayes, Bruce. 1986. Inalterability in CV phonology. *Language* 62(2). 321–351.

Hayes, Bruce. 1989. Compensatory lengthening in Moraic phonology. *Linguistic Inquiry* 20. 253–306.

Honeybone, Patrick. 2002. *Germanic obstruent lenition: Some mutual implications of theoretical and historical phonology*. Newcastle: University of Newcastle upon Tyne PhD thesis.

Honeybone, Patrick. 2005a. Sharing makes us stronger: Process inhibition and segmental structure. In P. Carr, J. Durand & C. J. Ewen (eds.) *Headhood, elements, specification and contrastivity: Phonological papers in honour of John Anderson*, Current Issues in Linguistic Theory. vol. 259, 167–192. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Honeybone, Patrick. 2005b. Diachronic evidence in segmental phonology: The case of obstruent laryngeal specifications. In M. van Oostendorp & J. van de Weijer (eds.), *The internal organization of phonological segments*, 319–354. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

Hulst, Harry, van der. 2020. *Principles of radical CV phonology: A theory of segmental and syllabic structure*. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

Iazzi, El Mehdi. 2018. *Norme et variations en amazighe marocain (aspects morpho-phonologiques): pour une approche polynomique de l'aménagement linguistique*. Agadir: University Ibn Zohn Doctoral Dissertation.

Itô, Junko. 1986. *Syllable theory in prosodic phonology*. Amherst: University of Massachusetts Dissertation, published by Garland Press 1988.

Jaferian, Alireza. 2024. *Questions de phonologie persane*. Paris: University Paris 8 Doctoral dissertation.
Jensen, Sean. 1994. Is ? An element? Towards a non-segmental phonology. *SOAS Working Papers in Linguistics* 4. 71–78.

Kaye, Jonathan. 2001. Working with licensing constraints. In K. Dziubalska-Kolaczyk (ed.), *Constraints and preferences*, 251–268. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

Kaye, Jonathan, Jean Lowenstamm & Jean-Roger Vergnaud. 1985. The internal structure of phonological elements: A theory of charm and government. *Phonology Yearbook* 2. 305–328.

Kaye, Jonathan, Jean Lowenstamm & Jean-Roger Vergnaud. 1990. Constituent structure and government in phonology. *Phonology* 7. 193–231.

Kenstowicz, Michael. 2017. A note on the phonology and phonetics of CR, RC, and SC consonant clusters in Italian. *Linguistic Travels in Time and Space: Festschrift for Liz Pearce Wellington Working Papers in Linguistics* 23. 1–14.

Kirchner, Robert. 1998. *An effort-based approach to consonant lenition*. Los Angeles: UCLA Dissertation.

Kiparsky, Paul V. 1982. *Explanation in phonology*. Dordrecht: Foris Publications Holland.

Kossmann, Maarten. 1995. La spirantisation dans les parlers Zénètes. In P. Bos (ed.), *Langues du Maroc*, 19, 11. Tilburg: Tilburg University Press.

Lafkioui, Mina. 2006. La spirantisation dynamique de la vélaire occlusive simple /k/ dans les variétés berbères du Rif. *Studi berberi e mediterranei* 3(Nuova Serie). 219–228.

Lafkioui, Mina. 2007. *Atlas linguistique des variétés berbères du Rif*. Köln: Rüdiger Köppe Verlag.

Lahrouchi, Mohamed. 2001. *Aspects morpho-phonologiques de la dérivation verbale en berbère tachelhit*. Paris: Université Paris 7 Doctoral dissertation.

Lahrouchi, Mohamed. 2003. Manifestations gabaritiques dans la dérivation verbale en berbère tachelhit. *Recherches Linguistiques de Vincennes* 32. 61–82.

Lahrouchi, Mohamed. 2018a. The left edge of the word in the Berber derivational morphology. *Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics* 3(1). 1–25.

Lahrouchi, Mohamed. 2018b. Complexité, éléments et groupes consonantiques en berbère. *Cognition, Représentation, Langage* 16(2). 1–19.

Lahrouchi, Mohamed. 2022. Minimality, weight and melodic content: The view from French and Berber hypocoristics. *Radical: A Journal of Phonology* 3. 1–44.

Leben, William. 1973. *Suprasegmental phonology*. New York: Garland. MIT dissertation, Published 1980.

Lowenstamm, Jean. 1996. CV as the only syllable type. In Jacques Durand & Bernard Laks (eds.), *Current Trends in phonology: Models and methods*, 2, 419–441. Salford: European Studies Research Institute, University of Salford.

Lowenstamm, Jean. 1999. The beginning of the word. In John Rennison & Klaus Kühnammer (eds.), *Phonologika 1996: Syllables!?* 153–166. The Hague: Thesus.

Lowenstamm, Jean. 2003. Remarks on Mutae cum Liquida and branching onsets. In Stefan Ploch (ed.), *Living on the edge, 28 Papers in Honor of Jonathan Kaye*, 339–363. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

Lynch, John. 2000. *A grammar of Anejom*. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics Research School of Pacific and Asian Studies. The Australian National University.

Marotta, Giovanna. 2008. Lenition in Tuscan Italian (Gorgia Toscana). In Joaquim Brandão De Carvalho, Tobias Scheer & Philippe Ségéral (eds.), *Lenition and fortition*, 235–272. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Newell, Heather. 2021. Deriving level 1/level 2 affix classes in English: Floating phonology, cyclic syntax. *Acta Linguistica Academica* 68(1–2). 31–76.

Orwin, Marin. 1994. *Aspects of Somali phonology*. London: SOAS, University of London Dissertation.

Ploch, Stefan. 1999. *Nasals on my mind*. London: SOAS, University of London Dissertation.

Pöchtrager, Markus. 2006. *The structure of length*. Vienna: University of Vienna Dissertation.

Pöchtrager, Markus & Jonathan Kaye. 2013. GP 2.0. *SOAS Working Papers in Linguistics* 16. 51–64.
Prince, Alan. 1993. *Optimality theory: Constraint in interaction in generative grammar*. Boulder, Colorado: University of Colorado.

Rose, Yvan. 2024. *Toward a better understanding of the nature and content of UG: If it's demonstrably learnable, let's assume it's not innate*. Talk at: *Phonology Workshop: Scientific Realism and Phonology*. Newfoundland: Memorial University of Newfoundland.

Russo, Michela & Shanti Ulfsbjorninn. 2020. Initial lenition and strength alternations (v/b) in Neapolitan: A laryngeal branchingness condition. *Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics* 5(1). 11.

Sagey, Elizabeth. 1986. *The representation of features and relations in nonlinear phonology*. Cambridge, MA: MIT Dissertation.

Saïb, Jilali. 1976. *A phonological study of Tamazight Berber: Dialect of the Ayt Ndir*. Los Angeles: UCLA Dissertation.

Scheer, Tobias. 1996. *Une théorie de l'interaction directe entre consonnes*. Paris: University of Paris 7 Dissertation.

Scheer, Tobias. 1999. A theory of consonantal interaction. *Folia Linguistica* 32. 201-237.

Scheer, Tobias. 2000. *De la localité, de la morphologie et de la phonologie en phonologie*. Nice: Université de Nice Habilitation thesis.

Scheer, Tobias. 2004. *A lateral theory of phonology. Vol 1: What is CVCV, and why should it be?* Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Scheer, Tobias. 2011. *A guide to morphosyntax-phonology interface theories: How extra-phonological information is treated in phonology since Trubetzkoy's Grenzsignale*. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

Scheer, Tobias. 2012. *Direct interface and one-channel translation. Vol.2 of A lateral theory of phonology*. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Scheer, Tobias & Nancy Kula. 2018. Government phonology: Element theory, conceptual issues and introduction. In S. J. Hannahs & Anna Bosch (eds.), *The Routledge Handbook of phonological theory*, 226-261. Oxford: Routledge.

Schein, Barry & Donca Steriade. 1986. On geminates. *Linguistic Inquiry* 17. 691-744.

Ségéral, Philippe & Tobias Scheer. 2001. *La Coda-Miroir*. *Bulletin de la Société de Linguistique de Paris* 96. 107-152.

Ségéral, Philippe & Tobias Scheer. 2001b. Abstractness in phonology: The case of virtual geminates. In Katarzyna Dziubalska-Kolaczyk (ed.), *Constraints and preferences*, 337, 311. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

Seigneur-Froli, Delphine. 2006. *Statut phonologique du début de mot grec*. Nice: University of Nice Dissertation.

Serhoual, Mohamed. 2002. *Dictionnaire tarifit-français*. Tetouan: Université Abdelmalek Essaadi.

Steriade, Donca. 1994. *Positional neutralization and the expression of contrast*. Ms, UCLA. Available at: http://lingphil.mit.edu/papers/steriade/contrastive-gesture.pdf.

Taïfi, Miloud. 1991. *Dictionnaire tamazight-français*. Paris: L'Harmattan.

Topinzi, Nina. 2010. *Onsets: Suprasegmental and prosodic behaviour*. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Ulfsbjorninn, Shanti. 2017. Bogus clusters in Tuscan Italian and the theory of sonority. In Geoff Lindsey & Andrew Nevins (eds.), *Sonic signatures*, 277-298. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

Ulfsbjorninn, Shanti. 2021. Labiovelars and the labial-velar hypothesis: Phonological headedness in bare element geometry. *Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics* 6(1). 111.

Ulfsbjorninn, Shanti & Mohamed Lahrouchi. 2016. The typology of the distribution of Edge: The propensity for bipositionality. *Papers in Historical Phonology* 1. 109-129.

Walker, Rachel. 2011. *Vowel patterns in language*. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.